Building Conservation Branch

Cultural Resources Center

Northeast Region

National Park Service

Building 25

Enlisted Men’s Barracks

Fort Hancock, New Jersey

Sandy Hook Unit

Gateway National Recreation Area

Historic Structure Report
BUILDING 25 

ENLISTED MEN’S BARRACKS 

Fort Hancock 

HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Sandy Hook Unit 

Gateway National Recreation Area 

By 

Naomi D. Kroll 

and 

Sharon K. Ofenstein 

Building Conservation Branch 

Northeast Region, National Park Service 

U.S. Department of Interior 

Lowell, Massachusetts 

February 2002 

iii 

CONTENTS 

 LIST OF FIGURES AND CREDITS ...................................................................................vi 

 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS..........................................................................................................xii 

 I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................... 3 

 Significance................................................................................................................... 3 

 Integrity......................................................................................................................... 6 

 Research Conducted to Produce the Historic Structure Report .................................... 7 

 Major Issues Identified in the Scope of Work .............................................................. 8 

 Recommendations for Treatment or Use ...................................................................... 8 

ADMINISTRATIVE DATA................................................................................................. 10 

 Names, Numbers, and Locational Data ...................................................................... 10 

 Proposed Treatment and Source Document................................................................ 10 

 Related Studies............................................................................................................ 10

 Recommendations for Care of Materials Generated................................................... 11 

BRIEF ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION.................................................................... 12 

 II. HISTORICAL DATA ...................................................................................................... 15 

BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................... 17 

PLANNING THE FORT ...................................................................................................... 22 

 Approval and Initial Estimates................................................................................ 22

 Site Selection and Plans............................................................................................ 23

BUILDING THE FORT ....................................................................................................... 25 

 Site Preparations....................................................................................................... 25

 Construction of Buildings......................................................................................... 25

 Utilities and Landscaping......................................................................................... 29
 iv

USE OF FORT HANCOCK, 1899 - 1974 ........................................................................... 32 

III. CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT AND USE............................................... 39 

CONSTRUCTION HISTORY............................................................................................. 41 

ORIGINAL APPEARANCE................................................................................................ 44

 Exterior Elements ..................................................................................................... 44

 Design............................................................................................................. 44 

 Foundation...................................................................................................... 44 

 Walls............................................................................................................... 45 

 Porches ........................................................................................................... 45 

 Doorways........................................................................................................ 46 

 Windows......................................................................................................... 48 

 Roofs .............................................................................................................. 51 

 Finishes........................................................................................................... 52 

 Utilities ........................................................................................................... 52 

 Structural Elements.................................................................................................. 53 

 Bearing Walls ................................................................................................. 53 

 First-Floor Framing ........................................................................................ 53 

 Second-Floor Framing.................................................................................... 53 

 Attic-Floor Framing........................................................................................ 53 

 Roof Framing ................................................................................................. 54 

 Interior Elements...................................................................................................... 55 

 Basement Level .............................................................................................. 55 

 First Story ....................................................................................................... 57 

 Second Story................................................................................................... 60 

 Attic Level...................................................................................................... 63 

 Utility Systems........................................................................................................... 64 

 Heating System............................................................................................... 64 

 Plumbing System............................................................................................ 65 

 Lighting System.............................................................................................. 65 

 Ventilation System ......................................................................................... 65 
 v

ALTERATIONS.................................................................................................................... 87 

 Early Improvements and Repairs ........................................................................... 87

 Between the World Wars ....................................................................................... 102

 World War II........................................................................................................... 111

 Post-World War II.................................................................................................. 120 

 CURRENT PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION......................................................................... 149 

 Exterior Elements ................................................................................................... 149 

 Interior Elements.................................................................................................... 152 

IV. CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES

 AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................... 165

INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 167

EXTERIOR ELEMENTS................................................................................................... 168

INTERIOR ELEMENTS.................................................................................................... 171

 V. BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................... 175 

 VI. APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 179 

APPENDIX A. Cost Estimates for the Original Buildings at Fort Hancock................... 181 

APPENDIX B. Request for Quotation for Masonry Repairs, 

 Building 25, 1998................................................................................... 185 

APPENDIX C. Scope of Work for Rear Porch Rehabilitation, 

 Building 25, 1999................................................................................... 189 

APPENDIX D. Finishes Study ........................................................................................ 193 
 vi

LIST OF FIGURES AND CREDITS 

 1. Building 25: original appearance of west (front) elevation, 1896 ................................................. 13 

 2. Map of Sandy Hook, 1873, showing locations of lighthouse, old masonry fort, 

 and dock. From “Portions of Middletown and Ocean Townships,” in the Beers, 

 Comstock & Cline Atlas of Monmouth County New Jersey. Copy of original 

 at Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (catalog #Gate 2255) ................................................................... 19 

 3. Map of Sandy Hook, 1889, showing locations of roads, railroads, and structures 

 at Sandy Hook Proving Ground. From “Map of Sandy Hook, New Jersey. 

 Including the United States Reservation in Charge of the Engineer Department,” 

 June-July 1889. Surveyed and drawn under direction of Lieut. Col. G.L. Gillespie. 

 Original at the National Archives (RG77, DR 44, ST 106)........................................................... 20 

 4. Map of Sandy Hook, 1892, showing proving ground structures, and the first two 

 batteries built for Fort Hancock. Detail of “Map of Sandy Hook, N.J.,” June 30, 

 1892, “showing location of Gun Lift Battery and Mortar Battery and Track- 

 connection with dock for hauling material.” Tracing made from survey map 

 of January 30, 1892. Prepared by the Corps of Engineers, U.S.A., Lieut. 

 Colonel G.L. Gillespie. Original at the National Archives (RG 77, OR 77, 

 ST 113); copy at Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook .............................................................................. 21 

 5. “Fort Hancock, Sandy Hook, New Jersey,” ca. 1900. Map showing the first 36 

 buildings constructed at Fort Hancock. Drawn by J.M. Hilton, Quartermaster 

 General’s Office. Original at the National Archives (RG 77); copy at Gateway 

 NRA, Sandy Hook......................................................................................................................... 31 

 6. “Fort Hancock, New Jersey,” March 21, 1908. Map showing the fort after the 

 construction of the separate mess halls. Drawn by J.H. Pearson, Superintendent 

 of Construction, Quartermaster General's Office. Original at the National 

 Archives (RG 92, Blueprint file #4); copy at Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook .................................. 36 

 7. “U.S. Military Reservation, Fort Hancock, Sandy Hook and Vicinity of 

 Highlands, New Jersey,” May 31, 1927. Map showing the layout of the fort 

 between the World Wars. Drawn by the Army Corps of Engineers. Gateway 

 NRA, Sandy Hook (catalog #Gate 10647) .................................................................................... 37 

 8. “Site Plan of Fort Hancock, Highlands, New Jersey,” reprinted March 1967. 

 Map showing expansion of the fort after World War II. Prepared under the 

 direction of the First Army Engineer. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (catalog 

 #Gate 9020) ................................................................................................................................... 38 
 vii

The following 13 figures are part of Plan 107, “Barrack Building,” drawn under the direction of the 

Quartermaster General’s Office and dated August 1896. They are filed in “Standard Plans, Army 

Post Buildings, 1891-1918,” Record Group 77, National Archives, with copies at Gateway NRA, 

Sandy Hook. 

 9. Original construction drawing, west elevation (sheet no. 1) ......................................................... 66 

10. Original construction drawing, east elevation (sheet no. 2) .......................................................... 67 

11. Original construction drawing, transverse section and end elevation (sheet no. 3)....................... 68 

12. Original construction drawing, basement plan (sheet no. 4) ......................................................... 69 

13. Original construction drawing, first -floor plan (sheet no. 5)........................................................ 70 

14. Original construction drawing, second-floor plan (sheet no. 6) .................................................... 71 

15. Original construction drawing, details of main cornice and windows (sheet no. 7)...................... 72 

16. Original construction drawing, details of front and rear porches and cornices (sheet no. 8) ........ 73 

17. Original construction drawing, details of exterior doorways and windows (sheet no. 9) ............. 74 

18. Original construction drawing, details of interior doorways, stairway, iron columns, 

 cellar windows, and coal chute (sheet no. 10). .............................................................................. 75

19. Original construction drawing, details of interior partitions, moldings, wainscot, and 

 shelves and gun rack in armory (sheet no. 11) .............................................................................. 76 

20. Original construction drawing, details of pantry shelving, mess furnishings, and 

 dormitory lockers (sheet no. 12).................................................................................................... 77 

21. Original construction drawing, steam heating plan (sheet no. 13) ................................................ 78 

The following seven photographs were owned and donated to Gateway NRA by the family of William 

F. Oehler (1876-1971). He was a member of the 52nd Coast Artillery, and he appears standing next 

to Building 25 in figure 24. The 52nd Coast Artillery was housed in Building 25 until it left Fort 

Hancock on April 8, 1901. 

22. Buildings 23-25, view of west elevations, looking north, ca. 1900. Photograph 

 shows details of front porches and pavilion downspouts. Gateway NRA, Sandy 

 Hook (catalog #Gate 807).............................................................................................................. 79 

23. Building 24, view of southeast corner, looking north, ca. 1900. Photograph 

 shows details of cornice and rear porch. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook 

 (catalog #Gate 805)........................................................................................................................ 80 

24. Building 25, view of southeast corner of rear porch, ca. 1900. Photograph 

 shows details of porch foundation, steps, and columns. Gateway NRA, Sandy 

 Hook (catalog #Gate 829).............................................................................................................. 81 
 viii

25. Building 25, northeast corner of mess room, ca. 1900. Photograph shows 

 doorways to hall and kitchen, and pass-through to pantry. Gateway NRA, 

 Sandy Hook (catalog #Gate 810)................................................................................................... 82 

26. Building 25, northeast corner of kitchen, ca. 1900. Photograph shows 

 five-panel door and hood over range. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook 

 (catalog #Gate 811)........................................................................................................................ 83 

27. Building 25, interior of dormitory, ca. 1900. Photograph shows partition 

 screening NCO rooms, and original wooden lockers. Gateway NRA, 

 Sandy Hook (catalog #Gate 813)................................................................................................... 84 

28. Building 25, interior of dormitory, ca. 1900. Photograph shows partition 

 screening NCO rooms, original wooden lockers, and original radiator. 

 Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (catalog #Gate 814) ......................................................................... 85 

Some of the following historic photographs do not depict Building 25, but rather one of the other 

three original barracks. These photographs have been included in this report because they provide 

information on the possible appearance of the same areas in Building 25. The captions for these 

figures will simply say “Barracks.” 

29. Barracks, view of west pavilion, ca. 1901. Photograph shows details of front 

 steps and first story. Tom Mix, the future cowboy movie star, is at center front. 

 Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (catalog #Gate 7090) ....................................................................... 86 

30. View of Fort Hancock from the top of Sandy Hook Light, looking west. 

 Photograph shows the new mess halls built behind the barracks in 1905. 

 Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (catalog #Gate 16865) ..................................................................... 94 

31. Basement plan, 1907-08, showing proposed recreation room. Based on original 

 construction drawing sheet no. 4, 1896. From National Archives, RG 92; copy 

 at Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook...................................................................................................... 95 

32. First-floor plan, 1908, showing changes in room use, and proposed alterations to 

 floors and lavatory. Based on original construction drawing sheet no. 5, 1896. 

 From National Archives, RG 92; copy at Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook........................................ 96 

33. Plan titled “Remodeling Plumbing in Barracks Nos. 22-23-24-25, Fort 

 Hancock, N.J.,” August 1908. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook........................................................ 97 

34. Second-floor plan, 1908, showing proposed alterations to floors. Based on 

 original construction drawing sheet no. 6, 1896. From National Archives, 

 RG 92; copy at Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook ................................................................................ 98 

35. Building 23, interior of dormitory, ca. 1908. The date is derived from the presence 

 of metal wall lockers (installed here in 1907) and a footlocker belonging to 

 Company 55, which left Fort Hancock in February 1909. Photograph also shows 

 original partition screening NCO rooms, original metal ceiling and wooden lockers, 

 and 1902 electric light fixtures. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (catalog #Gate 8147) ................... 99 
 ix

36. Two-company barracks (Building 74), interior of dormitory, ca. 1909-14. 

 Photograph shows wooden lockers. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (catalog 

 #Gate 4263) ................................................................................................................................. 100 

37. View of main parade ground, looking southeast, ca. 1912. Photograph shows 

 west and north elevations of all four original barracks, and new troop quarters 

 built in 1908-09. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (catalog #Gate 16863) ...................................... 101 

38. Building 25, interior of dormitory, ca. 1929. Photograph shows members of 

 the 7th Coast Artillery Headquarters Battery, a unit quartered in Building 25 

 from 1927 to 1930. Photograph also shows (at rear left) a doorway leading 

 to the center hall. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (catalog #Gate 1978) ....................................... 106 

39. Building 25, interior of dormitory (probably original day room) during 

 occupancy by the 52nd Headquarters Battery, 1937. Gateway NRA, 

 Sandy Hook (catalog #Gate 1971)...............................................................................................107 

40. View of main parade ground, looking east, 1938. Photograph shows west 

 elevation of Building 25. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (catalog #Gate 1133) ........................... 108 

41. Building 25, plan of first floor, ca. 1938-42. Fort Hancock Post Record Book, 

 p. 120. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (catalog #Gate 221) .......................................................... 109 

42. Building 25, plan of second floor, ca. 1938-42. Fort Hancock Post Record Book, 

 p. 121. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (catalog #Gate 221) .......................................................... 110 

43. View of main parade ground, looking northeast, 1943. Photograph shows 

 part of southwest corner of Building 25. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook 

 (catalog #Gate 1943-404) ............................................................................................................ 113 

44. Members of the Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps (WAAC) take the Oath of 

 Allegiance to become members of the newly created Women’s Army Corps 

 (WAC), September 1943. Photograph shows the second story of Building 

 25’s pavilion. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (catalog #Gate 3452) ............................................. 114 

45. Members of the Women’s Army Corps celebrating their new status as full 

 members of the Army, by crossing out the second “A” in “WAAC,” 1943. 

 Photograph shows details of Building 25’s pavilion. Gateway NRA, Sandy 

 Hook (catalog #Gate 1943-683) .................................................................................................. 115 

46. Building 25, interior of dormitory, September 21, 1943. Gateway NRA, 

 Sandy Hook (catalog #Gate 1943-905) ....................................................................................... 116 

47. Building 25, interior, September 21, 1943. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook 

 (catalog #Gate 1943-904) ............................................................................................................ 117 

48. Members of the Women’s Army Corps, 1944. Photograph shows part of Building 

 25’s pavilion. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (catalog #Gate 1944-302)...................................... 118 
 x

49. Members of the Women’s Army Corps and their escorts, 1943-45. Photograph 

 shows front doorway of Building 25. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (catalog 

 #Gate 3467) ................................................................................................................................. 119 

50. Building 24, southeast corner of dormitory, 1956. Photograph shows beds and 

 lockers. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (catalog #Gate 11213)..................................................... 127 

51. Basement floor plan, 1959. Part of a drawing titled “Permanent Building Plan, 

 Building No. 23, 24 Barracks,” September 24, 1959. Prepared by the Office 

 of the Post Engineer; drawing #700-425. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook 

 (catalog #Gate 9705).................................................................................................................... 128 

52. First-floor plan, 1959. Part of a drawing titled “Permanent Building Plan, 

 Building No. 23, 24 Barracks,” September 24, 1959. Prepared by the Office 

 of the Post Engineer; drawing #700-425. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook 

 (catalog #Gate 9705).................................................................................................................... 129 

53. Second-floor plan, 1959. Part of a drawing titled “Permanent Building Plan, 

 Building No. 23, 24 Barracks,” September 24, 1959. Prepared by the Office 

 of the Post Engineer; drawing #700-425. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook 

 (catalog #Gate 9705).................................................................................................................... 130 

54. Drawing titled “Rehabilitation of Latrine, Building No. 25,” July 18, 1960. 

 Prepared by the Office of the Post Engineer; drawing #CFH-4-61. Gateway 

 NRA, Sandy Hook (catalog #Gate 9606...................................................................................... 131 

55. Basement floor plan, 1964. Part of a drawing titled “Permanent Building, 

 Building No. 25, Brigade Hdqtrs. Bldg.,” May 6, 1964. Prepared by the 

 Office of the Post Engineer; drawing #700-497. Gateway NRA, Sandy 

 Hook (catalog #Gate 10368)........................................................................................................ 132 

56. First-floor plan, 1964. Part of a drawing titled “Permanent Building, 

 Building No. 25, Brigade Hdqtrs. Bldg.,” May 6, 1964. Prepared by the 

 Office of the Post Engineer; drawing #700-497. Gateway NRA, Sandy 

 Hook (catalog #Gate 10368)........................................................................................................ 133 

57. Second-floor plan, 1964. Part of a drawing titled “Permanent Building, 

 Building No. 25, Brigade Hdqtrs. Bldg.,” May 6, 1964. Prepared by the 

 Office of the Post Engineer; drawing #700-497. Gateway NRA, Sandy 

 Hook (catalog #Gate 10368)........................................................................................................ 134 

58. Drawing titled “New Fire Escape Ladder to be Installed Rear Bldg. No. 25,” 

 June 9, 1964. Prepared by the Office of the Post Engineer; drawing #CFH 

 32-64. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (catalog #Gate 9603)......................................................... 135 

59. Drawing titled “New Masonry Steps and Porch Deck, Bldg. No. 25,” September 

 3, 1964. Prepared by the Office of the Post Engineer; drawing #CFH 10-65. 

 Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (catalog #Gate 9604) ..................................................................... 136 
 xi

60. Army Reserve sign. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (catalog #Gate 907.14) ................................ 137 

61. West elevation, 1976. Part of a drawing titled “Building Elevations, One Company 

 Barracks,” September 17, 1976. Drawing no. 646/25,000, package no. 109, sheet 

 10 of 19. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (catalog #Gate 9186)..................................................... 138 

62. North elevation, 1976. Part of a drawing titled “Building Elevations, One Company 

 Barracks,” September 17, 1976. Drawing no. 646/25,000, package no. 109, sheet 

 10 of 19. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (catalog #Gate 9186)..................................................... 139 

63. East elevation, 1976. Part of a drawing titled “Building Elevations, One Company 

 Barracks,” September 17, 1976. Drawing no. 646/25,000, package no. 109, sheet 

 10 of 19. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (catalog #Gate 9186)..................................................... 140 

64. South elevation, 1976. Part of a drawing titled “Building Elevations, One Company 

 Barracks,” September 17, 1976. Drawing no. 646/25,000, package no. 109, sheet 

 10 of 19. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (catalog #Gate 9186)..................................................... 141 

65. “Details and Sections, One Company Barracks and Battery Gunnison,” September 

 17, 1976. Drawing no. 646/25,000, package no. 109, sheet 11 of 19. Gateway NRA, 

 Sandy Hook (catalog #Gate 9187)...............................................................................................142

66. “Details, One Company Barracks,” September 17, 1976. Drawing no. 646/25,000, 

 package no. 109, sheet 12 of 19. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (catalog #Gate 9188)................ 143 

67. “Details and Sections, One Company Barracks,” September 17, 1976. Drawing 

 no. 646/25,000, package no. 109, sheet 13 of 19. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook 

 (catalog #Gate 9189).................................................................................................................... 144 

68. First-floor plan, October 20, 1998. NPS drawing by David Crotty. Sheet 

 one of a set of four drawings titled “Building 25 Rehab.” Gateway NRA, 

 Sandy Hook ................................................................................................................................. 145 

69. Second-floor plan, December 23, 1998. NPS drawing by David Crotty. 

 Sheet two of a set of four drawings titled “Building 25 Rehab.” Gateway 

 NRA, Sandy Hook....................................................................................................................... 146 

70. East elevation, January 14, 1999. NPS drawing by David Crotty. Sheet 

 three of a set of four drawings titled “Building 25 Rehab.” Gateway 

 NRA, Sandy Hook....................................................................................................................... 147 

71. Section of rear porch, December 14, 1998. NPS drawing by David Crotty. 

 Sheet four of a set of four drawings titled “Building 25 Rehab.” Gateway 

 NRA, Sandy Hook....................................................................................................................... 148 

72. Plan of first story, showing assigned room numbers. NPS drawing by David 

 Crotty, October 20, 1998, Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook; annotated by Naomi 

 D. Kroll........................................................................................................................................ 158 
 xii

73. Plan of second story, showing assigned room numbers. NPS drawing by David 

 Crotty, December 23, 1998, Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook; annotated by Naomi 

 D. Kroll........................................................................................................................................ 159 

74. West elevation, showing replacement box cornice and fire escape............................................. 160 

75. East elevation, first-story doorway, showing perimeter infill with replacement door 

 and original transom .................................................................................................................... 160 

76. North side of basement, partition and laundry sinks in northeast corner..................................... 161 

77. North side of basement, center of ceiling, showing concrete slab flanked by concrete 

 beams (added to support concrete floor in first-story lavatory)................................................... 161 

78. North side of basement, possible remnants of original gas jet .................................................... 162 

79. Doorway from side hall to mess room, showing perimeter infill for replacement door 

 and covered transom.................................................................................................................... 162 

80. Pantry cupboard doors stored in south side of attic..................................................................... 163

81. South dormitory, showing 1964 partitions .................................................................................. 163 

82. Doorway from center hall to south dormitory, showing perimeter infill with 

 replacement door and painted transom ........................................................................................ 164 

83. South side of attic, south wall, showing interior construction of opening for oculus ................. 164 
 xiii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

 The preparation of this report would not have been possible without the cheerful, patient 

cooperation of several staff members at the Sandy Hook Unit, Gateway National Recreation Area. 

Chief of Interpretation and Cultural Resources Lou Venuto provided direction and coordinated the 

efforts of his staff. Michael Thomas, Cultural Resources Specialist, assisted us during our site visits. 

Curator Mary (Trocchia) Rasa was absolutely invaluable in providing historic photographic and graphic 

documentation for the report. Finally, historian Thomas Hoffman and architect David Crotty answered 

numerous questions about the military and architectural history of Barracks 25, respectively. 

 Sharon K. Ofenstein 

 Naomi D. Kroll 

1

I. INTRODUCTION

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Significance 

Building 25 is a contributing structure to the Fort Hancock and Sandy Hook Proving Ground 

Historic District National Landmark, which was listed in the National Register of Historic Places on 

April 24, 1980, and designated a National Historic Landmark on December 17, 1982. The district 

includes approximately 380 acres and 90 significant historic buildings, as noted in the National 

Register nomination. The structures represent the “history of the U.S. Army’s Ordnance Department 

Proving Ground and Fort Hancock Military Reservation.”1

 Building 25 was among the first 

structures built after the site was designated Fort Hancock in 1895. Constructed in 1897-98 to house 

and support troops who manned the post’s batteries, it was one of the 32 buildings included in the 

carefully designed 1896 master plan for Fort Hancock. 

National Register of Historic Places

Fort Hancock is one of three components (Fort Hancock, Sandy Hook Proving Ground, and 

the Sandy Hook lighthouse) within the historic district. It is primarily recognized for its role in the 

defensive network protecting New York Harbor. The National Register denotes the district’s period 

of significance as spanning from 1859, the date of the first masonry fort at the site, to the 1960’s, 

when the importance of the site’s Nike missile defenses declined. The period from 1890 through 

1908 saw hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on construction and armament of seacoast and 

mortar batteries at Sandy Hook.2

 The fortifications continued to be improved all the way through the 

Cold War in the 1950’s and 1960’s, including the emplacement of Nike missiles beginning in 1954.3

 

Thus, 

The Sandy Hook Defenses (Fort Hancock) for nearly 80 years were the key 

fortification guarding the approaches to America’s most important harbor 

and its largest metropolis. It was during these years that the United States 

defeated Spain and emerged as a world power; tipped the scales against the 

Central Powers in World War I; retreated into the isolation of the 1920’s and 

[19]30’s; and emerged from World War II as a superpower.4

 1

 Statement of Significance, National Register of Historic Places nomination, “Fort Hancock and the Sandy 

Hook Proving Ground Historic District” (Richard E. Greenwood, June 28, 1976). 

2

 Statement of Significance, National Register nomination. 

3

 “The Defenses of Sandy Hook” (NPS pamphlet, Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook Unit). 

4

 Statement of Significance, National Register nomination. 
4

National Historic Landmark

The district was given National Historic Landmark (NHL) status on December 17, 1982. 

Landmark status was awarded because: 

Fort Hancock and Sandy Hook Proving Ground Historic District reflects the 

history of a vital defense installation guarding New York City and its harbor 

from 1895 to 1974. This Landmark played a key role in the development of 

advanced weaponry and radar....5

The landmark designation elected to recognize the site’s significance from the time period of 

Fort Hancock’s original commission in 1895 (excluding any earlier fortification) to the time of the 

fort’s deactivation in 1974. 

Park Legislation

The Congressional act that established Gateway National Recreation Area did not cite the 

historical merit or period of significance of any of the area’s cultural resources as a reason to 

preserve and protect the tracts involved. 

General Management Plan

 A period of significance for the buildings of Fort Hancock is not specifically identified in the 

park’s 1979 general management plan (GMP). It does state the following: 

Fort Hancock served as an important component of the national defense 

system from before the Spanish-American War through the early Cold War 

period, when a Nike missile base was installed.... The buildings in the main 

part of Fort Hancock...are of considerable historical and visual interest.”6

 5

 Statement of Significance, National Historic Landmark Program web site (http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm? 

ResourceId=1828&ResourceType=District). Prior to the awarding of NHL status, the nomination was amended (by 

Harry Butowski, dated June 20, 1982) to expand the district to include the entire Sandy Hook peninsula, except for 

South, Plum, and Skeleton islands. This work incorporated the U.S. Coast Guard area that was omitted from the 

original nomination. 

6 General Management Plan, Gateway National Recreation Area, New York/New Jersey. U.S. Department of 

the Interior, National Park Service, August 1979, p. 13. 
5

 A decade later, an amendment to the 1979 GMP was prepared to evaluate and update 

“planning, design, and management strategies for the Sandy Hook unit to ensure that its resource 

management and visitor use programs reflect current administrative policies and economic realities.”7

 

The amendment introduced the concept of private-sector involvement in the restoration and reuse of 

the northern portion of the unit, in order to “preserve the historic character of the fort 

through...adaptive use of as many structures as possible.”8

 The amendment states that Sandy Hook contains 219 historic structures dating “from the last 

quarter of the 19th through the first half of the 20th century.” Included among the fort’s most 

significant cultural resources are the “original buff-brick buildings surrounding both parade 

grounds,” of which Building 25 is one.9

Historic Structure Report

 A historic structure report (HSR) completed in 1988 for all of the parade-ground structures 

defined the historical significance of Fort Hancock as follows: 

The historical significance of Fort Hancock lies in the history of coastal 

defense structures in the United States, with other significant structures 

remaining associated with the first official United States Army proving 

ground....10

 The report cites a July 7, 1977, memorandum entitled “Preservation at Fort Hancock, Sandy 

Hook,” which reflects decisions made at a June 1977 meeting convened by Regional Director Jack 

Stark of all interested NPS personnel to reach agreement on the historical period for restoration and 

interpretation. This memorandum states that parade-ground structures should be restored to the 

World War -II period. However, the HSR urges caution in adopting any one restoration period for all 

of the structures, since the amount of documentation available for each individual structure may not 

be adequate to support that particular date. Instead, the HSR suggests “the structures at Fort 

Hancock should be restored to any point in their history, based on careful case study of each 

structure.”11

 7 General Management Plan Amendment, Development Concept Plan and Interpretive Prospectus: Sandy Hook 

Unit, Gateway National Recreation Area, New York/New Jersey (National Park Service, January 1990), p. 1. 

Hereinafter GMP Amendment.

8 GMP Amendment, p. 8. 

9 GMP Amendment, p. 4. 

10 Douglas S. Walter, Barry Sulam, Susan Simpson, and John B. Marsh, Historic Structure Report, Architectural 

Data Section (Volume I), Fort Hancock Parade Ground Structures, 1896-1899, Sandy Hook Unit, Gateway National 

Recreation Area, New Jersey (Denver: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver Service 

Center, Aug. 1988), p. 10. Hereinafter HSR. 

11 HSR, pp. 3-5. 
6

Building 25 and Its Context of Significance

Building 25 is significant within the context of the National Register nomination, the 

National Historic Landmark designation. It was one of the 32 original structures built at Fort 

Hancock in the 1890’s. It played a key role as a barracks for the troops manning the Fort Hancock 

defenses throughout the history of the fort. It has particular significance related to the World War-II 

period, when it was the barracks of the post’s first Women’s Army Corps contingent. Its military 

associations even continued beyond the fort’s deactivation in 1974, since it was still being used after 

that date for U.S. Army Reserve activities. 

