Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area

Allenbrook

Historic Structure Report

2004

Hartrampf, Inc.

and

Office of Jack Pyburn, Architect, Inc.

for 

Historical Architecture, Cultural Resources Division

Southeast Regional Office

National Park Service
Cultural Resources

Southeast Region

National Park Service

100 Alabama St. SW

Atlanta, GA 30303

(404) 562-3117

The historic structure report presented here exists in two 

formats. A traditional, printed version is available for study 

at the park, the Southeastern Regional Office of the NPS 

(SERO), and at a variety of other repositories. For more 

widespread access, the historic structure report also exists 

in a web- based format through ParkNet, the website of the 

National Park Service. Please visit www.nps.gov for more 

information.

2004

Historic Structure Report

Allenbrook

Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area

Atlanta, GA

LCS#: 091884




National Park Service vii

Table of Contents

Foreword - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - xi

Project Team - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ix

Management Summary

Methodology - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

Historical Summary - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

Architectural Summary - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3

Summary of Recommended Treatments - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3

Administrative Data- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4

Historical Background and Context

Roswell and the Roswell Mills – 1835 to 1852 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8

Construction of Allenbrook: 1851-1856 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -11

The Civil War Years: 1861-1865 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -13

Reconstruction and Change: 1866-1932 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -17

Barnett Allen Bell and Allenbrook: 1932-1978 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -20

Conclusion - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -21

Chronology of Development and Use

Original Construction - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -23

Later Alterations - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -25

Barnett Bell Renovation- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -26

NPS Treatment - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -31

Physical Description

Summary of Historic Character - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -33

Structural System - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -34

Exterior Finishes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -37

Doors and Windows- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -41

Interior Finish Materials and Characteristics- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -49

Requirements for Treatment and Use - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -65

Treatment and Use

Alternatives for Treatment - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -67

Recommended Treatment - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -73

Sources of Information - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -77
viii Allenbrook HSR
National Park Service ix

Project Team

Hartrampf, Inc.

Robert A. Bass, P.E., President, Project Manager

Deborah Harvey, Historian and Project Coordinator

The Office of Jack Pyburn, Architect, Inc.

Jack Pyburn, AIA, President, Historical Architect

Jacqueline Renell, Preservation Planner and Architectural Historian

Jay Carlson, Field Measurements and Graphics 

Brandy Herlinger, Drafter
x Allenbrook HSR
National Park Service xi

We are pleased to make available this historic structure report, as part of our ongoing effort to provide 

comprehensive documentation for the historic structures and landscapes of National Park Service units in 

the Southeast Region. The authors would like to thank Kevin Cheri, Superintendent of the Chattahoochee 

River National Recreation Area, and his staff, especially David Ek, for their helpful aid in compiling this 

report. They opened their files for the authors’ use; cheerfully provided access, including ladders, to the 

building; and provided thoughtful comment on the draft versions of the report. Dr. David McCreery, 

Professor of History at Georgia State University, also reviewed a draft of the historical portions of this 

document and suggested appropriate improvements. The staff at the Roswell Historical Society Archives, 

guided by Elaine DeNiro, archivist, were also extremely helpful in unearthing information. Two volunteers, 

Burt Terrell and Aubrey Morris, were particularly helpful, patiently locating any requested information and 

making suggestions for acquiring what they could not find. The authors would also like to thank Tommy 

Jones of the Southeastern Regional Office for his helpful comments and review of this material. It is our 

hope that this study of Allenbrook will prove valuable to park management in its ongoing efforts to preserve 

the building and to everyone in understanding and interpreting this unique resource.

Dan Scheidt

Chief, Cultural Resources Division

Southeast Regional Office

 2004

Foreword
xii Allenbrook HSR
National Park Service 1

In 1994, Historical Architect Ali Miri, of the 

National Park Service Southeast Regional Office, 

completed a Historic Structure Assessment Report 

for Allenbrook. Between 1998 and the present, the 

National Park Service has undertaken major renovations of the building, prompting this Historic 

Structure Report. The aim of this report is to 

expand upon earlier reports, both in historical 

inquiry and in reporting of physical condition, and 

to provide more detailed recommendations to the 

National Park Service for the preservation, restoration, rehabilitation, interpretation, and use of this 

historic building.

Methodology

The contract for this Historic Structure Report 

restricted the amount of background research for 

this report to only the information provided by the 

National Park Service. However, a limited amount 

of other research was deemed necessary for better 

understanding of the historic context of this property. Therefore, there may be material and information still in public or private hands that has not been 

reviewed for this report. In preparation for this 

report, Hartrampf, Inc. received copies of prior 

reports on Allenbrook and the Ivy Mills from the 

National Park Service. Jacqueline Renell, of The 

Office of Jack Pyburn, Architect, Inc., also visited 

the offices of the Chattahoochee River National 

Recreational Area and obtained copies of other 

pertinent documents. Some of these documents 

were completed under the auspices of the National 

Park Service, and others were compiled for other 

governmental agencies. These documents were 

supplemented with some historical background 

research conducted on the Internet, inquiry in the 

census archives for the area, a visit to the Roswell 

Historical Society Archives, and a review of the 

minutes of the Roswell Manufacturing Company 

housed in the DeKalb History Center Archives.

The project team conducted several site visits to 

Allenbrook for the purpose of taking photographs 

and measurements to aid in the physical description 

and assessment of the property. The first site visit 

was made on September 11, 2003, four more site visits were made October through December, 2003, 

and two final visits were made in May and June of 

2004.

Draft versions of this report were submitted to the 

National Park Service for review at the 75% and 

95% complete milestones, and comments, changes, 

and additional information was incorporated into 

the 95% and Final submittal reports. The contract 

for this report also allowed for only a limited discussion of treatment and use. Therefore, recommendations have been included for further research 

that will be necessary for a full understanding of the 

Allenbrook property and its relationship to its historic surroundings.

Historical 

Summary

Roswell King and some of his family moved to the 

area about 1838 and, with six other families from the 

Darien, Georgia area, established the town of 

Roswell, purchasing the land on which Allenbrook 

now stands. With his son, Barrington King, Roswell 

King built or purchased mills on Vickery Creek that 

included a cotton mill, a saw mill, a woolen mill, a 

flour mill, and a brick kiln. These were incorporated as the Roswell Manufacturing Company. 

Roswell King died in 1844, but his son continued to 

develop the mill industries of Roswell.

Management 

Summary
2 Allenbrook HSR

One important issue for this report is to establish a 

clearer definition of the date of construction. Based 

on significant but circumstantial evidence, this 

report concludes that James R. King probably built 

Allenbrook between 1851 and 1856 for his own use. 

The materials and construction methods define the 

building as an ante- bellum structure. Barrington 

King sold the property on which Allenbrook was 

built to his son, James R. King, in 1852. On part of 

this property, James and his brother, Thomas King, 

built the Ivy Mill at the confluence of Vickery Creek 

and the Chattahoochee River. James King married 

in 1851, and it is likely that he built Allenbrook to 

house his family. The building is located near 

enough to Ivy Mill to allow him to oversee the facility, but far enough to provide spatial separation 

between the owner of the mill and its workers. 

Although some writers suggest that Allenbrook was 

originally built to house workers at the Ivy Mill, the 

substantial nature of the structure, the fact that it is a 

two- story dwelling apparently intended for a single 

family, and the brick detailing, including the decorative treatment of the mortar between the bricks, 

indicate that the house was built for someone with a 

higher social standing than that of a mill worker, 

even an overseer, bookkeeper, or loom boss. Data 

from the census records corroborate that, in 1860, 

James King did not live near his father, Barrington 

King, who is enumerated near workers for the 

Roswell Manufacturing Company. In many cases, 

the census record specifies the place of employment 

for these workers as “RMC” or “RMCo.” James R. 

King, on the other hand, is enumerated near workers at a woolen mill. Though the census record does 

not specify the name, the Ivy Woolen Mill was the 

only wool mill operating in the vicinity at the time. 

This data indicates that James King lived near the 

Ivy Mill, likely in the building now called Allenbrook.

Several writers state that John Brown, loom boss at 

the Ivy Mill, occupied Allenbrook with his wife, 

Mary, during the Civil War. While evidence suggests 

that this may be true, the occupation appears to 

have been a temporary measure precipitated by the 

Civil War and the need to leave someone responsible for the houses of the wealthy while their owners 

removed themselves to safer locations. The assertion by several writers that the house was built for, 

and occupied by, Theophile Rochè, who was managing the Ivy Mill when Federal forces arrived in 

Roswell in July of 1864, is false. Why that is so is 

detailed in the body of this report. 

After the Civil War, the property on which Allenbrook stands passed out of the hands of the King 

family. It was included, though never specifically 

mentioned, in all deeds of sale of property associated with the Ivy Mill, later known as the Laurel 

Mill. In 1923, Georgia Power Company purchased 

the Laurel Mill property and Allenbrook. In 1932, 

the family of Barnett Allen Bell purchased from 

Georgia Power the portion of the property on which 

Allenbrook is located. It was they who named it 

Allenbrook. They undertook modernization of the 

house, adding plumbing and electricity, remodeling 

the interior, especially the upper level, changing the 

porch at the front of the house, and building a back 

stoop. On the grounds, they cleared away underbrush, created a front porch floor of brick salvaged 

from the Ivy Mill, and built a terrace of the same 

brick at the back of the house.

The Bells lived in the house until the 1970s. After 

Mr. Bell died, Mrs. Barnett A. Bell sold the property 

to the National Park Service in 1978 to be part of the 

new Chattahoochee River National Recreational 

Area, Vickery Creek Unit. For a time, the Roswell 

Historical Society occupied the building under 

agreement with the National Park Service. The 

Roswell Historical Society used Allenbrook as a 

headquarters and a Welcome Center to the City of 

Roswell. The Roswell Historical Society also made 

some modest changes to the building during their 

tenure. After the Roswell Historical Society 

removed from the building, the National Park Service undertook more substantial stabilization and 

restoration measures, especially during the period 

of 2000 to 2002.

Allenbrook is eligible for inclusion in the National 

Register of Historic Places, and should be listed. It 

is a culturally significant building, part of the early 

history of the City of Roswell, and associated with 

the Ivy Mill. It is also architecturally significant, as it 

is a rare example of a brick Plantation Plain style 

house that retains much of its original plan and 

character. The National Park Service wishes to use 

Allenbrook as an entry point to the Vickery Creek 

Unit of the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area and to interpret its value and context to 

future generations of visitors.
National Park Service 3

Management Summary

Architectural 

Summary 

Though Allenbrook retains many of its original 

Plantation Plain style features, several significant 

ones have been lost and other, non- contributing 

features have been added. On the exterior, the 

shadow of the earliest, hip- roofed porch is evident 

on the front. This porch was of frame construction 

with a brick pier foundation. After the Bells purchased the building, they removed the existing front 

porch. Over the ensuing years, they built a succession of porches at the front of the house. The first 

porch that the Bells built was a small, one- story 

porch at the front door with square columns, a 

gabled roof, and a small pad of brick salvaged from 

the old Ivy/Laurel Mill buildings. This involved the 

addition of a considerable amount of fill dirt at the 

front of the building to bring the level of the ground 

to within a few inches of the finished floor level of 

the main floor. They later removed this porch and 

built a two- story, full- length porch with square 

columns and a flat roof. The Bells also altered the 

back of the house. They removed a central doorway 

to the back of the house and installed a new one to 

the east, bricking up the original opening. They also 

installed a brick stoop on the back of the building, 

which provided access to the new rear door. By 

1940, at least, this stoop was surrounded by a metal 

pipe handrail.

On the interior, the Bells renovated both the first 

and second floors. On the first floor, they blocked 

the north end of the hall with the construction of a 

bathroom, remodeled the stairway to the second 

floor and the entrance to the living room located in 

the southwestern corner of the house, constructed 

closets in the northern rooms, closed an opening 

into the dining room from under the stairs, and 

added new hearths and new mantels to two of the 

four fireplaces. They divided the upper level into 

three rooms, one of which was used as second bathroom, and two closets. In addition, the Bells 

installed kitchen and bath fixtures and introduced 

modern plumbing and electricity to the house.

In the 1980s, the Roswell Historical Society made 

changes to the building that included installation of 

gypsum board ceilings and recessed lighting as well 

as the painting of a floor cloth in the first floor hallway, although, at the time, the National Park Service 

was the owner of the property. After the Roswell 

Historical Society vacated the building, the National 

Park Service undertook extensive stabilization and 

rehabilitation that resulted in, among other things, 

new doors and hardware being installed on the 

exterior.

Overall, thanks to the stabilization measures undertaken by the National Park Service, Allenbrook 

appears to be in substantially good condition, with a 

few exceptions where repairs should still be made 

regardless of the treatment option selected. These 

would include repair of damaged window glass, 

treatment of deteriorated wood features where 

appropriate, repair of damaged wall surfaces, especially of the wall on the east side of the stairway, and 

repair of the water damaged ceilings.

Summary of 

Recommended 

Treatments

Based on the information revealed through the 

physical investigation and research for this report, it 

is recommended that the exterior of Allenbrook be 

restored to its pre- 1932 appearance. In 1932, Barnett 

Allen Bell purchased the property from the owner 

of the Laurel Mill complex, the Georgia Power 

Company, for which Bell worked. By 1940, the house 

had been significantly renovated by the Bell family. 

According to historic photographs dated 1940 and 

the physical investigation for this report, the building had, by then, undergone many of the changes 

evident today. Along with the information revealed 

through research about the evolution of the interior, 

the photographs serve as a significant resource for 

interpreting the layers of history embodied within 

the house.

The two most significant events in the history of this 

house were the time of its original construction in 

the early 1850s as the dwelling of the owner of the 

Ivy Mill and its sale in 1932 to the Barnett A. Bell 

family. Between those two events, the building was 

consistently associated with the Ivy/Laurel Mill 

property, owned by the owner of the Ivy/Laurel 

Mills, and occupied by workers associated in some 

way with those mills. The first preference for interpretation is to return the house to its appearance in 

1932, when it ceased to be legally associated with the 

Ivy/Laurel Mill property. Two watercolors painted 
4 Allenbrook HSR

by Barnett A. Bell of the front and back of the house 

in 1932 provide some information regarding the 

general appearance of the exterior of the house 

when purchased by the Bells. Investigation for this 

report revealed the likely interior configuration and 

some early finish treatments. However, returning 

the interior of the house to its 1932 appearance 

would cause the removal of a significant amount of 

material, which could result in damaging the earlier 

historic materials. Furthermore, the renovations 

undertaken by the Bells are historic in their own 

right. Therefore, it is recommended that restoration 

the pre- 1932 period be limited to the exterior of the 

building and that the interior be preserved intact.

This recommendation involves reconstruction of 

the hipped- roof front porch as shown in the watercolor by Barnet A. Bell and as delineated by the 

shadow of the roofline on the front elevation of the 

house. Archaeological investigation should be 

undertaken to determine if any evidence remains of 

the brick piers originally supporting the porch. This 

investigation must be conducted to a minimum of 

three feet below the existing ground surface due to 

the extensive ground- disturbing activities that the 

front yard of the house has experienced over the 

past seventy- five years. At the back of the house, 

the existing stoop and porch roof should be 

removed. The existing door to Room 104 should be 

removed and a window matching the existing historic examples located elsewhere on the building 

should be installed, along with brick infill, in the 

opening. The historic door opening at the center of 

the rear elevation, where Window 5 now is, should 

be reinstated with a door similar to that depicted in 

Bell’s watercolor installed in the opening. The 

watercolor depicts a wooden stair without handrails 

ascending to the opening on the exterior at this 

location. This should be reconstructed. However, 

because this stair does not meet code for public 

access, this door should be locked on the inside and 

should only be unlocked to provide egress in an 

emergency. Archaeological investigation should 

also be undertaken at the rear of the building to 

determine, if possible, the locations of early outbuildings. It is probable that the earliest arrangement of this site included both an exterior kitchen 

and a privy. While not known to have been in existence at the time the Bell family purchased the house, 

locating their remains, if existing, would aid in 

reconstructing the physical history of the site. The 

interior of the building should be preserved as it is 

until the National Park Service determines a use for 

the structure. Options for use are discussed later in 

this report.

Allenbrook is an unusual and significant architectural feature of the Piedmont region in that it is a 

brick Plantation Plain style building that retains 

much of its original materials and configuration 

more than one hundred years after its construction. 

Most such houses, if they still exist, have been modified beyond immediate recognition. The modifications made to Allenbrook by the Bells did not 

entirely destroy the character of the building. Additionally, the history of residential use, connecting 

Allenbrook to the King family, founders of the City 

of Roswell, and its continued affiliation with the 

local mills, make the building culturally significant 

to the area. For these reasons, restoration of the 

exterior to the pre- 1932 period is the recommended 

treatment. 

Administrative 

Data

Locational Data

Building Name: Allenbrook

Building Address: 227 South Atlanta Street, Roswell, 

GA 30075

LCS No.: 091884

Related Studies

Braley, Chad O., Karen G. Wood, and T. Jeffrey Price, An 

Archeological and Historical Survey of a Fifteen Acre 

Tract in Roswell, Fulton County, Georgia, Athens, GA: 

Southeastern Archeological Services, Inc., 1992.

Brown, Lenard E. “Historic Resource Study: 

Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area and 

the Chattahoochee River Corridor,” Atlanta: 

Southeastern Regional Office, National Park Service, 

1980.

Fulton County, Georgia, Gail D’Avino, preparer, 

Assessment of No Adverse Effect to Allenbrook, the 

Robertson House, the H. S. Weaver House, the Roswell 

Historic National Register District and Ivy/Laurel Mill 

(Site 9FU228), Atlanta: 1997.
National Park Service 5

Management Summary

Miri, Ali, Historic Structure Assessment Report – Allenbrook 

House. Atlanta: Historic Architecture Division, 

Southeast Region, National Park Service, 1994.

Wood, Karen, An Archeological Survey of the Presumed 

Location of the First Roswell Factory. Athens, GA: 

Southeastern Archeological Services, Inc., 1989.

Cultural Resource Data

National Register of Historic Places. Allenbrook 

has been recommended eligible for listing in the 

National Register of Historic Places. This recommendation, however, has not been confirmed by the 

State Historic Preservation Office. The Roswell 

Historical District was listed in the National Register 

of Historic Places in 1973. Allenbrook was not 

included in the boundaries of the District at the 

time. The Roswell Historic District was expanded 

in 1988 to include Allenbrook, but the expansion 

was never formally included in the National Register 

District. Considering its remote location and the 

number of intervening and non- contributing structures between Allenbrook and the rest of the 

National Register District, Allenbrook probably 

could not be included in the Roswell Historic District National Register listing. Allenbrook should be 

listed in the National Register of Historic Places as 

an individual resource under Criteria A, B, and C.

Period of Significance. A General Management 

Plan for this resource has not been completed. 

Therefore, a period of significance has not been 

determined. This report recommends that the 

Period of Significance be established as beginning 

when Allenbrook was constructed, between 1851 

and 1856, and ending circa 1932, when the building 

ceased to be legally associated with the Ivy/Laurel 

Mill property.

Proposed Treatment and Use. Because a General 

Management Plan for this resource has not been 

completed, a treatment and use has not been established. According to National Park Service personnel, the proposed use is to interpret both the 

exterior surroundings and the interior of Allenbrook. However, this proposal may be incompatible 

with the location of the building as well as with 

staffing and resources available at the Park. 

Although located within the Historic District of 

Roswell, its addition was an afterthought, as the 

building is not physically within reasonable walking 

distance of the rest of the historic structures in the 

District and is separated from the District by a number of non- contributing structures. Therefore, its 

physical connection with the Roswell Historic District is tenuous, at best, though its cultural connection is strong. To ensure the ultimate protection of 

the building, a plan for continued occupancy would 

prove ideal. One option would be to use the building 

as a residence for a Park Service ranger at the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area. Another 

use possibility would be as a classroom or museum 

facility, to host educational programs or exhibits. 

Although meeting the occupancy consideration, 

using Allenbrook for administrative office space 

would be the least optimal use given the impact such 

a function may have on the structural stability of the 

building. Until a use is determined, the recommended treatment of the interior is preservation. 

The interior should be preserved as it is, and only 

routine maintenance and repairs should be undertaken to prevent further deterioration of the historic 

materials. The exterior, however, should be 

restored to its pre- 1932 appearance to enhance the 

connection of Allenbrook to the Ivy/Laurel Mill 

ruins that are now part of the Chattahoochee River 

National Recreation Area. The Park should institute 

a vigorous educational plan to actively engage a 

continuous flow of visitors to the Vickery Creek 

Unit to learn about the natural and cultural history 

of the area and to learn about the connection 

between the ruins and Allenbrook and their significance to Roswell and the South.
6 Allenbrook HSR
National Park Service 7

The purpose of this section is to explore the 

background history of Allenbrook and its historical 

context. Various writers in the past proposed an 

assortment of theories on the date of construction, 

the purpose of construction, and the names of the 

occupants of this building. This report examines 

those theories in light of the most current evidence 

available to the researcher. The objective is to create 

a coherent, verifiable history from the fragments of 

past efforts, discarding those elements that do not 

withstand critical scrutiny.

As Union troops advanced upon Roswell, Georgia 

in July of 1864, Confederate Adjutant A. W. Harris 

wrote on behalf of Colonel M. H. Wright in Atlanta 

to the Captain of the Roswell Battalion, stationed in 

Roswell, to retreat across the Chattahoochee River 

toward Atlanta to avoid allowing their arms and 

ammunition to fall into the hands of the enemy.1

 

James Roswell King, Captain of the Roswell 

Battalion and son of one of the founders of the 

Roswell Manufacturing Company, gave final 

instructions to his “head man” to keep the mills 

running “until driven out” by the soldiers.2

 Then, 

with his seventy- five men, he withdrew across the 

river and burned the bridge behind him. To keep 

the munitions from falling into the hands of the 

Union soldiers, he left Roswell and its collection of 

cotton, wool, and flour mills unprotected against 

the advancing army. All that remained to defend 

them were the elderly, the women and children who 

worked in the mills, two mill superintendents, and a 

few foreign workers. The Reverend Nathaniel Pratt, 

Presbyterian minister, also stayed behind to tend his 

flock and defend the homes of the wealthy owners 

of the mills, who earlier fled to Atlanta, Macon, 

Augusta, or Savannah.3

The men entrusted with the task of keeping the 

woolen mill running in the face of an advancing 

enemy, executed a desperate plan. They hoisted a 

French flag belonging to an employee and citizen of 

France, weaver Theophile Rochè, above the mill 

and continued operations.4 When General Kenner 

Garrard of the Union Army marched into Roswell 

on July 6, 1864, Rochè claimed that he, a French 

national, was an owner of the mills and that the 

soldiers should not harm the mills since they 

operated under a neutral flag. This gambit worked 

until the next day when Garrard, inspecting the 

mills, observed the letters CSA woven into the cloth. 

He immediately closed the mills, removed large 

amounts of cloth, thread, and rope for the use of the 

Union Army, and ordered the mills burned. At the 

direction of General William Tecumseh Sherman, 

Garrard arrested the mill workers on charges of 

treason and marched them under guard to Marietta 

as prisoners of war, where Union soldiers put them 

on trains heading north.

In the years following the Civil War, many myths 

and legends grew up around this incident in 

Roswell. Most centered on the fate of the women of 

Roswell sent by the army to northern states. One, 

however, involved the French weaver, Theophile 

Rochè. Believed to be a central player in this drama, 

he acquired some status. His legend, therefore, 

required a locus, a place to hang his hat. The legend 

of Theophile Rochè eventually included assertions 

that he was the superintendent of the Ivy Mill and 

1. Adjutant A. W. Harris to Captain James R. King, 

quoted in Michael Hitt, Charged With Treason: Ordeal 

of 400 mill workers during military operations in 

Roswell, Georgia, 1864-1865, Monroe, NY: Library 

Research Associates, Inc., 1992, p. 1.

2. James King, quoted in Hitt, p. 3.

3. Darlene M. Walsh, ed. Roswell – A Pictorial History, 

2nd ed. (reprinted in 2000), Charlotte: Fine Books 

Publishing Company, 1994, p. 67.

4. Hitt, pp. 14, 16.

Historical Background 

and Context
8 Allenbrook HSR

Historical Background & Context

lived in the two- story brick house on Roswell Road 

located between the Ivy Mill and the Roswell Mills 

and now known as Allenbrook. The National Park 

Service purchased the property in 1978. By that 

time, the established history of Allenbrook was that 

a member of the King family, sometimes said to be 

Roswell King, built it in the mid- 1840s as an office 

and residence for the manager of the Ivy Woolen 

Mill, often said to be Theophile Rochè.5

 Another 

writer added that Rochè owned the Allenbrook 

property.6 Careful consideration of the available 

evidence shows that, while the established history 

contains elements of the truth, earlier writers 

rearranged and misapplied those elements to the 

point that this explanation of the construction of 

Allenbrook is false.

Allenbrook is surrounded by history and mystery. 

The date of construction is uncertain, the reason for 

constructing it is unclear, and many of the 

occupants before 1930 are undetermined. Over the 

years, Allenbrook did not attract the interest of 

most historians of the Roswell Mills and the city of 

Roswell, so it remained obscure except for the 

legend of Theophile Rochè. However, the history of 

the Roswell area provides clues to the possible 

construction date of Allenbrook and its purpose, as 

does analysis of the materials and construction 

methods used. 

Also important to dating the structure are the 

building plan and details as they relate to other 

buildings in the Roswell area. The purpose of this 

report is to examine the history of the building now 

known as Allenbrook and its contextual 

surroundings. This analysis attempts to determine 

who built Allenbrook and when, as well as who 

lived in it before 1931, when the family of Barnett 

Allen Bell purchased the property and named it 

Allenbrook.

Roswell and the 

Roswell Mills – 

1835 to 1852

When Roswell King, Sr. actually moved to north 

Georgia is uncertain. He passed through the area 

around 1830 on a business trip for the Bank of 

Darien to investigate the prospects of gold mining 

and the feasibility of establishing a branch bank 

there. By 1833, he reportedly resided in Auraria, a 

gold- mining town in Lumpkin County where the 

Bank of Darien established a branch bank. King 

served as cashier of the bank and sat on the Board of 

Directors.7

 In addition, he apparently had an 

interest in a gold mining concern in Lumpkin 

County. However, his wife never moved from the 

coastal town of Darien.8 She died and was buried 

there in 1839, so it is unclear how permanent was 

King’s residence in Darien.

The Georgia State Legislature officially organized 

Cobb County from the larger Cherokee County in 

1832. Surveyors for the state ran section, district, 

and land lot lines throughout the county in 

preparation for the sixth Georgia State land lottery. 

Lots in the Roswell area were forty acres each, and 

the grant fee was $18 per lot. After the lottery, 

Roswell King bought land lots along Vickery Creek 

from those who won them. About 1836, members of 

the family of Roswell King moved to Cobb County. 

Although some historians state that Roswell King 

also moved to the area at this time, it is unlikely that 

he did so permanently before the death of his wife 

in Darien in 1839. 

The Kings persuaded several other families from 

Darien to build homes in the north Georgia area as 

well.9 Those who moved to Cobb County from the 

Roswell King family included his sons, Ralph and 

Barrington, and his widowed daughter, Eliza Hand, 

for whom Roswell King built the first permanent 

residence in the village, Primrose Cottage. The 

Kings also brought slaves numbering between thirty 

and forty with them. 5. See Ernest DeVane and Clarece Martin, Roswell – 10

Historic Homes and Landmarks, A Collection of 

Drawings, Roswell, GA: The Roswell Historical Society, 

Inc., 1974, n.p., Walsh, pp. 44-46, and James L. Skinner 

III, ed., The Autobiography of Henry Merrell: 

Industrial Missionary to the South, Athens, GA: 

University of Georgia Press, 1991, p. 463, for instance.

6. Alice Richards, “Barnett A. Bells Preserve Charm of 

Circa 1830 Home,” Atlanta: Constitution, December 

29, 1957. Copy found in the Roswell Historical Society 

Archives, Roswell, Georgia.

7. Karen Wood, An Archeological Survey of the 

Presumed Location of the First Roswell Factory,

Athens, GA: Southeastern Archeological Services, Inc., 

1989, p. 6.

8. Walsh, p. 240.

9. Wood, p. 6.
National Park Service 9

Part I: Developmental History

The original purpose of “The Colony” at Roswell 

was as a summer resort, away from the “sickly 

seasons” of lower Georgia.11 However, the Kings 

immediately began to exploit the industrial 

potential of the waterpower afforded by Vickery 

Creek (now called Big Creek) as it rushed to join the 

Chattahoochee River. Historian Richard Coleman 

described the early activities of Roswell and 

Barrington King in “A Short History of the Roswell 

Manufacturing Company.” Using slave labor, they 

first constructed a road down the slope to Vickery 

Creek from the bluff. They built a dam thirty feet 

high of cedar logs, rocks, and mud. They 

constructed a sawmill and, using the dam as 

waterpower, they “began cutting beams and planks 

for their first houses.”12 They also built a brick kiln, 

which continued to operate nearly into the 

twentieth century. With the timber from their 

sawmill and bricks from the brick kiln, they 

constructed a cotton mill on the northwest bank of 

Vickery Creek in 1839. They located this first mill 

three- quarters of a mile upstream of the mouth of 

the creek.13 The Georgia State Legislature approved 

the incorporation of the mills as the Roswell 

Manufacturing Company in December of 1839.

Although Roswell King founded Roswell, Georgia, 

his son, Barrington, established the industrial base 

that made it a viable community. Barrington King 

engaged the first Superintendent for the Roswell 

Manufacturing Company in 1838, before 

construction of the mill was complete.14 He was 

Henry Merrell, a northern textile engineer and 

operator, who arrived in Cobb County in May of 

1839.15 Merrell’s responsibility was to keep the mill 

running smoothly by maintaining the mill 

machinery and overseeing the mill operators. His 

salary, in that first year, was $1,000 and board. 

Although several sources assert that the Kings built 

Allenbrook as a residence for a superintendent of 

the mills, it does not appear that Merrell occupied 

the building. It is more likely that he lived in a 

boarding house or in “The Bricks,” buildings 

constructed as apartment houses for workers at the 

mill. In his memoirs, Merrell mentioned that he 

went to the door of the company storekeeper, Mr. 

Fraser, one night to get a light for his candle.16 

Merrell’s candle had gone out, and he could not 

find his matches. Merrell’s use of the phrase, “...I 

went to his door,” rather than stating that he went to 

the house of Mr. Fraser, probably indicates that they 

lived in the same building. Allenbrook is more than 

a mile from the early mill structures. It is unlikely 

that the mill superintendent lived so far from his 

work, especially since he conducted his business on 

foot. Describing the route his daily tasks took, 

Merrell says,

One had to be considerable of a goat to get about 

that business place. At that time it was very 

rocky, & [sic] from the lower room of the 

[cotton] Factory to the upper room of the new 

store, and from thence round by the gin to the 

Wool Factory...was the means of wearing out a 

great many pairs of shoes for me.17

These buildings, the cotton factory, the store, the 

gin, and the wool factory, as well as the housing for 

the mill workers, were located within the bend of 

Vickery Creek immediately to the east of the village 

of Roswell.

It is necessary to consider whether Roswell or 

Barrington King built Allenbrook as a residence for 

Henry Merrell, as past historians have suggested. 

There is no documentary or circumstantial 

evidence for this. Henry Merrell married Elizabeth 

Pye Magill, a sister of the wife of Archibald Smith, in 

1841. In his memoirs, Merrell never mentioned 

where they lived when he spoke of “setting up 

housekeeping.” Merrell’s own description of his 

relationship with Roswell King indicates that it is 

unlikely King constructed a residence for him. 

Merrell said that Roswell King “was not my 

friend....”18 It appears neither held the other in high 

regard, though Merrell applauded Roswell King’s 

energy. Barrington King apparently appreciated 

Merrell’s efforts more. He made a gift to Merrell, 

10. According to the Sixth Census of the United States, 

1840 Population Schedules, Cobb County, GA,

reviewed online at Ancestry.com, Roswell and 

Barrington King owned between them thirty slaves in 

1840. It is unknown how many they acquired after 

settling at Roswell. Richard G. Coleman, “A Short 

History of the Roswell Manufacturing Company of 

Roswell, Georgia, Home of ‘Roswell Grey’,” 

unpublished manuscript in the Chattahoochee River 

National Recreation Area Superintendent’s Office 

files, p. 2, states that they owned more than 40 slaves 

when they came to north Georgia.

11. Skinner, p. 141.

12. Coleman, p. 2.

13. Wood, p. 2.

14. Skinner, p. 140.

15. Wood, p. 7.

16. Skinner, p. 160.

17. Ibid., p. 164.

18. Ibid., p. 167.
10 Allenbrook HSR

Historical Background & Context

possibly on the occasion of Merrell’s marriage, of a 

building lot. However, upon leaving the employ of 

the Roswell Manufacturing Company, Merrell 

returned it to him unimproved “at the nominal price 

of $100.00.”19 This set of circumstances indicates 

that it is also improbable that Barrington King built 

Allenbrook for Henry Merrill’s use.

James Skinner III, who compiled the autobiography 

of Henry Merrell from Merrell’s own manuscripts, 

stated that Allenbrook was built about 1846 “as a 

residence or office....”20 It is possible that the 1846 

date is a typographical error, as he continued by 

saying that the Kings intended it for the use of the 

superintendent of the Ivy Woolen Mill, which, if 

built in 1846, cannot be the case since the Ivy Mill 

was not built until 1856. It is possible, though 

unlikely, that a member of the King family 

constructed Allenbrook for the use of some 

functionary of the Roswell Manufacturing 

Company, if not for Henry Merrell. In his memoirs, 

Merrell named some of those who served under 

him and after him.

The first overseers hired by Merrell were Enos 

Parker (or Eric Parker – Merrell used both names) 

and William Smith from the Oneida Factory in 

Whitesboro, New York. Unfortunately, William 

Smith died almost immediately upon arriving at 

Roswell, and Parker died not long afterward. Next, 

Merrell employed a Mr. Cheever, whom his friends 

in the North recommended. Cheever, according to 

Henry Merrell, “had not one practical or practicable 

bone in his body.”21 Merrell fired Cheever after he 

accidentally set the mill on fire. Because of an 

inability to keep Superintendents long, for whatever 

reason, Henry Merrell found his duties expanding 

to fill the void. He frequently mentioned in his 

memoirs that he overworked himself in the service 

of the Roswell Manufacturing Company. As with 

Henry Merrell, the likelihood that these 

superintendents of the cotton mill lived at 

Allenbrook is remote considering the distance of 

more than a mile between the house and the 

factories.

Roswell King died in 1844, and Barrington King 

continued to expand the holdings of the Roswell 

Manufacturing Company. However, Henry Merrell 

commented that the original factory “found itself 

growing old, and plodding on in the old way with 

profits yearly becoming less in spite of hard work & 

increasing economy.”22 In the meantime, Merrell 

became increasingly discontent with his lot at the 

Roswell Manufacturing Company. In 1844, his 

salary was the same as that which he received in 

1840, although the company shareholders upgraded 

his title from Superintendent to Assistant Agent that 

year.23 Merrell “finally saw that there was no hope 

of permanent promotion to the Agency, or 

even...the position of Asst. Agent. There were too 

many Cadets of the wealthy families coming 

forward who would be likely to fill the office....”24 

In April of 1844, the shareholders of the Roswell 

Manufacturing Company allowed Henry Merrell to 

purchase one share of capital stock in the company 

for $750.25 While attending the shareholder’s 

meeting in October of that year, he made a motion 

to declare a twenty- two percent dividend on shares 

of stock in 1844, which motion passed.26 It may be 

no coincidence that, in December of 1844, after the 

stock dividend distribution, Henry Merrell 

purchased the “Mars Hill” factory in Clarke County, 

Georgia, about seven miles from Athens, and moved 

out of Roswell permanently.

Henry Merrell left the employ of the Roswell 

Manufacturing Company in January of 1845. The 

company did not fill his position again until April of 

1849 when the shareholders appointed George H. 

Camp as Assistant Agent.27 Camp, a cousin of 

Henry Merrell, originally came to Roswell at 

Merrell’s request to serve as the storekeeper for the 

Roswell Manufacturing Company store.28 Camp 

did not reside at Allenbrook, either. The 1850 

census of Cobb County enumerated G. H. Camp 

and his wife, Jane, in the home of Barrington King.29

19. Ibid.

20. Ibid., p. 463.

21. Skinner, p. 165.

22. Ibid., p. 173.

23. Ibid., p. 167, and “Meetings of the Stockholders of the 

Roswell Manufacturing Company, Roswell, Cobb 

County, Georgia, 1840-1900,” unpublished set of 

original, handwritten meeting minutes, Roswell 

Manufacturing Company Minutes Collection, DeKalb 

History Center Archives, DeKalb, County, GA, p. 8. 

Used by permission of the DeKalb History Center.

24. Skinner, p. 181.

25. “Meetings,” p. 8.

26. Ibid., p. 10.

27. Ibid., p. 21.

28. Skinner, p. 161.

29. Seventh Census of the United States, 1850 Population 

Schedules, Cobb County, GA, reviewed online at 

Ancestry.com, 2004.
National Park Service 11

Part I: Developmental History

Construction of 

Allenbrook: 1851-

1856

The reason that an identifiable resident of the 

building now called Allenbrook cannot be found 

before the 1860 census is probably that it was not 

built until the flurry of construction activity 

associated with the building of the Ivy Mill in 1856. 

There are strong indications that building 

construction coincided with the establishment of 

the Ivy Mill by James and Thomas King. James 

Roswell King, son of Barrington King, listed his 

occupation in the 1850 census as “machinist,” the 

result of a sojourn in Patterson, New Jersey, where 

he spent time learning the textile manufacturing 

business.30 It appears that, in 1852, he began to put 

his education into practice. He purchased land at 

the mouth of Vickery Creek from his father for the 

purposes of building a mill. Although the deed does 

not specifically mention a mill, it states that, if James 

King built a dam on Vickery Creek, it must be low 

enough to not back up water to the factory on land 

lot 416.31 This appears to indicate an intention to 

build a mill at the mouth of Vickery Creek.

There is some confusion among past historians 

about the date of construction of the Ivy Mill. 

Partly, this is because, in 1852, the same year that 

James R. King purchased land to build the Ivy Mill, 

the Roswell Manufacturing Company built a second 

cotton mill, called the New Mill. To raise the money 

for this construction, the Roswell Manufacturing 

Company apparently sought new stockholders, and 

James R. King was among the stockholders of the 

New Mill. In addition, the Roswell Manufacturing 

Company had a wool mill in operation in 1852 that 

was neither the New Mill nor the Ivy Mill. 

Although Wood, and later Walsh, identify it as the 

Ivy Mill, the wool mill cited in George White’s 1854 

edition of Historical Collections of Georgia32 was 

actually the Roswell Manufacturing Company’s 

planned new sawmill converted to a woolen mill. 

Cobb County Deed Book N, p. 59, dated May 18, 

1843, records a transaction between B. King, N. A. 

Pratt, Eliza B. Hand, and the Roswell 

Manufacturing Company for water and building 

privileges for a saw mill on lot 416.33 However, the 

sawmill, if it ever did function as one, quickly 

became a woolen factory. Another Cobb County 

deed recorded a transaction between Barrington 

King et al. and the Roswell Manufacturing 

Company on October 18, 1852, for portions of land 

lots 415, 416, and 422. It stated: “...also title from us 

in May 1843, for water privileges to saw mill, now 

woolen factory....”34 By 1855, this woolen factory 

was likely not even in operation, and the meeting 

minutes of the Roswell Manufacturing Company 

shareholders cease to mention wool production.

In 1855, the shareholders of the Roswell 

Manufacturing Company appointed a committee to 

evaluate the machinery at this wool factory and sell 

it.35 The committee estimated the total value of the 

wool production machinery to be $300 and 

authorized the company’s Agent, George H. Camp, 

to sell it at that price. In 1856, James King built his 

mill, and, after his brother, Thomas, became a 

partner, they named the factory the Ivy Mill.36 

James R. King bought the wool manufacturing 

machinery from the earlier wool plant in April of 

1857 for $711.54 and installed it in the Ivy Mill, which 

apparently went into operation shortly thereafter. 

Previous writers and historians have advanced 

various theories regarding the occupants of 

Allenbrook in its early days. These theories include 

a superintendent of the Roswell Mills, a 

superintendent of the Ivy Mill (often said to be 

Theophile Rochè or Samuel Bonfoy or Bonfoir), the 

bookkeeper of the Ivy Mill (also said to be Mr. 

Bonfoy), and, during the Civil War, loom boss, John 

N. Brown. Oddly, it appears that no previous writer 

has considered the possibility that it was built for 

and occupied by the owner of the Ivy Mill, James R. 

King. It is useful to consider the likelihood of as 

many of these scenarios as possible.

The Federal census records provide clues regarding 

the tenant of Allenbrook in 1860. It does not appear 

that the family of George H. Camp, superintendent 

of the Roswell Mills, occupied it. The census 

30. Ibid., and Skinner, p. 168. enumerated the Camp family before Hugh W. 

31. Chad O. Braley, Karen G. Wood, and T. Jeffrey Price, 

An Archeological and Historical Survey of a Fifteen 

Acre Tract in Roswell, Fulton County, Georgia, Athens, 

GA: Southeastern Archeological Services, Inc., 1992, p. 

11.

32. Walsh, p. 42.

33. Braley, Wood, and Price, p. 11.

34. Ibid.

35. “Meetings,” p. 46.

36. Braley, Wood, and Price, p. 12.
12 Allenbrook HSR

Historical Background & Context

Proudfoot.37 According to a current map of the 

Roswell Historic District, the home of Hugh 

Proudfoot is at the north end of the Roswell 

Historic District, whereas Allenbrook is on the 

south end. The home of Barrington King is between 

the two. The census, therefore, indicates that the 

Camp family lived north of Hugh Proudfoot rather 

than south of Barrington King. However, the census 

records do reveal possible residents of Allenbrook. 

Enumerated immediately after the family of 

Barrington King, whose occupation is listed as 

President of the Roswell Manufacturing Company, 

is the family of A. Vanzant, of Delaware, listed as 

Superintendent of the Roswell Manufacturing 

Company. Comparing this to the map of the 

Roswell Historic District, it appears that Allenbrook 

could have been the next house to be enumerated if 

the census- taker went south from that of 

Barrington King, located south of the town square 

in Roswell. It is logical to conclude that the tenant 

of Allenbrook in 1860 could have been A. Vanzant 

with his wife and three daughters. Also living with 

them was one son, John J. Vanzant, Overseer at the 

Roswell Manufacturing Company, with his wife, 

one son, and two daughters. Although the 1860 

census lists several other overseers for the Roswell 

Manufacturing Company, as well as lesser 

functionaries such as loom bosses and watchmen, 

A. Vanzant is the only Superintendent listed. If the 

Vanzants were the residents of Allenbrook, it might 

explain the legend that a member of the King family 

built Allenbrook as a residence for a manager of a 

mill.

John N. Brown, overseer for the Roswell 

Manufacturing Company, is listed immediately after 

Vanzant. However, he and his wife, Mary, along 

with their three children, were boarders in the 

household of a factory hand, Susan White, with her 

six children. This enumeration provides an 

interesting insight into the conditions in which the 

factory workers lived. If these factory workers lived 

at Allenbrook, two families with a total of nine 

children were living in a house consisting of four 

rooms plus an upstairs loft. However, it is unlikely 

that either Vanzant or the White/Brown household 

lived at Allenbrook in 1860 as all of the working 

members of these households are enumerated as 

employees of the Roswell Manufacturing Company 

cotton mill more than a mile away. Where Samuel 

Bonfoy/Bonfoir lived could not be ascertained from 

records available for this research. 

However, there is a stronger candidate for tenancy 

at Allenbrook. That candidate is James R. King 

himself, with his wife, Francis, three sons, and one 

daughter. Although enumerated in the 1850 census 

as a “machinist” and included in the household of 

his father, the 1860 census listed him as a “Woollen 

Mfcture,” [sic] indicating his status as an owner of 

the Ivy Mill. He married Elizabeth Frances Prince 

about 1851. This marriage most likely prompted 

construction of a home for the newlyweds, a 

common occurrence in their society. The 1860 

census enumerates James King and family after a 

long list of mill workers and other laborers. There 

are ninety households enumerated between James 

R. King and his father. It is probable that the 

census- taker worked his way around the mill area 

on “Factory Hill” in Roswell before proceeding 

south toward the Chattahoochee River and, thus, to 

Allenbrook. Another clue that James King built 

Allenbrook and lived in it for a time is the 

substantial nature of the construction. It is by far 

the largest house of the period in that area, with 

functional and decorative features beyond any built 

for mill workers in Roswell before or since. For 

instance, “The Bricks,” built by Roswell King for his 

workers, though also constructed of brick, housed 

more than four families in one building. The 

apartments in “The Bricks” consisted of two small 

rooms downstairs and one room upstairs, with a 

narrow stairway connecting them. Allenbrook, 

apparently built originally for a single family, 

contained four ample rooms downstairs with an 

open loft upstairs. A fireplace with a decorative 

mantel provided warmth to each downstairs room. 

The construction and detailing of Allenbrook 

indicates that the builder intended it to house 

someone of more status than a mill employee had in 

those times. A third clue that James R. King and 

family lived close to the Ivy Mill is that, unlike 

workers living near his father, Barrington King, who 

were listed as factory hands, the census listed those 

living near James King as woolen mill workers. 

Located uphill from the site of the Ivy Mill, but 

within walking distance of it, Allenbrook is the 

logical place for the superintendent of the mill to 

live. It appears from the census records that the only 

superintendent of the woolen mill in 1860 was James 

37. Eighth Census of the United States, 1860 Population 

Schedule, Cobb County, GA, reviewed online at 

Ancestry.com, 2004.
National Park Service 13

Part I: Developmental History

Roswell King. Thomas King, who owned the land 

on which Allenbrook stands with his brother, does 

not appear in the 1860 Cobb County, Georgia 

Federal census records. Neither Mr. Bonfoy, 

reportedly the bookkeeper for the Ivy Mill, nor 

Theophile Rochè, the legendary Overseer of the 

mill, both proposed as tenants at Allenbrook, 

appear in the census records of 1860.

The Civil War 

Years: 1861-1865

Shortly after the Civil War began, the Ivy Mill 

contracted to make cloth for the Confederate 

government. The mill manufactured a particular 

cloth for uniforms known as “Roswell Grey,” a 

wool- cotton blend that did not shrink and was 

warmer than flannel. The cotton mills of the 

Roswell Manufacturing Company produced cotton 

sheeting, thread, rope, and other woven cotton 

products and sold them to the Confederate 

government as well as to clients outside the region. 

This production had serious consequences for the 

mills and the mill workers later in the war.

Barrington King and three of his sons enlisted in the 

Confederate Army at the outbreak of the Civil 

War.38 One son, Barrington Simerall King, enlisted 

in Cobb’s Legion, eventually attaining the rank of 

Lieutenant Colonel. Clifford A. King, the youngest 

of the King sons, served as a Cadet in Georgia’s 

Infantry, Third Battalion. Thomas E. King enlisted 

and was elected Captain of Company H, Seventh 

Infantry Regiment, Georgia, organized in May of 

1861 at Atlanta.39 This regiment, assigned to the 

Army of Northern Virginia, went almost 

immediately into battle. James King remained in 

Roswell to oversee the management of Ivy Mill. It is 

very likely that A. Vanzant left Georgia at the 

outbreak of the war. Originally from Delaware and 

a newcomer to the area, he likely returned to the 

northern states after hostilities commenced. The 

rosters of local militia units of the Confederate 

Army do not list his name. On July 21, 1861, Thomas 

King was severely wounded in the leg at the first 

Battle of Bull Run.40 He returned home to Roswell 

to recuperate.41 June 28, 1863 saw the organization 

of the “Roswell Battalion,” Company C of the 

Georgia Cavalry. Captain James R. King and 

Captain Thomas E. King, among others, led the 

battalion. Joseph H. King and Ralph B. King, Sr., 

also sons of Barrington King, served as First 

Lieutenants. The stated purpose of this battalion 

was “for home defense to protect the portion of the 

state of Georgia lying north of Atlanta to the 

Alabama and Tennessee lines...not to be called 

upon except to repel a raid of the Yankees and not 

to be kept on service longer than is necessary for 

that special purpose.”42 In addition, the organizing 

charter stipulated that “a large portion [of the force 

is] composed of detailed men now at work for the 

Confederate State Government under Major G. W. 

Cunningham, Q. M. for Atlanta at Roswell 

Factories, 20 miles north of Atlanta. It is composed 

of men and boys from 60 years down to 16 years of 

age.” In accordance with an agreement between the 

officers of the Roswell Manufacturing Company 

and the Confederate Government, a unit of the 

Confederate Army worked in the Roswell Mills.43 

This battalion remained inactive until the following 

year when the Federal forces entered Georgia. A 

comparison of the roster with the 1860 census 

reveals many surnames in the roster of the Roswell 

Battalion found earlier enumerated as factory hands 

in the 1860 census. Thomas King left the Roswell 

Battalion in September of 1863 and joined the Army 

of Tennessee under General Bragg. On September 

19, 1863, General Preston invited King to serve as his 

staff aide. Heavy fighting engulfed Thomas King at 

the Battle of Chickamauga, and he was killed there.

In the spring of 1864, Union troops invaded 

Georgia, heading toward Atlanta under the 

direction of General William Tecumseh Sherman. 

General Sherman planned to destroy every mill and 

factory aiding the Confederacy that stood in his 

38. Tammy H. Galloway, ed., Dear Old Roswell – Civil War 

Letters of the King Family of Roswell, Georgia, 

Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2003, p. 5 and 

Coleman, pp. 5-6.

39. Galloway, p. 5, and “CO. H, 7th Infantry Regiment, 

Volunteers, Army of Northern Virginia, Confederate 

States of America, Cobb County, Georgia, ‘Roswell 

Guards,’ ” posted with a brief history of the Company 

at <www.geocities.com/jshop24jhawkins/

RoswellGuards.html>, reviewed online, 2004.

40. Galloway, pp. 5-6.

41. Walsh, p. 72.

42. “Georgia Cavalry Local Defense Troops, Co. A, B, & C 

Cavalry Battalion, Georgia Cavalry, Volunteers, Army 

of Tennessee, Confederate States of America, Cobb 

County, Georgia, ‘Roswell Battalion,’ ” posted with a 

brief history of the Company at <www.geocities,com/

jshop27jhawkins/RoswellBattallion.html>, reviewed 

online, 2004.

43. “Meetings,” pp. 79-80.
14 Allenbrook HSR

Historical Background & Context

way, including cotton, woolen, and grist mills, and 

all iron manufacturers. The Roswell Manufacturing 

Company’s collection of cotton, wool, and flour 

mills made it a worthy target.

Two weeks before Union forces arrived in Roswell, 

Barrington King took the books for the Roswell 

Manufacturing Company and Ivy Mill to Savannah, 

where his oldest son, the Rev. Charles King, lived.44 

Other wealthy families from Roswell also sought 

refuge in Atlanta, Macon, Augusta, or Savannah. 

James King remained in Roswell. As Captain of the 

Roswell Battalion, he was under orders to retreat 

south of the Chattahoochee River and burn the 

bridge should the Federal forces advance as far as 

Roswell. Before he left, he instructed his “head 

man” and the operatives to remain at their posts in 

the mill or in their homes until driven out by the 

soldiers.45 Although Hitt identifies this “head man” 

as Samuel Bonfoy, several other sources identify him 

as a French weaver employed at the mill, Theophile 

Rochè. Rochè arrived in Roswell in 1863, seeking 

work.46 He was initially employed at the cotton 

mill, but quickly moved to the woolen mill. 

Although the circumstances are not clear, it appears 

that an arrangement was made between James King 

and Rochè, in which King consigned an interest in 

the mill to his weaver, the Frenchman, Theophile 

Rochè. The intention was to make it appear that a 

citizen of a foreign, neutral power owned and 

operated the mill. Both France and Great Britain 

declared neutrality in the conflict. Therefore, to fire 

upon the property of a citizen of a neutral power 

could be considered an act of war against the 

neutral country, a thing to be avoided while the 

United States was already engaged in its own, 

internal war. However, this stricture did not apply if 

the citizen engaged in activities supporting the 

rebellion.

“As Union troops advanced on Roswell on July 6, 

1864, Rochè hoisted a French flag in an effort to save 

the mills.”47 When the troops arrived at the mills, 

“Captain Joseph G. Vale, Company M, Seventh 

Pennsylvania Cavalry, was told by British and 

French employees that the mills should not be 

harmed because they operated under a neutral 

flag.”48 According to Captain Joseph G. Vale, of 

Company M, Seventh Pennsylvania Cavalry, the 

following day, General Kenner Garrard “stepped 

into the factory and passing through, found the 

operators busy engaged in making heavy cotton 

cloth, and a very little investigation showed that on 

each Webb, of piece, the cabalistic letters, C.S.A., 

were woven in the wool.”49 This eyewitness 

account has led some historians to associate 

Theophile Rochè with the Roswell Manufacturing 

Company cotton mills and other historians and 

writers to associate him with the Ivy wool mill. Vale 

continues by saying that the attention of the 

supposedly “neutral” subjects of Great Britain and 

France was directed to this problematic production. 

They were instructed to remove the French flag that 

was flying on the flagpole, surrender their money 

and papers to the military authorities, and “notify all 

the operators to leave the building at once.”50 When 

they refused to comply, the building was evacuated 

by force, the books and papers of the company were 

seized, placed under guard, and forwarded to army 

headquarters, and the buildings were burned “with 

their contents, machinery and stock on hand, 

thoroughly destroyed.”51 This total destruction 

seems to indicate the activities at the cotton mill 

buildings, but Garrard’s report to Sherman specified 

that the French flag flew over the woolen mill.52 It 

does not mention any other flags but specifically 

noted that the United States flag was not flying. 

However, Rochè was later given a receipt for two 

French flags, and an investigation by the French and 

American Claims Commission in 1882 revealed that 

a French flag also flew over Bulloch Hall.53

At the cotton mills, soldiers impressed large 

amounts of cloth, thread, and rope for use by the 

Union Army, and then set the buildings on fire, 

destroying them. At the Ivy Mill, they dumped the 

machinery into the river and started a small fire. 

However, the fire did not severely damage the 

mill.54 In fact, enough flooring remained in the Ivy 

44. “Meetings,”. p. 85.

45. James King, quoted in Hitt, p. 3.

46. Boston Post, anonymous correspondent, n.d. A copy 

and a transcript of this article are housed in the 

Archives of the Roswell Historical Society.

47. DeVane and Martin, n.p.

48. Braley, Wood, and Price, p. 16.

49. Captain Joseph G. Vale, Minty and the Cavalry, Edwin 

K. Meyer, Printer and Binder, 1886, quoted in Hitt, p. 

14.

50. Ibid.

51. Ibid.

52. General Kenner Garrard to Major General William 

Tecumseh Sherman, quoted in Hitt, p. 20.

53. T. D. Adams, sworn statement to the French and 

American Claims Commission, October 31, 1882, n.p. 

A transcript of this statement is housed in the 

Archives of the Roswell Historical Society.
National Park Service 15

Part I: Developmental History

Mill to enable General Dodge, following on the 

heels of General Garrard two days later, to 

construct a bridge over the Chattahoochee to 

replace the one burned by the retreating 

Confederate forces.

The Union soldiers destroyed fifteen mill 

structures, but, according to Barrington King, did 

little harm to most of the homes of the citizens of 

Roswell.55 General Sherman ordered that the 

owners, supervisors and workers at the mills be 

arrested and charge with treason.56 Of course, most 

of the shareholders had already left town, and the 

soldiers did not arrest the remaining shareholder, 

the Reverend Nathaniel Pratt. The army forced the 

arrested workers, primarily women with their 

children, to walk to Marietta and then put them on 

trains heading north to Chattanooga, Tennessee. 

From there, they were sent to places such as 

Nashville, Tennessee, Louisville, Kentucky, and 

Jeffersonville, Indiana. Sherman also gave his 

approval for the troops to hang Rochè for his 

attempt at deceit if they so desired, but they spared 

his life. DeVane and Martin, likely quoting other 

sources, assert that “he was arrested for treason and 

sent north for the duration of the war.”57 However, 

T. D. Adams, testifying for the French and American 

Claims Commission in 1882 asserts that Rochè was 

never arrested, although he accompanied the mill 

workers to Marietta three days after the Union 

soldiers captured Roswell.58 He also apparently 

went part of the way north with them. Rochè left 

the trainload of mill workers somewhere between 

Chattanooga and Nashville. He traveled to New 

York City and, from there, returned to France.59 

Adams stated that he saw Rochè in New York City 

in October, 1864. Rochè told Adams that he had in 

his possession a large amount of Confederate bonds 

and currency belonging to the widow of Thomas E. 

King, which he intended to dispose for her.60 

However, Adams noted that a conversation with 

Mrs. King about 1878 revealed that she never heard 

from Rochè again and never received anything for 

the funds with which she entrusted him.

There is conflicting information regarding the 

tenant at Allenbrook during the Civil War. Three 

candidates emerge. James Roswell King probably 

continued to live there with his family until some 

time in 1864, before the occupation of Roswell by 

the Federal army. There is no actual evidence that 

he moved between the 1860 census and the end of 

the war. The census does not indicate any 

superintendent of the Ivy Mill, so James King likely 

functioned in that capacity in his mill. Allenbrook is 

appropriately located to be a residence for an 

employee at the Ivy Mill, though likely too far from 

the cotton mills to house one of the cotton mill 

workers. It is probable that King sent his wife and 

family out of Roswell along with most of the other 

wealthy families of the town before he left for 

Atlanta with his troops. This would have left 

Allenbrook empty if not occupied by someone else. 

It appears that the wealthy families of the south 

hired others to occupy their houses and be 

responsible for their safekeeping when the owners 

themselves left for safer locations. For instance, 

William King, in Marietta, wrote in his diary that he 

could not remain there much longer but felt certain 

that to leave his house unprotected would ”secure 

its destruction.”61 He was more concerned about 

roving bands of Confederate soldiers than he was 

about depredations from the occupying Union 

forces. He hoped to get Mr. Rowland and his family 

from Roswell to occupy his house in Marietta, but 

restrictions on travel between the two towns by 

civilians made this impossible. It is likely, then, that 

other member of the King family might have hired 

others to occupy their homes for security while the 

owners went to safer quarters. The question is who 

might have occupied Allenbrook after the James 

King family left Roswell.

According to both Hitt and Walsh, John Brown, 

loom boss, with his wife, Mary, occupied it during 

the War Between the States.62 However, neither 

author provides any real evidence for this assertion. 

Walsh’s book, Roswell - A Pictorial History, includes 

a map of the Roswell area reproduced from The 

Official Atlas of the Civil War (author and publisher 

not given) that shows a structure in the approximate 

location of Allenbrook, labeled “Brown.” However, 

54. Galloway, p. 8.

55. “Meetings,” pp. 85-87.

56. Gail D’Avino, preparer, Assessment of No Adverse 

Effect to Allenbrook, the Robertson House, the H. S. 

Weaver House, the Roswell Historic National Register 

District and Ivy/Laurel Mill (Site 9FU228), Atlanta: 

Fulton County Government, 1997, p. 7.

57. DeVane and Martin, n.p.

58. Adams, n.p.

59. Hitt, p. 156.

60. Adams, n.p.

61. William King, quoted in Hitt, p. 125.

62. Walsh, pp. 53, 173.
16 Allenbrook HSR

Historical Background & Context

the map also labels the Ivy Mill as “Joy Mill” and 

contains several other misspellings and incorrect 

labeling, so the validity of the information on this 

map is questionable. Nevertheless, it is possible that 

the John Brown family occupied Allenbrook for 

James King briefly before the capture of Roswell by 

Union forces. The 1860 Federal Census for Cobb 

County listed two J. Browns, both with wives whose 

names begin with the letter “M.” J. N. Brown, 

enumerated in the household of Susan White, 

located next to the residence of A. Vanzant, 

Superintendent of the Roswell Manufacturing 

Company, gave his occupation as Overseer with the 

Roswell Manufacturing Company. The other, J. C. 

Brown, listed his occupation as Watchman for the 

Roswell Manufacturing Company. J. C. Brown, 

however, owned his own home, so he would not be 

living at Allenbrook, owned by James and Thomas 

King. Neither of these J. Browns appears to be 

living close to the Ivy Mill, based on their location in 

the census records. The roster of the Roswell 

Battalion of 1863 lists three John Browns: John C. 

Brown and John J. Brown, both Privates, as well as 

John N. Brown, Sergeant. It is possible that James 

King moved his family to Barrington Hall, the home 

of his father, or to some other location in Roswell 

after the 1860 census. 

After his brother, Thomas, died at Chickamauga, 

Thomas King’s widow moved to Bulloch Hall with 

her children. James King might have moved his 

family there to act as her protector. This would have 

caused King to be living relatively far from the mill 

he owned and superintended. However, it would 

leave Allenbrook available for residence by John and 

Mary Brown as asserted by Walsh and Hitt. As 

members of the Roswell Battalion, John J. Brown 

and John C. Brown probably left Roswell when 

Captain James King retreated with his men to 

Atlanta. John N. Brown, loom boss, remained in 

Roswell and continued to run the mill. He, with his 

wife, Mary, were arrested and sent to Louisville, 

and, from there, to Indianapolis, