OMB Control #: 1024-0250

Exp. Date: 08/31/2009

APPLICATION FOR INCLUSION OF A PROPERTY

IN THE U.S. WORLD HERITAGE TENTATIVE LIST

PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT STATEMENT:

16 U.S.C. 470 a-1 authorizes collection of this information. This
information will be used to help the Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks prepare a "Tentative List" of candidate sites for
possible nomination to the UNESCO World Heritage List. Response to this
request is voluntary. No action may be taken against you for refusing to
supply the information requested. A Federal agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

ESTIMATED BURDEN STATEMENT:

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated
to average 64 hours per response (ranging from 40 to 120 hours,
depending on the complexity of the site), including the time for
reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining data, and completing
and reviewing the form. Direct comments regarding this burden estimate
or any other aspect of this form to the Office of International Affairs,
National Park Service, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20240.

### 

### 

### 

**Eastern State Penitentiary**

### 

### Prerequisites for U.S. World Heritage Nominations

An application for a property that does not meet all of the
prerequisites A through G, or for which answers are uncertain, should
not be completed or submitted. Such a property cannot be legally
considered. If you are in doubt about the answer to all these questions
being anything other than "yes," please contact the World Heritage
Advisor at the address and phone number provided for further guidance.

**Prerequisite 1 - Legal Requirements:**

**A. National Significance:**

Has the property been formally determined to be nationally significant
for its cultural values, natural values, or both (in other words, has it
been formally designated as a National Historic Landmark, a National
Natural Landmark, or as a Federal reserve of national importance, such
as a National Park, National Monument, or National Wildlife Refuge)? If
not, are there on-going processes to achieve any of the above
designations and what is their status? *(Listing in the National
Register of Historic Places is [not]{.underline} equivalent to National
Historic Landmark status.)*

YES: [X]{.underline} National Historic Landmark; National Register of
Historic Places; Philadelphia Register of Historic Places; Historic
American Buildings Survey

NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment: NHL, 1965; NRHP, 1974; PRHP,1959; HABS, 1967, 2003.

**B. Owner Concurrence:**

Are all the property owners aware of this proposal for the inclusion of
the property in the U.S. Tentative List and do all of the property
owners agree that it should be considered? If any agreement is uncertain
or tentative, or if the ownership situation is disputed, otherwise
complicated, or unclear, please explain the issues briefly.

YES: [X]{.underline} NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment: See attached letter from John F. Street, Mayor of Philadelphia

**C. Willingness to Discuss Protective Measures:**

If the property is nominated to the World Heritage List, it will be
necessary for all of the property owners to work with the Department of
the Interior to document fully existing measures to protect the property
and possibly to devise such additional measures as may be necessary to
protect the property in perpetuity. Are all the property owners willing
to enter into such discussions?

YES: [X]{.underline} NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment: See attached letter from John F. Street, Mayor of Philadelphia

**D. Scheduling:**

If you wish a property to be nominated to the World Heritage List in a
particular year during the period 2009-2019, please indicate the
reason(s) why and the earliest year in which you feel it will be
possible to meet all requirements for nomination*. (Please review this
entire Questionnaire before finally answering this question.)*

Preferred Year: 2011

Reasons: We hope to introduce legislation to create a commemorative U.S.
coin to be minted during 2011.

Alternative year: 2018

Reasons: 2018 to commemorate the 200^th^ anniversary of the legislation
authorizing the construction of Eastern State Penitentiary.

Prerequisite 2 - Specific Requirements for Nomination of Certain Types
of Properties:

**E. Serial (multi-component) Properties:**

If you are proposing a nomination that includes separate components that
could be submitted separately over several years, do you believe that
the first property proposed would qualify to be placed on the World
Heritage List in its own right?

*Explanation: There will be a very limited number of sites nominated
over the next decade. Owners of similar properties likely will be
encouraged to work together to present joint proposals for serial
nominations. An example would be a proposal to nominate several
properties designed by the same architect. It is critical to note that
the first property presented in a serial nomination must qualify for
listing in its own right.*

YES: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: [X]{.underline}

Comment:

**F. Serial (multi-component) Properties:**

Are you proposing this property as an extension of or a new component to
an existing World Heritage Site?

YES: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: [X]{.underline}

Name of Existing Site:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Prerequisite 3 - Other Requirements:**

**G. Support of Stakeholders**

In addition to owners, please list other stakeholders and interested
parties who support the property's proposed inclusion in the Tentative
List. Also note any known to be opposed.

*Explanation: The purpose of the Tentative List is to propose candidate
properties that are likely to be successfully nominated during the next
decade. It is clear that a consensus among stakeholders will be helpful
in nominating a site and later in securing its proper protection. Thus,
only properties that enjoy strong, preferably unanimous, support from
stakeholders will be recommended for inclusion in the U.S. Tentative
List.*

*In addition to owners, stakeholders primarily include:*

*\--Governors, Members of Congress and State legislators who represent
the area where the property is located,*

*\--the highest local elected official, or official body, unless there
is none,*

*\--Native Americans, American Indian tribes, or other groups and
individuals who possess legally recognized claims or privileges in the
area or at the site being proposed (e.g., life tenancy or hunting and
fishing rights),*

*\--organizations established to advocate for protection and appropriate
use of the property proposed for nomination.*

*If definitive information is not available at the time you filled out
this Questionnaire, please so indicate.*

Supporters: Support letters attached. See Appendix G.

Governmental

*City and County of Philadelphia*

-   John F. Street, Esquire, Mayor; City of Philadelphia

• Joan Schlotterbeck, Commissioner, Department of Public Property, and
Jon Farnham, PhD, Acting Historic Preservation Officer, Philadelphia
Historical Commission, City of Philadelphia

-   *Citation Recognizing the 10th Season Celebration at Eastern State
    Penitentiary,* City Council, City of Philadelphia, June 26, 2003

*Commonwealth of Pennsylvania*

-   Edward G. Rendell, Governor, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

• Vincent J. Fumo, Senator, Pennsylvania State Senate

-   Frank L. Oliver, Member, House of Representatives of Pennsylvania

• Barbara Franco, Executive Director, Pennsylvania Historic and Museum
Commission, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

*Federal*

-   Arlen Specter, Senator, United States Senate

-   Robert P. Casey, Jr., Senator, United States Senate

-   Chaka Fattah, Member, United States House of Representatives

*Academic*

-   David B. Brownlee, Ph.D., Professor, Department of the History of
    Art, School of Arts and Sciences, University of Pennsylvania

-   Norman Johnston, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Sociology, Arcadia
    University

*Professional and Historical Preservation Community*

-   William Babcock, President and William DiMascio, Executive Director,
    Pennsylvania Prison Society (formerly Philadelphia Society for
    Alleviating the Miseries in Public Prisons)

-   John Gallery, Executive Director, Preservation Alliance of Greater
    Philadelphia

-   Barbara Warnock Silberman, Senior Program Advisor, Heritage
    Philadelphia Program, Philadelphia Center for Arts & Heritage,
    Funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts and Administered by the
    University of the Arts

*Tourism*

• Thomas O. Muldoon, President, Philadelphia Convention and Visitors'
Bureau

-   Meryl Levitz, President and CEO, Greater Philadelphia Tourism
    Marketing Corporation

-   Adrian Scott Fine, Director*,* Northeast Field Office, National
    Trust for Historic Preservation

*Residential Community*

-   Patricia Freeland, President, Spring Garden Civic Association

-   Linda Carpenter, President, Fairmount Civic Association

Opponents: [None]{.underline}

Comment:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Information Requested about Applicant Properties**

(The numbers of the sections and subsections below are in the same order
as and correspond to sections of the World Heritage Committee's official
[Format]{.underline} used for the nomination of World Heritage Sites.
This is to allow easy reference to and comparison of the material.)

**1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY OR PROPERTIES**

**1.a. Country:**

If it is intended that the suggested nomination will include any
properties in countries other than the United States, please note the
countries here.

*Explanation: Please note that the United States can nominate only
property under U.S. jurisdiction. You are not expected to contact other
governments and owners abroad, although you may do so if you wish. Each
national government must nominate its own sites, although the United
States will consider forwarding your suggestion to another government
for that government to consider as a joint nomination with the United
States.*

Names of countries
[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

**1.b. State, Province or Region:**

In what State(s) and/or Territories is the property located? Also note
the locality and give a street address if one is available.

Pennsylvania: 2127 Fairmount Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19130

**1.c. Names of Property:**

What is the preferred or proposed name of the property or properties
proposed for nomination? If the site has multiple names, explain why you
chose the primary choice or choices. (*The name should not exceed 200
characters, including spaces and punctuation.)*

[Eastern State Penitentiary]{.underline}

*Popular and Historic names*

What are any popular or historic names by which the property is also
known?

"State Penitentiary for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania\": used in
legislation.

"Cherry Hill\": the hilltop property purchased for the prison was a
cherry orchard. The nickname lasted from construction until at least
1957 when Director of the Eastern Pennsylvania Diagnostic and
Classification Center John D. Shearer and Temple University
Criminologist Negley K. Teeters published *The Prison of Philadelphia
Cherry Hill: The Separate System of Penal Discipline: 1829-1913.*

\"The prison at Philadelphia\": used internationally, when the American
systems were debated.

"Eastern Diagnostic and Classification Center (EDCC)\": from the 1950s
through the 1970s the classification center for convicts was housed
inside of the penitentiary.

"Eastern," "Eastern State," and "E.S.P.\": used by staff in the 20th
century, Negley K. Teeters, and the current historic site staff.

*Naming of serial (multiple component) properties and transboundary
sites*.

Try to choose brief descriptive names. In the case of serial
nominations, give an overall name to the group (e.g., *Baroque Churches
of the Philippines*). (*Give the names of the individual components in a
table that you insert under 1f.)*

Group or Transboundary Name: [N/A]{.underline}

*Other names or site numbers*

*Explanation: If a site has multiple names, explain why you chose the
primary choice or choices. If the site has no common name or is known
only by a number or set of numbers, please explain.*

[N/A]{.underline}

**1.d.-e. Location, boundaries, and key features of the nominated
property**

Include with this Application sketch maps or other small maps,
preferably letter-size, that show:

\- the location of the property

\- the boundaries of any zones of special legal protection

\- the position of major natural features and/or individual buildings
and structures

\- any open spaces (squares, plazas) and other major spatial
relationships (the space between buildings may at times be more
important than the buildings)

Please provide here a list of the maps that you have included. See
Appendix i.d.-e.

Illus. 1. Plot of Original Deed Surveys, redrawn 1936

Illus. 2. Detail of the Plan of the City of Philadelphia in 1824

Illus. 3. Site Plan in 1895

Illus. 4. Chronology of Existing Prison Structures

**1.f. Area of nominated property (ha.)**

*Explanation: State the approximate area proposed in hectares (1
hectare=2.471 acres). Give corresponding acre equivalents in
parentheses. Insert just below this question a table for serial
nominations that shows the names and addresses of the component parts,
regions (if different for different components), and areas.*

Eastern State Penitentiary encompasses 4.871 hectares (12 acres, 6
perches or 12.0375 acres).

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**2. DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY**

**2.a. Description of the Property**

(select the one following category that best fits the property)

###### Cultural property

Briefly describe the property and list its major components. A summary
in a few paragraphs or pages should be all that is required.

*Explanation: This section can describe significant buildings, their
architectural style, date of construction, materials, etc. It can also
describe the setting such as gardens, parks, associated vistas. Other
tangible geographic, cultural, historic, archeological, artistic,
architectural, and/or associative values may also merit inclusion.*

Originally constructed between 1822 and 1836 from a design by architect
John Haviland, this massive Gothic Revival structure epitomized the
Pennsylvania system of imprisonment, a system grounded in the Quaker
concept of reflection through separate confinement and the belief that
prisoners should learn trades through labor.

Built of local stone, Wissahickon schist and gneiss, Eastern State
Penitentiary occupies approximately twelve acres, completely surrounded
by a 30-foot high, square perimeter wall with corner crenellated towers.
Its only entrance occurs through the gates of the Administration
Building, which occupies the center third of the front wall. With its
three crenellated towers and barred, lancet-slit windows, the
Administration Building dominates the front exterior and epitomizes the
Gothic Revival style.

Within the walls, the original seven cellblocks with double-loaded
corridors spread from a central octagonal Observatory like the spokes of
a wheel, defining the radial or "hub and spoke" plan. The solitary cells
of these blocks each had private adjacent exercise yards and a
\"controlled environment,\" which included individually supplied
heating, ventilation, natural light, water, and sanitary plumbing.

Cellblocks One through Three are single-story; Cellblocks Four through
Seven contain two stories. Each cellblock has a sky-lit corridor flanked
with sky-lit cells, and each cell had an individual, exterior exercise
yard at its rear. Prisoners housed in second-story cells used an
adjoining cell for exercise.

Decades after the completion of the original prison, various additions
and modifications were inserted into residual spaces between the
cellblocks without obscuring the original geometric vision; those
constructed in the 19th century resembled Haviland\'s prototypes,
whereas those in the 20th century disregarded the penitentiary\'s unique
history and basically imitated the typical American institutional
construction of the period. Originally built for 450 prisoners, by the
time the penitentiary closed in 1971 it had housed a maximum population
of approximately 1700. The major form and fabric of Haviland\'s design
remain essentially intact, including the perimeter wall, the
Administration Building, the seven cellblocks with their many individual
cells, and the interior of the Observatory at the intersection of these
cellblocks.

Which features or aspects of the property do you believe qualify it for
the World Heritage List?

Eastern State Penitentiary is the most influential prison ever
built.[^1] While some prisons have gained cultural significance through
the political prisoners held there (such as South Africa's Robben
Island, which held Nelson Mandela) or their place in popular culture
(such as San Francisco's Alcatraz), it is Eastern State Penitentiary
that has had the greatest impact on the treatment of typical prisoners,
worldwide, during the past two centuries.

Spawned by powerful movements in social reform in the 18th century,
Eastern State Penitentiary dominated an emerging worldwide prison reform
movement in the early decades of the 19th century. Its goal of reform
was to be carried out by isolating prisoners from one another in
individual cells with work, education and religious activities taking
place there and exercise in a yard attached to each cell. The regimen
was known as the Pennsylvania or Separate system. (The system was
modified in some American states by allowing work and one meal a day in
a congregate setting with absolute silence enforced, the so-called
Auburn or Silent system, where reform was secondary to punishment. This
was the regimen developed at Auburn and Sing Sing prisons in New York
state, the latter of which was built especially to accommodate such a
system.)[^2] Eastern State Penitentiary\'s distinctive radial layout,
its state-of-the-art plumbing, ventilation and heating systems and its
revolutionary method of prisoner separation served as a blueprint for
prison design on six continents, resulting in over 300 prisons
influenced and inspired by its architectural features.[^3] In addition,
the presence of

integrated \"environmental controls,\" the first such installations in
the world, inarguably

renders it the first \"modern\" building.[^4]

This influence, beginning even before the prison was completed,
continued into the 20th century. No other prison has come close to such
broad and deep influence on the theoretical underpinning, architectural
expression, and technology of prison design worldwide. While the
original fabric of Eastern State Penitentiary remains remarkably
intact---all of the original cellblocks, the central Observatory and the
Administration Building all remain---later additions into the prison
complex reflect the further evolution of ideas and technology in
incarceration. As a result, the penitentiary today embodies both the
single-most influential prison design ever built, and the many changing
theories and technologies that have followed it.

What are the important present or proposed uses of the property and how
do they compare with the traditional or historic uses of it?

The property is used as a cultural site and museum with an educational
tour program that features exhibits, special events, and site-specific
artist installations. It is owned by the City of Philadelphia and
operated by Eastern State Penitentiary Historic Site, Inc.

The mission statement of the latter organization states:

Eastern State Penitentiary Historic Site, Inc. works to preserve and
restore the architecture of Eastern State Penitentiary; to make the
Penitentiary accessible to the public; to explain and interpret its
complex history; to place current issues of corrections and justice in
an historical framework; and to provide a public forum where these
issues are discussed. While the interpretive program advocates no
specific position on the state of the American justice system, the
program is built on the belief that the problems facing Eastern State
Penitentiary's architects have not yet been solved, and that the issues
these early prison reformers addressed remain of central importance to
our nation. *Adopted by the Board of Directors, December 1998*.

**2.b. History and Development of the Property**

*( select the one following category that best fits the property)*

**Cultural property**

When was the site built or first occupied and how did it arrive at its
present form and condition? If it has undergone significant changes in
use or physical alterations, include an explanation.

*Explanation: If the property was built in stages or if there have been
major changes, demolitions, abandonment and reoccupation, or rebuilding
since completion, briefly summarize these events. For archeological
sites, the names of archeologists and dates of their work should also be
noted, especially if the site is regarded as important in the history of
archeology as well as for its intrinsic merits.*

In 1818 the Pennsylvania General Assembly adopted a new system of prison
discipline within the Commonwealth and authorized the construction of
two penitentiaries: the first (unsuccessful and no longer extant), for
the Western District, was built shortly thereafter near Pittsburgh. In
1822 site grading and foundations began for the Eastern Penitentiary in
Philadelphia according to the design and programmatic statement of the
architect John Haviland. Located on a former cherry orchard, on what was
later to be Fairmount Avenue, it was built on the outskirts of
Philadelphia (See Illustrations 1 and 2).[^5]

John Haviland was born in England in 1792 and studied under London
architect James Elmes.[^6] Although neither Haviland nor Elmes ever were
responsible for building prisons in England, Elmes published a small
pamphlet on prison planning in 1817 in which he revealed a careful
reading of the books of a great prison reformer of the period, John
Howard, and a general interest in prison reform. This he may have passed
on to his pupil. Haviland left England in 1815 for Russia at the
invitation of his uncle, Count Morduinoff, Minister of Marine in the
Czar\'s government. There he met a former Philadelphian, George von
Sonntag, who may have urged him to immigrate to Philadelphia. In any
event, he arrived there the next year, armed with letters of
introduction to President Monroe and others, written by von Sonntag and
John Quincy Adams, then U.S. Minister to Russia. Perhaps under his
influence, Haviland moved to Philadelphia to practice architecture.[^7]

Haviland immediately opened a school of architectural drawing. In 1821
he won the commission for the new state penitentiary. Although Haviland
was the architect of other important buildings such as churches, the
Franklin Institute (1825), the Pennsylvania Institution for the
Education of the Deaf and Dumb (1822, now the University of the Arts),
and a naval hospital in Portsmouth, Virginia, he was increasingly
regarded as *the* prison architect. He built state penitentiaries in New
Jersey, Pittsburgh, Rhode Island, and Missouri, several county prisons
in Pennsylvania and Newark, New Jersey, and the famous Halls of Justice
and jail in New York City, later known as the \"Tombs.\" He died in
1852. [^8]

The first components completed of John Haviland\'s plan for the Eastern
State Penitentiary in Philadelphia were the perimeter wall, the
\"Headhouse\" or Administration Building, and the central hub building,
or Observatory. Three one-story cellblocks followed between 1826 and
1831, with the first one receiving prisoners in October 1829. Beginning
in 1831, in response to increasing population pressure, Haviland
modified the cellblock designs to include a second story and to provide
various improvements. The four two-story cellblocks, constructed between
1831 and 1836, were the ones that served as models for most subsequent
Separate prison designs abroad, although some based on the single-story
wings were erected, particularly in Japan and China. [^9]

Although Haviland's gloomy fortress was undoubtedly designed to impress
and intimidate---with its massive Gothic Revival exterior and lonely
hilltop location---it gives way to an interior that is quite the
opposite, though no less impressive.[^10] Within the walls, parts of
Haviland's prison structure suggest ecclesiastical architecture. High
corridors and small cells, both with barrel-vaulted ceilings more
closely resemble churches and chapels.

Haviland's prison was designed from the prisoner outwards, whose needs
for health and comfort formed the basis of his 1822 "Explanation of a
Design for a Penitentiary."[^11] This document was a proposal for
professional services written in the form of a social vision. (A similar
program for a controlled environment appeared thirty years earlier in
Jeremy Bentham's proposed Panopticon, but remained on paper.)[^12] To
Haviland's credit goes the first complete---albeit
imperfect---realization of such a vision.

By the late 1860s, major alterations began in response to an
ever-increasing prison population. Additions to the complex began to
illustrate the compromise reached when this munificent, ill-fated
intellectual movement collided with the reality of modern prison
operation.

Warden Michael Cassidy oversaw the first additions in 1869. [^13] He
extended Cellblocks One and Three to nearly double them in size. He also
added four cellblocks that breached Haviland's symmetrical plan, as the
new blocks were wedged between the originals (See Illustration 3). Built
of the same stone, they recalled the earlier blocks with their
barrel-vaulted corridors and skylights, yet signaled the pending end of
the Pennsylvania system and separate confinement of inmates, as they
were built without exercise yards.

During the next building campaign, a number of freestanding ancillary
buildings were added, including the Bakehouse/Storehouse, the Industrial
Building, the Emergency Hospital (since demolished), the Power Plant
(since demolished), and the Shop Building (since demolished). The final
building campaign wedged two reinforced concrete blocks, Cellblocks
Twelve and Fourteen, into the last available space off the Observatory.
Building activity ended in 1956 with the addition of Cellblock Fifteen,
also known as Death Row (See Illustration 4).

The Pennsylvania, or Separate, system, while noble in its intention, did
not work as well as intended or claimed and in 1913 the system was
officially abandoned at Eastern State.[^14] In response to this change,
portions of the prison, primarily the exercise yard ranges, underwent
conversion for new uses such as mess halls, workshops, and other
activities.

In 1970 the Commonwealth closed Eastern State in favor of more modern
facilities. Operated by its current owner, the City of Philadelphia, the
site was vacated a year later, in 1971.

Outmoded and outdated, Eastern State sat for the next 25 years with no
clear reuse or maintenance. Years of exposure to the elements slowly
deteriorated the structures.

Today, an artifact of the Haviland plan and the Pennsylvania system,
with its crumbling, barrel-vaulted cells and 1,100 skylights, Eastern
State remains a place of sublime beauty and haunting atmosphere.

**2.c. Boundary Selection**

Propose a boundary for the property and explain why you chose it. Is the
boundary reasonable on logical grounds, such as if it conforms to
topography or landforms or (for natural areas) to the range of wildlife
or (for cultural properties) to any historical boundary or defining
structures (such as walls)?

The boundaries include the site purchased by the Commonwealth for the
construction of the penitentiary, as referenced in Section 1. d.e.
Illustration 1: Plot of the Original Deed Surveys.

Are all the elements and features that are related to the site's
significance included inside the proposed boundaries?

*Explanation: Careful analysis should be undertaken to insure that the
proposal embraces the internationally significant resources and excludes
most, if not all, unrelated buildings, structures and features.*

YES: [X]{.underline} NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

If no, please explain:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Are there any enclaves or inholdings within the property and, if so, do
they contain uses or potential uses contrary to the conservation or
preservation of the site as a whole?

YES: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: [X]{.underline}

If yes, please explain:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**3. JUSTIFICATION FOR INSCRIPTION IN THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST**

**3.a. Criteria under which inscription is proposed**

From the World Heritage criteria listed below, identify each criterion
that you believe applies to your property and briefly state why you
believe each criterion you have selected is applicable.

*Explanation: You may find the discussion under this heading in
"Appendix A" to the Guide to the U.S. World Heritage Program to be
helpful in completing this section. Please refer to a paper copy or
follow the hyperlink.*

*To be included on the World Heritage List, a site must be of
outstanding universal value and meet at least one of these ten selection
criteria in a global context:*

> i\. *represent a masterpiece of human creative genius;*
>
> \_\_\_\_ This criterion applies to the property I am proposing
>
> Reason: [N/A]{.underline}
>
> ii\. *exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of
> time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in
> architecture or technology, monumental arts, town-planning or
> landscape design;*
>
> [X]{.underline} This criterion applies to the property I am proposing
>
> Reason:
>
> The Eastern State Penitentiary was, at the time of its construction,
> the most carefully studied and visited prison in the world and as
> such, was the flagship of the social reform movement in the 19th
> century.[^15] The penitentiary demonstrated the powerful precedent of
> rendering social theory tangible in a complex and expensive structure
> materially demonstrative of the new values of a society intent on
> social and humanitarian reforms.
>
> Out of the social ferment of the Enlightenment and the dramatic shift
> in power during the Industrial Revolution came increasing concern for
> the law, both in theory and in practice. Beginning during the latter
> half of the 18th century in Britain, the reform of penal treatment and
> the law reached its greatest development stage in Europe. The story of
> prison reform traditionally begins with the investigations of John
> Howard, a philanthropist and county sheriff in Bedfordshire, England.
> Howard visited prisons in both his own country and abroad, from 1773
> until his death in 1790. He produced factual and detailed descriptions
> of conditions in British and European prisons and houses of
> correction, which appeared in successive editions of his *State of the
> Prisons,* first published in 1777.
>
> Prison reform during this period quickly gained a large measure of
> public and governmental support. Because of his findings of the
> undesirable influence of convicts on each other, Howard had proposed a
> regimen of individual cells and work in silence. He felt that proper
> surveillance over prisoners and guards would solve many of the evils
> of contemporary prisons. With the loss of the American colonies as
> receptacles for transported felons, and because capital punishment was
> increasingly viewed as excessive and was beginning to be used less in
> the late 18th century, more jails and prisons had to be built,
> particularly in Ireland and England, to hold a rapidly increasing
> penal population. Surveillance, coupled with a system of either
> separating prisoners into classes according to their characteristics,
> or individual celling, was generally regarded as the *sine qua non* of
> good jail and prison administration. This was about the extent to
> which a penal philosophy had developed. The little workhouses, jails,
> and county prisons erected during this period reflected this
> preoccupation with surveillance, but seldom permitted the realization
> of this limited goal. In the instances where the authorities tried
> separate confinement, overcrowding usually led to its abandonment.
> Although by the early years of the 19th century the reformation of the
> criminal had become one of the aims of the prison reform movement in
> Britain and the Continent, a consistent and detailed program or
> internal regimen would not emerge until the 1830s.
>
> Such extensive reform would seem a luxury of a settled country with
> long-established governments and social structures. But the reformers
> in the 19th century looked to the New World for inspiration to bring
> new life into their stalemated prison reform movements. In some North
> American colonies, notably Pennsylvania, where the Quakers were
> active, reform of the criminal law and the prisons came early. Quakers
> and like-minded reformers established the Philadelphia Society for
> Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons in 1787, now known as the
> Pennsylvania Prison Society. The members of the Society, the first of
> its kind in the world, exerted continuous pressure on county and state
> lawmakers to substitute imprisonment for death, resulting in the
> conversion of Philadelphia\'s Walnut Street Jail into a state prison
> in 1790. [^16]
>
> Initial physical facilities at Walnut Street prison were too limited
> to allow for a more elaborate regimen or the large increases in
> population and subsequent numbers of prisoners. In the following four
> decades the Philadelphia reformers devised a coherent penal philosophy
> with its roots in Christian ideas of redemption anchored on earlier
> uses of monastic imprisonment, limited attempts at prison reform in
> Europe and, of course, the continued influences of the Quakers. The
> Philadelphia reformers knew Howard's *State of the Prisons* and
> Elizabeth Fry\'s efforts to improve the lot of women prisoners at
> London\'s Newgate jail.[^17]
>
> Because the troublesome issue of penal reform was \"in the air\" in
> the late 18th and early 19th centuries in Europe and the Americas, a
> new and successful method of reform and its associated architecture
> were of greater public concern and interest to political and
> governmental figures. Immediately after the American Revolution the
> reform efforts in the new republic came to the attention of Europeans,
> some interested in viewing for themselves its exemplary social
> experiments. In 1793 the duc de la Rochefoucauld-Liancourt (later to
> be president of the National Assembly in France), visited Walnut
> Street Prison in Philadelphia and in 1796 an account of the visit was
> published in Philadelphia and Paris.
>
> The distinguished architectural historian, Henry-Russell Hitchcock,
> had written that Eastern State Penitentiary \". . . provided a new
> functional concept for penal architecture influential abroad. . .
> \"[^18] and the architectural historian George Tatum observed that
> \"As the culmination of a generation of experiments in penal reform,
> the Philadelphia prison was among the most famous buildings of the day
> and the first to exert wide influence abroad.\"[^19]
>
> In 1831 two young French magistrates, Gustave de Beaumont and Alexis
> de Tocqueville, came to the United States to visit Eastern State and
> other prisons. At Eastern State Penitentiary Tocqueville interviewed
> every prisoner over eight of the twelve days he spent in Philadelphia
> and later the two published their findings in Paris. A few years later
> the French government sent Frederic-Auguste Demetz, a magistrate, and
> Guillaume Blouet, a government architect, to America. In 1837 Demetz
> and Blouet published their report (including plans and sections of
> Eastern State) favoring the architecture and system of treatment
> embodied in Philadelphia.[^20]
>
> Other countries had a keen interest in Eastern State Penitentiary. In
> 1831 the British Home Office sent Sir William Crawford to study
> American prisons. He was most impressed with Eastern State and
> published his report in 1835, including plans.[^21] Upper Canada
> (Ontario) and Lower Canada (Quebec) also sent representatives in 1832
> and 1834, respectively, and corresponded with Eastern State\'s
> architect, John Haviland. In 1834 Prussia sent Dr. Nicolaus Julius of
> Berlin to Eastern State. He too favored the architecture and system he
> found in Philadelphia.[^22] In 1835 Spain dispatched Ramon de la Sagra
> to visit the penitentiary. Other countries or colonies also sent
> government officials to Philadelphia, including Brazil, Peru, Norway,
> Antigua, Jamaica, and Puerto Rico.[^23]
>
> During his 1824--1825 travels through the United States, the Marquis
> de Lafayette visited Eastern State Penitentiary while it was still
> under construction.[^24] Other notables visited the prison as well:
> Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams in 1833, the Emperor of Brazil,
> members of the British parliament and the French Chamber of Deputies.
> In 1860 the Prince of Wales, who would later become Edward VII, became
> the first member of the royal family to tour the former rebellious
> colony. Although he was in Philadelphia for fewer than two days, he
> managed to attend an opera, have a possible romantic encounter with
> its lead singer, and visit Eastern State Penitentiary.
>
> In 1842 Charles Dickens visited Eastern State Penitentiary. Vaux
> quotes him as having said, \" . . . the falls of Niagara and your
> penitentiary are the two objects I might almost say I most wish to
> see.\"[^25] Because it was famous---and also because it was a
> prison---there were many visitors to Eastern State who were merely
> tourists, including Indian chiefs and groups of Menomonee Indians from
> Wisconsin and Ottawas from Michigan.
>
> The visitors to Eastern State from Latin America and Europe generally
> favored the Pennsylvania system and the architecture associated with
> it, over that of the Auburn system.[^26] The prison reform movement in
> the United States evolved in the 1820s into two competing systems for
> reform and their associated architectures. The Auburn system involved
> confining inmates at night in tiny single cells arranged back-to-back
> on multiple freestanding tiers within the cellblock walls, and working
> the inmates in congregate workshops. The Pennsylvania system at
> Eastern State confined inmates in large solitary cells in which they
> also worked, ate, worshipped, read religious tracts, and exercised. It
> was hoped that the inmates would reflect on their past errors and
> abandon their criminal ways. Both systems adopted a rule of silence to
> thwart contact between inmates. Silence was rigorously enforced in the
> Auburn system by the threat of corporal punishment, whereas the
> Pennsylvania system attempted to obtain the same objectives through
> separate confinement.
>
> Great Britain was the first to build a prototype prison patterned
> after Eastern State. In London after William Crawford\'s return from
> his American trip, Parliament passed legislation laying the foundation
> for the national government to gain some control and uniformity over
> the country\'s local prisons.[^27] Five Prison Inspectors were
> appointed to carry this out. The three for the Home District, which
> included London, were: Crawford; Joshua Jebb, an engineer and soon to
> be the Surveyor-General of Prisons; and Whitworth Russell, the former
> chaplain at London\'s ill-fated first attempt at a national
> penitentiary. Working with plans provided by Haviland, aided by
> technical advice from experts such as influential physicist Michael
> Faraday and David Boswell Reid (the inventor of the concept of
> interior environmental controls), and constructing mock-ups to study
> challenges such as heating and ventilating and the prevention of
> communication between prisoners, details of a new prototype prison
> were shaped.[^28] The three inspectors strongly favored the
> Pennsylvania system and the "Model Prison," later known as
> Pentonville, was built between 1840 and 1842.[^29] Jebb stated, \"the
> credit of \[sic\] developing it \[the radial plan used at
> Pentonville\] upon a large scale is justly due to Mr. Haviland, the
> architect who designed and erected the Eastern State Penitentiary in
> Philadelphia.\" In England and Wales, prisons were rapidly constructed
> following variations of the Pentonville plan until the end of the 19th
> century. As early as 1885 the head of the Prison Commission, Edmund Du
> Cane, wrote that 54 other prisons were erected according to
> Pentonville\'s general design.[^30]
>
> With Haviland\'s designs, both as provided by the architect and as
> published by Demetz and Blouet, and Pentonville\'s construction,
> Eastern State was to influence construction in many of Britain's
> colonies: for example, St. Vincent de Paul (1873), and the Bordeaux
> Jail (1913), both in Montreal; Australia (Berrima, New South Wales,
> 1840, and Melbourne, Victoria c. 1850s); New Plymouth and Auckland,
> New Zealand in the 1880s; Pul-e-Charhi near Kabul, Afghanistan;
> Salisbury, Southern Rhodesia, 1936; Valletta, Malta, c. 1860; Rangoon,
> Burma, c. 1890s; and Shanghai in the 1930s.
>
> The Pennsylvania system and its architecture at Eastern State
> Penitentiary and, in turn, its satellite Pentonville, also influenced
> prison reform on the Continent. In Berlin\'s Moabit section a prison
> adopted the Pentonville model in 1844, and in turn was widely copied.
> Another German penal establishment went up at the same time by the
> same architect, at Ratibor (now Racebórz, Poland) on a different
> radial plan. This structure became official policy in Germany until
> the First World War. In Belgium such cell prisons designed for the
> Separate system were first built at Verviers (1853). Belgium
> completely rebuilt its prison system according to the Eastern State
> model at enormous expense. The large institutions of St. Giles in
> Brussels (1878-1885) and Louvain (opened 1860) are dramatic examples.
>
> Spain rebuilt its penal institutions on the Pennsylvania model
> beginning with Vitoria (1859-1861), the Prision Modélo in Madrid
> (1877) and its post-Civil War replacement, Carabanchel (1952). Other
> Continental countries constructed prototype prisons, usually but not
> always, in their capitals: Amsterdam, Holland (1847-1850); Oslo,
> Norway (1851); Gävle, Sweden (1847) and the Långholmen central prison
> near Stockholm (1878); Helsinki, Finland constructed by the Russians
> in 1881; Copenhagen, Denmark (1860); Switzerland in several cantons
> such as Lenzburg in Argau (1859); Budapest, Hungary (1895); and
> Lisbon, Portugal (1884). Similar prisons went up in Italy: Palermo
> (1840), Alessandria in Piedmont (1846), and Milan (1879). Like many
> regions of Europe, Russia was plagued by political instability and
> lack of money. Its first modern radial cellular prison was constructed
> at Staraya-Russa (1881-1885) on a plan used for smaller prisons during
> that period. A jail on a radial plan opened in St. Petersburg (1880)
> and a large central prison, Kresty (1884-1890), is only now being
> removed from use. France, with similar problems, built its first
> cellular radial prison in Paris, Mazas, between 1840 and 1850. A
> similar prison was also erected on the Rue de la Santé between 1860
> and 1867.
>
> Central and South America were influenced both by American and
> European reforms. They built radial prisons and instituted the
> separate system especially in prototype institutions erected in their
> capitals. For example, in Argentina, a prison was built in Buenos
> Aires in 1872; the Director-General of Architecture in that government
> was later quoted as describing Eastern State Penitentiary as its
> model. Prisons on various radial layouts were subsequently erected in
> Córdoba, Olomos and Ushuaia (Tierra del Fuego). Prisons also went up
> in Recife, Brazil (1855), Lima, Peru (1862), Quito, Ecuador (1870s),
> Bogota, Colombia (1876), Cochabamba, Bolivia (1950s) and in San José,
> Costa Rica (1915).
>
> Asia, beginning in Japan and then China, completely rebuilt their
> systems based on the architecture and program first developed in
> Philadelphia. Japan was influenced by British and French penologists
> and British colonial prisons in Hong Kong and Singapore. Japan\'s
> first reform prison was at Miyagi in 1879, a classic seven-wing
> radial. Between 1879 and 1936, a series of 34 radial prisons were
> built. Segmented exercise yards were characteristic, as they were in
> Europe. Cellblocks were usually single- or two-story structures. China
> initiated a massive building program sparked by Japanese architects
> and with clear roots in the Pennsylvania system. With the start of the
> Peking (Beijing) First Prison in 1909, sixteen new prisons containing
> multiple radial arrays of cellblocks were erected in the next 20
> years. Some were to be used for the Auburn system, others for the
> Pennsylvania separate system. Some of these are still in use.
>
> The countries that adopted the Pennsylvania system did so for varying
> periods of time. Although overcrowding or lack of resources sometimes
> caused the Pennsylvania system to be abandoned, it remained the ideal
> for the 19th century and beyond.[^31] The system endured longest in
> France, until after World War II.[^32]
>
> Ironically, the radial design often outlasted the system that gave it
> its form. The radial design of the Eastern State Penitentiary
> influenced fewer prison structures in the United States.[^33] These
> went up in Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland,
> Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio,
> Pennsylvania, and Washington. The Federal government built two such
> prisons in Kansas. Most of these structures reflect the influence of
> Haviland\'s work but a few erected in the 1980s are merely examples of
> utilizing the layout for visual surveillance.
>
> The architecture associated with Eastern State Penitentiary for the
> most part did not serve as a model after World War II, although a
> number of prisons on the hub-and-spoke design were built. In the
> United States such buildings went up in Washington state (1954) and
> New Jersey (1968). Spain, which had built a radial prison in its
> Philippine colony in 1865, continued to construct classic radials,
> including the huge Carabanchel prison in Madrid (1952). It had seven
> wings attached to a central hub and was intended for 8,000 prisoners
> housed two or three to a cell. Very large prison complexes comprised
> of a series of hub and spoke units, utilizing observation centers and
> attached cell wings, also went up in France and Italy, at Fleury
> Merogis near Orly (1968) and Rebibbia in Rome (1971), respectively.
> Holland built Zutphen prison, opened in 1997, and Canada opened radial
> layout prisons at Burnaby near Vancouver (1995), Millhaven (1967) and
> Coansville (1968).
>
> Eastern State Penitentiary was the most influential example of a
> prison designed from the ground up to carry out a new method of penal
> reform. Although some prisons have enjoyed greater notoriety or were
> associated with historic events--- the Bastille, London's Newgate,
> Alcatraz and Devil's Island come to mind---no other single prison has
> ever come close to wielding such influence in the field of prison
> treatment. More than a prototype of architecture and strategy for
> rehabilitation, Eastern State Penitentiary is a remarkable symbol of
> the optimism, energy, and good intentions of the 19th century, during
> which Philadelphia and the rest of the country believed that anything
> was possible in the new republic.
>
> iii\. *bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural
> tradition or to a civilization which is living or which has
> disappeared;*
>
> \_\_\_\_ This criterion applies to the property I am proposing
>
> Reason: [N/A]{.underline}
>
> iv\. *be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural
> or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a)
> significant stage(s) in human history;*
>
> [X]{.underline} This criterion applies to the property I am proposing
>
> Reason:
>
> John Haviland synthesized a building plan for Eastern State
> Penitentiary that considered the difficult demands of both servicing
> and isolating prisoners. The conceptual plan reveals the purity of his
> vision.[^34] Seven cellblocks radiate from a central surveillance
> Observatory. Haviland's mechanical innovations at the penitentiary,
> which were integral to his 1822 design, were unprecedented in their
> consistent application and interdependence.[^35] This was in an age
> when most houses of the wealthy had no running water and were heated
> with coal-burning stoves; but at Eastern State, each prisoner had his
> or her (some female inmates were held at Eastern until 1923 when they
> were transferred elsewhere) own private cell that was centrally heated
> and artificially ventilated, with running water, a flush toilet, and a
> skylight. Adjacent to the cell was a private outdoor, unroofed
> exercise yard contained by a 10-foot high wall.
>
> In addition to the world-wide influence of the radial plan, Eastern
> State Penitentiary inarguably represents the first consistently
> executed attempt at providing building occupants with a completely
> artificial controlled environment, primarily achieved through the use
> of innovative technology. Haviland labored over expanding rudimentary
> techniques to serve on an unprecedented scale. The "sanitary plumbing"
> consisted of cast-iron water closets, soil lines, and house sewers
> supplied from a central reservoir and discharged by giant stop cocks
> at the end of each cellblock; fresh water was also supplied to taps in
> each cell. For light, he designed custom-cast skylights (initially
> conical in the first three blocks, changing to pyramidal after 1831)
> to maximize natural light to the cells, where prisoners were to work
> during the day.
>
> Haviland designed full-height mechanical tunnels under each block. To
> provide heat in each cell, coal-burning furnaces at the end of each
> block were to heat the underground chambers and deliver warm air
> through adjustable floor vents in each cell. Fresh air supply was
> separated from its traditional source, operable fenestration, and
> instead provided from the outside of the cellblocks, via controllable
> registers at the floor, and exhausted to foul-air exhaust plenums
> above the corridor vaults. In winter, the currents of hot-air supply
> and ventilation exhaust would reinforce each other, anticipating the
> air systems used by David Boswell Reid at Perth Prison in Scotland and
> at the Houses of Parliament in Westminster.[^36]
>
> The application of advanced technology to the amelioration of social
> ills and the reliance upon such technology to create a predictable and
> controllable environment represent key tenets of the so-called Modern
> Movement in architecture, and thereby justify the claim that the
> Penitentiary, as much or more than other iconic structures such as the
> Crystal Palace, represents the first "Modern" building. From its
> initial occupancy, the Penitentiary demonstrated both the strengths
> and weaknesses of the new reliance on specialized technology in the
> built environment.[^37]
>
> Haviland also designed an elaborate method to dispense food in the
> first three blocks, through a "feeding door and slot" on the corridor
> side, which on the cell side converted to a small table. As
> construction of Eastern State progressed, Haviland constantly modified
> these systems. For example: the feeding doors and slots were abandoned
> for larger doors from the corridors in the last four blocks; later
> cell skylights were enlarged and were operable to further improve over
> the ventilation of the earlier cells; and in Cellblock Seven, the
> corridor is wider, with second floor cells set back to provide more
> natural light.
>
> Virtually all prisons designed in the 19th century were based on one
> of two systems: New York state\'s Auburn system, adopted ultimately by
> most American states, and Pennsylvania\'s Separate system, adopted
> worldwide.. The Pennsylvania system was embodied in the architecture
> of Eastern State, which represented the willingness of its advocates
> to spend generous resources on the reform of the individual, rather
> than the control of criminals as a class, through the achievement of a
> physically decent and comfortable environment, as opposed to a
> warehouse or (in Norman Johnston's phrase) a human cage. In the
> vaulted, sky-lit cells, the prisoners at Eastern State had the light
> from heaven, the word of God (the Bible provided by the institution)
> and honest work (shoemaking, weaving, and the like) to lead them to
> penitence.
>
> In the 19th century Europe suffered from a labor surplus. The United
> States, in contrast, had a chronic shortage of laborers.[^38] Europe
> readily accepted the Pennsylvania system and tolerated the less
> efficient use of inmate labor that was part of separate confinement.
> In the U.S. thriving factories produced profits and goods. The Auburn
> system seemed irresistibly rational, particularly as, prior to the
> strengthening of organized labor, outside businesses were sometimes
> allowed to build and manage factories within the prisons, selling
> prison-made products in the open market, defraying much of the costs
> of imprisonment for the state. Consequently, although the Pennsylvania
> system of separation was tried briefly in a handful of states, it was
> abandoned except in the Philadelphia institution. The radial design of
> the Eastern State Penitentiary influenced prison design around the
> country, even into the 20th century, but generally U.S. prison
> architecture was built around the Auburn system and its building
> types.
>
> v\. *be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement,
> land-use, or sea-use which is representative of a culture (or
> cultures), or human interaction with the environment especially when
> it has become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible change;*
>
> \_\_\_\_ This criterion applies to the property I am proposing
>
> Reason: [N/A]{.underline}
>
> vi\. *be directly or tangibly associated with events or living
> traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary
> works of outstanding universal significance. (The Committee considers
> that this criterion should preferably be used in conjunction with
> other criteria);*
>
> [X]{.underline} This criterion applies to the property I am proposing
>
> Reason:
>
> Eastern State Penitentiary symbolized the energy, the reasoned
> efforts, and the optimism with which early 19th-century America, and
> more specifically Philadelphia, confronted the consequences of the
> growing urban population and the beginnings of industrialization. The
> problems of dependency, mental illness, and criminality were
> increasingly being addressed by an enormous infusion of talent and
> resources dedicated to the creation of large residential institutions,
> of which Eastern State Penitentiary was the most ambitious, complex,
> and the most famous. In these idealistic times, few doubted that these
> new institutions and their innovative regimen, design and technology
> would adequately solve the social ills of its time.
>
> Social ideals that led to the creation of the Philadelphia Society for
> Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons, which after four decades
> found tangible expression in the Eastern State Penitentiary, struck a
> harmonic chord with similar ideals in North America, Britain, Western
> Europe, and eventually the entire world. This harmony was sounded not
> only in the narrow sense of the more than 300 prisons constructed on a
> model derived ultimately from Eastern State Penitentiary, but also
> with the optimistic explosion of institutional construction on an
> unprecedented scale throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries.[^39]
> The failure of many of these institutions to live up to the idealistic
> philosophy that gave rise to them led to a painful process of
> self-examination which continues to occupy the professions of social
> and medical healing today.

vii. *contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional
     natural beauty and aesthetic importance;*

> \_\_\_\_ This criterion applies to the property I am proposing
>
> Reason: [N/A]{.underline}

viii. *be outstanding examples representing major stages of earth\'s
      history, including the record of life, significant on-going
      geological processes in the development of landforms, or
      significant geomorphic or physiographic features;*

> \_\_\_\_ This criterion applies to the property I am proposing
>
> Reason: [N/A]{.underline}

ix. *be outstanding examples representing significant on-going
    ecological and biological processes in the evolution and development
    of terrestrial, fresh water, coastal and marine ecosystems and
    communities of plants and animals;*

> \_\_\_\_ This criterion applies to the property I am proposing
>
> Reason: [N/A]{.underline}

x.  *contain the most important and significant natural habitats for
    in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those
    containing threatened species of outstanding universal value from
    the point of view of science or conservation.*

> \_\_\_\_ This criterion applies to the property I am proposing
>
> Reason: [N/A]{.underline}

**3.b. Proposed statement of outstanding universal value**

Based on the criteria you have selected just above, provide a brief
**Proposed Statement of Outstanding Universal Value** summarizing and
making clear why you think the property merits inscription on the World
Heritage List. If adopted by the World Heritage Committee, the statement
"will be the key reference for the future effective protection and
management of the property."

*Explanation: This statement should clearly explain the
**internationally** significant values embodied by the property, **not**
its **national** prominence.*

***"Outstanding Universal Value" is formally defined as "... cultural
and/or natural significance which is so exceptional as to transcend
national boundaries and to be of common importance for present and
future generations of all humanity. As such, the permanent protection of
this heritage is of the highest importance to the international
community as a whole."***

**Cultural property**

*For example, a cultural World Heritage Site may be a unique survival of
a particular building form or settlement or an exceptional example of a
designed town or the best work by a great internationally recognized
architect. It may be a particularly fine or early or rich survival and
it may bear witness to a vanished culture or way of life, or ecosystem.
Elements to consider for inclusion in the statement may be such cardinal
facts about the site as:*

> *- Historic Context*
>
> *- Period of International Significance*
>
> *- Internationally Significant Dates*
>
> *- Internationally Significant Groups, Persons, Events*
>
> *- Cultural Affiliation*

Eastern State Penitentiary was built to embody the powerful idea that
convicted prisoners can repent and remake their lives. The penitentiary
operated under the Pennsylvania system of imprisonment from 1829 to
1913. This system replaced corporal punishment and ill treatment of
prisoners with separate confinement to move criminals toward reflection
and change. Isolation encouraged them to reflect on their lives, and
labor taught them a trade to use when they returned to society. It is
the place where a courageous stand was made against the cycle of despair
afflicting all societies that aspire to be bound by humane justice.

Criteria ii: The architectural design of the penitentiary gave tangible
form to the social theory of prison reform in a complex and expensive
structure that had a profound effect on prison reform around the world.

Criteria iv: Architect John Haviland's design of the penitentiary, with
its characteristic radial plan around a central observatory and its
advanced heating and sanitation systems, influenced the construction and
operation of prisons throughout the world for more than 100 years.

Criteria vi: The penitentiary symbolizes the energy, optimism, and
commitment to social justice of early 19th-century America to address
the social ills of a growing urban population and of industrialization.
This optimism maintained the idea that distribution of a compassionate
society\'s resources, the leadership of the most enlightened and best
educated members of that society, and the scientific application of the
latest advances in social, medical, economic, architectural and
engineering knowledge, could overcome miseries which had blighted
humanity throughout history.

**3.c. Comparison of proposed property to similar or related properties
(including state of preservation of similar properties)**

Please provide a statement explaining how the property being proposed
compares with all other similar or related properties anywhere in the
world, whether already on the World Heritage List or not.

*Explanation:* *Examples of questions that may be useful to consider
include whether the proposed property is part of a series or sequence of
similar sites belonging to the same cultural grouping and/or the same
period of history. Also, are there features that distinguish it from
other sites and suggest that it should be regarded as more, equally or
jointly worthy than they are? What is it that makes this property
intrinsically better than others and qualifies it for the World Heritage
List? For example, does it have more features, species or habitats than
a similar site? Is the property larger or better preserved or more
complete or less changed by later developments?*

*It will be especially helpful if specific reference can be made to a
study placing the property in a global context. The absence of
comparative information may indicate that the property is either truly
exceptional (a difficult case to prove) or that it lacks international
importance. If the results of the comparative review reveal that
multiple sites possess roughly comparable merit and may possess
international significance as a group, you may wish to recommend that
more than one site be proposed, as a serial nomination or as a joint
nomination by the United States and another country.*

*Also please make note of any major works that evaluate the property in
comparison to similar properties anywhere else in the world.*

Eastern State Penitentiary was the flagship institution of an important
social reform movement centered in Philadelphia during the
Enlightenment, which led to two model plans with global importance: the
Pennsylvania plan for prisons and Dr. Thomas Kirkbride\'s plan for
mental hospitals (as first used in Pennsylvania Hospital). There were
numerous other institutions in the region that were also influenced by
or in some way associated with Eastern State Penitentiary.

-   Haviland Prisons:  Of the surviving prisons designed by John
    Haviland, only Eastern State Penitentiary has both a high degree of
    integrity and potential for preservation in perpetuity. The other
    important Haviland prison, the New Jersey State Penitentiary,
    Trenton (begun by Haviland later than the Eastern State
    Penitentiary, and completed simultaneously), contains important
    fragments of Haviland\'s design, but has been significantly
    reconstructed at various subsequent times to seriously diminish its
    historic integrity. The plan of the institution, the most important
    innovation, survives but is overlaid with later construction and is
    not easily perceived except from the air. One important element, the
    main entry, has been concealed behind later construction. The
    institution is not committed to the preservation of the Haviland
    fabric, and has considered recommendation for the eventual
    demolition of the two remaining cellblocks with Haviland
    associations.

-   Prisons showing the immediate influence of Haviland\'s work, which
    served as important prototypes in their own right: The most
    significant is H.M. Prison, Pentonville (1840-42), in London, still
    a functioning correctional facility. As the original English model
    prison, Pentonville inspired a score of similar designs throughout
    the British Isles within the next decade. Pentonville\'s most
    influential satellite on the European continent was the first Moabit
    prison in Berlin, constructed within a few years of its model;
    unfortunately only Moabit\'s perimeter wall and fragments of its
    headhouse survive.

Considering its potential place among sites currently on the World
Heritage List, Eastern State Penitentiary both *adds greater depth and
richness* to:

The list of sites representing utopian visions of the more just society
and their founders' endeavors to advance them:

-   Monticello and the University of Virginia, United States of America
    (stands for Jefferson's use of architectural vocabulary based on
    classical antiquity, symbolizing America's place as the new
    republic);

-   New Lanark, Scotland, United Kingdom (represents Robert Owen's
    social reform and "urban utopian" vision for a mill community);

-   Saltaire, England, United Kingdom, (symbolizes Victorian
    philanthropic paternalism by means of working housing);

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Hospicio Cabañas, Mexico (stands as one of the oldest and largest
    hospital complexes in Spanish America built to serve the destitute,
    the orphaned, the sick and the aged)

Sites of law and justice:

-   Independence Hall, United States of America (symbolizes freedom and
    democracy as set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the
    Constitution);

-   St. Catherine Area, Egypt (holds the Byzantine Monastery which
    contains collections of early Christian manuscripts and icons.
    Stands at the foot of Mt. Hored where Moses received the Tablets of
    the Law)

And, markedly *adds cathartic contrast* with sites of conscience:

-   Aapravasi Ghat, Mauritius; Island of Gorée, Senegal (represents the
    largest slave trading center on the African coast);

-   Tower of London, United Kingdom (stands as the fortress built by
    William the Conqueror to protect London and assert his power);

-   Auschwitz Concentration Camp, Poland (demonstrates the conditions in
    which the Nazi genocide took place);

-   James Island, Gambia, (significant for its relation to the beginning
    of the slave trade and its abolition

*The only listed prison,* in that Eastern State represents an effort to
improve the plight of a disenfranchised portion of the population
through institutionalization:

-   Robben Island, South Africa (survives as place of banishment, exile,
    isolation, and imprisonment, which held Nelson Mandela and other
    opponents of apartheid).

**3.d. Integrity and/or Authenticity**

*Explanation: As with a site's international significance, the clear
intent of this requirement is that a World Heritage Site's authenticity
or integrity must rise to a superlative level. Thus, for example, it is
quite important to understand that reconstructions of historic
structures or sites or largely restored ecosystems will usually be
disqualified from inscription in the World Heritage List.*

Cultural property

[Authenticity]{.underline}: Does the property retain its original
design, materials, workmanship and setting?

YES: [X]{.underline} NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment:

The original Haviland plan survives, nearly intact. Seven additional
cellblocks were added to the site, but from the center of the hub only
the original seven blocks are visible. Vestiges of the mechanical
systems survive and have been recently surveyed, documented, and used as
a source for a scale model for the interpretive program (See
Illustration 15).

Alterations to cells were moderate, with the exception of replacing
wooden floors with concrete. After 1913, when the Pennsylvania system
was abandoned, conversion of the exercise yard ranges involved removing
the stone demising walls and roofing over the spaces to yield large,
long narrow workrooms. One open-air yard did survive and it has been
conserved and restored. The penitentiary was built on the outskirts of
Philadelphia, but a residential neighborhood eventually surrounded it.
Its 30-foot high perimeter wall, erected to enclose the prison from the
outside world, continues that function today.

The penitentiary survives as a semi-ruin. Abandoned in 1971, it had
little maintenance until tours began in 1994. Since then five major
roofing projects have begun its stabilization. Plans include restoration
to spaces that are needed to convey the penitentiary's history and daily
life for those inside.

[Integrity]{.underline}: Do the authentic material and spatial evidence
inside the proposed boundaries remain in sufficient quantity to convey
the full significance of the site? To tell the full story of why the
site is outstanding? Is the integrity weakened by the intrusion of
discordant and/or abundant elements or buildings that are unrelated to
the significance and detract from the visual unity of the place?

YES: [X]{.underline} NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment:

Considering the 142 years this prison was in operation, and the 23 years
the site was abandoned, Eastern State Penitentiary retains a remarkably
high degree of integrity--- conveying both the building and its system
of prison reform. Nearly all of Haviland's buildings remain unaltered.

Although it appears almost identical in form and materials, a newer
cellblock (1879) is visible to visitors before they enter Cellblock One
of the Haviland plan, the beginning of the tour. Our interpretive
program focuses on orienting the visitors to the early plan, the
Pennsylvania system, and the penitentiary's historic significance before
interpreting other portions of its history.

Later additions illustrate and contrast the change in operation and
daily lives of inmates and staff from the end of Pennsylvania system
until the institution closed in 1971.

The deteriorated physical state of the interior does not detract from
the integrity because the basic forms remain. Almost all of the
corridors retain much of their whitewashed plaster interiors, and among
the abundant number of repetitive cell spaces, the degree of
deterioration varies. In some cases, the deterioration has revealed
layers of time and chronology of construction, which we interpret in our
tours. We have a plan to focus visitors' attention on specific spaces
through restorations, tour stops, and signage. The ruinous condition of
the site strongly symbolizes the abandonment of the Pennsylvania system
and ultimately the site as a prison.

Note that that there can be authenticity without integrity, as in a
highly eroded archaeological ruin. There can also be authenticity with
full integrity of materials, but seriously undermined by the
overwhelming presence of newer or inappropriate elements.

How do authenticity and integrity compare for this property?

We believe that the authenticity and integrity compare equally.

[Repairs:]{.underline} If repairs have been made, were they carried out
using traditional materials and methods? If yes, please discuss. If not,
please explain the methods used and why.

YES: [X]{.underline} NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment:

Our preservation philosophy is that of a "stabilized ruin with selected
restoration for interpretation." This compels us to replace materials
only when they are needed for protection, structural stability, or
interpretation.

For roofing and skylight work, we have opted for long-term materials
whenever possible. Roofs originally covered with slate, will be roofed
with Davinci® composite slate tiles, to match the original Pennsylvania
slate. Copper and painted galvanized standing or flat seamed roofs, will
have in-kind replacements.

Original materials are conserved wherever possible, or replaced in kind,
often with salvaged materials of similar age. Materials include
lime-based mortars, with aggregate of appropriate size, shape and color;
Wissahickon gneiss or schist, and gypsum plaster with lime based
whitewash. For example, for the exercise yard conservation project, we
capped its stone walls with traditional sized cedar shingles and used
salvaged white pine to restore the wooded doors.

Restoration or conservation projects are thoroughly researched before
preparing plans and specifications to ensure that all work is held to
the highest historic preservation standards.

**4. STATE OF PRESERVATION AND FACTORS AFFECTING THE PROPERTY**

**4.a. Present state of preservation of the property**

**Cultural property**

What is the present state of preservation of the property (including its
physical condition and preservation measures in place)?

Preservation efforts are ongoing. Projects protecting the structures
from water infiltration, primarily through roofs and skylights, take the
highest priority.

Of the Haviland structures, the Administration Building has a new roof
and the cellblocks are in the process of protection: Cellblock One has a
new roof, Cellblocks Two and Three have metal roofs that are still
performing, Cellblocks Four and Seven are slated for new roofs, and
Cellblocks Five and Six have temporary roofs that will protect them for
the next several years.

Fundraising for preservation is paramount.

Are there any recent or forthcoming planned major repair projects? Are
there any major repairs needed to buildings or structures that have not
been planned or financed?

## 

Yes, construction on Cellblock Four and Seven will begin during 2007,
with the balance of the roof replacement planned to follow as funding is
secured.

**4b. Factors affecting the property**

If there are known factors likely to affect or threaten the outstanding
universal values of the property or there any difficulties that may be
encountered in addressing such problems through measures taken, or
proposed to be taken, please use the following is a checklist to help in
identifying factors.

*(i) Development Pressures (e.g., encroachment, modification,
agriculture, mining)*

Are there development pressures affecting the property? Or major changes
in traditional land use? Or demographic shifts, especially in sites
still in the hands of the descendants of their creators, or, for
example, traditional ethnic communities.

YES: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: [X]{.underline}

Comment:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

*(ii) Environmental pressures (e.g., pollution, climate change,
desertification)*

Are there major sources of environmental deterioration currently
affecting the property?

YES: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: [X]{.underline}

Comment:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

*(iii) Natural disasters and risk preparedness (earthquakes, floods,
fires, etc.)*

Are natural disasters likely to present a foreseeable threat to the
property? If so, are there available background data (e.g., for a
property in a seismic zone, give details of past seismic activity, or
the precise location of the property in relation to the seismic zone,
etc.)

YES: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: [X]{.underline}

Comment:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Are there contingency plans for dealing with disasters, whether by
physical protection measures or staff training?

YES: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: [X]{.underline}

Comment: In the process of development, beginning with the installation
of a new fire-protection standpipe in the fall of 2006.

*(iv) Visitor/tourism pressures*

If the property is open to visitors, is there an established or
estimated \"carrying capacity\" of the property? Can it absorb or
mitigate the current or an increased number of visitors without
significant adverse effects?

YES: [X]{.underline} NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment: Within the next ten years we believe that visitation will reach
250,000 annually, which will be easily absorbed on a twelve-acre site.

*(v) Other*

Are there any other risks or threats that could jeopardize the
property's Outstanding Universal Values?

YES: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: [X]{.underline}

Comment:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**5. PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT**

**5.a. Ownership**

Provide the name(s) and addresses of all owners:

Owner: The Department of Public Property, City of Philadelphia, PA, USA

Address: Commissioner, Department of Public Property, Room 790, City
Hall, Philadelphia, PA 19107

Lessee: Eastern State Penitentiary Historic Site, Inc. holds a renewable
twenty-year lease to operate the site.

Address: Executive Director, Eastern State Penitentiary Historic Site,
Inc., 2124 Fairmount Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19130

If any of these owners are corporations or other nongovernmental
entities, identify which are public and which private. Identify any
traditional or customary owners.

Public organization
owners:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Private organization
owners:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Traditional or customary
owners:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

If there are any other authorities with legal responsibility for
managing the property, provide their names and addresses:

Eastern State Penitentiary Historic Site, Inc., a nonprofit corporation
organized to preserve and operate Eastern State Penitentiary. Address
above.

For properties having multiple owners, is there any representative body
or agent which speaks for all owners? If so, does that representative
body or agent have authority to act on behalf of all the owners? If so,
provide the name and address of that representative body or agent:

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Are there any restrictions on public access to the property?

*Explanation: Public access is not required for inclusion in the World
Heritage List. Policies in effect should be explained, however. )*

YES: [X]{.underline} NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment: Currently the site is closed during December through March for
lack of heat, although group tours can be arranged during those months

**5.b. Protective designations**

What are the principal existing (and pending) legal measures of
protection that apply to the property?

*Explanation: List, [but do not attach]{.underline} copies of, all
relevant known or proposed legal, regulatory, contractual, planning,
institutional and/or traditional measures that affect the status of the
property: e.g., national park, wildlife refuge, historic monument,
zoning, easements, covenants, deed restrictions, State and local
historic preservation ordinances and regulations, and the like.*

List of measures: Eastern State is listed as a landmark on the
Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, and protected by Section
14-2007 (Historic Buildings, Structures, Site, Objects and Districts) of
the Philadelphia Code

Give the title and date of legal instruments and briefly summarize their
main provisions. Provide the year of designation and the legislative
act(s) under which the status is provided.

Titles, dates, and brief summaries of legal instruments: Section 14‑2007
of the Philadelphia Code, \"Historic Buildings, Structures, Sites,
Objects and Districts,\" established the Philadelphia Historical
Commission as the municipal historic preservation agency. The Commission
bears the responsibility to designate buildings, structures, sites,
objects and districts as historic, [to review and act upon all permit
applications for the alteration or demolition of designated cultural
resources]{.underline}, to make recommendations to the Mayor and City
Council to further historic preservation in the city, and to promote
public awareness of the values of historic preservation.

The Ordinance protects Eastern State Penitentiary from inappropriate
alterations and demolition. In addition, the meetings when such issues
are reviewed by the Philadelphia Historical Commission are open to the
public.

Are the protections in perpetuity or are there potential gaps in the
protection?

YES: [X]{.underline} NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Are there any traditional ways in which custom safeguards the property?

YES: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: [X]{.underline}

Comment:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

5.c. Means of implementing protective measures

Will the owner(s) be responsible for ensuring that the nominated
property will be protected in perpetuity, whether by traditional and/or
statutory agencies? If no, identify who will be responsible.

YES: [X]{.underline} NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Responsible entity other than the owner: The long-term lessee, Eastern
State Penitentiary Historic Site, Inc., in addition to the City of
Philadelphia.

What is the adequacy of resources available for this purpose? Please
briefly explain your reasoning.

Physical protection of this property requires a long-term capital plan,
which is in development by Eastern State Penitentiary Historic Site,
Inc. Fundraising for this work is ongoing.

**5.d. Existing plans related to municipality and region in which the
proposed property is located (e.g., regional or local plan, conservation
plan, tourism development plan)**

*Explanation: List, [but do not attach]{.underline}, plans of which you
are aware that have been officially adopted or are currently under
development by governmental or other agencies that you believe directly
influence the way the property is developed, conserved, used or visited.
Include the dates and agencies responsible for their preparation and
describe their general nature, including whether they have the force of
law. It is recognized that this information may be difficult to compile
and that it may be difficult to decide what to include, but the
information will be very useful in determining how well the property is
protected.*

[N/A]{.underline}

**5.e. Property management plan or other management system**

Is there a formal management plan or other management system for the
property? If yes, when was it last updated? If not, is one in
preparation and when will it be completed? (*It is not necessary to
provide copies, but a summary can be included if one is available.)*

YES: [X]{.underline} NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment: Several plans, including management, stabilization and
interpretation, launched the development as a historic and cultural site
of Eastern State in 1994. Over the past year, Eastern State Penitentiary
Historic Site, Inc. has undertaken a comprehensive project to revise
these into a long-range capital (protection, conservation and
restoration) and use (interpretive, administrative and operation) plan.
It is currently in draft form, and should be completed within the next
year.

Is this management plan or other management system being effectively
implemented?

YES: [X]{.underline} NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment: Capital improvements for historic preservation are either under
construction or ongoing according to the draft long-range plan.

**6. MONITORING**

*Because monitoring the condition of a property is not essential to a
decision as to whether a property meets the basic qualifications for
nomination to the World Heritage List, no information about the
property's monitoring program is being requested at this time. If the
property is subsequently added to the U.S. Tentative List, a set of key
indicators for assessing the property's condition, the arrangements for
monitoring it, and information on the results of past monitoring
exercises will be required to complete the l nomination of the property
for inscription on the World Heritage List.*

**7. DOCUMENTATION**

**7.a Photographs, slides, and other audiovisual materials**

If recent images (prints, slides and/or, where possible, electronically
formatted images, videos and aerial photographs) are available that give
a good general picture of the property, please provide a few photographs
and/or slides. If available, film/video, or electronic images may also
be provided. They should give a good general picture of the property and
illustrate the qualities/features that you believe justify the
nomination of the property to the World Heritage List. (Ten views or so
should be adequate for all but the most complicated properties.)

Please label the images you supply and provide a separate list of them
here, including the photographer's name. Please do not include any
copyrighted images or other images to which you do not possess the
rights or do not have permission.

Images being supplied and names of their authors: See Appendix 7.a.

Illus. 5. Penitentiary, Philadelphia, c. 1831, by C. Burton.
Hand-colored steel engraving.

Illus. 6. Samuel Cowperthwaite, convict number 2954, The State
Penitentiary for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 1855. Lithograph
by P.S. Duval and Co. The Library Company of Philadelphia.

Illus. 7. From Richard Vaux, Brief Sketch of the Origin and History of
the State Penitentiary (Philadelphia: McLaughlin Brothers, 1872) the
prisoner is caning a chair seat.

Illus. 8. Plan of Eastern Sate Penitentiary, 1837, showing Haviland\'s
design as completed in the previous year. From Demetz and Blouet, 1837.

Illus. 9. Plan of Eastern State Penitentiary in 2007. From Eastern State
Penitentiary: Historic Structures Report, Marianna Thomas Architects,
1994.

Illus. 10. Cellblock 5 Gallery Interior. Photo: Elena Bouvier, 1998.

Illus. 11. Abandoned Cell in Cellblock 2. Photo: Albert Vecerka, 2001.

Illus. 12. Restored 1830 Cell, illustrating the rear door that led to
the private, adjacent exercise yard. Photo: Tom Berault, 2001.

Illus. 13. Ariel View. Photo: Officer Christopher Clemons of the
Philadelphia Police Aviation Unit, 2006.

Illus. 14. Modern Visitors. Photo: Andrew J. Simcox, 2003.

Illus. 15. Model of a section through Cellblock One including sanitary
and heating systems in the tunnel, central corridor flanked by
individual cells each containing a toilet, feeding door, warm and fresh
air supply and stale air exhaust, a skylight, and the adjacent open-air
exercise yard. Photo: Andrew J. Simcox, 2003.

Illus. 16. Annual Visitation: 1994\--2006.

Illus. 17. Fairmount Avenue Elevation, with Administration Building,
with Only Entrance (red door). Photo: Albert Vecerka, 2001.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**8. CONTACT INFORMATION**

**8a. Preparer/Responsible Party for Contact:**

Name: [Sara Jane Elk]{.underline}

Title: [Executive Director, Eastern State Penitentiary Historic Site,
Inc.]{.underline}

Address: [2124 Fairmount Avenue]{.underline}

City, State/Territory, Zip Code: [Philadelphia, PA 19130]{.underline}

Telephone: [215-236-5111 x11]{.underline}

Cellular phone: [215-806-0328]{.underline}

Preferred Days/Hours for Contact: [M -- F, 9:00 a.m. -- 5:00
p.m.]{.underline}

Fax: [215-236-5289]{.underline}

E-mail and/or website:
[sje@easternstate.org](mailto:____sje@easternstate.org)

**8.b. Responsible Official or Local Institution/Agency**

If different from the preparer above, provide the same information for
the agency, museum, institution, community or manager locally
responsible for the management of the property. In the case of public
property, identify both the responsible official and the agency. If the
normal reporting institution is a national agency, please also provide
that contact information.

Name:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Title:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Address:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

City, State/Territory, Zip Code:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Telephone:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Cellular phone:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Fax:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

E-mail and/or website:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**9. Signatures of All Owners of Private Properties or Authorizing
Officials for Public Properties:**

Explanation: No property will be included in the U.S. World Heritage
Tentative List without the written concurrence of all its property
owners. This is because U.S. law expressly forbids nomination of such
sites. In addition, at the time of nomination, property owners must
pledge to the legal protection or the development of legal protection of
the property in perpetuity.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Signature

Joan Schlotterbeck

Typed or Printed Name

Commissioner\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Title

Date

(Please attach as many additional signature pages as may be necessary.)

[^1]: Norman Johnston, \"The World\'s Most Influential Prison: Success
    or Failure?\" *The Prison Journal* Supplement to 84 (December 2004):
    20S.

[^2]: See David Rothman, *The Discovery of the Asylum* (Boston: Little,
    Brown & Co., 1971), chap. 4, and Harry Elmer Barnes and Negley
    Teeters, *New Horizons in Criminology* (New York: Prentice-Hall,
    1945), chap. 23.

[^3]: Norman Johnston, with Kenneth Finkel and Jeffery A. Cohen,
    *Eastern State Penitentiary:* *Crucible of Good Intentions*
    (Philadelphia: Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1994), 79 and note 16, p.
    112. Also personal communication from Dr. Norman Johnston, Professor
    Emeritus, Arcadia University, March 27, 2007.

[^4]: ^4^ This argument was advanced and has been extensively supported
    and documented by David Gregory Cornelius, initially in the
    \"Eastern State Penitentiary Historic Structures Report\"
    (Philadelphia: Marianna Thomas Architects, 1994), of which he was a
    coauthor, and more recently in the \"Institutional Building Systems
    of John Haviland, A Study of Innovation and Influence*\"*
    (Philadelphia: for The Athenaeum of Philadelphia, 1999).  Copies of
    this study are on deposit at The Athenaeum and at the National Trust
    Library, University of Maryland; it is to be reprinted in the
    immediate future by The Athenaeum.

[^5]: Negley Teeters and John Shearer, The Prison at Philadelphia:
    Cherry Hill (N.Y.: Columbia University Press for Temple University
    Publications, 1957), especially chaps. 1-3.

[^6]: The absence of a current and comprehensive monograph on Haviland
    remains one of the singular lacunae of American architectural
    history. For biographical information on Haviland, refer to the
    following: Matthew Eli Baigell, \"John Haviland\" (Ph. D. diss.,
    University of Pennsylvania, 1965); Norman Johnston, \"John
    Haviland,\" in *Pioneers in Criminology*, ed. Hermann Mannheim
    (London: Stevens & Sons, 1960); Johnston, \"John Haviland, Jailor to
    the World,\" *Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians* 23
    (May 1964): 101-105; Johnston, et al., *Crucible*; and Cornelius,
    \"Innovation and Influence\". The indispensable, if highly
    incoherent, primary source for all studies of the architect are the
    John Haviland Papers, on permanent loan to the library of the
    University of Pennsylvania.

[^7]: These details of Haviland\'s life are from Johnston, \"John
    Haviland\" *Pioneers*, 92. He writes that \"Morduinoff was an
    intimate of John Howard \[see below, section 3a., p. 17\] and was at
    his bedside when he died of jail fever in the Crimea. Undoubtedly,
    Haviland heard much of the great reformer during his Russian visit
    and in his personal papers can be found copied eulogies of Howard
    and a description of his funeral (Haviland Papers, MSS. in the
    University of Pennsylvania Library).\"

[^8]: Norman Johnston, \"John Haviland,\" in *Pioneers in Criminology*,
    chap. 5.

[^9]: Teeters and Shearer, *Cherry Hill* and Norman Johnston, *Forms of
    Constraint: A History of Prison Architecture* (Urbana and Chicago:
    University of Illinois Press, 2000): 128-132.

[^10]: *Encyclopedia Londinensis* (London 1826), s.v. \"Prisons.\"

[^11]: John Haviland Papers, University of Pennsylvania, 1: 19-20.

[^12]: Jeremy Bentham, *The Panopticon Writings* (London: Verso, 1995).

[^13]: Michael Cassidy was warden from 1881 to 1900. See his *Warden
    Cassidy on Prisons and Convicts* (Philadelphia: Patterson & White,
    1897).

[^14]: Johnston, \"World\'s Most Influential Prison,\" 20S - 30S.

[^15]:
    > This was shown by the extensive studies of the disciplinary and
    > organizational aspects of the Pennsylvania system by
    > representatives of European governments. France sent two
    > magistrates, Gustave de Beaumont and Alexis de Tocqueville who
    > wrote *On the Penitentiary System in the United States*, trans.
    > Francis Lieber (Philadelphia: Carey, Lea and Blanchard, 1837). The
    > Prussian government dispatched Nicolaus H. Julius, a prominent
    > criminologist, who produced *Nordamerikas sittliche Zustände: Nach
    > eigenen Anschauungen in den Jahren 1834, 1835 und 1836* (Leipzig:
    > F.A. Brockhaus, 1839). More significantly, more extensive
    > descriptions of the Philadelphia penitentiary\'s design and
    > construction were contained in the report of the British Home
    > Office\'s emissary, William Crawford, in his *The Penitentiaries
    > of the United States* (1835; rpt. with a new introduction by
    > Norman Johnston (Montclair, N.J.: Patterson Smith, 1968). The
    > French sent four commissioners, including F.-A Demetz, a
    > magistrate and prison reformer, and G.A. Blouet, a government
    > architect. Their report, *Rapports . . .sur les pénitenciers des
    > États-Unis* was published in Paris by Imprimerie Royal in 1837.
    > Blouet\'s drawings of the Eastern and New Jersey penitentiaries,
    > based on drawings provided by Haviland, were extraordinarily
    > detailed.  Upon publication, they were exhaustively scrutinized by
    > Crawford and his colleagues developing the English model prison,
    > as well as by their Scottish and French counterparts; Blouet\'s
    > drawings established the graphic standard maintained in turn by
    > Surveyor-General of Prisons Joshua Jebb in the documentation of
    > his designs for the *Construction, Ventilation and Details of
    > Pentonville Prison* (London: Her Majesty\'s Stationery Office,
    > 1844).  Haviland\'s plan for the Eastern Penitentiary was even
    > copied line for line in the great Prussian architect Schinkel\'s
    > master plan for the Moabit district of Berlin, indicating the
    > proposed location for the Prussian model prison.

[^16]:
    > Teeters and Shearer, *Cherry Hill* and Negley Teeters, *They Were
    > in Prison: A History of the Pennsylvania Prison Society* 1787-1937
    > (Philadelphia: John C. Winston Co., 1937).

[^17]:
    > Teeters and Shearer, *Cherry Hill*, 11, and Teeters *They Were in
    > Prison*, 249.

[^18]:
    > Henry-Russel Hitchcock, *Architecture: Nineteenth and Twentieth
    > Centuries*. Pelican History of Art, edited by Nikolaus Pevsner
    > (New York: Penguin Book, 1981), 121.

[^19]:
    > George Tatum, *Macmillan Encyclopedia of Architects* (New York:
    > Free Press, 1982), vol. 2, s.v. \"Haviland, John.\"

[^20]:
    > Demetz and Blouet, *Rapports . . . sur* *les pénitenciers de
    > États-Unis*.

[^21]:
    > Crawford, *Report*. See especially xv-xvi and 11-12.

[^22]:
    > Julius, *Nordamerikas sittliche Zustände.*

[^23]:
    > For a complete explanation of these visits see Johnston, *Forms of
    > Constraint*.

[^24]:
    > In *Brief Sketch of the Origin and History of the State
    > Penitentiary for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania at
    > Philadelphia* (Philadelphia: McLaughlin Bros., 1872), by the
    > long-time member of the prison\'s Board of Inspectors, Richard
    > Vaux, it was noted that Lafayette had commented that the exterior,
    > especially the towers, reminded him too much of the Bastille. His
    > reaction was hardly surprising. A few days after the taking of the
    > Bastille by the revolutionary mob in 1789, Lafayette, as
    > commandant of the National Guard in the city, had ordered the
    > destruction of the prison. He himself was later imprisoned under
    > harsh conditions in Prussian and Austrian prisons for nearly four
    > years.

[^25]:
    > Vaux, *Brief Sketch*, 94.

[^26]:
    > Johnston, *Forms of Constraint*, chaps. 6 and 7.

[^27]:
    > Great Britain, *Second Report of the Inspectors of Prisons* (1837)
    > and *Third Report* (1838). Both are briefly summarized in
    > Crawford, *Penitentiaries* in Johnston\'s \"Introduction,\" xv.

[^28]:
    > This study extended to all aspects of Haviland\'s mechanical
    > services, which were closely copied in both the initial designs
    > for the English model prison and (in the case of heating and
    > ventilation) the Scottish general prison at Perth. The subject of
    > greatest interest for the learned reviewers, however, was
    > Haviland\'s attempts at acoustical separation of the prisoners,
    > which constituted one of the first serious studies of
    > architectural acoustics applied to absorption, rather than
    > projection, of sound. A series of mockup wall assemblies, to the
    > designs of Haviland and others, was constructed and tested; the
    > experiments were illustrated and described in an appendix to
    > Demetz and Blouet\'s *Rapports*.

[^29]:
    > For general discussion of specific prisons mentioned in Section 3
    > a. ii., see Johnston, et al. *Crucible* and Johnston, *Forms of
    > Constraint*.

[^30]:
    > Edmund Du Cane, *The Punishment and Prevention of Crime* (London:
    > Macmillan, 1885), 56.

[^31]:
    > Details of the spread of Eastern State\'s architecture and regimen
    > are in Johnston, *Forms of Constraint*, especially chapters 6 and
    > 7 and in Johnston, et al. *Crucible*, chap. 5.

[^32]:
    > Johnston, \"World\'s Most Influential Prison,\" 40S, ftnt 8.

[^33]:
    > Johnston, et al. *Crucible*, 70.

[^34]:
    > Reproduced in *Crucible*, 37.

[^35]:
    > Many of the following are depicted in the model shown in
    > Illustration 15 which reflects recent research and field
    > investigations by Cornelius.

[^36]:
    > For the importance of Reid in the development of modern heating
    > and ventilation concepts, refer to Robert Bruegmann, \"Central
    > Heating and Forced Ventilation: Origins and Effects on
    > Architectural Design,\" *Journal of the Society of Architectural
    > Historians* 337 (1978): 143-160.

[^37]:
    > Cornelius, \"Innovation and Influence,\" 6-25.

[^38]:
    > Johnston, et al. *Crucible*, 69.

[^39]:
    > For example, an immediate result of opening the Eastern
    > Penitentiary was strong agitation, led by Haviland and prominent
    > social reformers Dr. Thomas Kirkbride and Dorthea Dix, against the
    > imprisonment of the insane and for the construction of a dedicated
    > asylum for the insane in Pennsylvania. The objective was achieved
    > in 1852 by the construction of the State Lunatic Hospital in
    > Harrisburg, designed by Haviland according to the influential
    > Kirkbride echelon plan for mental hospitals. See *First Annual
    > Report of the Board of Trustees of the State Lunatic Hospital of
    > the State of Pennsylvania* (Harrisburg: Theo. Fenn & Co., 1852).