Integrity 

 Integrity, in this context, is defined as the authenticity of a property’s historic identity, 

evidenced by the survival of physical characteristics that existed during its historic period; i.e., the 

extent to which a property retains its historic appearance.12 This HSR recognizes the years 1898-

1974 as the broad period of significance–or historic period–for Building 25. Thus, all original 

features and treatments, and all alterations made prior to 1974, are part of the “historic” appearance 

of the structure. (This would include the ca.-1964 conversion of the interior of the barracks to 

offices.) The most notable of the original elements and historic alterations are considered to be 

“character-defining features.” Character-defining features (CDFs) are elements or treatments that 

date to the period of significance, and which give a structure its distinction and character; they are 

elements whose loss would diminish or destroy the structure’s architectural or historical integrity.13 

The CDFs for Building 25 are discussed in greater detail in Chapter IV. 

 Extant original elements of Building 25 were relatively easy to identify. Documentation that 

aided this work included the original construction drawings and historic photographs. In addition, 

the fact that Building 25 was one of four identical enlisted men’s barracks built next to each other 

offered a unique opportunity to compare and evaluate the appearance of existing features in the 

different buildings. Obtaining dates for alterations was much more difficult, due to a lack of specific 

available documentation. 

Building 25 was found to retain a high degree of integrity from its period of construction 

through 1974, in terms of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. 

As explained by the draft historic structure report for the parade-ground structures, 

The buildings remaining from the 1898-99 construction program form a 

strong totality, being built of identical materials, being of compatible design, 

and being sited to enclose and define several spaces (parade ground, north

 12 D.O. 28: Cultural Resource Management Guideline, Release No. 5 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

the Interior, National Park Service, 1997), p. 184. 

13 Carole L. Perrault and Judith A. Quinn [Sullivan], Building 19 Historic Structure Report, Springfield Armory 

National Historic Site, Springfield, Massachusetts (Boston: NPS, Building Conservation Branch, Cultural Resources 

Center, 1991), Vol. I, pp. 216-216. 
7

 parade ground, [and] Kearney Road). Despite all changes over the years, 

the effect intended 80 years ago still comes through.14

Notable original exterior elements of Building 25 itself include the entire envelope of the 

building, with its distinctive wall material of buff-colored brick, projecting front entrance pavilion, 

and symmetrical doorway and window openings. The most notable original exterior features missing 

today are the two-story front porches and the one-story rear porch. (The rear porch in place today is 

a reconstruction, not a replica.) 

Notable original interior elements remaining include the basic first- and second-floor plans, 

extraordinary stamped-metal ceilings in all first- and second-story rooms, molded doorway and 

window surrounds, and matchboard wainscot in the hallways. Sashes appear to be appropriate if not 

original. The most significant original interior features missing today are the five-paneled doors; 

most of these have been replaced with smaller doors, with the doorway openings being partially 

infilled to match. Much of the south basement has been altered, where concrete-block partitions and 

a walk-in safe have been created. 

Research Conducted to Produce the Historic Structure Report 

 This historic structure report (HSR) is intended to guide the rehabilitation of Building 25, 

through (a) the documentation of its evolution, (b) the evaluation of architectural fabric relative to the 

building’s period of significance, and (c) the identification of character-defining features. The level 

of research for this HSR is classified as a combination of limited and thorough, both as defined in 

Director’s Order 28. Archival research was limited primarily to Gateway National Recreation Area 

(NRA) archives, since these appear to contain copies of much historic documentation extracted from 

the National Archives by previous research efforts.15 This material includes historical documents, 

photographs, and maps. Also reviewed were all existing reports and documents at the Northeast 

Cultural Resources Center and the Boston Support Office. 

 14 Douglas S. Walter, Barry Sulam, and Susan Simpson, Architectural Data Section, Historic Structures Report, 

Part One, Fort Hancock Parade Ground Structures, 1896-1899, Sandy Hook Unit, Gateway National Recreation 

Area [Draft] (Denver: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver Service Center, Feb. 1979), 

pp. 4-5. Hereinafter HSR Draft. 

15 The most extensive of these was that conducted by NPS historian Edwin C. Bearss for his Historic Resource 

Study, Fort Hancock, 1895-1948, Gateway National Recreation Area, New York/New Jersey (Denver: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, May 1981); hereinafter HRS, 1895-1948. He states that he 

performed “an exhaustive search for primary materials” at the National Archives and the Washington National 

Records Center in Suitland, MD. Copies of all plans and specifications were ostensibly to the Denver Service 

Center and Gateway NRA. Bearss also examined copies of the Artillery Journal and the Coast Artillery Journal. 
8

 The level of physical investigation, on the other hand, was classified as “thorough.” Exterior 

and interior architectural descriptions have been provided. A list of (CDFs) identifies those elements 

and features that should be preserved or their alteration avoided.16 A condition assessment is not part 

of the HSR, but will be addressed by the architectural/engineering firm hired for the rehabilitation. 

Major Issues Identified in the Scope of Work 

 All issues identified in the scope of work are addressed in this HSR. The basic goals of the 

project were: (a) to determine the basic structural evolution and history of the building; (b) to 

document the existing architectural conditions; (c) to identify the character-defining features; and (d) 

to provide a written report of the investigative findings. 

 A broader directive was to discuss the period of significance of the structure, which has 

received different characterizations in various discussions and publications. Another requirement 

was to discuss how the period of significance will influence the park’s intention to rehabilitate the 

structure for use as a visitor center, with education facilities, offices for interpretive and culturalresource operations, and storage for some of the park’s museum collection. The primary concern is 

to formulate the proper treatment for Building 25. Given the GMP-specified treatment of 

rehabilitation, the exterior could be rehabilitated, preserved, or restored. The selection of 

preservation would not call for the reconstruction of the dismantled west porches, while the choice of 

restoration would require their rebuilding. It will also be important to reconcile the proposed new 

use of the structure with the physical changes required for treatment, in order to ensure that 

character-defining features are maintained. It is also important to recognize the park’s plan to paint 

the exteriors of all structures with pre-World War II paint colors. In the case of Building 25, the 

same color scheme was used from the 1930’s into at least the 1950’s. 

Recommendations for Treatment or Use 

 The proposed rehabilitation of the structure for use as a visitor center, and as a location for 

park offices and collections, is in agreement with available planning documents regarding the 

management of cultural resources at the Sandy Hook Unit of Gateway NRA. The GMP amendment 

of 1990 states that the management objective is to 

preserve the historic character of the fort through a joint public/private 

venture involving adaptive use of as many structures as possible.17

 16 Kay D. Weeks and Anne E. Grimmer, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties, with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings

(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resource Stewardship and 

Partnerships, Historic Preservation Services, 1995), p. 62. 

17 GMP Amendment, p. 8. 
9

A further goal is to “retain the integrity of the historic scene and to provide adaptive use through 

rehabilitation of historic structures.”18

 The proposed reuse is also consistent with the treatment recommended for Building 25 in the 

List of Classified Structures (LCS)—i.e., rehabilitation. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 

for the Treatment of Historic Properties defines rehabilitation as follows: 

the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through 

repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features 

which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values.19

Additional information is provided by the National Park Service’s cultural-resource 

management guideline, which states that 

Rehabilitation improves the utility or function of a historic structure, through 

repair or alteration, to make possible a compatible contemporary use while 

preserving those portions or features that are important in defining its 

significance.20

 The treatment of rehabilitation would permit the proposed restoration of the exterior of 

Building 25. This action would include the reconstruction of the building’s original porches, which 

were important character-defining features prior to their removal in 1989-90. D.O. 28 requires only 

that “Repair or replacement of missing features is substantiated by archeological, documentary, or 

physical evidence.” Ample documentary and physical evidence for the porches does exist, ranging 

from original measured drawings to actual pieces saved at the time of removal. The treatment of 

rehabilitation would likewise permit the proposed use of the interior of Building 25 for a visitor 

center, park offices, and collections. All rehabilitation activities should minimize any adverse effects 

on the existing character-defining features of the building. 

 18 GMP Amendment, p. 9. 

19 Weeks and Grimmer, p. 61. 

20 D.O. 28, p. 129. 
10

ADMINISTRATIVE DATA 

Names, Numbers, and Locational Data 

Building 25 is part of Fort Hancock, situated on Sandy Hook, New Jersey. The “Hook” is a 

long, slender sandbar that extends northward more than six miles from the New Jersey seacoast into 

Lower New York Harbor. It is located in Monmouth County, New Jersey. Most of the peninsula is a 

unit of Gateway National Recreation Area. The northern tip is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. 

Coast Guard, which maintains a station there. 

LSC ID number: 08450 

Park structure no.: SH-025 

Number of UTM’s: 1 Zone/Easting/Northing 

Proposed Treatment and Source Document 

The List of Classified Structures places Building 25 in the Management Category “Must Be 

Preserved and Maintained.” The approved ultimate treatment for the structure is rehabilitation; 

Building 25 is part of the rehabilitation zone described in the General Management Plan (GMP) 

Amendment of 1990. 

Related Studies 

 Extant studies that examine Barracks 25 include the following: 

Edwin C. Bearss, Historic Resource Study, Fort Hancock, 1895-1948, Gateway National 

Recreation Area, New York/New Jersey (Denver: U.S. Department of the Interior, National 

Park Service, May 1981). 

General Management Plan Amendment: Development Concept Plan and Interpretive 

Prospectus: Sandy Hook Unit, Gateway National Recreation Area, New York/New Jersey

(NPS, January 1990). 

Richard E. Greenwood, National Register of Historic Places nomination, “Fort Hancock and 

the Sandy Hook Proving Ground Historic District,” June 28, 1976. 

Historic Structure Assessment Report, Fort Hancock–Building 25, Barracks, Gateway 

National Recreation Area, Sandy Hook Unit (Douglasville, GA: Architectural Conservation 

Center,1989-1990). 
11

Douglas S. Walter, Barry Sulam, Susan Simpson, and John B. Marsh, Historic Structure 

Report, Architectural Data Section (Volume I), Fort Hancock Parade Ground Structures, 

1896-99, Sandy Hook Unit, Gateway National Recreation Area (Denver: U.S. Department of 

the Interior, National Park Service, Denver Service Center, August 1988). 

Recommendations for Care of Materials Generated 

Most of the materials were copies of documents in Gateway NRA files. The research 

materials gathered during the production of this report will be filed at the Northeast Building 

Conservation Branch (NBCB) in Lowell, MA. Copies of any new research material obtained will be 

sent to the park. Photographs, drawings, and text used for the purposes of report publication will 

remain at the NBCB. Copies of the final unpublished report will be kept at the park and the NBCB. 

Copies of the published report, when they become available, will be kept at park, the NBCB, and the 

Denver Service Center’s Technical Information Center. 
12

BRIEF ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION 

 Building 25 is located along the north edge of the main parade ground, facing west across the 

parade ground toward Officers’ Row and to Sandy Hook Bay beyond. The main block of the 

structure is a long, two-story, gable-roofed rectangle oriented north-south; a pedimented projecting 

pavilion is centered on the west elevation. The foundation consists of a rough ashlar trap rock–

probably rhyolite–obtained from the Hudson Palisades. Between the foundation and the wall surface 

is a limestone water table. The walls are of buff-colored brick with very thin mortar joints and a 

heavily molded cornice at the eaves. Doorway and window openings are arranged symmetrically. 

Most window openings are rectangular, with hidden steel lintels supporting buff-brick jack arches 

and 12-over-12 double-hung sashes. A Palladian-like window ornaments the second story of the 

pavilion, while elliptical oculi are used in the gable of the pavilion, and in the north and south gable 

ends of the main block. Only portions remain of two original two-story porches that ran the full 

length of west (front) elevation on either side of the projecting pavilion. A one-story porch that 

covers the center four bays of the east (rear) elevation is a 2000 reconstruction. The roof is clad with 

asphalt shingles, and features one conical galvanized-steel ventilator (a second one is missing) and a 

corbeled brick chimney. The interior contains two stories, a full basement, and an unfinished attic. 

Structural elements include brick bearing walls and timber framing. 

 Stylistically, Building 25 exhibits classic Colonial Revival characteristics. The exaggerated 

cornice and its returns, the corbeled brick chimney, the limestone belt course, the 12-over-12 window 

sashes, the jack-arch window lintels, and the yellow color of the brick all may be interpreted as 

Colonial Revival features. 
13

Figure 1. Building 25: original appearance of west (front) elevation. 

15

II. HISTORICAL DATA

 17

BACKGROUND 

Sandy Hook is a narrow barrier island that extends about six and a half miles northward from 

the New Jersey coast into the outer harbor of New York City. Its importance derives from the fact 

that the only natural deepwater channel into the harbor runs very close to the tip of Sandy Hook. As 

early as 1680, the English governor Nichols suggested building a navigational beacon on Sandy 

Hook, with a fort to protect it. A lighthouse was finally built in 1764 (see fig. 2), but no fort. As a 

consequence, a British fleet was able to sail into the harbor in 1776 and land an army that captured 

New York City. British troops and Tories then erected a stockade around the Sandy Hook lighthouse 

and placed two six-pound cannon in the tower.1

Having learned a hard lesson, the American army during the War of 1812 built and 

garrisoned a wooden stockade fort named Fort Gates, located about a third of a mile north of the 

Sandy Hook lighthouse. The fortification prevented British ships from returning to the sheltered 

anchorage at Sandy Hook, but the American troops were withdrawn at the end of the war, and the 

temporary fortifications and camps were left to deteriorate.2

 The federal government remained aware 

of Sandy Hook’s importance, though, and in 1817 it acquired title to the entire peninsula from the 

Hartshorne family.3

An integrated system of masonry fortifications was in place to protect New York’s inner 

harbor by the 1850’s. The advent of steam-powered ships and longer-range artillery, however, made 

it necessary to add defenses around the outer portion of the harbor. Planning for a massive granite 

fort on Sandy Hook was begun in 1857, with construction commencing in 1859. Figure 2 shows the 

location of the “Fort at Sandy Hook” and the government dock that serviced it. The outbreak of the 

Civil War accelerated the work, and in 1863 troops were assigned to the fort to man the armament 

and guard public property.4

 However, the introduction of rifled artillery during the war made the fort 

obsolete before it could be completed, and work on it was stopped in 1868.5

 Interestingly, the need 

to keep abreast of just such innovations in weaponry caused the U.S. Army Ordnance Department to 

establish the nation’s first proving ground at Sandy Hook in 1874. A “proof” battery was built by 

Army engineers and manned by Army Ordnance Officers, to “prove”–or test–new artillery.6

 Figure 3 

shows the roads and structures of the Sandy Hook Proving Ground in 1889. 

 1

 Douglas S. Walter, Barry Sulam, Susan Simpson, and John B. Marsh, Historic Structure Report, Architectural 

Data Section (Volume I), Fort Hancock Parade Ground Structures, 1896-1899, Sandy Hook Unit, Gateway National 

Recreation Area, New Jersey (Denver: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver Service 

Center, Aug. 1988), p. 16. Hereinafter HSR. 

2

 Statement of Significance for Fort Hancock, National Register of Historic Places nomination, “Fort Hancock 

and the Sandy Hook Proving Ground Historic District” (Richard E. Greenwood, June 28, 1976). 

3

 George H. Moss, Jr., Nauvoo to the Hook (Locust, NJ: Jervey Close Press, 1964), p. 57. 

 

4 General Management Plan Amendment, Development Concept Plan and Interpretive Prospectus: Sandy Hook 

Unit, Gateway National Recreation Area, New York/New Jersey (National Park Service, January 1990), p. 22. 

Hereinafter GMP Amendment.

5

 Statement of Significance for Fort Hancock, National Register nomination. 

6

 “Fort Hancock” (NPS pamphlet, Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook Unit). 
 18

Defensive fortifications became an important issue once again toward the end of the 19th

century. A number of European nations had begun rebuilding their battle fleets to extend their power 

and influence around the world. Around 1884 the U.S. Congress began to authorize larger 

expenditures for the armament program, and in 1886 a powerful board appointed by President 

Cleveland (the “Endicott Board”) called for a comprehensive defense system to protect primary U.S. 

ports from naval attack.7

 These defenses were to include high-powered guns and mortars mounted 

in concrete emplacements designed to blend into the seashore environment for protection and 

camouflage; submarine mine fields; floating batteries and torpedo boats; and rapid-fire guns to 

protect the minefields.8

 Because of New York Harbor’s geographical and commercial importance, Sandy Hook was 

chosen as the site for the first of these massive concrete emplacements.9

 Two Endicott batteries were 

constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and armed by the Ordnance Department. First to 

be finished was the Sandy Hook Mortar Battery, in 1894. This was the first operational concrete gun 

battery of its type ever built for the defense of American harbors. It contained 16 12-inch mortars 

designed to lob armor-piercing projectiles through the decks of enemy ships. Completed shortly 

thereafter was “Lift Gun Battery No. 1” (later renamed Battery Potter), which contained two 12-inch 

seacoast guns. This was America’s first “disappearing” gun battery, and the only one ever to raise 

and lower its guns by steam power.10 An 1892 map (fig. 4) shows both of these batteries under 

construction. 

 These two Endicott batteries began a nationwide system of concrete coastal defense 

fortifications constructed between 1890 and 1910. Other batteries constructed at Sandy Hook 

between 1896 and 1909 were Batteries Reynolds, McCook, Alexander, Bloomfield, Richardson, 

Granger, Halleck, and Arrowsmith. In addition, the rapid-fire batteries Engle, Urmston, Peck, 

Morris, and Gunnison were emplaced to protect the fort’s minefield.11

 Some of the most advanced artillery of the time was thus in place by the fall of 1895. 

However, the fort had no name, no garrison to care for and fire the guns, and no buildings to house 

such a garrison. The first problem was remedied on October 30, 1895, when the Secretary of War 

signed General Order 57, designating the fortifications on Sandy Hook as Fort Hancock. Fort 

Hancock was named after Major General Winfield Scott Hancock (1824-86), a soldier and later 

politician best known for his leadership during the Civil War.12 However, no troops were assigned to 

the newly named Fort Hancock fort at that time. 

 7

 Edwin C. Bearss, NPS memorandum, February 20, 1976, p. 2. Boston Support Office Archives. 

8

 Statement of Significance for Fort Hancock, National Register nomination. 

9

 Thomas J. Hoffman and Howard Kenngott, “Fort Hancock” (NPS booklet, Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook Unit). 

10 Battery Potter proved too expensive to build, and too slow to operate. Subsequent disappearing batteries used 

a counterbalance system to raise and lower their guns (“The Defenses of Sandy Hook,” NPS pamphlet, Gateway 

NRA, Sandy Hook Unit). 

11 Bearss, NPS memorandum, pp. 5-7. 

12 Edwin C. Bearss, Historic Resource Study, Fort Hancock, 1895-1948, Gateway National Recreation Area, 

New York/New Jersey (Denver: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, May 1981), pp. 6-8. 

Hereinafter HRS, 1895-1948. 
 19

Figure 2. Map of Sandy 

Hook, 1873, showing 

locations of lighthouse, 

old masonry fort, and 

dock. 
 20

Figure 3. Map of Sandy Hook, 1889, showing locations of roads, railroads, and structures at Sandy Hook Proving Ground. 
 21

Figure 4. Map of Sandy 

Hook, 1892, showing 

proving ground structures, 

and the first two batteries 

built for Fort Hancock. 
 22

PLANNING THE FORT 

Approval and Initial Estimates 

 The Commander of the Department of the East–Major General Thomas Ruger—was 

concerned about the lack of a garrison at Sandy Hook. On March 27, 1896, he sent a letter to the 

War Department recommending that facilities for a garrison of four batteries be built at Fort 

Hancock. He noted that such action would not only make the Sandy Hook batteries operational, but 

also provide a place for other artillery commands to train while their batteries were being constructed 

elsewhere.13

 The military post was to share Sandy Hook with the already-established proving ground 

located on the northeast portion of the peninsula. The proving ground operated under the direction of 

the Ordnance Department. The military post would operate under the direction of the U.S. Army 

Corps of Artillery. To avoid friction between the branches, the proving ground and the military post 

were to be run by separate commanding officers. Also occupying the north end of Sandy Hook were 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Life-Saving Service, and an office of the Western Union 

Telegraph Company.14

 General Ruger forwarded with his recommendation a topographical map of Sandy Hook, a 

sketch “showing how the necessary Buildings for a Military Post of Four Batteries of Artillery” 

might be positioned, and estimates for the cost of constructing those buildings. These documents 

were based on information gathered by General Ruger during a visit to Sandy Hook earlier in March, 

accompanied by his chief quartermaster, Colonel Charles G. Sawtelle. It was Colonel Sawtelle who 

prepared the construction estimates (see Appendix A), in accordance with General Ruger’s 

instructions.15

 Sawtelle based his computations on the assumption that the basic construction material would 

be brick, although wooden buildings would cost about one-quarter less. He believed that the use of 

brick was justified by the following factors: permanency of occupation, necessity for solid 

construction to withstand high winds, low cost of repairs, and the desirability of keeping combustible 

materials to a minimum in buildings so close to the batteries.16 His estimates were based on the cost 

of similar structures erected at other army posts, particularly at Fort Ethan Allen.17 Sawtelle’s 

estimate provides a brief description of 22 of the original buildings erected at Fort Hancock. 

 Apparently General Ruger received a favorable response to his letter, because planning for 

the fort continued. Colonel Sawtelle instructed Captain Arthur Murray, a Quartermaster Officer, to 

draw up a master plan for the site and construction plans for post buildings. 

 13 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 9. 

14 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 14. 

15 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 9. 

16 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 10. 

17 HRS, 1895-1948, pp. 9-11. 
 23

Site Selection and Plans 

 Captain Murray chose a site southwest of the proving ground for Fort Hancock, and his 

selection was confirmed by the Quartermaster General’s Office in May 1896.18 His first 

consideration seems to have been the location of the barracks for the enlisted men, including 

Building 25. He wanted these barracks to be positioned on 

the high ground west of the batteries.... To keep the post’s facilities from 

becoming too scattered, and to permit the men to be near the parade ground, 

the barracks were to be sited southwest of the mortar battery.19

(See figure 6 for the relationship of the barracks to the mortar battery.) The quarters for the officers 

were to be “located with reference to the barracks for the organizations to which they belong.”20 

These considerations were addressed in Murray’s master plan, which was based on the juxtaposition 

of two parade grounds, a central and a secondary parade. The central and secondary parades were set 

on a north/south axis with the buildings organized around the perimeters of the parades. The central 

parade was semicircular, with the arc facing east. A row of officers’ quarters defined the western 

perimeter of the central parade and faced Sandy Hook Bay. Four enlisted-men’s barracks were 

planned for the eastern arc of the central parade facing the parade. The hospital anchored the 

southern bound of the central parade. 

 The secondary parade adjoined the central parade on the north. It was long and triangular, 

with its apex to the north. Like the central parade, its western perimeter was defined by a row of 

officers’ quarters facing Sandy Hook Bay. The east leg of the parade triangle was occupied by 

utilitarian and service-related buildings essential to the efficient operation of the fort. Among the 

buildings planned for the east leg of the secondary parade were the stables, wagon shed, shops, 

bakery, storehouses, fuel shed, and guardhouse. Anchoring the south boundary of the secondary 

parade was an officer’s quarters and the administration building. 

 Captain Murray also had strong opinions as to how the post’s structures should be designed. 

While at least some of his building plans were virtual copies of similar structures at other posts, such 

as that for the quartermaster and commissary storehouse (Building 32), his plans for housing 

reflected thoughtful concern. For example, he believed that the plan for the new barracks should be 

governed by the factors of utility, comfort, “beauty of architecture,” and cost of construction. 

Apparently little attention had been paid to the first two of these factors in the construction of earlier 

barracks elsewhere.21 He changed the original concept for two double sets of two-company barracks 

to four single-company barracks, and he provided front and rear porches, to make the barracks as 

comfortable as possible in the summer. 

 18 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 23. 

19 HRS, 1895-1948, pp. 15-16. 

20 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 16. 

21 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 18. 
 24

 The following passage in the HRS, made concerning the officers’ quarters, explains Murray’s 

actions. 

The double sets of quarters that had been built during recent years at most 

army posts were not deemed suitable for Sandy Hook, where the slightest 

summer breeze was “hailed with delight,” and where only one of a double 

set, depending upon the direction of the prevailing winds, received what 

breeze there was.22

Captain Murray argued that it would be cheaper in the long run to build “rather substantial masonry” 

porches, rather than wooden ones that would need frequent repairs. He also avoided the use of any 

“gingerbread work” that would need continual maintenance. Murray’s designs for the buildings were 

influenced by his consultations with the architectural firm of John M. Carrère and Thomas Hastings 

(personal friends of Murray’s), as well as by existing precedents at similar military installations.23

 Estimates for the construction of a four-battery post at Fort Hancock were finalized by the 

Quartermaster General’s office by the end of July 1896. On August 3, Acting Quarter Master 

General George H. Weeks recommended to Secretary of War Daniel S. Lamont that an expenditure 

of $339,600 be authorized for site preparation and the 32 necessary structures. Facilities for the new 

garrison were to include four permanent enlisted men’s barracks, officers’ quarters, storehouses, a 

hospital, a guardhouse, and an administration building. Two days later, Secretary Lamont approved 

the recommended expenditure.24

 Technicians in the Quartermaster General’s office had also prepared a revised site plan and 

construction drawings based on Murray’s site plan and conceptual drawings. Captain Murray had 

been transferred to Yale University by that time, but he was given the opportunity to review the 

revised site plan and drawings, and he made a few suggestions that were incorporated into those 

documents.25 On September 14, 1896, the final site plan and construction plans for 14 of the 32 

structures were forwarded to the Secretary of War and promptly approved. This original site plan 

remains the core of Fort Hancock today, as shown in figure 5. 

 22 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 19. 

23 HRS, 1895-1948, pp. 19-20. Carrère and Hastings was a distinguished New York architectural firm that 

executed “an impressive array of commissions for country estates, public buildings, commercial structures, and cityplanning schemes” [Long Island Country Homes and Their Architects, 1860-1940, edited by Robert B. MacKay, 

Anthony K. Baker, and Carol A. Traynor (Society for the Preservation of Long Island Antiquities, in association 

with W.W. Norton & Company, New York and London, 1997), pp. 27, 98].

24 HRS, 1895-1948, pp. 25-27. 

25 HRS, 1895-1948, pp. 24-25. 
 25

BUILDING THE FORT 

Site Preparations 

 Once the plans were approved and monies appropriated, the construction of Fort Hancock 

began in earnest. Site preparation had begun in July 1896 under the direction of Col. James M. 

Moore of the Quartermaster General’s office. The first task was to clear the site of underbrush. This 

was accomplished by late August.26 The next project was to level and grade the area, which had 

“hills and hollows varying from 3 to 15 feet in depth and extending from 50 to 300 feet in length.”27

This work was completed by early spring of 1897.28 Another task was to construct a railroad spur 

from the ordnance railroad to run behind the storehouses along the eastern bound of the secondary 

parade. A standard-gauge 2,200-foot railroad spur was completed in January 1897.29 Roadways also 

needed to be opened,30 and artesian wells needed to be drilled.31

Construction of Buildings 

 Moore was also the New York depot quartermaster, and he soon found that he did not have 

enough time to directly supervise the work at Fort Hancock. This task was assigned to his assistant, 

Captain Carroll A. Devol, in September 1896.32 On October 31, 1896, Devol advertised for bids for 

erecting 32 buildings and a bake oven. He received 39 proposals. The low bid of $218,115 was 

offered by Thomas J. Regan of Newark, New Jersey. On December 15, 1896, Regan signed a 

contract that included the construction of four barracks at $16,975 each.33

 It should be noted that Regan’s contract for 32 buildings and a bake oven was only one of 

several construction efforts at Fort Hancock in the years 1897-99. Running concurrently with his 

contract was one with Warren H. Jenkins & Co. of Philadelphia, to build one bachelor officers’ 

quarters and a quarters for the engineer in charge of the pumping station.34 Neither contract included 

a hospital and a hospital steward’s quarters, both of which had been part of Colonel Sawtelle’s 

 26 HRS, 1895-1948, pp. 34-35. 

27 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 35. 

28 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 41. 

29 HRS, 1895-1948, pp. 42-43. 

30 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 36. 

31 HRS, 1895-1948, pp. 43-44. 

32 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 36. 

33 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 52. 

34 HRS, 1895-1948, pp. 74-76. 
 26

original proposal.35 These were built separately, as buildings 19 and 20. Three other structures were 

added at about the same time: a Plumber’s Quarters (21), a Firemens’ Dormitory (34), and a 

Quartermaster Latrine (44).36

 The exterior walls of Regan’s buildings were to consist of buff-colored face brick. Captain 

Murray had apparently specified this material in his original plans, even though his architect friends 

Carrere and Hastings advised him that it would be more expensive. Buff brick would cost $32 per 

thousand for bricks, mortar, and labor, as opposed to $22 per thousand for red brick. The $10 

difference was largely “because better quality brick necessitated more careful workmanship.”37 

Captain Devol made a study of possible brick types before requesting bids for construction. He liked 

a type called the Ridgeway, made by Orrin D. Person, which was endorsed by the Quartermaster 

General.38 However, Regan was apparently allowed to specify a different buff-colored brick in his 

proposal.39 His bricks were to come from the Clearfield Clay Working Company of Clearfield, 

Pennsylvania.40 The brick was to be laid with rowlock joints.41 Sand from Sandy Hook beaches may 

have been employed in the common mortars used in the masonry construction.42

 The foundation and underpinning material was to be dark “trap rock” from the Hudson 

Palisades.43 Captain Devol had initially intended for these features to be of light-colored limestone 

classed as marble. However, the quarry intended to supply the limestone (located on the upper part 

of Manhattan Island near King’s Bridge) did not have enough to supply all the buildings. At Regan’s 

suggestion, the foundation and underpinning material was changed to the trap rock. Doorway and 

window lintels and sills (“trimmings”) were to be of limestone described as “a dark or colored stone 

classed as blue.”44

 35 HRS, 1895-1948, pp. 11, 26. 

36 HSR, pp. 13-14. 

37 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 23. 

38 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 46. 

39 HRS, 1895-1948, pp. 49-50. 

40 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 67-68. 

41 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 55. 

42 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 65. Bearss’ discussion of materials used for interior plastering refers to specifications that 

call for common lime mortar made with sand from Sandy Hook. It is not known if this mortar was used for masonry 

construction at the fort. 

43 Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines trap rock as “any [of] various dark-colored fine-grained igneous 

rocks used esp. in road making.” 

44 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 54. 
 27

 Slate was to be Brownsville roofing slate measuring 14 by 10 inches, 14 by 12 inches, 16 by 

12 inches, or 16 by 11 inches. The slate actually employed in Building 25 is believed to have been 

Peach Bottom (PA. S-2).45

 Woodwork and finished lumber such as the window frames were to be furnished by the 

Chapin Hall Lumber Co. of Newark, New Jersey. A visit by Captain Devol to the Chapin Hall 

factory found the firm's workmanship and materials to be of high quality.46

Three other bids were accepted for additional items, as follows: 

Proposal 20, Leonard & Stratton of Columbus, Ohio, for installing plumbing 

in the buildings for $14, 243. 

Proposal 37, A.W. Rutherford & Co. of New York City, New York, for 

installing steam heating in 24 buildings for $22,066. 

Proposal 20, Leonard & Stratton, for installing gas pipes in 28 buildings for 

$1,327.47

 Construction was slated to begin about March 1, 1897, after clearing and grading was 

complete.48 However, Regan abandoned the contract on April 8, 1897. The contract was assumed by 

his bondsmen: local businessmen Gottfried Krueger, M.A. Mullin, and Martin Burne. After some 

renegotiations between these men and the U.S. government, work began at the end of April, with no 

change in the materials to be used or the completion date of October 31.49

 The work proceeded very slowly throughout the summer, due to multiple subcontractors 

operating without coordination, labor and materials shortages, strikes, storms, and the sandy 

topography and general inaccessibility of the site. (Edwin Bearss’ historic resource study contains a 

detailed account of the difficulties.) An inspection of the site on June 14, 1897, revealed that the 

work was well behind schedule.50 Obtaining buff bricks of consistent size and color was a major 

problem. Captain Devol finally had to go out to the kiln in Pennsylvania to supervise the selection of 

the face brick.51 None of the structures at Fort Hancock was completed before winter set in, so work 

was suspended until the spring of 1898. 

 45 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 56. Peach Bottom (PA. S-2) slate is the type found on all of the Fort Hancock buildings 

examined or treated thus far. 

46 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 55. 

47 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 51. 

48 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 52. 

49 HRS, 1895-1948, pp. 56-60. 

50 HRS, 1895-1948, pp. 61-63. 

51 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 68. 
 28

 Pressure to finish the structures at Fort Hancock intensified unexpectedly with the sinking of 

the battleship Maine on February 15, 1898. Four days later, a 20-man detachment from the Fifth 

U.S. Artillery landed at Fort Hancock as an advance echelon, to prepare a camp for a battalion of 

heavy artillery. Tents were pitched and a camp site was cleared behind the old masonry fort. On 

March 14, Fort Hancock was officially garrisoned by the arrival of two full batteries from the Fifth 

Artillery; they were reinforced on March 19 by two additional batteries.52 Captain Devol had 

requested a transfer to “any active service,” and he was ordered to the Philippine Islands on May 24, 

1898. He turned over his Fort Hancock duties to 1st Lt. Edward F. McGlacklin and “boarded the first 

train leaving New York for San Francisco.”53 Less than four weeks later, on June 17, McGlacklin 

was replaced on the project by Captain George G. Bailey. Bailey had been Captain Devol’s chief 

clerk at Fort Hancock since September 1896. 

 Despite the pressure generated by the war and the presence of inadequately housed troops on 

Sandy Hook, work on the buildings progressed as slowly during the summer of 1898 as it had done 

the previous year, due to the same problems. Seven of the contracted 32 buildings were finally 

completed by August 11. They were the two double sets of noncommissioned officers’ quarters, the 

coal shed, the quartermaster and commissary storehouse, the bake house and ovens, the workshop, 

and the wagon shed. However, now Bailey faced a new problem. The garrison–which now included 

three batteries of regular artillery and two companies of New Jersey volunteers–had moved into four 

of the structures before they were formally accepted and full and final payment made for them.54

This placed the Army in a hard position. Article 5 of its contract allowed it to withhold 20 

percent of the cost of a building until the structure was completely finished and accepted. However, 

the occupation of a building by troops amounted to its de facto acceptance. The army would have to 

release the retained 20 per cent to the contractors and give up any hope of getting them to complete 

any work remaining to be done. Extremely complicated negotiations ensued. Full payment for the 

two noncommissioned officers’ quarters (Buildings 29 and 30) was authorized October 3. Full 

payment was authorized for the other five structures (Buildings 31-35) at about the same time, but 

apparently only the 80 percent was actually paid.55

Work continued to drag through the fall, due primarily to labor and materials shortages. On 

September 27, post commander Captain Foster called for Captain Bailey to 

accept four sets of officers’ quarters, two barracks, and the post hospital, as 

soon as they were completed by the contractors.... These buildings, Foster 

had been told, would be finished by mid-October, and it was “very desirable 

that the garrison...get out of camp and under roof by that date on account of 

cold weather.”56

 52 HRS, 1895-1948, pp. 168. 

53 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 90. 

54 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 96. 

55 HRS, 1895-1948, pp. 96-100. 

56 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 109. 
 29

The slow pace of construction continued. Bailey had told Captain Foster that “none of the 

structures were to be used for any purpose by the garrison until they were [completely finished and] 

ready to be turned over.”57 By mid-November, however, Captain Foster and his officers had moved 

into lieutenants’ quarters 1-3, and the troops had broken camp and moved into barracks 24 and 25. 

The Army thus decided to release the retained percentages on the lieutenants’ quarters 1-3, barracks 

24 and 25, coal shed 31, quartermaster and commissary storehouse 32, bake house 33, workshop 34, 

and wagon shed 35.58

Work continued, albeit slowly, through the winter. On January 25, 1899, Captain Bailey 

reported that 16 of the 32 buildings were completed, and most of them were occupied by the 

garrison. Seven were near completion, and nine were about half finished.59 Krueger, Mullin, and 

Burne were placed on notice that any work not completed by June 30 would be taken out of their 

hands.60 On June 26, Captain Bailey listed 16 structures as completed, accepted, and paid for. These 

were lieutenants’ quarters 1-6, barracks 24 and 25, noncommissioned officers’ quarters 29 and 30, 

coal shed 31, quartermaster and commissary storehouse 32, bake house and bake oven 33, workshop 

34, wagon shed 35, and quartermaster stable 36. Finally, in late September 1899, the last of the 32 

structures in Thomas Regan’s original contract were accepted by Captain Bailey and turned over to 

the post commander. These were lieutenants’ quarters 7-8 and 16-18, captains’ quarters 9-11 and 13-

15, commanding officer’s quarters 12, and barracks 22-23. Figure 5 shows the locations of most of 

the earliest buildings. 

Utilities and Landscaping61

 Additional concerns for the Constructing Quartermasters at Fort Hancock were the 

installation of sewage and lighting systems, and landscaping. The sewer system was completed 

(wells drilled, pumping plant erected, water tanks in place, pump connections made, and boilers 

installed) by April 30, 1899.62

 57 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 119. 

58 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 121. 

59 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 123. 

60 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 127. 

61 This section relies heavily on documentary research performed for the historic structure report for Building 32 

at Fort Hancock, written in 1993 by Judith Q. Sullivan of the Northeast Cultural Resources Center. 

62 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 138. 
 30

 Information about the gas lighting system at Fort Hancock is minimal. The use of gas street 

lighting at the fort was approved on November 28, 1898,63 and 26 of the original 32 buildings were 

built with interior gas lighting.64 The source of the gas is unclear. The most common method of 

making gas in the 19th century was by processing coal.65 The most logical way of supplying gas to 

the fort’s street lights and numerous buildings would have been via a central gas-generating plant and 

underground pipes. No such generating plant was included in the lists of original buildings,66 and 

none of the early maps show underground gas lines.67 These facts might suggest that each building 

had its own separate gas-producing equipment. However, this seems unlikely. While such 

equipment was available at the time, primarily for use at country estates,68 it would have been 

impractical for such a large site as Fort Hancock. Also, underground gas lines must have existed for 

the streetlights, so their absence from early maps does not prove they did not exist. Original 

buildings that may have related to gas production at Fort Hancock include the “fuel” or coal shed 

(31) and the Firemen’s Dormitory (33).69

 Landscaping was an ongoing struggle in the shifting sands of Sandy Hook. Efforts began in 

September 1898 when $33,133.30 was allotted for constructing roads, curbs and walks, and putting 

down topsoil.70 However, in 1900 the post commander wrote that the parade ground and areas 

around the buildings were “a waste of loose sand.” Thousands of tons of drift sand had blown over 

the macadamized roads and brick walks during the winter. Some of the dunes were level with the 

tops of the lampposts. In other areas “the former surface had been cut out and swept away to a depth 

of from two to five feet.”71 A second landscaping effort of the main parade ground and areas around 

staff noncommissioned officers’ quarters, the guardhouse, and barracks was begun in August 1901; it 

included grading, application of top soil, and reseeding. In addition, many gravel walks were 

replaced with flagstone, concrete walkways were laid, and macadam roadways constructed over 

former sand trails.72

 63 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 138. 

64 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 108. 

65 Denys Peter Myers, Gaslighting in America: A Guide for Historic Preservation (Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, Office of Archeology and Historic 

Preservation, Technical Preservation Services Division), p. 7. 

66 HRS, 1895-1948, pp. 10-11, 26; HSR, pp. 13-14. 

67 Sandy Hook Unit historian Thomas Hoffman to Sharon Ofenstein, Jan. 29, 2002. 

68 Barbara A. Yocum, The House at Glenmont, Home of Thomas Edison, Historic Structure Report (Lowell, 

MA: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, North Atlantic Region, Cultural Resources Center, 

1998), p. 824. 

69 HSR, pp. 13-14. 

70 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 141. 

71 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 210. 

72 HRS, 1895-1948, pp. 218-221. 
 31

Figure 5. “Fort Hancock, Sandy Hook, New Jersey,” ca. 1900. Map showing the first 36 buildings constructed at Fort Hancock. 
 32

USE OF FORT HANCOCK, 1899-197473

 By 1898, Fort Hancock was occupied by two companies of the Fifth U.S. Artillery, whose 

job it was to man the mortar and rapid-gun batteries of the New York harbor defenses. A U.S. 

Engineer Battalion, New Jersey Volunteer Infantry battalions, the Ordnance Department, and the 

U.S. Corps of Engineers were also present at Fort Hancock in 1898-99. 

 Fort Hancock became an important post between 1900 and 1914, garrisoned by four to six 

companies of the U.S. Coast Artillery, whose mission was the “care and use of the fixed and movable 

elements of land and coast fortifications, including the submarine mine and torpedo defenses.”74 In 

addition, the Coast Artillery and the National Guard held training, practice, drills, and exercises at the 

post.75 Some 25 permanent buildings were added to the post during this period, as evidenced by a 

1908 site plan (fig. 6). Among the new buildings were the Saw Mill (48), Ordnance Storehouse (50), 

Fire House (51), NCO Quarters duplex (52), Mess Halls (55-58), Hothouse (59), Icehouse (60), 

Civilian Employee Bldg. (63), Firemen’s Quarters (64), Ordnance Storehouse (65), Civilian Quarters 

(66), Trestle Guardhouse (67), Quarantine Stables (68), New Crematory (69), NCO Quarters (71-72), 

Artillery Barracks (74), NCO Quarters duplex (75), Fire Station (76), Firemen’s Quarters (77), Oil 

and Paint Storehouse (79), Civilian Barracks (80), YMCA Building (40), Post Exchange Bldg. (53), 

and Gymnasium and Bowling Alley (70). 

 During World War I the forces assigned to Sandy Hook were strengthened. In addition, Fort 

Hancock served as a training base for artillery units before they were sent to France.76 Temporary 

cantonments (barracks, mess halls, quarters, and latrines) were constructed to house the swelling 

population. At the height of the war 4,043 officers and men were stationed there, excluding the 

proving-ground and ordnance-supply personnel.77 That number fell to 2,324 by November 1918 

(Armistice Day), and Fort Hancock became an entry post for returning troops to demobilize.78 

Demobilization was rapid, and by June 1919 the force assigned to the Sandy Hook defenses had been 

reduced to eight officers and 362 men (four companies).79 Temporary cantonment buildings were 

slowly salvaged, demolished, razed, or destroyed by fire.80

 73 This section relies partially on documentary research performed for the historic structure report for Building 

32 at Fort Hancock, written in 1993 by Judith Q. Sullivan of the Northeast Cultural Resources Center. 

 

74 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 176. 

75 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 189. 

76 Bearss, NPS memorandum, p. 6. 

77 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 365. 

78 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 399. 

79 HRS, 1895-1948, pp. 403-404. 

80 HRS, 1895-1948, pp. 474-480. 
 33

 America after World War I was strongly isolationistic, and military policy focused on a small 

army, a reserve force, and a large navy. As a result, activity at Sandy Hook slowed considerably, and 

the force of the garrison fluctuated from 300 to 700 men throughout the 1920’s and 1930’s. During 

this time, Fort Hancock hosted summer encampments and training for the National Guard, the 

Citizen Military Training Camp (CMTC), and the Army Reserve.81 It also participated in ArmyNavy war games, maneuvers, and communication exercises. No significant permanent buildings 

were added to the post in the 1920’s. Figure 7 shows the layout of the fort in 1927. However, during 

the 1930’s (especially after the New Deal’s public works programs began) a number of structures 

were built, and many existing structures were repaired and improved. 

 During World War II Fort Hancock played a “vital role in the coastal and anti-aircraft 

defense of America’s most important port and metropolitan area....”82 Fort Hancock was part of a 

Joint Defense Plan, under which it had the mission of 

maintaining a close surveillance of all beaches, resisting hostile landings, 

providing antiaircraft defense, and establishing a liaison between all 

elements of the command–the navy and units in adjacent subsectors.83

In addition, Fort Hancock served as a training base and staging area for units being readied for 

service overseas. As Edwin Bearss writes: 

In 1943, the modernization program being rushed to completion, the New 

York subsector and the harbor defenses reached their apogee of strength and 

efficiency.84

The number of troops stationed at Fort Hancock fluctuated from 7,000 to more than 12,000. A vast 

construction program was carried out to service the exploded population. More than 200 temporary 

structures were erected, including barracks, mess halls, latrines, recreation halls, infirmaries, nurses’ 

quarters, garages, and warehouses.85

 By March 1944, Allied successes and the need to reinforce troops in combat led to a 

reduction in the personnel of the harbor defenses of New York. The command was pared to 71 

officers, 22 warrant officers, and 1,917 enlisted men.86 However, during the redeployment of troops 

following V-E Day (May 8, 1945), and during the rapid demobilization that followed V-J Day 

(August 14, 1945), Fort Hancock became one of the Atlantic Coast’s busiest reception centers for 

troops returning from the European Theater of operations.87

 81 HRS, 1895-1948, pp. 433-437. 

82 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 573. 

83 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 534. 

84 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 549. 

85 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 598. 

86 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 560. 

87 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 573. 
 34

 The immediate postwar years saw the United States drastically reduce its defense spending. 

The atomic bomb, missiles, and innovations in radar and air power rendered the big guns of the 

coastal defense obsolete. Fort Hancock was designated a post surplus to the country’s needs until the 

autumn of 1947, when it was given a mission in the National Guard and reserves program. Once 

again, training and outdoor exercises for the Coast Artillery Reserve and National Guard harbor 

defense units were held at Sandy Hook.88 However, the fort became increasingly inactive. The 

residency of the 1225th Army Service Unit, Second Service Command, ended on December 31, 

1949.89 (This unit had been organized at Sandy Hook in 1941 to provide administrative and logistical 

support to tactical commands.90) On June 25, 1950, the facility was deactivated.91 The only 

inhabitants thereafter were the crew of the Sandy Hook Coast Guard Station and the keepers of the 

Sandy Hook lighthouse.92

 The advent of the Korean War caused the fort to be reactivated on April 10, 1951, to provide 

anti-aircraft defense for the New York City area, and to serve as a training center for anti-aircraft 

units.93 The 1225th Army Service Unit was reorganized,94 and a limited rehabilitation was undertaken 

of the buildings and grounds.95 After the war Fort Hancock was deactivated again, on May 1, 1953.96 

However, it continued to be occupied by the 1225th, which provided logistical and administrative 

support to the radar and antiaircraft installations on Sandy Hook. Between 1953 and 1956, the 

average population of the post was 914, and approximately half of the troop quarters were 

occupied.97

 Beginning in 1953, the antiaircraft guns at Sandy Hook started to be replaced by Nike-Ajax 

surface-to-air missiles. These were designed to defend U.S. air space from Soviet inter-continental 

ballistic missiles.98 This type of weapon became increasingly important to the Defense Department 

as a means of protecting metropolitan centers such as New York City. The need to support the 

missile launching and tracking facilities at Sandy Hook caused Fort Hancock to be reactivated yet

 88 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 613. 

89 Bearss, Historic Resource Study, Fort Hancock: 1948-1974, Sandy Hook Unit, Gateway National Recreation 

Area, Monmouth County, New Jersey (Denver: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver 

Service Center, Historic Preservation Division, Nov. 1982), p. 3. Hereinafter HRS, 1948-1974. 

90 HRS, 1948-1974, p. 3. 

91 HRS, 1948-1974, p. 18. 

92 HRS, 1948-1974, pp. 22-23. 

93 HRS, 1948-1974, pp. 21-23. 

94 HRS, 1948-1974, p. 24. 

95 HRS, 1948-1974, p. 25. 

96 HRS, 1948-1974, p. 29. 

97 HSR, 1948-1974, pp. 29, 53. 

98 Bearss, NPS memorandum, p. 7. 
 35

again, on July 1, 1956.99 In 1957 the NIKE-AJAX emplacements were converted to the nucleararmed NIKE-HERCULES missiles system, a “vital element in supersonic weaponry.”100 The missile 

system remained in active use until May 1974, although it was largely obsolete by the late 1960’s. 

 Throughout the 1950’s two to four units (generally comprised of antiaircraft artillery missile 

battalions, military police, and radar signal detachments) were housed at Fort Hancock, totaling 

approximately 650 to 1,300 men.101 During the 1960’s four to six units (generally comprised of 

military police, missile battalions, and air defense artillery brigades) were stationed at Fort Hancock, 

numbering approximately 1,300 to 2,000 men.102 Figure 8 shows the layout of the fort in 1967. 

Interestingly, this map also includes a dotted outline of the former location of the ca.-1860 fort. 

 

 On October 27, 1972, President Nixon signed into law legislation authorizing the 

establishment of Gateway National Recreational Area. At that time, Fort Hancock was still 

providing facilities for: 

• tactical positions for NIKE missiles 

• family housing 

• a U.S. Army Reserve Center 

• the First Army Recreation Area beach 

• the Fort Monmouth Officers’ Club beach. 

Tenants at Fort Hancock included the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Navy, a First Army recreation 

facility, the U.S. Department of Commerce, and the Electronics Support Command. The population 

at the fort was 1,687, including military personnel and dependents. The total number of buildings in 

use was 230, including 13 buildings for Administration, 40 buildings for storage, 43 buildings for 

family housing, 18 buildings for troop housing, and 116 buildings for miscellaneous use.103

 On August 15, 1974, a deactivation ceremony took place for the last Army missile units at 

Fort Hancock. The fort itself was deactivated on December 31, and it was transferred to the 

jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior.104

 99 HRS, 1948-1974, p. 54. 

100 HRS, 1948-1974, p. v. 

101 HRS, 1948-1974, pp. 58-61. 

102 HRS, 1948-1974, pp. 86-88. 

103 HRS, 1948-1974, p. 161. 

104 Sandy Hook Unit historian Thomas Hoffman to Sharon Ofenstein, Jan. 29, 2002. 
 36

Figure 6. “Fort Hancock, New Jersey,” March 21, 1908. Map showing the fort after the construction 

of the separate mess halls. 
 37

Figure 7. “U.S. Military Reservation, Fort Hancock, Sandy Hook and Vicinity of Highlands, New Jersey,” May 31, 1927. Map showing the layout of 

the fort between the World Wars. 
 38

Figure 8. “Site Plan of Fort Hancock, Highlands, New Jersey,” reprinted March 1967. Map showing expansion of the fort after World War II. 
 39

III. CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT AND USE

 41

CONSTRUCTION HISTORY 

 The building materials specified by Thomas Regan in his original bid generally were retained 

during the renegotiation of the contract with his bondsmen. These included buff-colored face brick 

for the walls, laid with rowlock joints. Dark “trap rock” obtained from the Hudson Palisades was to 

be used for foundations and underpinnings.1

 Limestone described as “a dark or colored stone classed 

as blue” was specified for doorway and window lintels and sills (“trimmings”).2

 Roofing slate was to 

be Brownsville roofing slate measuring 14 by 10 inches, 14 by 12 inches, 16 by 12 inches, or 16 by 

11 inches. However, the slate actually employed is believed to have been Peach Bottom (PA. S-2).3

 

The interior plaster was changed from a common lime plaster to the higher-quality King’s Windsor 

cement plaster.4

 As previously explained, the work proceeded very slowly throughout the summer of 1897. 

The inspection of the site on June 14, 1897, found that the foundations for barracks 24 and 25 were 

practically completed, but that only the excavations for the foundations for Buildings 22 and 23 were 

completed.5

 A second inspection in mid-August of 1897 revealed that Building 25 was the most 

completed of the four barracks. It “had its brick walls raised to one story in height, the iron columns 

set, and the second-floor joists laid.” Building 24 had its brick walls laid to a height of 4 feet, and 

five doorway and 15 window frames were set.6

 Following the mid-August inspection, Captain Devol issued a change order concerning the 

size of the barracks’ first-story window glass, as follows: 

All 10" x 16" to read 10" x 13" 

All 10" x 15" to read 10" x 12" 

All triplet windows to be 9" x12"7

 1 Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines trap rock as “any [of] various dark-colored fine-grained igneous 

rocks used esp. in road making.” 

2

 Edwin C. Bearss, Historic Resource Study, Fort Hancock, 1895-1948, Gateway National Recreation Area, New 

York/New Jersey (Denver: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, May 1981), p. 54. Hereinafter 

HRS, 1895-1948. 

3 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 56. Peach Bottom (PA. S-2) slate is the type found on all of the Fort Hancock buildings 

examined or treated thus far. 

4 HRS, 1895-1948, pp. 64-65. 

5 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 62. 

6 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 70. 

7 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 72. The HRS says that the dimensional changes pertained to the size of the window 

frames, but an examination of the original plans indicates the dimensions are those of the window panes. 
 42

Unfortunately, the frames of many of the first-story windows of Buildings 24 and 25 were already set 

and bricked in place by the time the change order was issued. To shorten the frames to accommodate 

the smaller glass size, the contractors had to tear out and reconstruct the brick lintel arches.8

 The delivery of the brick arches for the first stories of the barracks’ pavilions had been 

sporadic, and when they did arrive, they were found to be of incorrect design and poor quality. 

Devol was eventually able to remodel the arches sufficiently well that they did not have to be 

rejected and replaced.9

 As late as December 9, 1897, army inspectors still thought that approximately two-thirds of 

the buildings contracted for (including barracks 24 and 25) could be completed before spring. The 

weather then turned bitterly cold, and work was halted until on or before March 1, 1898.10

 The contractors were slow to resume operations in the spring. One of the tasks that Captain 

Devol wanted them to do was complete at once the brickwork for “2 Fronts or ‘Ls’ to Barracks Nos. 

24 and 25.” Presumably the “Ls” means “ells,” which probably refers to the projecting pavilions. 

Devol’s list of work items also included (under “Stonework”) “Hatchways, rear of Barracks, [to be] 

built in and coping set.”11 Some 10 days later, Devol reported that there were “two barracks [22 and 

23] and two captains’ quarters with water table set, and two fronts of barracks [24 and 25] ‘with 

walls all ready for men—room enough for a hundred men.’”12

 By early September 1898, Bailey was hopeful that barracks 24 and 25 could be ready for 

occupancy by September 30, with barracks 22 and 23 prepared by November 30. The installation of 

the steam-heating system in the barracks lagged, however, as did the plumbing and gas-fitting.13 One 

problem involved the need to cut out a portion of the cement basement floor in Buildings 24 and 25, 

to accommodate the return steam main.14 On November 1, Bailey considered barracks 24 and 25 to 

be “practically completed”; they only lacked the galvanized iron shafts connecting the roof 

ventilators and a few other items. However, he was concerned about the legal consequences of 

troops moving into the buildings until the structures were “entirely completed” and fully paid for.15 

The troops and their commander settled the matter for him. In mid-November, the garrison broke 

camp and moved into barracks 24 and 25. Sometime during the next several weeks, the army paid to 

 8 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 132. Bearss says here that the glass size was reduced from 10 by 16 inches to 11 by 13 

inches, but the “11” seems to be a misprint, based on two facts. First, on page 72, he quotes Devol’s change order as 

reducing the glass size from 10 by 16 inches to 10 by 13 inches. Second, changing the glass size to 11 by 13 inches 

would have necessitated widening the window openings as well as shortening them, and there is no evidence that 

this occurred. 

9 HRS, 1895-1948, pp. 72-73. 

10 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 83. 

11 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 86. 

12 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 87. 

13 HRS, 1895-1948, pp. 107-108. 

14 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 132. 

15 HRS, 1895-1948, pp. 114-115. 
 43

the contractors the retained percentages for a number of buildings, including the two barracks. This 

amounted to an official acceptance. 

 Apparently the contractors did continue to finish up items on the buildings after that time. 

On December 10, Captain Bailey recommended the approval of a change order concerning the 

railings on the rear porches and at the cellar hatchways. As explained in the HRS, 

The specifications for the barracks called for all rear porch and hatchway 

railings to be 11⁄2-inch gas piping, with ends threaded and screwed in 

malleable iron railing fittings. The standards were to be 2 1⁄2-inch pipe. 

However, Krueger, Mullin, and Burne claimed that Captain Devol had 

agreed to the use of 2 1⁄2-inch iron standards through which they were to run 

the 1 1⁄2-inch pipe railings, and the end bearings were to enter 2 1⁄4-inch posts 

secured by a top screw and drilled through the cast-iron post. 

Although Bailey did not consider the cast-iron posts and screws, in lieu of 

the materials specified, “a good construction practice,” the subject iron work 

had been delivered. If properly set, he determined that it would make a 

substantial railing....16

 One alteration occurred so soon after the completion of Building 25 that it can be considered 

part of the original construction. This was the installation of screen doors and window screens. 

Early in 1899, the army solicited proposals from various firms to install these on a number of 

buildings at Fort Hancock. Quartermaster General Ludington favored the submittal made by S. 

Roebuck. It proposed window screens having bronze mesh and ash frames, with patented iron corner 

pieces that would help hold the frame together. The screens would be installed on the inside of the 

windows, because it was a saltwater environment. They would slide on a strip and be weatherstripped top and bottom. The screen doors would have ash frames divided into five panels filled with 

bronze mesh, corresponding to the five-panel design of other doors in the buildings. This proposal 

was accepted and carried out, with one change: due to erroneous assumptions on the part of the 

manufacturer, the window screens had to be installed on the outside of the windows.17

 16 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 122. 

17 HRS, 1895-1948, pp. 128-129. 
 44

 ORIGINAL APPEARANCE 

 Building 25 was one of the 32 buildings included in the original master plan for Fort 

Hancock. It was begun in 1897 and completed late in 1898. It constituted the northernmost of four 

identical barracks for enlisted men built along the east, curved side of the main parade ground. This 

placed it near the intersection of Magruder and Hudson Roads (see figure 8). 

 According to the original construction drawings for the barracks (figs. 9-21), each of the four 

buildings was designed to house 70 men–60 enlisted men, nine noncommissioned officers, and one 

first sergeant. The original appearance of Building 25 is assumed to correspond to these 13 

construction drawings. Any departures made from the drawings that were discovered during the 

physical investigation are cited here. 

Exterior Elements 

Design

 Building 25, like most of the other original buildings at Fort Hancock, was built in the 

Colonial Revival style. It consisted of a two-story main block measuring 45 feet 6 inches deep by 

122 feet 6 inches long, whose main axis ran north/south. It was two stories high, with a full 

basement and attic. A two-story pedimented entrance pavilion projected from the center of the west, 

front elevation (fig. 9); it was 31 feet 6 inches wide. All four elevations displayed a high degree of 

symmetry. 

 Masonry and metal (rather than wood) were used for an unusual number of exterior elements. 

This presumably reflects Captain Murray’s desire to make his buildings as durable and maintenancefree as possible.18

Foundation

 The foundation rested on concrete footings. The foundation walls themselves were of “trap 

rock.” This colloquial term applies to a variety of dark, igneous, fine-grained rocks, including basalt 

and rhyolite. The rock used for Building 25’s foundation is relatively lighter in color, and appears to 

have a high quartz content; it is therefore thought to be rhyolite. The trap rock was ashlar-cut and 

random-coursed, with a rock-face finish (see fig. 23). Mortar joints were tooled with a quarter-inch 

raised bead. The walls were backed on the interior by common red brick. Light-colored limestone 

was used for the water table (see fig. 23). The water table on the west elevation displayed a 

horizontally chiseled surface. 

 The historical documentation states that a light-colored limestone was initially specified for 

the foundations and trimmings, including the water table. The limited local availability of this stone 

led to the substitution of the dark trap rock for the foundation. An inspector from the Quartermaster 

Department was concerned that the light-colored limestone would not harmonize with the dark trap 

 18 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 19. 
 45

rock, so “a dark or colored [lime]stone classed as blue” was for a time favored.19 However, the water 

table extant today consists of light-colored limestone, so apparently the light-colored stone was 

ultimately selected for the “trimmings.” 

Walls

 Exterior walls were of brick, with limestone doorway and window sills and lintels 

(“trimmings”). They were three wythes thick. The exterior wythe was pressed buff-colored buff 

face brick laid in running bond with narrow joints (an eighth of an inch or less). The two interior 

wythes, together approximately 1 foot thick, consisted of larger red bricks laid in a common bond 

with one row of headers for every five or six rows of stretchers. Change orders submitted on 

February 26, 1897, contained the following information about the brick walls: 

The [face] brick was to be laid with rowlock joints. In backing brick, every 

eighth course was to be face brick. Bats of less than one-half size would not 

be allowed as backing brick. Furring strips were to be nailed into mortar 

joints of brickwork with cut nails.20

A completion report prepared for repair work done in 1991-93 includes photographs of several 

buildings where the buff brick veneer had fallen from the wall, exposing the substrate backing brick 

and the method of attaching the buff brick to it. The report makes the following observations about 

the original wall construction: 

The original brick are bonded in place by diagonally toothing the substrate 

every six courses and notching the back of the veneer to fit. The space 

between the veneer and substrate was filled with mortar, however it was of a 

high lime content which did not hold up well to time and the elements. 

Water collected inside the wall cavities, freezing in the winter and jacking 

the 4" brick veneer out of place.21

 The first story of the projecting pedimented pavilion had arched openings at the first-story 

level, three on the front, west side and one each on the north and south sides. The west face of the 

pavilion was highly ornamented. The first story featured rusticated brickwork around the three 

arches, and a projecting belt course at the springing line of the arches (see fig. 29). A limestone belt 

course marked the transition from the first story to the second story. 

 19 HRS, 1895-1948, pp. 54-55. 

20 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 55. 

21 C. Thomas Ballos, “Completion Report, Emergency Stabilization of Historic Fort Hancock, Gateway National 

Recreation Area, Sandy Hook Unit” (Building Conservation Branch, Cultural Resources Center, North Atlantic 

Region, NPS, 1993), pp. 39-40. 
 46

Porches

West Porches 

 The west elevation of Building 25 originally had a two-story loggia-type porch on either side 

of the projecting pavilion (see figs. 9 and 22). These porches extended from the pavilion almost to 

the ends of the building. 

 The foundation of the porches consisted of trap-rock piers, each of which was capped with a 

section of limestone water table. The sections of water table displayed a vertically chiseled surface. 

Wooden lattice panels were secured between the trap-rock piers to screen the area below the porches 

(see fig. 22). The lattice was to consist of pieces measuring 1 1

/8 by 2 inches, “halved together” (see 

fig. 16). 

 The first story of each porch featured six piers of buff-colored brick with molded brick bases 

and caps. The brick piers were positioned directly over the trap-rock piers. One pier abutted the wall 

of the main block; one pier abutted the wall of the pavilion; and four piers were freestanding, 

including an L-shaped corner pier (see fig. 13). 

 The second story of each porch had hollow wooden Tuscan columns with molded cast-iron 

bases. Again, the columns were positioned directly over the first-story piers. The columns over the 

piers that abutted walls were accompanied by a pilaster against the walls, also with molded cast-iron 

bases. A cluster of three columns sat above each L-shaped corner pier (see fig. 14). The floor had 

floor joists measuring 2 by 8 inches, spaced 16 inches on center, resting on 6- by 8-inch girders. 

Between the joists was cross-bridging. The ceilings were seven-eighths of an inch thick. Both 

stories had cast-iron balustrades of classic urn-shape design running between the piers and columns. 

Figure 16 shows details of the brick piers and wood columns, porch cornice, and cast-iron balustrade. 

 The pavilion was accessed by a flight of steps up to the center arch. The steps’ composition 

was not cited in the original construction documents, but they were probably limestone: the top five 

steps extant today are limestone. (The bottom two steps are concrete, and not original.) 

East Porch 

 The east elevation of Building 25 had a one-story rear porch covering the center five bays of 

the 11-bay wall (fig. 10). It consisted of six wooden Tuscan columns along the outer edge, and two 

pilasters against the wall of the main block in line with the end columns (see fig. 13). Wooden steps 

at either end of the porch led up to a wooden deck (see figs. 23, 24). The ceiling was also wood, 

seven-eighths of an inch thick. A metal pipe balustrade ran between the six columns. 

Details of the porch’s columns, cornice, and handrail are provided in figure 16. However, the 

balustrade as actually constructed differed somewhat from intended design. As explained previously 

on pages 42-43, a change order approved in December 1898 allowed iron standards to be substituted 

for standards made of gas piping, and permitted the handrails to run through the standards, rather 

than attach to them.22

 22 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 122. 
 47

Doorways 

All doorways had limestone sills displaying a horizontally chiseled surface. All but the east 

basement entrance had lintels consisting of buff-brick jack (flat) arches resting on steel shelf angles 

(see fig. 17). The vertical bricks in the center of the arch projected to form a keystone motif. 

West (Front) Elevation 

 This elevation is absolutely symmetrical. The center pavilion is three bays wide, with four 

bays extending to either side of the pavilion 

First Story 

 The main entrance was centered on the elevation, such that it aligned with the centermost of 

the three arches of the pavilion (see fig. 9). The head of the doorway opening incorporated three 6-

inch I beams, to support the brickwork above the doorway (see fig. 17). The double doorway had 

narrow sidelights and a large transom. The sidelights consisted of 16 panes above one raised vertical 

panel. The transom was divided into three parts: a four-light sash above each of the sidelights, and a 

12-light sash above the doors. Each of the double doors had a 21-light panel above two raised 

horizontal panels, and measured 2 feet 6 inches wide by 8 feet high by 2 1⁄4 inches thick. The design 

of the main entrance is depicted in an original construction drawing (fig. 17), and in two historic 

photographs (figs. 29, 49). 

 The west elevation also had two single doorways opening to the first story of the porch, one 

each in the second bay from the outer ends of the main block. The northern one provided access to 

the day room, while the southern one entered the mess hall. The doorways featured a six-light 

transom and a door with 28 lights above two raised horizontal panels. The doors measured 3 feet 

wide by 8 feet high by 2 1⁄4 inches thick. Figure 17 shows details of the single doorways. 

Second Story 

 Two single doorways were also installed at the second-story level, one each in the third bay 

from the outer ends of the main block. They allowed access to the second story of the porch. The 

design and dimensions of these doorways and doors were the same as those for the first-story 

doorways. The doorways featured a six-light transom and a door with 28 lights above two raised 

horizontal panels. The doors measured 3 feet wide by 8 feet high by 2 1⁄4 inches thick. Figure 17 

shows details of the single doorways. 

East (Rear) Elevation 

 This side of Building 25 was similar to the west elevation, in that it had 11 bays and a center 

entrance. However, it was slightly less symmetrical, due to the need for a separate doorway and 

additional windows for the kitchen along this wall (see fig. 10). 

Basement Level 

 The only original exterior access to the basement was located at the center of the east wall. 

This was a double doorway with a limestone lintel. It had no transom or sidelights, and contained 

two doors having 20 lights above two raised horizontal panels. Each door measured 2 feet 10 inches 

wide by 7 feet high by 2 1⁄4 inches thick. The doorway was accessed by a stairwell formed by trap-
 48

rock retaining walls. The material used for the steps is not known. The sides of the stairwell at 

ground level were edged with a pipe railing resembling that used around the perimeter of the roof 

deck. 

First Story 

 A double doorway in the center of the elevation led to the center hall. It had a 12-light 

transom but no sidelights. Each door had 21 lights above two raised horizontal panels, and measured 

2 feet 6 inches wide by 8 feet high by 2 1⁄4 inches thick. 

 There was also a single doorway here, in the fourth bay from south end of the main block. It 

provided direct access from the rear porch to the kitchen. Its design was the same as for the single 

doorways on the west elevation: a six-light transom, and a door with 28 lights above two raised, 

horizontal panels. The door measured 3 feet 10 inches wide by 8 feet high by 2 1⁄4 inches thick. 

 

Second Story 

 A single doorway in the center of the elevation led to the second-story center hall. It 

provided access to the roof deck over the rear porch deck, where soldiers could air their bedding.23 

This doorway had a three-light transom, no sidelights, and the typical glazed and paneled door 3 feet 

wide by 8 feet high by 2 1⁄4 inches thick. 

South and North (Side) Elevations 

 Originally there were no doorways in either of these elevations (see figs. 12-13). 

Windows

 All windows, except for the oculi, had limestone sills. The sills of the basement windows 

displayed a vertically chiseled surface, while the sills of the first- and second-story windows had a 

horizontally chiseled surface. 

 The west elevation’s basement windows had limestone lintels in addition to the limestone 

water table here. The basement windows on the other three elevations, however, had only the 

limestone water table running above them as lintels (see fig. 23). The lintels of first- and secondstory windows were similar to those of the doorways: brick jack (flat) arches with projecting 

keystones, carried on steel shelf angles (see fig. 17). 

West (Front) Elevation 

 The fenestration of this side was completely symmetrical at all three levels, for the three bays 

in the center pavilion and the four bays on either side of the pavilion (fig. 9). 

 23 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 316. 
 49

Basement Level 

 One window opening was situated in all eight bays of the main block (see fig. 12). They are 

not seen in the original construction drawing (fig. 9), being concealed by the front porches, but their 

sashes undoubtedly were the same as those on the east elevation (see fig. 10). These sashes had eight 

lights measuring 10 inches square, and were hinged at the top to open awning-style. Figure 18 shows 

details of the basement windows’ construction. 

First Story 

 The west side had identical double-hung windows in all bays not containing a doorway. This 

includes the pavilion area, where two windows flank the center entrance. Sashes were 12-over-12 

with panes measuring 10 by 13 inches. This is the standard window design for most areas of 

Building 25. Construction details are provided in figure 17. However, the height of the panes was 

reduced by a change order during construction, from 15 inches to 13 inches. This reduction in the 

total height of the windows meant that the tops of the window openings (i.e., the elaborate jack-arch 

lintels) had to be rebuilt.24

Second Story 

 This level also had one standard double-hung window (i.e., 12-over-12 sashes with 10- by 

13-inch panes) in all bays of the main block not containing a doorway. 

 The pavilion featured a Palladian-motif window opening centered over the front entrance. 

The arch over the center section was filled with a terra-cotta element resembling a fan or shell. 

Figure 15 shows details of the “Palladian” window. The sill of the window was stone; below it were 

two bands of brickwork, a thin one and a lower, thicker one. The outer edges of the window opening 

were ornamented with Corinthian pilasters; the center window was flanked by Corinthian columns; 

and all were capped by a simple terra-cotta entablature. The center opening contained double-hung, 

15-over-15 sashes (five across by three down) having panes measuring 9 by 12 inches. The side 

sashes were fixed, with 12 lights (two across by six down) measuring 5 1⁄2 inches wide by 12 inches 

high. Each of the two bays on either side of the “Palladian” window contained a narrower doublehung window; sashes were nine-over-nine, with 10- by 13-inch panes. 

Attic Level 

 In the tympanum of the pavilion’s gable was an elliptical oculus in a terra-cotta frame 

ornamented with four key blocks. The sash had a border of small lights; the area inside the border 

was divided by muntins into wedges, like a pie. Figure 15 indicates that this oculus was originally 

intended to have a different design, with vertical and horizontal muntins dividing the center into four 

equal sections. Instead, it was built to match the sashes of the oculi in the south and north gable 

ends. 

East (Rear) Elevation 

 The symmetrical design of this side is chiefly due to its regular fenestration. 

 24 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 132. 
 50

Basement Level 

 Not all of the 11 bays had a window at this level. Counting from the south end northward 

(see fig. 10), bay 1 had an opening to the small coal chute in the southeast corner of the basement. 

Bay 2 had a window and a coal-chute opening just north of it. Bay 3 had no window because of its 

proximity to the porch steps. Bays 4 and 5, under the porch, each had a window. Bay 6 contained 

the basement doorway. Bays 7 and 8, also under the porch, each had a window. Bay 9 had none, 

due to its proximity to the porch steps. Bays 10 and 11 each had a window. 

 Basement window sashes were single, eight-light sashes (four across by two down) with 

panes measuring 10 inches square. They were hinged at the top to open awning-style. Figure 18 

shows details of the basement windows and the coal-chute openings. 

First Story 

 Using same method of numbering bays as with the basement windows, bays 1-3 contained 

typical double-hung windows. Bay 4 had the kitchen doorway, described previously. Bay 5 had two 

windows, probably for better light for the kitchen. These windows are narrower than the typical 

windows; their double-hung sashes are nine-over-nine, with the usual 10- by 13-inch glass size. Bay 

6 contained the rear doorway. Bays 7-11 each had one typical window. 

Second Story 

 There was one standard double-hung window in all bays except for the one in the center, 

which contained the doorway to the rear porch deck. 

South and North (Side) Elevations 

 The fenestration of these end walls was fairly symmetrical, except that the spacing of their 

four bays was not equidistant: the two center bays were close together (see fig. 11). 

Basement Level 

 One window was situated in all four bays on each elevation. They are identical to the 

basement windows on the west and east elevations, containing top-hinged single sashes with eight 

lights measuring 10 inches square. 

First and Second Stories 

 One standard double-hung window was located in all four bays at each level on both 

elevations. 

Attic Level 

 The tympanum of each gable end had an elliptical oculus in a terra-cotta frame ornamented 

with four key blocks. They resembled the oculus on the pavilion, but the center of the sash was 

divided by muntins into wedges, like a pie. Figure 15 depicts both types of oculi. 
 51

Roofs

Main Roof 

Covering 

 The main block and pavilion had gable roofs covered with slate. The original specifications 

called for the use of Brownsville roofing slate, but it appears that another was used instead: Peach 

Bottom (PA. S-2).25

 Asbestos Fire Felt (Navy Brand) was used somewhere in Buildings 24 and 25, and in five 

sets of officers’ quarters, to expedite their completion in late 1898. A letter from Quartermaster 

General Ludington to Captain Bailey dated October 12, 1898, authorized this action.26 

Unfortunately, the letter does not state where the felt was used, or for what purpose. One typical use 

for such material was as roof underlayment. 

Cornices and Gutters 

 A large-scale cornice of stamped galvanized iron ran along all of the eaves, including the 

raking eaves of the north and south gable ends and the pedimented pavilion.27 This cornice returned 

on the end walls, and on the face of the pavilion. It featured modillions and dentils. Figure 15 shows 

the design of the cornice and gutter. 

Chimney 

The roof of the main block had one large chimney, abutting but perpendicular to the east 

wall. It was located south of the center of the roof, since its stack was built into the south wall of the 

center hall (see fig. 12). The chimney was built of buff brick, with a corbeled neck and cap. The 

original construction drawing (fig. 11) shows some type of reinforcing wall or cricket running 

between the roof slope and the chimney. 

Ventilators 

The roof of the main block also had two round metal ventilators on the ridge, measuring 36 

inches in diameter by 6 feet tall. They were located between the third and fourth bays from either 

end. These will be discussed subsequently in the section “Utilities.” 

 25 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 56. Peach Bottom (PA. S-2) slate is the type found on all of the Fort Hancock buildings 

examined or treated thus far. 

26 Lt. Col., Quartermaster’s Department, to Captain G.G. Bailey, October 12, 1898 (doc. 93,924, General 

Correspondence, 1890-1914, Record Group 92, National Archives). 

27 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 82. 
 52

Porch Roofs 

West Porches 

 The roofs of the west porches were clad with flat-seam sheet metal. A large, stamped-metal 

cornice with modillions and dentils ornamented the eaves of the porches. Figure 16 shows the design 

of the porches’ cornice and gutter. 

East Porch 

 The roof of the east porch was topped with wood flooring, so that it could be used as a deck. 

The same type of pipe railing used between the columns encircled the roof deck. The eave line 

displayed a dentiled cornice. Figure 16 shows the design of the porch’s cornice and gutter. 

Downspouts 

 There were two 4-inch downspouts at the outer corners of the west elevation, and two more 

4-inch downspouts at the outer corners of the pavilion. The east elevation had two 4-inch 

downspouts on either side of the east porch. Two more downspouts measuring 2 1⁄2 inches were 

located on the outer edge of the east porch, on the second column from the ends. See figure 12 for 

the locations of downspouts. 

Finishes

 All exterior woodwork and metalwork was primed and painted white (see Appendix D). 

Utilities

Ventilation Equipment 

The most obvious pieces of original ventilation equipment were the two conical ventilators 

on Building 25’s roof ridge. Similar ventilators were used elsewhere at Fort Hancock (e.g., on the 

roof of Building 32). The section “Construction History” notes that the “galvanized iron shafts 

connecting the roof ventilators” were among the last items to be finished on the barracks.28 The 

ventilators vented only the attic, as will be explained in the description of interior elements. 

 Less noticeable pieces of original ventilation equipment were rectangular vent openings in 

the walls’ brickwork just below the sills of most second-story windows. Each opening led to a thin 

duct that descended within the wall to baseboard level. There it turned and opened to the interior of 

the building below the radiator under that window, bringing fresh air into the dormitories. These 

vents are not shown on the original construction drawings. However, they appear in the earliest 

photographs (figs. 22-23), and they have the same early paint stratigraphy as other original exterior 

trim elements.

 28 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 115. 
 53

Structural Elements 

Bearing Walls

 The masonry exterior walls were load-bearing. They rested on a footing 3 feet 4 inches wide. 

Above the footing was the trap-rock foundation, 24 inches thick. The walls above the foundation 

were of buff exterior and red interior bricks, being 17 inches thick. There were also two interior 

bearing walls, made of red brick. They ran east-west and formed a center hall at all levels (see fig. 

12). They measured 20 inches thick in the basement, but were thinner in the first and second stories. 

First-Floor Framing

 The two large rooms on either side of the center hall in the basement each contained four 

pairs of red-brick piers measuring 21 inches square. The piers rested on footings 3 feet square; they 

had a band of trap rock 8 inches thick set into their middles, to prevent spreading, and a trap-roc cap 

6 inches thick. These pairs of piers defined bays of similar but not identical size. (For complete 

dimensions, see figure 12.) The interior thus had 11 bays–five in the north side, one in the center 

hall, and five in the south side. These corresponded to the 11 bays of the exterior. 

 The piers carried two lines of wooden girders running north-south from the end walls to the 

walls of the center hall. These girders measured 10 inches wide by 14 inches high; they supported 

the floor joists of the first story, which measured 2 by 12 inches, 12 inches on center. The total 

thickness of the first floor was to be 15 inches. 

Second-Floor Framing

 As with the first-floor framing, the second-floor framing had floor joists measuring 2 by 12 

inches, 12 inches on center, resting on 10- by 14-inch wood girders running north-south. The girders 

were supported by cast-iron columns in the first story (see figs. 18, 25), positioned directly above 

each pier in the basement. The columns were 6 3⁄4 inches in diameter, with a three-quarter-inch shell, 

and they featured molded bases, necks, and caps. Above each cap was a metal plate one-eighth of an 

inch thick, recessed into the underside of the girder, to provide a good bearing surface. The total 

thickness of the second floor was to be 16 inches. 

Attic-Floor Framing

 The attic-floor framing had floor joists measuring 2 by 10 inches, spaced 16 inches on center, 

with cross-bridging between the joists. The floor was not supported by the usual system of wood 

girders and iron columns. Rather, the floor of the attic (and ceiling of the second story) were 

suspended from a system of heavy wooden trusses in the attic (see fig. 11). Four trusses were used in 

each side of the building, running east-west in alignment with the pairs of columns and piers in the 

lower stories. 
 54

 The construction of the trusses and their connection at the outer walls is depicted in figure 15. 

Each truss had a horizontal bottom timber consisting of five 2 by 10’s (i.e., five floor joists) bolted 

together. The outer ends of this timber rested on 17-inch-square cast-iron plates sitting on the west 

and east brick walls. Rising from the bottom timber in a direction parallel to the west and east roof 

slopes were two diagonal members consisting of five 2 by 12’s bolted together. The lower ends of 

the diagonal members were joined to the bottom timber by a bird’s-mouth joint, and further secured 

to it by a strap bolted to both members. The upper ends of the diagonal members terminated 

approximately halfway up the roof slopes, where they were connected to each other by a 10- by 12-

inch cross piece. A 6-inch-square vertical piece rose from the center of the cross piece to the ridge 

board of the roof framing. 

 Three iron rods hanging from each truss supported the second-story ceiling and attic floor. 

The middle one was 11⁄4 inches in diameter; the two end ones, below the purlins, measured 13⁄4 inches 

in diameter. 

Roof Framing

Main Roof 

 Figure 11 shows the design of the roof framing. The wall plates consisted of two 2- by 10-

inch planks, one on top of the other, topped by a 2 by 4. The rafters measured 2 by 8 inches, being 

16 inches on center. The way in which their lower ends passed over the plates is depicted in figure 

15. The rafters were notched at their midpoints to rest on a line of 8- by 10-inch purlins that rested 

on the outer ends of the cross pieces of the trusses. The top ends of the rafters abutted the ridge 

board, measuring 2 by 10 inches. 

Porch Roofs 

 The roofs of the west porches had rafters measuring 2 by 6 inches, spaced 18 inches on 

center. Figure 16 shows how the west and east porches’ roofs were connected to the columns that 

supported them. 
 55

Interior Elements 

Basement Level

Plan 

 This level is depicted in figure 12. It contained a center hall running the depth of the 

building. The hall was 10 feet 5 inches wide for most of its length; the east end was narrower, 

because the south wall projected out due to the presence of the chimney stack. The stack at this level 

contained three flues. 

 The center hall separated the basement into north and south sides. The north side was a 

single open space. The south side was mostly a single open space, except for two coal bins along the 

south end of the east wall. 

Floors 

 The original floor material was cement. This is known because an extra sum was paid to the 

contractor at the end of the entire project, because a portion of the cement floors in Buildings 24 and 

25 had to be cut out to accommodate each building’s return steam main.29 The area where the boiler 

sat was recessed to a depth of 1 foot. 

Walls 

 Most basement walls, including the two east-west interior bearing walls, consisted of the 

exposed trap-rock foundation. The east end of the center hall’s south wall juts in slightly, to 

accommodate the chimney stack. This part of the wall is of brick, being part of the chimney stack. 

The walls of the coal bins were probably built of wood planks over studs. 

 The original basement floor plan (fig. 12) bears two notations calling for wall footings to be 

lowered in two locations: at the exterior doorway at the rear of the center hall, and at the interior 

doorway in the south wall of the center hall. It is not known why this work would have been needed. 

Ceilings 

 The height of the basement ceiling was to be 8 feet. All ceilings consisted of the exposed 

framing and subflooring of the first-story floors. 

Doorways 

 The double doorway to the exterior at the east end of center hall has already been described 

as an exterior feature. There were also two double doorways in the side walls of the center hall. The 

one in the north wall, leading to the north side of the basement, was located near the east end of the 

wall. The one in the south wall, leading to the south side of the basement, was fairly centered on the 

wall. 

 29 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 132. 
 56

 An original construction drawing (fig. 11) indicates that the interior doors were to be twopaneled, with diagonal boarding. The dimensions of the doors were to be 2 feet 10 inches wide by 6 

feet 8 inches high by 1 3⁄4 inches thick. It is not known if this design was actually used. No original 

interior basement doors remain in Building 25. However, one old door remains in the basement of 

Building 24; it is a board-and-batten door with upper and lower battens and two diagonal cross 

braces (forming a design resembling the Roman numeral 10). 

 

Windows 

 The basement windows’ sashes have been described as exterior elements. Exterior and 

interior construction details are shown in figure 18. 

Other Features 

Stairway to First Story 

This stairway was located along the center of the north wall of the center hall. Its south side 

was open, probably featuring a handrail consisting of two plain boards, as exists now. At the top of 

the stairway, a 15-inch-high band of matchboard wainscoting with cap molding was installed around 

the three sides of the stairwell; this band is extant today. 

Utilities 

Heating Equipment 

 A coal-fired steam boiler was located in northeast corner of the south side of the basement. 

Its smoke pipe vented into the southernmost of the three flues in the chimney; this flue measured 16 

1⁄2 inches square (see fig. 11). The basement also contained a network of piping for the steam-heat 

radiator system (see fig. 21). 

Plumbing Fixtures 

 A water heater and presumably a water tank were situated just west of the boiler, underneath 

the easternmost north-south girder (see fig. 21). The water heater seems to have had its own heat 

source: it had its own smoke pipe that vented into the northernmost of the three flues in the chimney. 

This flue measured 11 1⁄2 inches square. 

Lighting Fixtures 

 The basement was illuminated by wall-mounted gas fixtures. This is based on two facts: the 

knowledge that the primary buildings at Fort Hancock were originally piped for gas lighting,30 and 

the repeated use of a symbol (a circle on a rod) on the original basement floor plan (fig. 12) that 

appears to represent a wall fixture. There is also what may be the remains of a gas jet on the west 

side of the brick pier closest to the northwest corner of the building. 

 30 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 51. 
 57

First Story

Plan 

 This level is depicted in figure 13. The front-to-back center hall formed by the two east-west 

bearing walls divided the building into north and south sides. The hall was 11 feet wide for most of 

its length. The east end was narrower: the south wall projected out to accommodate the chimney 

stack, and the north wall was built out to form a shallow broom closet. 

 

 The portion of the building north of the center hall contained a day room along the entire 

north end, a large lavatory (27 by 29 feet) along the east wall, and an office and an armory along 

west wall. The south side of the building had a kitchen, a pantry, and a cook’s room along the east 

wall; a 6-foot-wide side hall leading to a large mess room in the southwest corner, and small rooms 

for a tailor and a barber along the west wall. 

Floors 

 The original finish floors were probably maple. This is based on specifications written for 

repairs in 1908, which call for the original finish flooring to be replaced with the same material. 

Since hard rock maple was used for the 1908 replacement, one could infer that the original flooring 

material was maple, as well.31

Walls 

Walls consisted of plaster on wood lath. The lath was attached to furring strips nailed into 

the mortar joints of the brickwork with cut nails.32 Common lime mortar containing Sandy Hook 

sand was originally specified, but Clinton Smith of the Quartermaster Department’s Construction and 

Repair division persuaded Captain Devol to switch to King’s Windsor cement plaster, resulting in a 

$2,000 change order.33

Most rooms featured rather elaborately molded baseboards (see fig. 19). Matchboard 

wainscot with a simple baseboard was used in the center hall, along the north wall of the stairway to 

the second story, and in the side hall to the mess room. Wainscot construction details are shown in 

figure 19. The wainscot baseboard was to project from the plaster line the same distance as did the 

band molding on the adjacent doorway casings. 

Figure 19 also shows a profile of a chair rail, with no location specified. It matches the 

profile of the chair rail extant today on the south wall of the original day room. It is possible that the 

interior details were of yellow pine, as recommended by architects Carrère and Hastings.34

 31 HRS, 1895-1948, pp. 316, 318. 

32 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 55. 

33 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 65. 

34 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 21. 
 58

Ceilings 

The first-story ceilings were 12 feet high.35 All of them were covered with elaborate 

stamped-metal ceilings with borders in a variety of patterns. Such ceilings were extremely popular at 

the time Building 25 was constructed. An additional advantage was that the metal was more able 

than plaster to withstand the concussion “when the big guns were fired,” as noted by architects 

Carrère and Hastings.36

Doorways 

Interior doorways were located as indicated on figure 13. All but two had transoms with 

operative sashes; 12-light sashes (six across by two down) were used over double doorways, and sixlight sashes (three across by two down) were used over single doorways. Elevations and a section of 

the interior doorways are shown in figure 18. Doorways without transoms were those connecting the 

original pantry and the cook’s room, and connecting the original company office and the armory. 

All doorway openings had heavy molded casings with flat plinth blocks. Oddly, the original 

plans do not show a molding profile specifically for them. Figure 18 depicts a profile for a window 

casing titled “Inside Casing & Cap.” This type of casing was also used for the doorways, judging by 

the profile of the casings extant today. 

Interior doors had five recessed, molded horizontal panels, with the bottom one slightly 

larger than the others (see fig. 26). This design differs from the one shown in the construction 

drawings (figs. 11, 18). Presumably the dimensions were the same as specified: double doors being 2 

feet 6 inches wide by 8 feet high by 1 3⁄4 inches thick, and single doors being 3 feet wide by eight feet 

high by 1 3⁄4 inches thick. The one exception to these dimensions was at the double doorway from 

the kitchen to the mess room, where the two swinging doors each measured 2 feet 8 inches wide. 

The double doorway in the south wall of the center hall, leading to the side hall to the mess 

room, did not contain doors (see fig. 13). The three doorways with doors seen in the original 

transverse section (fig. 11) are, from right to left, the double doorway from the side hall to the mess 

room, the double doorway from the kitchen to the mess room, and the single doorway from the 

kitchen to the pantry. The two double doorways are visible in a ca.-1900 photograph (fig. 25). The 

type and design of the original door hardware is not known. 

Windows 

 The double-hung sashes have already been described as exterior elements. A section, plan, 

and elevation of the windows is shown in figure 17; the profiles of the windows’ casing, denticulate 

cap, and stool are depicted in figure 19. 

 35 Douglas S. Walter, Barry Sulam, Susan Simpson, and John B. Marsh, Historic Structure Report, Architectural 

Data Section (Volume I), Fort Hancock Parade Ground Structures, 1896-1899, Sandy Hook Unit, Gateway National 

Recreation Area, New Jersey (Denver: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver Service 

Center, Aug. 1988). Hereinafter HSR. Page 206 of this report says that the ceiling height is 14 feet 6 inches, but the 

original construction drawing shows this to be the height of the second story, not the first. 

36 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 21. 
 59

Finishes 

 The metal ceilings were painted buff.37 Paint evidence indicates that all of the original 

woodwork received a red shellac finish (uncolored shellac followed by red pigmented shellac) in 

1907. It is likely that a similar finish was used originally. 

Other Elements 

Main Stairway 

The main stairway to the second story rises along the middle of the north wall of the center 

hall. An original construction drawing (fig. 18) provides design details for the newels, balustrade, 

and stringer. The designs shown for the balustrade and stringer were followed, based on the 

appearance of extant elements. The main newel extant today is much plainer than the one shown, 

however, lacking side paneling and an urn-shaped finial. Paint evidence indicates that it is a 

replacement; it is not known if the original newel conformed to the design seen in figure 18. 

Partitions in Lavatory 

The lavatory had five bathtubs along its west wall, each in an individual “bath room.” Figure 

19 shows an elevation, section, and details of the wooden partitions that formed the bath enclosures. 

The “bath room” partitions were 12 inches above the floor, 4 feet 6 inches high, and 7 feet deep. 

There was also a group of six toilets (“water closets”) in the center of the room. Again, figure 19 

provides an elevation and section of the wooden partitions that enclosed the toilet stalls. The “water 

closet” partitions were similar to those of the “bath rooms,” but were only 5 feet deep. Both bathtub 

and toilet partitions had doors featuring a louvered upper section above one raised horizontal panel. 

Built-in Furniture in Pantry and Armory 

The pantry was to have built-in shelving and cupboards on all four of its walls. Figure 20 

shows elevations and details of these storage units. Glass-fronted wall cupboards were used above 

drawer units, and open shelves were used over base cabinets. 

The armory was to be fitted with 8-foot-long shelves and a 5-foot-long gun rack. Figure 19 

depicts plans, elevations, and sections of these features. The bottom shelf was to be 3 feet above the 

floor, with the next shelf 2 feet higher, and the top shelf 2 feet higher yet. 

 37 HSR, p. 214. 
 60

Utilities 

Heating Equipment 

 Steam radiators were located under most of the windows, except for those of the kitchen and 

the lavatory (see fig.13). Not surprisingly, the day room (on the cold north side of the building) had 

radiators below six of its seven windows, but the mess room (in the sunny southwest corner of the 

building) had radiators below only three of its six windows. Smaller rooms having two windows, 

such as the company office, had a radiator below only one of them. 

The kitchen had no radiators; presumably it was thought that the cooking range here (see fig. 

26) would have generated sufficient warmth. The range vented into the middle of the three flues in 

the chimney (see fig. 31). The lavatory had a row of sinks under its three windows, so its two 

radiators were positioned one each on the north and south walls. The center hall also had two 

radiators, both on its south wall. 

The design of the radiators was probably similar to the second-story radiator seen in figure 

28. 

Plumbing Fixtures

It is assumed that toilets, bathtubs, and sinks were installed as depicted in the original 

construction drawings (see fig. 13); repeated alterations to this area have erased all physical evidence 

of original fixtures. Figure 19 includes a design for the overhead water tanks for the toilets. The 

kitchen had two sinks, one in the southeast corner and one in the northwest corner. The cast-iron 

vent pipes for these fixtures ran exposed in the lavatory, kitchen, and center hall.38

Lighting Fixtures 

As with the basement plan, the first-floor plan (fig. 13) shows symbols suggestive of wallmounted lighting fixtures on the main lavatory partition. Also shown is another symbol (a circle with 

a rod over it) that seems to indicate a single ceiling-mounted fixtures; these are seen in the center hall 

and the cook’s room. Yet another symbol (two circles connected by a rod) is shown in all other firststory rooms. This presumably represents a double ceiling-mounted fixture. All fixtures were 

presumably gas fixtures. 

 38 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 103. 
 61

Second Story

Plan 

 The second story is depicted in figure 14. Again, the front-to-back center hall formed by the 

two east-west bearing walls divided the building into north and south sides. The east end of the south 

wall projected out due to the presence here of the chimney stack. Opposite this, on the north wall, 

was a shallow broom closet built out from the wall. The west end of hall was open to the second 

story of the pavilion. Two small rooms (about 9 by 10 feet) were located in the pavilion on either 

side of the hall; the north one was assigned to the 1st sergeant of the company, while the south one 

was for the company’s other sergeant.39

 The north and south sides of the building flanking the center hall were mirror images of each 

other. Each consisted of a large dormitory, or squad room, measuring 53 by 42 feet. The outer ends 

of both dormitories were partitioned off to form four small rooms measuring about 9 by 10 feet. The 

floor plan calls the small rooms “NCO” rooms; they were occupied by the sergeants or corporals that 

led the company’s squads. 

Floors 

 Finish flooring was probably of yellow pine. Specifications written in 1908 call for the 

original finish floor to be replaced with the same material. Georgia pine was used for the 1908-09 

repairs, which suggests that the original flooring material was pine, as well.40 An inspection report 

dated December 1908 noted that the original second-story flooring in the barracks was “good edge 

grain flooring,” with only a few pieces of flat grain being found.41

Walls and Ceilings 

 These were generally same as those of the first story. Most walls consisted of cement plaster 

over wood lath; matchboard wainscot was used in the center hall, including on the west wall under 

the “Palladian” window. The ceiling height was probably 14 feet 6 inches.42 Stamped-metal ceilings 

in different patterns with borders were used in all rooms. 

 It is possible but unlikely that each dormitory was divided in two by a strong wire screen, to 

create two separate rooms. Captain Murray recommended that this be done, to form a total of four 

squad rooms. Four dormitory spaces would have matched the number of squads in a battery, “thus 

affording a better means for the maintenance of discipline.” The HRS suggests that this 

recommendation was incorporated into the plan.43 However, there is no indication of such screens in 

the original construction drawing, or in the ca.-1900 photographs. 

 39 The notation “N.C.O.” on the drawing refers to “Non Commissioned Officer.” The two ranks of NCOs in the 

Army are sergeants and corporals. 

40 HRS, 1895-1948, pp. 316, 318. 

41 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 315. 

42 Page 206 of the HSR says that the ceiling height is 12 feet, but the original construction drawing shows this to 

be the height of the first story, not the second. 

43 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 25. 
 62

Doorways and Windows 

 Second-story doorways were located as indicated on figure 14. They were similar to those in 

the first story; they had operative transom sashes, the same type of casings, and the same type and 

size of five-paneled doors. The primary difference was that the transom sashes had only a single row 

of six lights (see fig. 11, transverse section). The two doorways seen in the original transverse 

section (see fig. 11) led to the dormitories. As explained previously, the original construction 

drawings show a different design for the doors than was actually used. 

Other Features 

Stairway to First Story 

The stairwell was edged by the same type of balustrade running up the stairway. 

Stairway to Attic 

An enclosed stairway above the main stairway ascended to the attic. It was accessed by a 

standard doorway with no transom and a five-panel door. There was no handrail, but a molding 

resembling a chair rail ran along the south side of the stairway enclosure at the level of the attic floor. 

Partitions and Lockers in Dormitories 

 As stated previously, the north and south ends of Building 25’s second story were each 

partitioned off into four small bedrooms for corporals. An elevation drawing of the main, east-west 

partition is included in figure 19; one of them can be seen in two ca.-1900 photographs (figs. 27-28), 

and in a third photograph dated ca. 1908 (fig. 36). The partitions did not extend to the ceiling. This 

can be inferred from the elevation drawing, in which the partition is no taller than the doorways 

within it. It can also be confirmed by examining figure 28. The drawing indicates that the partitions 

were made of matchboard sheathing, with a plain baseboard and a cap molding. 

 Each east-west partition contained four doors, grouped as indicated in figure 14. The design 

of the doors shown in figure 19 is two vertical panels above one horizontal panel above two shorter 

vertical panels. This is the same design shown in figure 18 but not used for the other doors in 

Building 25. The partition doors thus probably displayed the same five-panel form actually used for 

those other doors. 

 Based on figure 14, wooden wardrobe lockers were to be installed in the dormitories in the 

following locations: (a) all along the south side of the partitions forming the NCO rooms; (b) all 

along the north side of the south walls; and (c) on the east wall between the windows. There was 

also one locker in each of the four NCO rooms. Counting all of the lockers shown in the dormitories, 

and the north and south NCO rooms, and adding the two lockers in the two NCO rooms in the 

pavilion, yields a total of 70 lockers. This matches the assertion that the building was originally 

designed to house 70 men. Figure 20 includes an elevation and section drawing for the lockers; this 

design matches that seen in the ca.-1900 photographs (figs. 27-28). 
 63

Utilities 

Heating Equipment 

 Steam radiators were located under all of the windows in the dormitories, and under the north 

and south windows in the NCO rooms (see fig.14). The center hall also had two radiators, both on its 

south wall. 

Plumbing Fixtures 

 There were no plumbing fixtures on the second story. 

Lighting Fixtures 

The second-floor plan, like the first-floor plan, shows symbols indicative of wall-mounted 

and ceiling-mounted lighting fixtures. Single wall-mounted fixtures were used in the NCO rooms 

and First Sergeant’s room; single ceiling-mounted fixtures were employed in the center hall; and 

double ceiling-mounted fixtures illuminated the dormitories. All fixtures were presumably gas 

fixtures, since gas lighting was part of the original construction package. 

Ventilation Equipment 

Each dormitory was ventilated by four 12-inch-square ducts located in the corners of the 

room. Each duct had two registers measuring 8 by 12 inches and positioned as seen in figure 11 

(transverse section). The ducts opened to the attic. 

Additional ventilation was provided to the dormitories by sheet-metal ducts in the baseboard 

below all radiators. These have been described more fully in the section “Exterior Elements.”

Attic Level

Plan 

 This level was not depicted in the original plans. It probably consisted of the usual northsouth center hall–formed by the two interior bearing walls–with one large open space on either side. 

Floors, Walls, and Ceilings 

 The finish flooring was pine.44 The walls were of brick, as follows: 

• the north-south walls dividing the center hall from the side areas. These were the brick 

bearing walls extending up from the basement. 

• the end walls of the side areas. These were the triangular gable ends of the north and 

south exterior walls. 

• the west wall of the center hall. This was the triangular gable end of the west pavilion. 

 44 HSR, 1895-1948, p. 206. 
 64

There were no walls, but only roof slopes, in the following areas: 

• the east end of the center hall. 

• the east and west sides of the two large open spaces. 

• the north and south sides of the center hall within the pavilion. 

Doorways and Windows 

 The north and south walls of the center hall each had one doorway accessing the north and 

south sides of the attic. The openings had segmentally arched heads, as shown in fig. 15 (transverse 

section). The north-side doorway may have had a door originally; what appears to be screw holes for 

hinges are visible in the doorjamb. It is not known if the south-side doorway had a similar door. 

 Three elliptical oculi provided some light to the attic. One sat in the gable end of the front 

pavilion, and one each sat in the north and south gable ends. Their sashes have already been 

described as exterior elements. The interior construction of the oculi openings was unusual. On the 

exterior, the oculi appeared simply as elliptical openings in the smooth yellow-brick face wall (see 

fig. 11). However, on the interior, the window openings in the red backing brick consisted of 

rectangular openings with segmentally arched heads. Each opening was fitted with a rectangular 

wooden frame. The frame contained a wooden panel into which the elliptical sash was inserted. The 

arched area above the frame was infilled with wood. Presumably the design was used for structural 

reasons. 

Other Features 

Stairway to the Second Story 

The stairwell down to the second story was edged with a balustrade consisting of two plain 

boards, as extant today. 

Truss System 

The north and south sides of the attic each contained four trusses, positioned as indicated in 

figure 14. They are more fully depicted in figure 11 (transverse section). 

Utilities 

Lighting Fixtures 

 Since no floor plan was drawn for the attic, the locations of original gas fixtures (if any) are 

not known. There are no physical remains of such fixtures in the attic today. 

Ventilation Equipment 

 The ventilation ducts in the corners of the second-story dormitories opened directly into the 

north and south sides of the attic. These spaces were vented in turn by the two exterior ventilators 

mounted on the roof ridge. 
 65

Utility Systems 

Heating System

 Steam-heating systems were part of the original construction for 24 buildings at Fort 

Hancock, including Building 25.45 Radiators were freestanding, based on the original floor plans; 

their locations have been discussed in connection with individual stories. Figure 21 shows the 

original steam-heating plan. 

Plumbing System

 Indoor plumbing was part of the original construction for 28 of Fort Hancock’s first 32 

buildings.46 The locations of original fixtures in the first-story lavatory and kitchen are seen in figure 

13. Waste lines were tied into the fort’s original sewage system. 

Lighting System

 Gas lighting was also part of the original construction for 26 of the fort’s first 32 buildings, 

including Building 25.47 The 1896 floor plans indicate that single wall fixtures, and single and 

double ceiling-mounted fixtures, were apparently used in the various rooms. As explained in 

Chapter II, “Building the Fort, Utilities and Landscaping,” the source of the gas is not known. 

Ventilation System

Ventilation of Building 25 was accomplished primarily by the use of doorways and windows. 

As described previously, the dormitories were further vented by two sets of ducts. One set consisted 

of four large vertical ducts in each corner of the room, venting to the attic, which in turn was vented 

by the two exterior roof ventilators. The other set consisted of sheet-metal ducts in the baseboard 

below all radiators.

 45 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 51. 

46 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 108. 

47 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 108. On page 51, Bearss says that gas lighting was to be installed in 28 buildings, but this 

figure may have been confused with the number of buildings receiving plumbing. 
 66

Figure 9. Original construction drawing, west elevation (1896). 
 67

Figure 10. Original construction drawing, east elevation (1896). 
 68

Figure 11. Original construction drawing, transverse section and end elevation 

(1896). 
 69

Figure 12. Original construction drawing, basement plan (1896). 
 70

Figure 13. Original construction drawing, first-floor plan (1896). 
 71

Figure 14. Original construction drawing, second-floor plan (1896). 
 72

Figure 15. Original construction drawing, details of main cornice and windows (1896). 
 73

Figure 16. Original construction drawing, details of front and rear porches and cornices (1896). 
 74

Figure 17. Original construction drawing, details of exterior doorways and windows (1896). 
 75

Figure 18. Original construction drawing, details of interior doorways, stairway, iron columns, cellar windows, and coal chute (1896). 
 76

Figure 19. Original construction drawing, details of interior partitions, moldings, wainscot, and shelves and gun rack in armory (1896).
 77

Figure 20. Original construction drawing, details of pantry shelving, mess furnishings, and dormitory lockers (1896). 
 78

Figure 21. Original construction drawing, steam heating plan (1896). 
 79

Figure 22. Buildings 23-25, view of west elevations, looking north, ca. 1900. Photograph shows details of front porches 

and pavilion downspouts.
 80

Figure 23. Building 24, view of southeast corner, looking north, ca. 1900. Photograph shows details of cornice and rear porch.
 81

Figure 24. Building 25, view of southeast corner of rear porch, ca. 1900. 

Photograph shows details of porch foundation, steps, and columns.
 82

Figure 25. Building 25, northeast corner of mess room, ca. 1900. Photograph shows doorways to hall and kitchen, and passthrough to pantry.
 83

Figure 26. Building 25, northeast corner of kitchen, ca. 1900. Photograph shows five-panel door and hood over range.
 84

Figure 27. Building 25, interior of dormitory, ca. 1900. Photograph shows partition screening NCO rooms, and original wooden lockers.
 85

Figure 28. Building 25, interior of dormitory, ca. 1900. Photograph shows partition screening NCO rooms, original wooden lockers, 

and original radiator. 
 86

Figure 29. Barracks, view of west pavilion, ca. 1903. Photograph shows details of front steps and first story. Tom 

Mix, the future cowboy movie star, is at center front. 
 87

ALTERATIONS 

Early Improvements and Repairs 

1901

Installation of Flagging 

 During the summer of 1901, bluestone flagging from the terreplein of Battery Potter was 

salvaged and positioned as walkways behind the barracks, around the bake house, and around the 

quartermaster and commissary storehouse.48

Maintenance of Floors 

 The post quartermaster reported that the floors in the barracks and quarters were waxed with 

a formula of 1 pint of paraffin, 2 pints of raw linseed oil, and some wood shavings. Two pints of 

liquid dryer and sufficient turpentine to thin it to the desired consistency were then added. (This 

mixture would provide a glossy surface. If a matte finish were desired, the amount of paraffin would 

be reduced by half.) The mixture was applied with a brush, like varnish. A high gloss could be 

obtained by rubbing the mixture in with a polishing brush. One gallon would cover about 200 square 

feet of floor.49

1902

Introduction of Electricity 

 The use of gas street lighting at Fort Hancock was approved on November 28, 1898. Three 

years later, in 1901, the General Electric Company surveyed the grounds to prepare an estimate for 

wiring the grounds and the buildings.50 Electrification of the buildings was accomplished in 1902. 

Wiring was run in concealed tubing in 19 officers’ quarters, but all other buildings had wiring run in 

“molding and cleats.”51

 48 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 216. 

49 HRS, 1895-1948, pp. 311-312. 

50 HSR, 1895-1948, p. 21. 

51 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 173. 
 88

1903

Installation of Storm Doors and Windows 

 The cold northwest winds that buffeted Sandy Hook in the winter led to the installation of 

storm doors and windows on some of the dormitories’ openings. The two doorways on the west 

elevation, leading from the dormitories to the second-story porches, received storm doors. Storm 

windows were placed on all of the second-story windows on the west and north elevations – eight on 

the west side and four on the north side.52

1905

Removal of the Mess Facilities 

 The four barracks were considered to be too small by December 1899, only a year after 

construction.53 A report conducted in November 1903 found that the barracks, each of which had 

been built for 65-70 men, were actually housing artillery companies with an authorized strength of 

108 enlisted men.54 A variety of options were considered to gain more room. Nothing was done 

until 1904-05, when separate mess halls were built, one behind each of the four barracks (see fig. 30). 

Not only did each mess hall include a kitchen, a pantry, a cook’s room, and seating for 109 men, it 

also housed a tailor shop, a barbershop, and a latrine.55

 This transfer of functions to the new mess halls freed up rooms in the original barracks to be 

used for other purposes. However, it appears that no substantive changes were made to Building 25 

at that time, other than improvements to the lavatory. Floor plans prepared in 1907-08 (figs. 32, 34) 

show room layouts identical to those depicted in the original drawings, with changes only in the 

usage of some spaces, as follows: 

First Story 

1896 Room Names 1907-08 Room Names 

mess room (at southwest corner) dormitory 

kitchen (at southeast wall) dormitory 

pantry (at southeast wall) store room 

cook’s room (at southeast corner) no label – presumably part of store room 

tailor’s room (at southwest wall) NCO room 

barber’s room (at southwest wall) NCO room 

 52 HRS, 1895-1948, pp. 312-313. 

53 HRS, 1895-1948, pp. 261-262. 

54 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 312. 

55 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 266. 
 89

Second Story 

 The north and south dormitories and their eight NCO rooms remained unchanged. The same 

is thought to be true for the two small west rooms on either side of the center hall, in the pavilion. 

The north room was the “1st Sergt’s Room” on the 1896 second-floor plan, while the south room was 

a NCO Room. The 1908 second-floor plan does not label them, but there is no reason for their usage 

to have changed. 

1907-1908

Basement Improvements 

 Approval was obtained on September 25, 1907, to partition off the north end of the basement 

of Building 25, to create a recreation room for the men of the resident 95th Coast Artillery Company, 

and for the men of the 136th Company. A stove was included in the request, to heat the room during 

the cold Sandy Hook winters.56 Figure 31 shows the proposed recreation room. 

 In 1908, “sheetrock” was installed somewhere in the basement, according to the 1938-42 

Post Record Book.

57 This is a confusing entry. “Sheetrock,” or gypsum board, did not come into use 

until the late 1930’s. Obviously the compilers of the Post Record Book used contemporary language 

in 1938-42 to describe alterations that had occurred in 1908. Furthermore, it is possible that the entry 

mistook plaster on wood lath for “sheetrock.” The west and middle thirds of the ceiling in the south 

side of the basement are finished today with wood lath and plaster, a type of construction not used 

elsewhere in the building for other alterations. 

Additional Lockers Installed 

 The November 1903 report had cited a severe shortage of wall lockers in the barracks. All of 

the barracks should have had 110 lockers for the 108 enlisted men that comprised a fully staffed 

artillery company. Building 25 had only 74. Thus, some of the men had to keep their clothes and 

gear in footlockers, which aggravated the already crowded conditions in the dormitories.58 Nothing 

was done about the lockers in 1903. However, 37 additional lockers were purchased for Building 23 

in 1907; the next year, 32 lockers were installed in Building 25, and 38 lockers in Buildings 22 and 

24. The new lockers (fig. 35, right) were enameled steel wall lockers, rather than wooden wardrobe 

lockers like the original ones. The Quartermaster Department had switched from wooden lockers to 

metal lockers because they were easier to obtain and cheaper.59 Interestingly, figure 36 suggests that 

wooden lockers were used in the large, two-company barracks (Building 74) built at Fort Hancock at 

this same time (1908-09). 

 56 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 314. 

57 U.S. Army, Fort Hancock Post Record Book (Fort Hancock, NJ: compiled between 1938 and 1942). 

Hereinafter Post Record Book. 

58 HRS, 1895-1948, pp. 312-313. 

59 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 313. 
 90

1908-1909

Improvements to Heating System 

 Early in 1908 a new heating boiler was installed in a number of buildings, including Building 

25.60 However, the radiator valves were observed to be in poor condition in December 1908.61 There 

is no record of their replacement. 

Remodeling of Lavatory 

 The lavatories in all four barracks were rehabilitated in 1908-09. The first documentation 

found for the work is a first-floor plan done sometime prior to August 1908; superimposed over the 

lavatory appears the text, “Showing new arrangement of fixtures approved, 5 [th?] - 1908.” A 

subsequent version of this plan (fig. 32) has additional text as follows: “Changed again Aug. 1908 

and plan 2-877.” Plan 2-877 (fig. 33) is titled “Remodeling Plumbing in Barracks Nos. 22-23-24-

25,” and is clearly dated August 1908. Augmenting these plans was a “Specification for Plumbing 

and Construction, Barracks 22, 23, 24, and 25, Fort Hancock, N.J.,” dated September 1908.62

 Shortly thereafter, Constructing Quartermaster Lt. Hawkins called for proposals to 

rehabilitate the lavatories. Proposals were opened and abstracted on November 18.63 Before the 

contract could be awarded, a civil engineer named Adams inspected the barracks in mid-December 

and made a “supplementary report on plumbing.”64 He found the plumbing in the barracks to be in 

“poor and unsanitary condition.” Adams recommended the installation of waterproof floors and new 

fixtures to make the plumbing sanitary. Fortunately, these work items were already in Hawkins’ 

specifications. 

The contract was awarded on December 22 to a George W. Wines, and the work was 

completed in May 1909. All of the plumbing fixtures and the wooden partitions were removed from 

the lavatories, as well as the soil, waste, and vent pipes. New main soil pipes 6 inches in diameter 

were installed. New partitions were built of slate and brass. New fixtures included bathtubs, water 

closets with tanks, lavatories (sinks), urinals with tanks, showers with slate stalls, laundry tubs with 

traps, floor traps, and wall hydrants. All breaks in the plaster were patched and painted, and the 

woodwork was given three coats of paint.65

 60 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 319. 

61 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 315. 

62 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 320. “Specifications for Plumbing and Construction, Barracks 22, 23, 24, 25,” September 

1908, doc. 217,982, Correspondence 1890-1914, Record Group 92, National Archives. 

63 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 319. 

64 R.E. Adams, Civil Engineer, to Quartermaster General, Dec. 15, 1908 (doc. 250,934, General 

Correspondence, 1890-1914, Record Group 92, National Archives). 

65 HRS, 1895-1948, pp. 319-320. 
 91

 In each lavatory the finish floor was taken up and the subfloor patched as necessary. The 

entire floor was then covered with gray asbestolith floor tiles that sloped toward the floor traps and 

traps in the shower stalls. The tiles continued to the top of the baseboards.66 At the doorways to the 

latrines, a beveled yellow-pine threshold was installed, being rabbeted to fit closely to the wood 

flooring outside the latrine and the tile inside. 

Improvements to Floors and Stairways 

 The floors in all four barracks also were rehabilitated at about the same time as the lavatories 

were remodeled. The first-floor plan that has the August 1908 notations about the lavatory work (fig. 

32) also has the following text in the lower left corner: “all rooms of this floor, except lavatory, to 

have new upper [finish] floors. Stairs to have new treads and risers. Also metal treads and toe 

plates. Hall to have metal treads as shown.” Based on the plan, the hall “treads” actually resembled 

a continuous surface covering high-traffic areas in the center hall. 

 A similar, second-floor plan–also from August 1908–has a title block containing the 

following text: “Repairs of Barracks Floors &c. Barracks Nos. 22, 23, 24 & 25.” This drawing was 

done by “M.N. Falls, Captain and Quartermaster, and J.H. Pearson, C.E. and Supt. of Constn., 

Q.M.D.” Interestingly, it specifies no work whatsoever. A later version of the same plan (fig. 34) 

has no text in the title block area, but the lower left corner bears the following text: “N.B. This floor 

to have all worn or damaged upper [finish] flooring repaired, as per specifications, where directed by 

officer in charge.” The plan also shows what appears to be a metal threshold at the east doorway 

between the center hall and the north dormitory. The first- and second-story plans were apparently 

supplemented by “Specifications for the Repairs of the Four Barracks Buildings...at Fort Hancock,” 

dated August 1908 and prepared by Quartermaster General Aleshire’s staff.67

 Again, before the contract could be awarded, Civil Engineer Adams inspected the barracks in 

mid-December and made a “supplementary report on flooring in Barracks Nos. 22, 23, 24, and 25.”68 

He found the floors, like the plumbing, to be in poor condition. The sandstone sills of the barracks’ 

exterior doorways were badly worn. Those of Building 25 were the worst: the front doorway sill was 

worn down 1 3

/8 inches, and the rear 1 3/16 inches. Adams recommended their replacement with 

granite. He also observed that the floors in all the first-story halls were worn “clear through the 

upper [finish] flooring and partially through the lower [subflooring].”69 The finish flooring in the 

second-story halls was worn below the tongue. Adams thus recommended the replacement of all 

first-story flooring (except in the latrines), of the treads of the main stairway, and of the flooring in 

the second-story hall. He also called for the repair of flooring around the second-story doorways and 

in other areas where wear had been excessive. Metal treads were recommended for the stair treads, 

and for use at the front and rear entrances. Fortunately, these concerns had already been addressed in 

the specifications prepared by General Aleshire’s staff. 

 66 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 319. 

67 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 317. “Specifications for the Repairs of the Four Barracks Buildings...at Fort Hancock,” 

August 1908, doc. 206,541, Correspondence 1890-1914, Record Group 92, National Archives. 

68 Adams to Quartermaster General, Dec. 16, 1908 (doc. 250,934, General Correspondence, 1890-1914, Record 

Group 92, National Archives). 

69 HRS, 1895-1948, pp. 315-316. 
 92

 On March 12, 1909, Constructing Quartermaster Lt. Hawkins invited proposals for the floor 

work. The proposal submitted by the same George W. Wines who had rehabilitated the lavatories 

was accepted in early May, even though it did not include all of the work items desired. Wines’ men 

laid new maple flooring in the first story of all four barracks (except for the latrines). They repaired 

the second-story flooring with Georgia pine; they repaired the stair treads and risers; and they 

provided and installed iron thresholds. However, Lt. Hawkins had to readvertise for the remainder of 

the work. In late May, he accepted three proposals: that of Marbleoid to install composition flooring 

in the hallways of the barracks; that of the American Mason Company for installing metal treads on 

the stairways; and that of George W. Wines to install toe plates on the stairways. Wines and 

Marbleoid accomplished their tasks in the summer of 1909.70

 It is assumed that all work adhered to the August 1908 specifications. If so, the new maple 

flooring was seven-eighths of an inch thick, showing a 3 1⁄2-inch face. It was a no. 1 hard rock maple, 

kiln dried, tongue-and-groove, “in edge and edge, bored for blind nailing.” It was finished with one 

heavy coat of raw linseed oil well rubbed in. The pine repairs were accomplished with tongue-andgroove, “kiln dried heart faced quarter sawed long leaf yellow pine, free from sap stains pitch 

pockets,” and knots. The pine floorboards were to receive two coats (both being well rubbed in) of 

raw linseed oil, the second applied 24 hours after the first. One layer of floor felt was to be placed 

between the upper and lower flooring on each story.71

 The specifications also describe how the stairways were to be repaired. The stair treads and 

risers were to be removed as required and replaced with the same types of wood selected for the new 

flooring. The new elements were also to be of the same dimensions and shape as the ones replaced. 

They would be joined tongue-and-groove, each riser into the tread above, and each tread fitted into 

the riser behind it, with both being let into the outside wall string. A new wall string was to be 

secured to the old wall string with round-headed brass screws. The new stringer was to be seveneighths of an inch thick, with the quarter-round edge sawed to fit closely over the steps. Finally, new 

iron thresholds were to be inserted into the sandstone sills of the exterior doorways.72

Work Not Accomplished 

Roof Repairs 

 Civil Engineer Adams also noted that the troops’ heavy use of the roofs of the barracks’ rear 

porches had caused the roofs to pull away from their flashings, which caused leaks over the rear 

doorways below. 

To correct this, Adams urged that “the wooden platform be covered with 

flashings to keep water from passing the supports and not rest directly onto 

the roof.”73

However, the documentation suggests that the work was not done at this time. 

 70 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 318. 

71 HRS, 1895-1948, pp. 316-317. 

72 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 317. 

73 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 316. 
 93

1912-1918

 A historic photograph shows the Fort Hancock barracks ca. 1912 (fig. 37). An inspection of 

the Sandy Hook Defenses in December 1918 found the general condition of quarters and barracks to 

be very good. The permanent buildings, which included Building 25, had been recently repainted 

and were in good repair.74

 74 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 402. 
 94

Figure 30. View of Fort Hancock from the top of Sandy Hook Light, looking west. Photograph shows the new mess halls built behind the barracks 

in 1905. 
 95

Figure 31. Basement plan, 1907-08, showing proposed recreation room. 
 96

Figure 32. First-floor plan, 1908, showing changes in room use, and proposed alterations to floors and lavatory. 
 97

Figure 33. Plan titled “Remodeling Plumbing in Barracks Nos. 22-23-24-25, Fort Hancock, N.J.,” 

August 1908. 
 98

Figure 34. Second-floor plan, 1908, showing proposed alterations to floors. 
 99

Figure 35. Building 23, interior of dormitory, ca. 1908. The date is derived from the presence of metal wall lockers 

(installed here in 1907) and a footlocker belonging to Company 55, which left Fort Hancock in February 1909. 

Photograph also shows original partition screening NCO rooms, original metal ceiling and wooden lockers, 

and 1902 electric light fixtures. 
 100

Figure 36. Two-company barracks (Building 74), interior of dormitory, ca. 1909-14. Photograph shows wooden lockers. 
 101

Figure 37. View of main parade ground, looking southeast, ca. 1912. Photograph shows west and north elevations of all four original barracks, and 

new troop quarters built in 1908-09. 
 102

Between the World Wars 

1925

 Exterior repairs were badly needed at barracks 22-25. One inspector reported that the 

“weather now beats through in places and threatens” the buildings structurally.75 He recommended 

the painting and repair of the valleys, gutters, downspouts, ridges, and rotted exterior woodwork. 

Replacement materials were to be galvanized iron gutters and downspouts, longleaf yellow pine 

flooring measuring 1 1⁄2 inches by 2 1⁄2 inches, 6-inch crown molding for cornices, 1 1⁄4-inch cove 

moldings for porches, and paint that conformed to U.S. specifications. 

 Building 25 was further damaged on August 29, when a “harmless” shell put along the 

roadway at the corner of Magruder and Hudson Roads exploded due to the placement next to it of a 

bucket of hot tar. The ensuing explosion caused $496.89 worth of damage, mostly broken glass, to 

the post exchange, fire station, mess hall 58, and barracks 25.76

 Buildings 22 and 23 were repaired in 1925-26, and work on Buildings 24, 25, 58, and 82 was 

finished by April 1926, except for the painting. Purchase orders had been issued to local tinsmiths 

for repair or renewal of “tindecks,” gutters, and downspouts.77 Repairs to porch flooring and steps, 

window sashes, and cornices were carried out by the troops. The painting was finished by midMay.78

 The troops’ repair of cornices may have included the replacement of the metal denticulate 

elements of the west porches’ cornices with duplicates of wood. It is known that this work was 

performed sometime prior to 1989.79 Graphic documentation cannot help date this change, since 

both metal and wooden dentils look the same in photographs and drawings. Another possible date 

for this work is 1930-31, when repairs were made to many elements, including the metal cornices.”80 

Both dates seem rather early for the metal dentils to have deteriorated, but this could be explained by 

the fact that the gutters above them had failed. 

 75 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 492. 

76 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 492. 

77 A strict interpretation of the language of the 1926 purchase orders would suggest that the galvanized-iron 

gutters and downspouts originally specified had been omitted in favor of tin gutters and downspouts. However, 

popular parlance often called any thin sheet metal “tin,” even when it was actually zinc, copper, iron, or steel 

[Pamela H. Simpson, Cheap, Quick, and Easy: Imitative Architectural Materials 1870-1930 (University of 

Tennessee Press, 1999), p. 71]. 

78 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 494. 

79 Historic Structure Assessment Report, Fort Hancock-Building 25, Barrack, Gateway National Recreation 

Area, Sandy Hook Unit (Douglasville, GA: Architectural Conservation Center, Georgia Institute of Technology, 

College of Architecture, 1989-1990), p. 13. Hereinafter Assessment Report. 

80 HRS, 1895-1948, pp. 495-496. 
 103

1928-1929

The documentation indicates that Buildings 22-24 were repaired, but not Building 25.81

Various latrine fixtures were installed in November and December.82 A dormitory in Building 25 is 

shown in a photograph dated ca. 1929 (fig. 38). That same year some “faulty interior wiring [was] 

corrected.”83

1930-1934

 More than $8,440 was expended in fiscal year 1931 on improvements to the four barracks.84 

A contract was let to install metal weather stripping on 20 windows and five doors at Building 25. 

The work ran from September 15 to November 26, 1930, and cost $85. A larger group of repairs was 

also begun in September 1930 but not completed until March 31, 1931. This work included “Repairs 

to metal cornice, gutters and downspouts; replacing porch steps and flooring, cornice and repairs to 

columns [probably all at east porch]; repairs to doors and windows; repairs to wood floors [probably 

interior floors]; repairs to plaster walls and ceilings [?]; replace lavatories [toilet bowls], repairs to 

showers, urinals and wash sinks; metal weather strips on doors and windows; repairs to light fixtures; 

replacing window and door screens [as needed]; painting of porches.”85

Despite all this work, Building 25 was vacant in April 1934. The floors in some of the rooms 

needed to be replaced before the building could once again be used as a barracks, and the roof of the 

rear porch needed to be repaired.86 However, a new 350-gallon water heater was installed in July of 

that year.87 This suggests that a resumption of use was anticipated. 

1936

A great deal of work was performed beginning in March 1936 and ending in January 1937. 

This apparently coincided with the occupancy of Building 25 by the 52nd Coast Artillery 

Headquarters Battery, which was quartered there from 1937 to 1940. The office of the fort’s military 

police was on the first floor. It was small, since the force consisted of only four to five men. They 

were not referred to as MPs at the time.88

 81 HRS, 1895-1948, pp. 494-495. 

82 Post Record Book. 

83 Post Record Book. 

84 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 496. 

85 HRS, 1895-1948, pp. 495-496, and Post Record Book. 

86 HRS, 1895-1948, p. 498. 

87 Post Record Book.

88 Sandy Hook Unit curator Mary (Trocchia) Rasa, from a conversation with Albin Zwiezak, a private with the 

52nd Coast Artillery. Mr. Zwiezak explained that prior to the official creation of the Military Police in 1942, the 

function was the responsibility of a detachment formed by taking a few soldiers from each company for a time. 
 104

Work items included: 

Repairing interior water pipes with copper; installation of new urinals, wash 

bowls and water closets; replacement of latrine floors, complete repainting 

of interior; renovation and replacement of doors and locks; replacement of 

electric light fixtures; replacement of porch flooring and repairs to 

downspouts and gutters. 

The phrase “replacement of latrine floors” may have referred to the pouring of the current concrete 

floor in the lavatory. Interestingly, concrete supports for it can be seen today in the ceiling of the 

north side of the basement. 

A photograph taken in 1937 (fig. 39), during the occupancy of Building 25 by the 52nd Coast 

Artillery Headquarters Battery, suggests that some changes in first-story room usage had occurred 

since 1907-09. These changes are documented on a first-floor plan taken from the 1938-42 Post 

Record Book (fig. 41). They are as follows: 

1896 Room Names 1907-1909 Room Names 1938-42 Room Names 

day room same dormitory 

mess room dormitory day room 

kitchen dormitory reading room 

pantry store room master gunner’s office 

cook’s room none store room 

tailor’s room NCO room same 

barber’s room NCO room same 

company office same orderly room 

armory same “B.C. Office” 

Figure 39 shows the interior of a dormitory. The section of wall seen at the back is 

uninterrupted by doorways or windows. The only room in the entire building that had such a wall 

was the original first-story day room. This suggests that the former day room had been converted to 

a dormitory by 1937. Figure 40 is an exterior view of Building 25 at about this time. 

1938-1940

 Building 25 was one of four structures that underwent extensive rehabilitation in fiscal years 

1938-40. The FY 1938 work on Building 25 was described as follows: 

Carpenter repairs to interior and exterior; repaired all screens. Repaired all 

plumbing fixtures and replaced new pipe where needed. Pointed up 

brickwork and retopped chimney. Inspected and repaired all electrical 

fixtures and wiring. Repaired and replaced gutters and downspouts. 

Installed one panel switchboard.89

 89 Post Record Book. 
 105

Work must have continued past FY 1938, since the Post Record Book indicates that $4,070 was 

expended on Building 25 in FY 1939, with an additional $2,646 being spent in FY 1940. By 

contrast, only $461 was spent in FY 1941. 

 Tasks accomplished in FY 1940 by the Works Progress Administration were as follows: 

Sheet metal repairs to roof. Repair of heating boilers. Repair of smoke pipe 

and plumbing repairs. Plaster repairs to walls and ceiling. Sanding and 

finishing of all new floors. Removing and replacing of radiators for 

carpenters. Laying of new floors and overhauling doors and sash. Repair of 

metal ceilings. Checking of entire electrical system and installation of 

necessary electrical fixtures. Painting of Q.M. squadroom and walls of 

dayroom. Patching of plaster in squadroom, latrine and two (2) Sergeants’ 

rooms.

90

 First- and second-floor plans from this period are included in the 1938-42 Post Record Book

(see figs. 41-42). As explained previously, the first-floor plan shows that changes in room usage had 

occurred since 1907-09. The second-floor plan shows that no changes had been made to this level; 

the NCO rooms at the north and south ends were still in place. 

 These plans suggest that all of the steam radiators were replaced as part of the 1938-40 work. 

It is known that most of the radiators currently in place have fewer fins than the original radiators, 

based on the location of the holes in the floorboards left by the original radiator pipes. The written 

documentation does not give any date for the radiators’ replacement. However, figures 41-42 

include notations giving a height measurement and the number of fins for each unit. The fin numbers 

mostly correspond to the radiators present today. More significantly, the height measurements given 

are taller than the actual radiators, whose height had to be reduced for them to fit under the windows. 

If the radiators shown in figures 41-42 had been in place when the drawings were made, the correct 

height measurements would probably have been given. This suggests that the current radiators were 

an unknown quantity at that time, i.e., in the process of being installed. 

 90 Post Record Book. 
 106

Figure 38. Building 25, interior of dormitory, ca. 1929. Photograph 

shows members of the 7th Coast Artillery Headquarters Battery, a 

unit quartered in Building 25 from 1927 to 1930. Photograph 

also shows (at rear left) a doorway leading to the center hall. 
 107

Figure 39. Building 25, interior of dormitory (probably original day room) during occupancy by the 

52nd Headquarters Battery, 1937. 
 108

Figure 40. View of main parade ground, looking east, 1938. Photograph shows west elevation of Building 25. 
 109

Figure 41. Building 25, plan of first floor, ca. 1938-42. 
 110

Figure 42. Building 25, plan of second floor, ca. 1938-42. 
 111

World War II 

 The exterior of Building 25 is seen in a photograph showing activity on the parade ground in 

1943 (fig. 43). 

Refurbishment for WAACs, 1943

 In the summer of 1943, Fort Hancock received an initial contingent of members of the 

Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps (WAACs). The army was the first of America’s military branches 

to enlist women. The mission of the WAACs was to provide support to the Army by releasing men 

from administrative duties to serve in combat. Despite opposition on several fronts, Congress passed 

the Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps bill, and it was signed into law on May 14, 1942.91

Considerable thought was given to where the women would be quartered at Fort Hancock. 

The army had great concerns about the living arrangements for women. Army regulations required 

that men’s and women’s barracks be separated by either 150 feet or an intervening structure. At Fort 

Hancock, it was decided to quarter the WAACs in Building 25, and to convert the adjacent barracks 

24 into the post headquarters building.92 Refurbishment work apparently began in June 1943, but it 

was not completed by the time the first contingent–seven WAACs and two officers–arrived on June 

23. They were quartered at the nurses’ quarters at the Station Hospital until Building 25 was 

finished.93 The WAAC detachment was assigned to the 1225th Army Service Unit, Second Service 

Command. This unit had been organized at Sandy Hook in 1941 to provide administrative and 

logistical support to tactical commands.94 The women were soon at work at the post exchange, motor 

pool, post headquarters, mess halls, commissary, finance office, and dental office.95

 91 Mary (Trocchia) Rasa, “The Women’s Army Corps” (NPS pamphlet, Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook Unit.) 

92 “The Women’s Army Corps.” 

93 The Foghorn, June 24, 1943. 

94 Bearss, Historic Resource Study, Fort Hancock: 1948-1974, Sandy Hook Unit, Gateway National Recreation 

Area, Monmouth County, New Jersey (Denver: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver 

Service Center, Historic Preservation Division, Nov. 1982), p. 3. Hereinafter HRS, 1948-1974. 

95 The Foghorn, June 24, 1943. 
 112

The post newspaper The Foghorn described the repairs and renovation of the interior of 

Building 25 as follows: 

The interior of the two-story building, formerly the headquarters of the 

Guardsmen unit,96 has been done over completely. All walls and ceilings 

have been repainted, floors scraped and shellacked, and additional showers 

and wash basins installed. A room on the south side of the main floor of the 

building has been converted into a day room and the basement into a 

laundry, equipped with wash tubs, drying racks and ironing boards.97

Sleeping accommodations for the WAAC contingent will not differ from 

those of enlisted men. The WAACs will sleep in double deck wooden beds. 

Each auxiliary will be provided with a GI foot locker and wall locker. 

WAAC day room equipment is expected to arrive shortly. The room will be 

equipped with easy chairs, settees, card and writing tables, a piano, radio, 

ping pong table and reading lamps. 

...The Day Room will be painted in a color scheme selected by the 

commanding officer of the contingent.98

Unlike the men, the WAAC barracks received sheets, window shades, showers and toilets with 

curtains, in addition to a laundry.99

The Post Record Book cites some of the plumbing and electrical work done, but does not 

include painting. 

Shortly after the first WAACs arrived at Fort Hancock, their status changed. President 

Roosevelt signed legislation the first week in July 1943 that created the Women’s Army Corps 

(WAC). This allowed women to become regular Army personnel, rather than auxiliary personnel, 

with benefits, privileges, and rights equal to those of men.100 Figure 44 shows the Fort Hancock 

WAACs taking the Oath of Allegiance to become WACS in September 1943, with Building 25 in the 

background. Figure 45 shows the sign on the front of Building 25 being changed accordingly. 

Figures 46-47 show the interior of Building 25 on September 21, 1943. 

By February 1944, there were approximately 70 WACs assigned to Fort Hancock.101 Figure 

48 shows WACs being honored in 1944, again with Building 25 in the background. Figure 49 

clearly shows the front doorway at the time of WAC occupancy of Building 25; the doorway’s 

appearance matches that seen in the original construction drawings from 1896 (fig. 17). 

 96 This phrase probably refers to the military police that had occupied an office in the first story of Building 25. 

97 Presumably the “room on the south side of the main floor” is the original mess room 

98 The Foghorn, June 24, 1943. 

99 “The Women’s Army Corps.” 

100 The Foghorn, July 8, 1943. 

101 The Foghorn, February 17, 1944. 
 113

Figure 43. View of main parade ground, looking northeast, 1943. 
 114

Figure 44. Members of the Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps (WAAC) take the Oath of Allegiance to 

become members of the newly created Women’s Army Corps (WAC), September 1943. 
 115

Figure 45. Members of the Women’s Army Corps celebrating their new status as full members of the 

Army, by crossing out the second “A” in “WAAC,” 1943. 
 116

Figure 46. Building 25, interior of dormitory, September 21, 1943. 
 117

Figure 47. Building 25, interior, September 21, 1943. 
 118

Figure 48. Members of the Women’s Army Corps, 1944. Photograph shows 

part of Building 25’s pavilion. 
 119

Figure 49. Members of the Women’s Army Corps and their escorts, 1943-45. Photograph shows 

front doorway of Building 25. 
 120

Post-World War II 

Circa 1950

Repairs 

 In the fall of 1947, Fort Hancock began to be used for National Guard and Army Reserve 

activities. Some repairs were made to barracks 24 and 25 in December 1948.102 Flashings were 

recaulked, and railings and posts were repaired and repainted. Barracks 24 was reroofed with 90-lb. 

asphalt shingles. 

Return of WACs 

 The 1225th Army Service Unit–to which the World War-II WACs were assigned–finished its 

service at Fort Hancock on December 31, 1949, and Fort Hancock was deactivated in June 1950.103 

However, the advent of the Korean War caused the fort to be reactivated in April 1951, to provide 

anti-aircraft defense and training. The 1225th Army Service Unit was reorganized to provide 

support.104 Fort Hancock was closed again after the Korean War, in 1953. However, this time the 

1225th remained active, to provide logistical and administrative support to the radar and anti-aircraft 

installations elsewhere at Sandy Hook.105 Apparently a second contingent of WACs arrived in 1955: 

Building 25 was updated in the summer of that year for their occupancy.106 Women’s lavatory 

facilities were installed in the latrine, after urinals were removed. (As described previously, work 

performed in 1943 for the building’s first occupancy by WACs included the installation of additional 

showers and wash basins, but apparently not new toilets.) Laundry facilities for 142 WACS were 

also added; the facilities installed in 1943 would not have been sufficient for such a large number 

group. A 1956 photograph shows one of the dormitories in Building 24 (fig. 50); it is possible that 

the interior of Building 25 looked similar. 

Circa 1960

Documentation of Permanent Buildings 

 A set of three floor plans were prepared for Buildings 23 and 24 in 1959 (figs. 51-53). No 

similar drawings were found for Building 25. However, figures 59-61 may indeed be applicable to 

Building 25. First, they show the same room arrangement as seen in the 1938-42 drawings done for 

Building 25. Second, they show alterations that we know were also done to Building 25. For 

example, figure 60 shows that the steps originally at both ends of the barracks’ east porches had been 

 102 HRS, 1948-1974, p. 173. 

103 HRS, 1948-1974, pp. 3, 18. 

104 HRS, 1948-1974, pp. 21-24. 

105 HRS, 1948-1974, p. 29. 

106 HRS, 1948-1974, p. 173. 
 121

removed by 1959, and new ones built on either side of the basement entrance. This work was also 

accomplished at Building 25 sometime before 1964 (fig. 64). 

Lavatory Changes 

A July 18, 1960, drawing titled “Rehabilitation of Latrine, Building No. 25” (fig. 54) was 

prepared for the first-story lavatory. It called for a new north-south partition to be built in the middle 

of the room, with sinks on either side and containing electrical outlets. 

1964

 The Headquarters and Headquarters Battery of the 52nd Artillery (Air Defense) Brigade 

transferred to Fort Hancock from the Highlands Army Air Defense site on January 26, 1964. It is 

likely that the brigade’s headquarters moved into Building 25 at about that time. This is inferred 

from a set of floor plans dated May 1964 (figs. 55-57); the set’s title block documents the presence of 

the headquarters, and suggests that the plans depicted existing conditions, rather than proposed 

changes. The drawings show that numerous changes were made to accommodate this change from 

housing to offices. The most noticeable alteration was the subdivision of larger spaces, as follows: 

• the south side of the basement had a vault and a message center along the south end of 

the east wall, and a “reproduction room” in the northwest corner; 

• the original mess room in the southwest corner of the first story was subdivided into four 

offices; 

• the lavatory was subdivided into separate latrines for officers and enlisted men; 

• the original day room at the north end had two small rooms created in its northeast 

corner; and 

• the south dormitory was partitioned to create three small offices along the south wall, 

with the remaining space divided in two. 

 Paint study indicates that nearly all exterior and interior doors were replaced with modern 

doors at this time. This work generally included modification of the doorway openings in which the 

doors were hung; typically, double doorways were reduced in size to accommodate single doors. 

Another alteration seen for the first time in the plans is the basement entry along the south 

wall. It may have been needed to provide sufficient egress for the new activities in the basement. 

Two other alterations that also seem to have been part of the conversion were performed in June and 

September 1964. One of these changes is documented by a June 9 drawing titled “New Fire Escape 

Ladder to be Installed Rear Bldg. No. 25” (fig. 58). This was a metal ladder attached to the east side 

of the rear porch at a point 5 feet 3 inches from the south end. Again, it may well have been needed 

to provide sufficient egress for the new second-story offices. The second change is documented by a 

September 3 drawing titled “New Masonry Steps and Porch Deck, Bldg. No. 25” (fig. 59). It calls 

for the wooden porch steps on the north side of the basement entryway to be removed; the steps on 

the south side of the entryway were to receive “new conc. steps to replaced exist. wood steps.” This 

work may have been needed to accommodate the traffic generated by the conversion to brigade 

headquarters. 

 The conversion of Building 25 from a barracks to brigade headquarters may also have 

included the replacement in kind of all of the building’s wooden window sashes. There is no 

documentation for such work as part of the conversion. However, it is known that this replacement 
 122

was accomplished prior to 1989,107 and 1964 seems the most likely time, for several reasons. First, 

the 1988 historic structure report for the parade-ground structures calls for the refinishing of 80 

sashes at Building 25, which suggests that the sashes had been in place long enough to need some 

work by that time.108 Second, paint study indicates a 1964 date for the sash replacement. Third, the 

documentation suggests that Building 25’s sashes were replaced when the sashes of the other 

barracks were not–i.e., at a time when Building 25 was treated differently and better than the other 

barracks. (For example, the draft historic structure report states that 21 sashes in Building 22 were 

still “extremely deteriorated” in 1979.109) 

Circa 1970

Use by the U.S. Army Reserve 

The Headquarters and Headquarters Battery of the 52nd Artillery (Air Defense) Brigade 

probably occupied Building 25 until the unit was reassigned back to the Highlands Army Air 

Defense Site in September 1967.110 The departure of the regular Army was followed by the 

establishment of a U.S. Army Reserve Center at Fort Hancock circa 1967-69 (see fig. 60). By April 

1974, the Army Reserve Center consisted of Buildings 24 and 25, Mess Halls 55-56-57, and a 

fenced-in motor pool area along the north side of Gunnison Road. The barracks’ dormitories became 

classrooms and drill halls, while the offices and the lavatories remained same. This occupation kept 

the interiors of the two buildings well maintained. 

Replacement of Slate Roof 

 In 1973, the original slate roof was replaced with asphalt composition shingles.111

1976

Stabilization Program 

 A stabilization program was proposed in 1976 for 28 masonry buildings in the area of Fort 

Hancock’s Parade Ground, including Building 25. Water penetration and structural problems were 

cited as the reason such work was needed. The project was to be “performed under the direction and 

supervision of a Denver Service Center Exhibit Specialist and Historical Architect.”112 A set of 19 

sheets of drawings was prepared for all of the structures involved, with various building elements 

 107 Assessment Report, p. 7. 

108 HSR, p. 234. 

109 HSR Draft, p. 189. 

110 Thomas Hoffman, Sandy Hook Unit historian, to Sharon Ofenstein, Sept. 26, 2001. 

111 HSR, p. 233. 

112 Letter, Jack E. Stark, Regional Director, North Atlantic Region, NPS, to David J. Bardin, Commissioner, 

Department of Environmental Protection, New Jersey, November 1, 1976. 
 123

annotated with a numbering system. One sheet (no. 10) depicts all four elevations of the enlisted 

men’s barracks (see figs. 61-64). Three additional sheets (nos. 11-13) show details. Unfortunately, 

no specifications or completion report could be found at either the park or the Denver Service Center 

to explain what work related to the various numbers. The building elements so numbered include the 

oculi, the main cornice, the Palladian-style window, the front porch, the cornices of the front and rear 

porches, the stone belt course and brick arch caps on the front pavilion, and all doorways and 

windows. Presumably the stabilization program focused on these elements. However, it is not 

known if all of the elements were treated on all four barracks, nor is it known how long the project 

continued. For example, Building 25’s porches were still in poor condition in 1978-79.113 Either 

these porches were not part of the 1976 stabilization, or else the project was still ongoing in 1979. 

Replacement of Portions of Main Cornice 

 At some point prior to the removal of the west porches in 1989-90, the horizontal sections of 

the main roof’s metal cornice, including the eave returns, were removed and replaced with a simple 

wooden box cornice.114 It is possible that this work was done in 1976. A 1943 photograph (fig. 44) 

shows the cornice as being intact. The elevation drawings done for the 1976 stabilization (figs. 61-

64) show the original cornice still in place; no number is assigned to it, which suggests that it was not 

part of the work. The 1979 draft HSR states that the “pressed metal cornice” on Building 22 was still 

deteriorated at that time, and that the conditions at Building 25 were “similar to Building No. 22.”115 

However, there is no record of cornice replacement anytime after 1976 but before 1989. 

Circa 1980

Occupancy by the Marine Academy of Science and Technology 

 The U.S. Army Reserve Center relocated circa 1981-82 from Fort Hancock to Lincroft, NJ. 

The buildings that it vacated–Barracks 24 and 25, and Mess Halls 55-56-57–were soon reoccupied, 

by the Marine Academy of Science and Technology (MAST). This organization used Building 25 as 

classrooms until the end of the 1997-98 school year.116

 113 HSR Draft, p. 208. 

114 Assessment Report, p. 13. 

115 HSR Draft, pp. 184, 208. 

116 Principal’s office, Marine Academy of Science and Technology. 
 124

Circa 1990

Dismantling of the West Porches 

A contract that ran from October to December 1989 “removed 10 wood porches” from the 

enlisted men’s barracks at Fort Hancock.117 The total of 10 probably included the two west porches 

on all four barracks, and the rear porches of barracks 23 and 24. (The rear porches of Buildings 22 

and 25 were excluded from the contract.) The completion report for the work said the following: 

With replacement of the gutter and cornice system by undersized modern 

components and the lack of any maintenance over the past 25 years the 

porches of the barracks have rapidly rotted to where they are in advanced 

stages of collapse.... 

Because of the lack of funds to restore the porches via the cyclical 

maintenance program and the eminent [sic] safety hazard the porches 

presented to the public it was decided in the summer of 1989 that they 

should be documented, dismantled and key architectural components 

salvaged.... 

The aim of this contract was first to remove the porches so further damage to 

the barracks would be arrested and to eliminate the public safety hazards.... 

reusable and salvageable architectural components would be saved for later 

actual reuse or as patterns when the porches are to be reconstructed. Since 

the original 1896 drawings for the Barracks and its porches still exist 

showing clearly original design, the field measuring and recording was 

focused on construction/framing details and full-size profiles. These field 

notes were augmented by both b/w photographs and color slides. All 

documentation has been compiled in a project note book.118

All of the porches’ components were removed except for the brick piers of the west porches, 

the several sections of cast-iron balustrade that were still firmly attached to the piers, and the center 

portions of the porches’ first floor (to maintain access to the main entrance). The park staff saved 

representative pieces of the porches, and labeled and stored them in Building 125 for future reuse in 

situ or as models for reproduction.119 The piers were braced and capped with wood. The remaining 

sections of cast-iron balustrade and the metal anchors that attached the balustrades to the piers were 

wire-brushed and primed. 

This demolition work eliminated the immediate safety hazards related to the porches, but it 

did not address the failed gutter and drainage system that had caused the porches’ deterioration. 

There was clear evidence afterward that moisture was still getting into masonry walls.120

 117 CX1600-9-0044, “Dismantling of Historic Porches, Enlisted Men’s Barracks, Fort Hancock, Sandy Hook, 

NJ.” Awarded to Tri-Gem Builders. For further information, see W. Lewis Barlow IV, AIA, “Completion Report, 

Historic Porches Dismantling, Fort Hancock – Sandy Hook Unit, Gateway National Recreation Area, Sandy Hook, 

New Jersey” (NPS: North Atlantic Region, Cultural Resources Center, Building Conservation Branch, Feb. 1990). 

 

118 “Completion Report, Historic Porches Dismantling,” Project Summary. The “project note book” referenced 

has not been found at the Cultural Resources Center. 

119 The porch elements have since been moved to Building 49. 

120 NPS memorandum, Manager, Cultural Resources Center, to Superintendent, Gateway NRA, March 13, 1990. 
 125

Emergency Stabilization, 1991-1993 

 During this period, 26 of Fort Hancock’s “highest priority” buildings were stabilized. The 

completion report describes the work as follows: 

The major project objective was to stabilize the worst of the exterior 

envelope failures so as to allow them to function properly for a period of 

five years. Our priorities were to focus on repair of bulging brick walls, 

repair to leak roof covers, replacement of caulk at joints, closing in cornices, 

installing vent and light panels in the unoccupied structures, installing 

temporary gutters, and replacing missing window panes.121

Building 25 continued to be occupied by MAST, so it was in better condition than the unoccupied 

barracks (Buildings 23 and 24). Even so, its brickwork needed repointing, and metal and wooden 

trim elements needed painting. A small tree was growing out of the south wall just below the oculus. 

The ends of the porch floor joists outside the main entrance had rotted where they were let into the 

masonry building wall. The eave returns on the south wall of Building 25 were falling off. 

Approximately three-quarters of the gutters and leaders were missing, especially on the west 

elevation and the sides of the pavilion. Several window panes were broken. 

 Stabilization work on Building 25 included the following: 

• rotted porch floor joists were replaced with pressure-treated material. 

• the open pockets left in the masonry by removed joists were cleaned out and filled with a 

closed-cell polyurethane foam, which was tooled into place and painted with two coats of 

an acrylic latex paint. 

• minimal repairs were made to the roof. 

• both eave returns were repaired 

• aluminum ogee gutters were installed as a temporary replacement. 

• window sashes were reglazed rather than boarded over, since the building continued to be 

occupied. 

• joints at window and doorway openings were caulked. 

 This project may have included the removal of the northern roof ventilator, of which only the 

base remains today. Both ventilators were in place in 1989; one was in good condition (presumably 

the extant southern one), and one was in poor condition (presumably the missing northern one).122

 In 1996, the current temporary wooden fire escapes were built on both sides of the west 

elevation, to enable MAST to meet safety-code requirements.123

 121 C. Thomas Ballos, “Completion Report, Emergency Stabilization of Historic Fort Hancock, Gateway 

National Recreation Area, Sandy Hook Unit” (Building Conservation Branch, Cultural Resources Center, North 

Atlantic Region, 1993), Face Sheet. 

122 Assessment Report, p. 13. 

123 Sandy Hook Unit curator Mary (Trocchia) Rasa to Sharon Ofenstein, Jan. 8, 2002, and MAST principal Dr. 

Paul Christopher to Sharon Ofenstein, Feb. 19, 2002. 
 126

1998

In the late 1990’s, the Sandy Hook Unit was contemplating converting Building 25 into a 

new visitor center. The park architect thus prepared a set of existing-conditions drawings for the 

structure in October 1998. The set included a first- and second-floor plan, an east elevation, and a 

section through the rear porch (figs. 65-68). 

A masonry-repair contract was let in 1998-99 to Santamauro Contracting of Belmar, NJ, to 

repair 12 of Building 25’s brick jack-arch lintels. The original steel lintel supports were to be 

replaced with stainless-steel supports; 56 custom-cut bricks were to be installed to recreate each jackarch lintel; and the surrounding masonry was to be repaired. It was estimated that each of the 12 

lintels would require 15 square feet of repairs, for a total of 180 square feet. However, by the time 

the repairs started, the brickwork was so deteriorated that much more extensive repairs needed to be 

done. The 180 square feet became 450 square feet, and the project ran out of money. Thus, only 

seven lintels were replaced, six on the west side and one on the south side.124

In 2000, the rear porch was rebuilt by SAHO park staff, in an effort to prevent the porch from 

collapsing while retaining all extant original elements. As much original fabric was saved and reused 

as possible, including the columns, the roof framing, and some molding and trim elements. The roof 

was repaired, and reproduction molding and trim was made to replace missing pieces. The floor 

framing and decking were deteriorated beyond repair, so they were replaced with reproduction 

material. The arrangement of steps up to the porch was not changed back to the original appearance, 

in which two sets of steps were present, one at each end of the porch. 

 124 Sandy Hook Unit architect David Crotty to Sharon Ofenstein, Feb. 15, 2002. 
 127

Figure 50. Building 24, southeast corner of dormitory, 1956. 
 128

Figure 51. Basement floor plan, 1959. Part of a drawing titled “Permanent Building Plan, Building No. 23, 24 Barracks,” September 24, 1959. 
 129

Figure 52. First-floor plan, 1959. Part of a drawing titled “Permanent Building Plan, Building No. 23, 24 Barracks,” September 24, 1959. 
 130

Figure 53. Second-floor plan, 1959. Part of a drawing titled “Permanent Building Plan, Building No. 23, 24 Barracks,” September 24, 1959. 
 131

Figure 54. Drawing titled “Rehabilitation of Latrine, Building No. 25,” July 18, 1960. 
 132

Figure 55. Basement floor plan, 1964. Part of a drawing titled “Permanent Building, Building No. 25, Brigade Hdqtrs. Bldg.,” May 6, 1964. 
 133

Figure 56. First-floor plan, 1964. Part of a drawing titled “Permanent Building, Building No. 25, Brigade Hdqtrs. Bldg.,” 

May 6, 1964. 
 134

Figure 57. Second-floor plan, 1964. Part of a drawing titled “Permanent Building, Building No. 25, Brigade Hdqtrs. Bldg.,” May 6, 1964.
 135

Figure 58. Drawing titled “New Fire Escape Ladder to be Installed Rear Bldg. No. 25,” June 9, 1964. 
 136

Figure 59. Drawing titled “New Masonry Steps and Porch Deck, Bldg. No. 25,” September 3, 1964. 
 137

Figure 60. Army Reserve sign. 
 138

Figure 61. West elevation, 1976. Part of a drawing titled “Building Elevations, One Company Barracks,” September 17, 1976. 
 139

Figure 62. North elevation, 1976. Part of a drawing titled “Building Elevations, One Company Barracks,” September 17, 1976. 
 140

Figure 63. East elevation, 1976. Part of a drawing titled “Building Elevations, One Company Barracks,” September 17, 1976. 
 141

Figure 64. South elevation, 1976. Part of a drawing titled “Building Elevations, One Company Barracks,” September 17, 1976. 
 142

Figure 65. “Details and Sections, One Company Barracks and Battery Gunnison,” September 17, 1976. 
 143

Figure 66. “Details, One Company Barracks,” September 17, 1976. 
 144

Figure 67. “Details and Sections, One Company Barracks,” September 17, 1976. 
 145

Figure 68. First-floor plan, October 20, 1998. 
 146

Figure 69. Second-floor plan, December 23, 1998. 
 147

Figure 70. East elevation, January 14, 1999. 
 148

Figure 71. Section of rear porch, December 14, 1998. 
 149

CURRENT PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION 

 A number of modifications were made to Building 25 over the years. Many of these were 

relatively minor, however; the appearance of the barracks today is essentially similar to its 

appearance following its completion in 1898. Thus, the following section discusses only the aspects 

of Building 25 that differ from their original appearance. All other elements of the building are 

assumed to be the same as described previously in “Original Appearance.” All dates given for the 

alterations have been cited and discussed previously in “Alterations.” 

Exterior Elements 

Foundations

The bottom several courses of the pavilion’s trap-rock foundation have been replaced with a 

stone that appears similar to gneiss (metamorphosed granite). The relatively careless workmanship 

used for the mortar joints suggests that this was an alteration, and not original construction. 

Walls

 The original stamped galvanized-iron main cornice, with its modillions and dentil moldings, 

remains on all of the raking eaves: on the north and south gable ends, and on the west pavilion’s 

pediment. The horizontal runs of the original cornice, on the west and east elevations, have been 

replaced with a simple plywood box cornice (fig. 74). The replacement cornice predates the 1989-90 

removal of the west porches; it may have been part of the 1976 stabilization. The red structural brick 

of the walls’ interior can be seen below the line of the replacement wood cornice at the north end of 

the west elevation. 

 The small, rectangular vent openings originally located beneath most of the second-story 

windows remain in place. Those on the west, north, and south elevations of the building remain 

open, but those on the east elevation have been covered over with sheet metal. 

Porches

West Porches 

 All that remains of the two west porches (one on either side of the pavilion) are the brick and 

trap-rock piers at first-story level, some with fragmentary capitals, and portions of the cast-iron 

balustrade between them. Many of the urn-shaped balusters are missing or are in fragmentary 

condition. The red structural brick of the walls’ interior can be seen at the level of the missing porch 

floors on the piers and wall, in the course above the pier water table, and above the basement 

windows. Within each former porch space is a wooden fire-escape stairway (installed in 1996) that 

ascends from the pavilion floor up to the west elevation’s second-story doorways (see fig. 74).
 150

 Of the seven steps ascending to the pavilion on the west elevation, the top five are original 

tooled limestone, but the bottom two are concrete replacements. They probably date to porch repairs 

conducted in 1930-31. 

East Porch 

The east porch as rebuilt in 2000 has a plain wood cornice that differs from the original metal 

denticulate cornice. The porch does not retain its original metal-pipe balustrade and roof railing, but 

part of a similar balustrade remains to the south of the stairway to the basement entrance. The flight 

of wooden steps up to the porch floor–also located to the south of the basement entrance–dates to 

2000. It replaced concrete steps installed here in 1964; the concrete steps had replaced a pair of 

wooden stairs, which had in turn replaced the two wooden stairways originally at either end of the 

porch. 

Doorways

 Nearly all exterior and interior doors were replaced with modern doors at some point, 

probably in 1964, when Building 26 was converted to brigade headquarters. This work generally 

included modification of the doorway openings in which the doors were hung, as described 

subsequently. 

West (Front) Elevation 

First Story 

The original double doorway opening has been reduced in size to accommodate a single, 

shorter replacement door (three horizontal lights over three panels). The perimeter of the opening, 

and the transom and sidelights, have been closed off with plywood. 

Second Story 

Single, shorter replacement doors (three horizontal lights over three panels) have been 

installed in the two original doorways, which now lead to the two wooden fire escapes. The 

doorways’ transoms have been retained; the area between each transom and the top of the 

replacement door is covered with painted galvanized sheet metal. 

South Elevation 

Basement Level 

A doorway exists in the foundation wall in the third bay from the east, in the location of an 

original window. The door is the same as other replacements (three horizontal lights over three 

panels, probably dating from 1964, when this entry was added), with concrete surrounding the frame. 

The exterior of this opening is now covered with particleboard. 
 151

East Elevation 

Basement Level 

The double doorway in the center of this elevation contains the only original exterior doors 

remaining on the building. The steps that lead down to the doorway have bluestone treads; the traprock retaining walls on either side of the stairwell are capped with bluestone. The bluestone was 

probably added in 1901, when the same material was laid as paving. As stated previously, a remnant 

of the original metal-pipe handrail stands to the south of the stairwell. 

First Story 

A single, shorter replacement door (three horizontal lights over three panels) is inserted in the 

center of the original double doorway (fig. 75). The perimeter is closed off with plywood; the 

transom remains unchanged. There is also a shorter replacement door in the kitchen doorway (in the 

fourth bay from the south end), with the area between the transom and door covered with painted 

galvanized sheet metal. 

Second Story 

A single, shorter replacement door (three horizontal lights over three panels) has been 

inserted into the original doorway. The area between the transom and door is covered with painted 

galvanized sheet metal. 

Windows 

 All of the wooden window sashes in the building are recent replacements matching the 

appearance of the original window sashes. 

East Elevation 

Basement Level 

The three window openings to the south of the porch (bays 1-3) contain ventilation pipes 

surrounded by concrete infill. Bays 4-5, under the porch, are covered with plywood; the plywood 

covering of bay 4 has a louvered ventilation grate inserted into it. The windows in bays 7, 8, and 11 

are each covered with a woven-wire grate. 

South and North Elevations 

Basement Level 

On the south elevation, the window opening in the first bay from the east contains protruding 

pipes surrounded by concrete infill. The window opening in the third bay from the east has been 

replaced with a doorway, now covered (see “Doorways, South Elevation”). The other two windows 

are each covered with a woven-wire grate. 

Woven-wire grates cover each of the three windows on the north elevation. 
 152

Roof and Gutter System

The main block and pavilion have asphalt composition shingle roofs installed in 1973. The 

west side of the building features a gutter along the south half of the west roof edge, along the south 

side of the pavilion, and along part of the north half. These gutters are served by drainpipes at the 

south and north ends of the main block, and at the south pavilion corner. The east side of the 

building has a gutter served by drainpipes between bays 3 and 4 and between bays 9 and 10. This 

system dates to 1991-93. There appears to be a concrete cap on top of the chimney. The south roof 

ventilator is intact. Only the base of the north one remains; the remainder was probably removed in 

1991-93. 

The east porch has an asphalt composition shingle roof, with pitched edges. (It was 

originally completely flat.) 

Interior Elements 

For the purposes of this report, rooms within Building 25 were assigned sequential numbers 

to facilitate discussion of their current appearance. The first time a room is mentioned, its original 

1896 name is also given, to help establish context. 

Basement

Plan 

 A stud and particleboard wall (built post-1964) separates the east third of the south basement 

from the rest of the space. Cinderblock partitions (built 1964) enclose two small rooms in the south of 

this space, labeled “vault” and “message center” in the 1964 drawings. 

 The north half of the basement has a small room at the north end, formed by a stud and 

plywood wall built in 1964 that separates the two northernmost two bays from the rest. A doorway 

in the south end of the partition leads to the smaller room, which contains two additional partitions. 

One is a low stud partition between the northwesternmost pier and the west wall; the other is a stud 

and plywood partition parallel to the east wall. These partitions do not appear on the 1964 basement 

plan. However, at least the one near the east wall (fig. 76) looks to be fairly old: it features 

horizontal matched boarding, and may have been built in 1943 as part of laundry facilities for the 

World War-II WACs. 

Ceilings 

 The west and middle thirds of the ceiling in the south side of the basement are finished with 

plaster on wood lath, possibly from 1908. The rest of the area has a particleboard drop ceiling. Most 

of the north side of the basement has a plywood drop ceiling. The center bay has a concrete slab 

flanked by concrete beams (fig. 77). This was probably added in 1936 to support the concrete floor 

installed in the first-story lavatory at that time. 
 153

Doorways 

Both doorways from the center hall to the north and south sides have been narrowed with 

particleboard infill to accommodate a single hollow-core door. This was probably done in 1964. 

Utilities 

Plumbing Fixtures 

Two laundry sinks sit along the east side of the stud and plywood partition parallel to the east 

wall (see fig. 76). The style of the tubs suggests that they may remain from the WAC period of 

residency during World War II. 

Lighting Fixtures 

The basement is illuminated with fluorescent light fixtures. There is also what may be the 

remains of a gas jet (fig. 78) on the west side of the brick pier closest to the northwest corner of the 

building. 

First Story

Plan 

The current plan is depicted in figure 72. The basic configuration differs from the original in 

only two respects: the original mess room (Room 110) has been subdivided into four smaller rooms, 

and the lavatory (Room 105) has been subdivided into five smaller rooms. All of the partitioning of 

the mess room occurred in 1964. The lavatory was partitioned into four spaces in 1964; the 

southwest corner room was further subdivided into two bathrooms, probably ca. 1980 when the 

Marine Academy of Science and Technology (MAST) occupied the building. 

Floors 

In most of the rooms, a plywood subfloor is covered with vinyl tile printed to imitate 

linoleum or (in the case of Room 107) wood parquet flooring. This probably dates from 1964. It is 

not known if an earlier wood finish floor lies beneath the plywood subfloor. The lavatory’s floor is 

painted concrete (probably installed during the 1936 rehabilitation). The original day room (Room 

104) has looped-pile synthetic “indoor-outdoor” carpet that appears to be a relatively recent addition. 

Walls 

The nonoriginal partition walls dividing Room 105 are constructed of gypsum board on stud 

supports; those dividing Room 110 are wood-grain laminate paneling (three-sixteenths of an inch 

thick) and gypsum board on studs. All partition walls date from 1964. All of the matchboard 

wainscoting in the halls is still intact, as are the original baseboards in most of the rooms. 
 154

Ceilings 

The four rooms comprising the original mess room (Room 110) have drop ceilings consisting 

of acoustic tiles suspended on a metal frame. The original stamped metal ceiling of Room 110 

remains in place above the drop ceilings. All other rooms have their original stamped-metal ceilings 

showing. 

Doorways 

All extant doorways retain their original casings but have been shortened with plywood infill 

to accommodate smaller, hollow-core laminate doors. The original transoms are in place, but have 

been painted over. There is no original transom hardware in evidence. 

The double doorway opening in the south wall of the center hall has a three-light replacement 

transom (one row across) and no molded casing; the doorway opening is filled in with plywood and 

trim to accommodate a single door. The double doorway from the side hall to the mess room (Room 

106 to 110) has no transom today, and has been filled in to accommodate a single door (fig. 79). The 

transom over the doorway between the hallway and Room 102 has also been covered. 

The double doorway between the kitchen (Room 107) and mess hall (Room 110) has been 

removed. Doorways have been added between Room 103 and 104, and Rooms 110a and 108. 

There is no original door hardware extant in the building. 

Windows 

Although the window sashes are not original, they closely resemble the originals in design. 

Finishes 

Most of the walls and woodwork are painted a light green color. The metal ceilings are 

painted white. The two westernmost rooms that were formed from Room 110 (Rooms 110c and 

110d) are clad in wood-grain laminate paneling measuring three-sixteenths of an inch thick. 

Other Elements 

Main Stairway 

Based on the original drawings and paint evidence, the bottom newel, face stringer, and most 

balusters are replacements, probably dating to 1964. The newel is simpler in profile than the original 

(see fig. 18). 

Partitions in Lavatory 

The lavatory, Room 105, is partitioned along its north-south axis into two halves, each with 

smaller divisions. The northwest quadrant is a storage closet, with the southwest quadrant divided 

into toilet stalls; there is a private washroom in the southeast corner. As explained previously, this 

configuration probably dates from circa 1980. 
 155

Built-in Furniture in Pantry, Armory 

Nothing remains of the original built-in furniture in Rooms 108 (the Pantry) and 103 (the 

Armory). Two wood-framed, glass-fronted cabinet doors were found in the attic, resting high up on 

the roof-frame purlins in the south room (fig. 80). These appear to match the pantry furniture shown 

in the original drawings, and they have the shellac finish characteristic of Building 25’s early 

woodwork. 

Utilities 

Heating Equipment 

 The steam radiators in all rooms probably date from 1938-40. There are steam risers in all 

rooms except for Room 103. 

Plumbing Fixtures 

No original fixtures remain in Rooms 105 and 107. However, these spaces do contain toilets, 

urinals, and sinks of the same style that date to the historic (pre-1974) period. The toilets bear the 

manufacturer name “Standard,” and the date of November 10, 1927, is stamped on the inside of their 

lids. There is also a row of sinks along the east wall, under a wooden cover probably installed during 

the MAST period. The sinks have no date, but bear the stamp “Kohler USA # 220-24x201-s.” 

Lighting Fixtures 

There are incandescent and fluorescent fixtures mounted on the ceilings, with their wiring 

carried in rigid conduits attached to the wall and ceiling surfaces. 

Fire-Protection Equipment 

There are remnants (call boxes and alarm boxes) throughout the floor of a fire-protection 

system that is no longer in use. 

Second Story

Plan 

The plan for this story is depicted in figure 73. The north dormitory room (Room 204) is one 

large open space. The south dormitory room (Room 205) has been subdivided into three small rooms 

at the southern end, with the remainder divided into two rooms along the north-south axis (fig. 81). 

This work was done in 1964. 

Floors 

Room 204 has looped pile synthetic “indoor-outdoor” carpet that appears to be a recent 

addition. The other finish floors are wood. The documentation suggests that they are the original 

Georgia yellow pine floors with pine repairs made in 1908. Some areas have been painted gray. 
 156

Walls 

The 1964 partitions in Room 205 are constructed of gypsum board on stud supports. 

Doorways 

The four double doorways (two on each side) leading from the hallway to the dormitories are 

filled in with plywood to accommodate single, shorter, hollow-core laminate doors (fig. 82). The 

doorways’ original transom windows (one row of six lights) all remain in place, but have been 

painted over. 

The single doorways leading to the small rooms in the pavilion have been shortened with 

plywood infill to accommodate smaller, hollow-core laminate doors. Their original transoms have 

been painted over. The transom of the doorway to the south room has a small piece of hardware 

attached to its room side; it is not known if this piece is original. 

Other Features 

Stairway to Attic 

The doorway to this stairway contains the only original interior door remaining in the 

building. 

Partitions and Lockers in Dormitories 

None of the original partitions or lockers remain. The modern partitions in Room 205 have 

been described previously in “Plan” and “Walls.” 

Utilities 

Heating Equipment 

The steam radiators in all rooms probably date from 1938-40. The only steam risers in this 

story are in the hallway, and in Room 204 between the two southeasternmost windows. 

Lighting Fixtures 

Fluorescent fixtures are mounted on the ceilings. The lengths of conduit that carry the wiring 

over the walls and ceiling are not as carefully integrated into the ceiling design as the ones on the 

first floor are. 

Ventilation Equipment 

The original vertical ducts in the four corners of both dormitories are still in place, but their 

vents have been sealed. The original vents in the baseboard under the radiators also remain in place, 

but have been covered over with sheet metal. 
 157

Attic Level

Finishes 

The woodwork associated with the attic stairway has the original clear shellac finish followed 

by the red-pigmented shellac applied in 1907, a combination seen on all of the original woodwork 

that has not been covered with multiple later paint layers as elsewhere throughout the building. 

Utilities 

Lighting Fixtures 

 Illumination is provided by bare light bulbs screwed into sockets attached to the exposed 

electrical lines. These supplement the natural light obtained from the gable oculi (fig. 83). 
 158

Figure 72. Plan of first story, showing assigned room numbers. 
 159

Figure 73. Plan of second story, showing assigned room numbers. 
 160

Figure 74. West elevation, showing replacement box cornice and fire escape. 

Figure 75. East 

elevation, first-story 

doorway, showing 

perimeter infill with 

replacement door and 

original transom. 
 161

Figure 76. North side of basement, partition and laundry sinks in northeast corner. 

Figure 77. North side of basement, center of ceiling, showing concrete slab flanked 

by concrete beams (added to support concrete floor in first-story lavatory). 
 162

Figure 78. North side of basement, possible remnants of original gas jet. 

Figure 79. Doorway 

from side hall to mess 

room, showing 

perimeter infill for 

replacement door and 

covered transom. 
 163

Figure 80. Pantry cupboard doors stored in south side of attic. 

Figure 81. South dormitory, showing 1964 partitions. 
 164

Figure 83. South side of attic, south wall, showing interior construction of 

opening for oculus. 

Figure 82. Doorway 

from center hall to 

south dormitory, 

showing perimeter infill 

with replacement door 

and painted transom. 
 165

IV. CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES

AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 167

Introduction 

 The proposed treatment for Building 25 is rehabilitation. The Secretary of the Interior’s 

standards for the treatment of historic properties defines rehabilitation as 

...the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property 

through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or 

features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values.1

The “portions or features” to be preserved are known as character-defining features (CDFs), aspects 

of a building that give the building its particular aesthetic quality, and without which its architectural 

or historical integrity would be diminished or lost. CDFs may be architectural features and details, 

materials, craftsmanship, surface finishes, interior spaces and spatial relationships, or architectural 

context. 

Many of the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for rehabilitation specifically address the 

retention of character-defining features.2

 These include the following: 

 1. A property shall be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal 

change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. 

 2. The historic character of a historic structure shall be retained and preserved. The removal 

of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that 

characterize a property shall be avoided. 

 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be 

retained and preserved. 

 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of 

craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. 

 7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest 

means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. 

 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic 

materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work 

shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, 

features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property 

and its environment. 

 1

 Kay D. Weeks and Anne E. Grimmer, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties, with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings

(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resource Stewardship and 

Partnerships, Historic Preservation Services, 1995), p. 61. Familiarity with this document should be a prerequisite 

for all those participating in any decision-making concerning the rehabilitation and preservation of Building 25. 

2

 Weeks and Grimmer, p. 62. 
 168

 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a 

manner that, if removed, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its 

environment would be unimpaired. 

Therefore, any rehabilitation treatment must begin with an assessment of the structure’s CDFs, to 

ensure that these crucial features are protected from alteration or demolition. A primary goal of this 

HSR has been the definition of Building 25’s CDFs. These CDFs, listed subsequently, should be 

carefully considered during the planning and construction phases of Building 25’s rehabilitation. 

 CDFs may also be missing or removed elements that were important to the historic character 

of the structure. The Secretary of the Interior’s guidelines for rehabilitating historic buildings states 

that 

...where an important architectural feature is missing, its replacement is 

always recommended...if adequate historical, pictorial, and physical 

documentation exists so that the feature may be accurately reproduced....3

The recommendations listed subsequently address the retention of existing CDFs and the 

replacement of missing ones. They generally do not consider the condition of these elements, or 

make specific recommendations for their conservation treatment. A condition report and treatment 

assessment will be performed by an architectural/engineering firm at a later date, prior to the 

beginning of construction, and will be appended to the body of this HSR. 

It should be noted that these recommendations apply only to Building 25, and not to the other 

three barracks (Buildings 22, 23, and 24). A similar set of character-defining features and 

recommendations should be prepared prior to the rehabilitation of any of the other three structures. 

However, this historic structure report can serve as a useful reference for that effort. 

Exterior Elements 

Design and Context

CDFs 

• Institutional interpretation of the Colonial Revival style. 

• Long, narrow length and gable-end design, with pedimented entrance pavilion projecting 

from the front elevation. 

• Identical design to the three adjacent barracks buildings to the south (Buildings 22-24), 

constructed at the same time. 

• Its context within an institutional ensemble: the similarity of style, material palette, and 

detailing to the other 31 buildings of Fort Hancock’s original master plan. 

 3

 Weeks and Grimmer, p. 65. 
 169

Recommendations 

• Preserve the elements that contribute to the decorative institutional style of the building 

(listed subsequently). 

• Preserve the straightforward massing of the building in its current form. 

• Preserve the stylistic and material elements common to all of the structures in the initial 

master plan. 

Porches

CDFs 

• West porches (before their removal in 1989-90): one two-story loggia-type porch on either 

side of the pavilion, consisting of first-story brick piers supporting second-story wooden 

columns on cast-iron bases, with cast-iron balustrades running between the piers and 

columns, and wooden lattice panels running between the trap-rock foundation piers (see figs. 

9, 20, and 22). 

• Tooled limestone steps leading up to the west pavilion (originally seven in number before the 

replacement of the bottom two with concrete, probably in 1930-31). 

• East porch: one-story wooden porch centered on the rear elevation (see fig. 10), with six 

wooden columns and pipe railing along its outer edge that corresponds with the porch of 

Building 58 opposite it. 

Recommendations 

• Recreate front porches, using as many of the original wooden columns and cast-iron column 

bases and balustrades (currently in storage) as possible, conserving these elements where 

possible and replacing missing or heavily deteriorated elements in kind or with compatible 

materials. Recreate flat-seam sheet-metal roofs, stamped-metal cornices with modillions and 

dentils, and wooden decking and lattice panels (see fig. 16). 

• Replace two bottom steps leading to front porch with limestone matching the original upper 

five steps. (The chiseled tooling may be omitted to distinguish the new material at close 

range.) 

• Retain reconstructed east porch, but remove center stairway. Build two stairways as per 

figure 10 (1898 appearance), figure 41 (ca. 1938-42 appearance), or figure 52 (1959 

appearance). Add dentil molding to existing cornice as per original design (see fig. 16). 

• Replace metal-pipe balustrades on rear porch that originally ran between the six columns and 

around the porch roof edge; some, if not all, of these are currently stored in Room 107 of 

Building 25. 
 170

Doorways and Fenestration

CDFs 

• Symmetry of doorway and window openings on front and side elevations, and slight 

asymmetry of doorway and window openings (following interior functional needs) on rear 

elevation. 

• Double-hung, 12-over-12 sashes in most window openings; nine-over-nine sashes in the 

windows flanking the pavilion’s “Palladian” window and kitchen (Room 107) windows; and 

fixed 12-light sidelights on either side of the “Palladian” window. 

• Sheet metal-lined vent openings below the sills of most second-story windows. 

• Occuli in west, north, and south gables. 

• Double doors in front and rear center doorways, each with a 21-light panel above two raised 

horizontal panels (before their replacement in 1964). Narrow sidelights (16 panes above one 

raised vertical panel; see figure 17) on either side of front entrance. 

• Single doors in all other doorways, with 28 lights above two raised horizontal panels (before 

their replacement in 1964; see figure 17) 

• Transoms with multiple lights above each doorway, as described previously in the section 

“Original Appearance, Exterior Elements, Doorways.” 

Recommendations 

• Maintain configuration of original doorway and window openings. 

• Remove metal covering from second-story vent openings and conserve surrounding sheetmetal “trim” (formed from the end of the vent-shaft lining). 

• Remove plywood infill from all doorways. 

• Replace all doors (except extant original rear basement door) with single or double paneland-sash doors matching the original doors in dimensions and configuration. 

• Recreate multi-pane tripartite transom over front entrance (see figure 17); retain six-light

transoms over other doorways. 

• Install interior storm windows that are reversible, and that don’t detract from the exterior or 

interior appearance of the sashes. 

Roof and Related Features

CDFs 

• Slate roof (prior to removal in 1973). 

• Chimney with corbeled cap on the east roof slope, slightly to the south of center. 

• Two metal ventilators on the roof ridge, between the third and fourth bays on each end (prior 

to the removal of the north ventilator). 

• Stamped-metal cornice with modillions and dentils along all of the eaves (prior to its removal 

from the horizontal, east and west eaves, possibly in 1976). 

• Built-in gutters on the main roof and the front and rear porches. 
 171

Recommendations 

• Replace asphalt roof shingles with slate if feasible. 

• Retain chimney in current configuration. 

• Rebuild sheet-metal north ventilator to match the south one (probably original). These need 

not, and should not, be operational. 

• Remove plywood box cornice along the east and west eaves; install new cornice made to 

match extant sections of original cornice on raking, north and south eaves. New cornice 

sections need not be of stamped metal, but must have the same appearance as the originals. 

• Recreate the built-in gutters on the main roof and the front and rear porches, as per the 

original construction drawings. 

Materials

CDFs 

• Buff-colored face brick with thin mortar joints on walls and front-porch piers; includes jackarch lintels with projecting keystone motif over all doorways and windows (except basement 

windows), and rusticated first story of pavilion. 

• Trap-rock foundation. 

• Tooled limestone trim: doorway and window sills, water table, lintels of basement doorway 

and west basement windows, pavilion’s belt course and front steps. 

• Terra-cotta details of pavilion’s Palladian window (arch tympanum, colonnettes, lintel, and 

sill) and all three occuli (frames and keystones). 

• Wooden elements: doorway and window frames, doors, window sashes, front and rear porch 

columns, porch floors, and lattice panels between front-porch foundation piers 

• Metal elements: stamped metal cornice, sheet-metal ventilators, cast-iron porch balustrades 

and column bases, and rear-porch pipe balustrades. 

• Slate roof (prior to removal in 1973). 

Recommendations 

• Preserve all existing historic materials identified as CDFs; where preservation is not possible 

because of advanced deterioration, materials should be replaced in kind. 

• Monitor all existing historic materials identified as CDFs over time to detect the progress of 

deterioration due to moisture penetration, weathering, and structural change. 

Finishes

CDFs 

• All wooden and cast-iron elements, including trim, window sashes, doors, porch balustrades, 

and cornice, were originally painted white; in 1907 they were light gray. In the World War II 

era the doors, window sashes, cornice, balustrade rails, and porch fascias were painted dark 

green, while the porches’ columns, pilasters, and balusters were painted white (see Appendix 

D, “Finishes Study”). 

• Original chiseled finish of limestone trim. 
 172

Recommendations 

• Repaint wooden and cast-iron elements to desired interpretive period (original, 1907, or 

WWII). 

• Maintain original chiseled surface finish of limestone trim when cleaning exterior by using 

non-abrasive methods. 

Interior Elements 

The system of assigning numbers to rooms within Building 25–used in the previous section 

“Current Physical Description” and shown on figures 72-73–is also employed here. 

Style

CDFs 

• Late 19th-century institutional quality; relative simplicity and repetition of detailing and 

functionality of spaces. 

Recommendations 

• Preserve the elements that contribute to the simple but decorative functionalism of the 

building’s interior (listed subsequently). 

Plan

CDFs 

• Central front-to-back hall, with open stairway, that divides the basement, first and second 

stories, and attic into two equal halves. 

• Wide span and openness of the rooms originally intended as communal living areas, 

including the day room (Room 104), mess room (Room 110, prior to its subdivision in 1964), 

and the two second-story dormitories (Rooms 204 and 205). 

• Exposed cast-iron columns in first-story Rooms 104, 105, and 110. 

Recommendations 

• Retain central hallway as the main axis. 

• Retain openness of main stairway. 

• Remove all 1964 and 1976 partition walls (all nonoriginal walls). 

• When repartitioning the space, preserve the original feeling of spaciousness in the areas that 

will be open to the public. 

• When repartitioning the space, preserve the rhythm of the original plan and structure 

(expressed in the ceiling configuration and cast-iron columns) as much as possible (see figs. 

13-14). 
 173

• Construct new stud walls carefully so that they do not appear to be as obviously recent and 

poorly constructed as those from 1964. 

Floors

CDFs 

• Wood strip finish flooring (original/repaired 1908) 

Recommendations 

• Retain all extant wood finish flooring. Strip areas covered with gray paint and refinish with a 

clear coating. 

• Remove vinyl tiles, carpeting, and plywood subfloor in the areas that will be open to the 

public; retain and refinish any underlying early finish flooring. 

Ceilings

CDFs 

• Original stamped-metal ceilings with borders. 

• High ceilings. 

Recommendations 

• Remove 1964 drop ceiling in mess room (Room 110). 

• Retain all extant stamped-metal ceilings (thus also preserving the ceiling height). 

• Restore extant stamped-metal ceilings: scrape flaking paint, prime, and repaint with buff 

color similar to original or to desired interpretive period (see Appendix D, “Finishes Study”). 

Doorways

CDFs 

• Transoms with operative sashes: 12-light sashes (six across by two down) over double 

doorways, and six-light sashes (three across by two down) over single doorways (except for 

between Rooms 108-109 and Rooms 102-103) 

• Doors with five recessed, molded horizontal panels (see fig. 26). 

Recommendations 

• Retain extant transom windows and strip paint from those that have been overpainted. 

• Replace transom between the hallway and Room 102 with a six-light sash (three across by 

two down) matching the original transom here. 

• Remove all 1964 replacement doors and particleboard infill from single and double 

doorways. 
 174

• Install single and double replacement doors where desired that fully fill the original frames. 

The park is currently salvaging original doors from Building 24 for this purpose; any new 

doors should match these, and should be of solid-panel construction. 

Woodwork

CDFs 

• Heavily molded doorway and window casings with flat plinth blocks and small dentil course 

in cornice. 

• Matchboard wainscot with simple baseboards in the center hall, along the north wall of the 

main stairway to the second story, and in the side hall to the mess room. 

• Details of the main stairway, including the nonoriginal main newel and balusters. 

• Heavy, elaborately molded baseboards. 

Recommendations 

• Retain extant original doorway and window casings, wainscot, baseboards, chair-rail 

fragment in Room 104, and all elements of the main stairway. 

• Replace missing elements in kind, using the same type of wood and finish (although not 

necessarily the identical profile) so that they blend with remaining original elements. 

Finishes

CDFs 

• Shellac finish on all woodwork (doorway and window casings, stairway elements, wainscot, 

baseboards, and presumably the doors). See Appendix D, “Finishes Study.” 

• Neutral color paint on plaster walls. See Appendix D, “Finishes Study.” 

• World War II colors: white doorway and window trim, blue-gray baseboards and wainscot, 

and various wall colors; see Appendix D, “Finishes Study.”

•

Recommendations 

• Strip woodwork of later paint layers and refinish with a translucent coating, similar to the 

original finish of clear shellac. 

• Paint walls with a neutral-tone palette similar to that used originally. It is not necessary to 

match the colors exactly. 

• Alternatively, repaint walls, wooden trim, and cast-iron to reflect elements as per desired 

interpretive period (1898, 1907, or World War II; see Appendix D, “Finishes Study”). 
 175

V. BIBLIOGRAPHY

 177

Bearss, Edwin C. Historic Resource Study, Fort Hancock, 1895-1948, Gateway National Recreation 

Area, New York/New Jersey. Denver: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 

May 1981. 

-------. Historic Resource Study, Fort Hancock, 1948-1972, Sandy Hook Unit, Gateway National 

Recreation Area, Monmouth County, New Jersey. Denver: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

National Park Service, Denver Service Center, Historic Preservation Division, November 

1982. 

Butowsky, Harry. National Historic Landmarks nomination, “Fort Hancock and the Sandy Hook 

Proving Ground Historic District,” June 20, 1982. 

“Fort Hancock Building Historic Records,” pages 101-200. Folder at Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook. 

“Fort Hancock, Sandy Hook, Gateway National Recreation Area.” NPS pamphlet. Gateway NRA, 

Sandy Hook. 

General Management Plan, Gateway National Recreation Area, New York/New Jersey. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, August 1979. 

General Management Plan Amendment, Development Concept Plan and Interpretive Prospectus: 

Sandy Hook Unit, Gateway National Recreation Area, New York/New Jersey. National Park 

Service, January 1990. 

Greenwood, Richard E. National Register of Historic Places nomination, “Fort Hancock and the 

Sandy Hook Proving Ground Historic District,” June 28, 1976. 

Historic Structure Assessment Report, Fort Hancock-Building 25, Barracks, Gateway National 

Recreation Area, Sandy Hook Unit. Douglasville, GA: Architectural Conservation Center, 

Georgia Institute of Technology, College of Architecture, 1989-1990. 

Hoffman, Thomas J. “The Defenses at Sandy Hook.” NPS pamphlet. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook. 

--------. “An Old Army Town.” NPS pamphlet. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook. 

--------, and Howard Kenngott. “Fort Hancock, Sandy Hook/Gateway National Recreation Area.” 

NPS pamphlet. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook. 

Jandl, H. Ward. Preservation Briefs 18 - Rehabilitating Interiors in Historic Buildings: Identifying 

and Preserving Character-defining Elements. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, National Park Service, Preservation Assistance Division, 1988. 

Myers, Denys Peter. Gaslighting in America: A Guide for Historic Preservation. Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, Office of 

Archeology and Historic Preservation, Technical Preservation Services Division, 1978. 

Nelson, Lee H. Preservation Briefs 17 - Architectural Character: Identifying the Visual Aspects of 

Historic Buildings as an Aid to Preserving Their Character. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Preservation Assistance Division, 1988. 
 178

NPS-28, Cultural Resource Management Guideline, Release No. 4 Draft. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, February 1993. 

Rasa, Mary (Trocchia). “The Women’s Army Corps.” NPS pamphlet. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook. 

Sandy Hook Foghorn, 1943-1944. Fort Hancock newsletter. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook. 

“Seventy-Fifth Anniversary, Fort Hancock, Sandy Hook, New Jersey” (informational pamphlet). 

Rumson, NJ: Friends of Sandy Hook, Inc., 1970. 

Walter, Douglas S., Barry Sulam, and Susan Simpson. Architectural Data Section, Historic 

Structures Report, Part One, Fort Hancock Parade Ground Structures, 1896-1899, Sandy 

Hook Unit, Gateway National Recreation Area [Draft]. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, National Park Service, Denver Service Center, February 1979. 

Walter, Douglas S., Barry Sulam, Susan Simpson, and John B. Marsh, Historic Structure Report, 

Architectural Data Section (Volume I), Fort Hancock Parade Ground Structures, 1896-99, 

Sandy Hook Unit, Gateway National Recreation Area. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, National Park Service, Denver Service Center, August 1988. 
 179

VI. APPENDICES

 181

APPENDIX A. 

Cost Estimates for the Original Buildings at Fort Hancock 

Prepared by Col. Charles G. Sawtelle, Chief Quartermaster for Major 

General Thomas Ruger, Commander of the Department of the East, 

March 1896. From Edwin C. Bearss, Historic Resource Study, Fort 

Hancock, 1895-1948, Gateway National Recreation Area, New 

York/New Jersey (Denver: U.S. Department of the Interior, National 

Park Service, May 1981), pp. 10-11. 

 183

Estimate for “the necessary Buildings for a 

Military Post of Four Batteries of Artillery” 

Two double sets of two-company barracks, similar to those constructed 

at Fort Ethan Allen, Vermont, $40,000 each $80,000 

Five double sets of officers’ quarters, similar to those at Fort Columbus, 

New York, $16,500 each $82,500 

One structure with five sets of bachelor officers’ quarters, similar to the 

one at David’s Island, New York $26,000 

Administration building, similar to that at Fort Ethan Allen $13,000 

Guardhouse, similar to that at Fort Ethan Allen $ 8,000 

Quartermaster and commissary storehouse, 

similar to that at Fort Ethan Allen $ 8,500 

Hospital, similar to that at Fort Ethan Allen $18,000 

Hospital steward’s quarters $ 2,000 

One double set of noncommissioned officers’ quarters, similar to those 

at Fort Ethan Allen $ 4,200 

Fuel storehouse, similar to that at Fort Ethan Allen $ 2,200 

Quartermaster stable, similar to that at Fort Ethan Allen $ 5,400 

Wagon shed, similar to that at Fort Ethan Allen $ 2,300 

Blacksmith shop, similar to that at Fort Ethan Allen $ 2,200 

Shop building-mechanic shops, similar to those at Fort Ethan Allen $ 3,000 

Bakery $4,875 

Oilhouse $ 200 

Scale house $ 500

TOTAL $262,825 
 
 185

APPENDIX B. 

Request for Quotation for Masonry Repairs, 

Building 25, 1998 
 
 187
 188

APPENDIX C. 

Scope of Work for Rear Porch Rehabilitation, 

Building 25, 1999 
 189

APPENDIX C. 

Scope of Work for Rear Porch Rehabilitation, 

Building 25, 1999 

 191
 192
 193

APPENDIX D. 

Finishes Study 
 
 195

Introduction 

Project Scope

Building 25, one of the four original enlisted men’s barracks, will be rehabilitated to house 

the park’s visitor center, educational facilities, interpretive and cultural resource operations, and 

museum collections. This report describes the findings of a finishes investigation of the painted 

exterior and interior elements of the building. The historical sequence of finishing campaigns is 

described, with selected matches to a standardized color-notation system for three periods of 

interpretive interest: as constructed in 1897-98; 1906-07, when the building’s troop capacity 

increased; and World War II (1943), when the building housed the Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps 

(later the Women’s Army Corps). The conclusions are based on the microscopic examination of 

extracted finish samples. 

The information in this report can be used to recreate the historic finishes of the building 

exterior or portions of the interior for any of the periods specified above. The general color palettes 

used during periods of interpretive interest are considered to be character-defining features (CDFs) of 

the structure, and should be recreated where appropriate (discussed in Chapter IV, “CharacterDefining Features and Recommendations”). 

Additionally, information gleaned from this study made it possible to date several of the 

building’s elements and alterations. These dates have been included in Chapter III, “Chronology of 

Development and Use, Alterations,” and they will be explained subsequently in the “Conclusions” 

section of this study, under the heading “Elements Dated by Paint Evidence.” 

Methodology

Site visits were made to Sandy Hook on August 27-30, 2001; September 10-11, 2001; and 

February 13, 2002. Ninety-one paint samples (each approximately one-quarter-inch square) were 

removed from all accessible exterior and interior painted elements of the building using an X-acto 

knife.1

 In the laboratory of the Northeast Cultural Resources Center’s Building Conservation Branch 

(BCB) in New York City, all samples were examined with an American Optical stereobinocular 

zoom microscope under 68x magnification, with tungsten fiber-optic light. Representative samples 

(42 in total) were mounted in a polyester resin cube (Bio-Plastic® Liquid Casting Plastic) and 

abraded to a high polish so that their finish sequences could be read more clearly.2

The chronological finish stratigraphy from each sample was recorded in chart form; these 

sequences were correlated to one another through their common color layers. These 

“chromochronologies” are given in Tables 1 through 6; each horizontal row represents the elements’ 

finishes at one period in time. Dates were assigned to some of the rows using archival references to 

 1

 The sheet metal cornice on the west, north, and south gables could not be sampled because the park did not 

have a sufficiently tall ladder; this element will have to be sampled this spring, when the building is scaffolded for 

restoration. 

2

 The Munsell Color System is an internationally recognized standard of color measurement that identifies color 

in terms of three attributes, hue (color), value (lightness/ darkness, or degree of white/ black mixed into the color) 

and chroma (saturation, or intensity of the color). 
 196

finishing campaigns (detailed in Chapter III, “Alterations”), black-and-white historic photographs 

(which show relative color values), and benchmarks within samples (layers for which a date can be 

firmly assigned). The specific sources used to determine dates are footnoted in the 

chromochronology tables. 

Half of each sample selected for mounting was reserved for use in color matching, which was 

performed under the same magnification and lighting conditions as described previously. The 

desired layer in the sample was exposed with a scalpel and was matched to Munsell System color 

cards, glossy finish. This information is summarized in Table 7. 

All mounted and unmounted paint samples will be stored at the main office of the BCB in 

Lowell, Massachusetts, and will be available for further study. 

Data and Conclusions 

Data

The paint layers comprising the stratigraphic finish chronology for each element are listed 

sequentially in Tables 1-6. All color names used are subjective designations intended to distinguish 

between paint layers only. In Table 7, this information is summarized, and finishes from selected 

historical periods (1898, 1906-07, and 1943) are matched to Munsell color standards. Munsell color 

notations provide a standard method of color description, but are approximations of the paint colors 

that were originally used. In addition to the fact that Munsell color chips provide a close but not 

exact match to most paint colors, aging paint can change colors over time. Paints (particularly those 

that are oil-based) darken or yellow, especially when not exposed to the bleaching effects of light, 

and certain pigments fade. It should also be noted that color is but one factor affecting a coating’s 

appearance; sheen, opacity, texture, and application techniques also play a role. 
 197
 198
 199
 200
 201
 202

TABLE 6: 

INTERIOR METAL FINISHES: BUILDING 25 

Sample # 41A 41B 49 50 

Room # 104: 

Dormitory/dayroom 

104: 

Dormitory/dayroom 

107: 

Kitchen 

109: 

Cook’s room/ 

storeroom 

Element Cast-iron column Cast-iron column Ceiling Ceiling 

18981 Dark blue-gray Off- white Yellowish white 

(dirt) 

1907 Lt. yellow 2 Dark gray x 3 

White x 4 

Lt. yellow 

 

Lt. gray Green Lt. blue 

Lt. pink Dk. gray Lt. yellow White 

Tan Dk. gray 

Black Black 

Lt. yellow Very lt. gray 

Light green-gray 

Thin white 

Light green-gray 

Thin white 

 

Pink-tan Pink-tan Pink-tan Pink-tan 

Thin black Thin black 

Lt. blue-gray x 2 

(dirt) 

Lt. blue-gray x 2 

(dirt) 

White 

Tan 

(dirt) 

Tan 

(dirt) 

 

1925?3 Orange-pink x 2 Orange-pink x 2 Orange-pink x 2 Orange-pink 

1930?4 Yellow-tan Yellow-tan Tan Tan 

Dk. gray x 2 Dk. gray x 2 

Green Green 

Olive Olive 

Blue-green-gray Blue-green-gray 

 

19435 Lt. blue-gray x 15 Lt. blue-gray x 15 light yellows and whites 

x 11 

light yellows and whites 

x 11 

 1 A photograph from 1900 (fig. 29) shows that the columns were originally two-toned.

2 Bearrs’ Historic Resource Study, Fort Hancock 1895-1948 (p. 296) cites a 1906 source specifying colors for the interior of 

the barracks: “paint the ceilings a rich buff...”

3 The building received an overall painting this year (Bearrs, p. 492); if 1930 is in fact the date of the next layer, it makes 

sense that this consistent layer would date from 1925.

4 The yellow tan paint on the columns appears to correspond with a layer on the exterior metal elements, which was probably 

applied in 1930.

5 A photograph from 1937 (fig. 39) shows that by this date the columns were a single, light tone. 
 203

Conclusions

Colors Used during Various Periods 

Exterior Finishes 

 All exterior trim, including the cornice, was originally off-white. In 1907 it was painted a 

light grayish-yellowish brown color. In 1943 the doors, doorway trim, window-vent trim, frontporch balustrade railing, and cornice were painted dark green;1

 the window sashes, porch columns 

and pilasters, and front-porch balusters were off-white. 

Interior Finishes 

 All interior woodwork was originally coated with naturally colored shellac.2

 In 1907, shellac 

colored with a reed lake pigment was used for all trim except the window sashes and wainscot 

paneling, which were given another coat of clear shellac. In 1943, all trim was painted light yellow 

except for the wainscot, baseboards, and stairway handrail, which were painted gray. 

 The walls were originally painted a light olive-brown color. In 1907 they were a light greenblue (except for those of Room 110, which were a strong yellowish brown), and in 1943 they were a 

pale orange-yellow color. The porch ceilings and interior ceilings were painted slightly varying 

shades of yellow-white in all three periods. 

Elements Dated by Paint Evidence 

Window Vents 

 A full early paint chronology on the window-vent trim revealed that these features were 

original to the structure, even though they do not appear in the original drawings. 

Replacement Window Sashes 

 The lowest layer of paint on the interior side of the window sashes was the 1964 benchmark 

color, taken from an area of window trim in Room 110 that had been covered with abutting gypsum 

board in that year. 

Newel Post and Balusters 

 These elements had approximately six layers of paint on them, suggesting that they were also 

replaced during the 1964 rehabilitation. 

 1

 Sections of original cornice on the raking eaves could not be accessed for sampling; its appearance in historic 

photographs (fig. 26), however, confirms its light color originally and its dark color in 1943 (fig. 44). 

2

 The ready solubility of this coating in acetone suggests that it is shellac. 
 204

TABLE 7: 

FINISH COLORS WITH MUNSELL COLOR SYSTEM NOTATIONS 

Original: 1897-98 1906-1907 World War II: 1943 

Exterior Doors, 

Doorway Trim, 

Window Vent Trim, 

Front Porch Balusters, 

Cornice,1

Window Sashes2

Off-white: 

5 Y 9/1 

Light gray-yellow brown: 

 10 YR 6/1 

Dark green: 

10 GY 3/4 

Porch Columns, 

Porch Pilasters, 

Porch Balusters 

Off-white: 

5 Y 9/1 

Light gray-yellow brown: 

 10 YR 6/1 

Off-white: 

10 YR 9/1 

Porch Ceilings Off-white: 

5 Y 9/1 

White Off-white: 

10 YR 9/1 

Interior Doors, 

Doorway Trim, 

Window Trim 

Clear shellac3 Red shellac4 Pale orange-yellow: 

10 YR 9/4 

Interior Window 

Sashes5

Clear shellac Clear shellac Pale orange-yellow: 

10 YR 9/4 

Wainscot Clear shellac Clear shellac on paneling; 

red shellac on chair rail 

Blue-gray: 

10 GY 6/1 

Baseboards, 

Stairway Handrail 

Clear shellac Red shellac Blue-gray: 10 GY 6/1 

Interior Walls Light olive-brown: 

2.5 Y 6/2 

Light green-blue: 

10 GY 7/2 

Room 110 – 

strong yellow-brown: 

7.5 YR 5/6 

Pale orange-yellow: 

10 YR 8/4 

Ceilings Yellowish white: 

5 Y 8.5/2 

Lt. yellow: 

2.5 Y 8/4 

Beige: 

between 10 YR 8/2 

 and 

10 YR 8/4 

Cast-iron Columns 6 Upper – yellowish white: 

5 Y 8.5/2 

Lower - dark gray to black7

Upper - lt. yellow: 

2.5 Y 8/4 

Lower - dark gray to black 

Blue-gray: 

10 GY 6/1 

 1

 The remaining sections of original cornice on the raking eaves could not be accessed for sampling; its appearance in historic 

photographs, however, confirms its light color originally (fig. 26) and its dark color in 1943 (fig. 44). 2

 The sashes are replacements dating from 1964; a 1943 photograph (fig. 44), however, shows that they were the same dark 

color as the cornice and doors. 3

 Although no colorant is added, shellac has a naturally reddish brown cast. 4

 Shellac with bright red lake pigment added. This layer could not be color-matched because of its transparency; however, it 

is still the top layer on the attic-stairway trim, where it was never overpainted. A new finish can be matched to this appearance. 5

 Because the sashes are replacements dating from 1964, this chronology is conjectural; in 1907, they are specified to be the 

same “Indian Tan” as the wainscot (Bearrs, p. 296), and a 1943 photograph (fig. 46) clearly shows that they are light-colored. 6

 These were originally two-toned (fig. 29); the paint evidence suggests that they were still two-toned in 1907. 7

 The sample available was not large enough for color-matching the lowest dark layers. 
 205

TABLE 8: 

1896 COLORS 

Exterior Elements 

Doors, Doorway Trim, Window Sashes, 

Window Vent Trim, Front Porch Balustrade, 

Porch Columns and Pilasters, Porch Ceilings, 

Cornice 

5 Y 9/1

(off-white) 

Interior Elements 

Interior Doors, Doorway Trim, Window Trim, 

Window Sashes, Wainscot, Baseboards, 

Stairway Trim 

Natural Shellac 

(clear with reddish-brown cast)

Walls, Cast-Iron Columns (upper third; see fig. 29) 2.5 Y 6/2

(light olive-brown)

Cast-Iron Columns (lower two-thirds; see fig. 29) Dark Gray To Black 

Ceilings 5 Y 8.5 /2

(yellowish white)
 206

TABLE 9: 

1906-1907 COLORS 

Exterior Elements 

Exterior Doors, Doorway Trim, Window Sashes, 

Window Vent Trim, Front Porch Balustrade, 

Porch Columns and Pilasters, Cornice 

10 YR 6/1

(light gray-yellow brown) 

Porch Ceilings White

Interior Elements 

Interior Doors, Doorway Trim, Window Trim, 

Wainscot Cap, Baseboards, Stairway Trim 

Red Shellac 

(Shellac with red lake pigment; see existing finish on 

attic-stairway trim)

Window Sashes, Wainscot Paneling Natural Shellac 

(clear with reddish-brown cast)

Walls, Cast-Iron Columns (upper third) 10 GY 7/2

except Rm. 110

(light blue-green)

7.5 YR 5/6

Room 110

(strong yellow-brown) 

Cast-Iron Columns (lower two-thirds) Dark Gray To Black 

Ceilings 2.5 Y 8/4

(light yellow) 
 207

TABLE 10: 

1943 COLORS 

Exterior Elements 

Exterior Doors, Doorway Trim, Window Sashes, 

Window Vent Trim, Front Porch Balustrade Rails, 

Cornice 

10 GY 3/4

(dark green) 

Porch Columns and Pilasters, 

Porch Balusters, 

Porch Ceilings 

10 YR 9/1

(off-white) 

Interior Elements 

Interior Doors, Doorway Trim, Window Trim, 

Window Sashes 

10 YR 9/4

(pale orange-yellow) 

Wainscot, Baseboards, Stairway Trim, 

Cast-iron Columns 

10 GY 6/1

(blue-gray) 

Walls 10 YR 8/4

(pale orange-yellow) 

Ceilings Between 10 YR 8/4

(above)

and 10 YR 8/2

(beige)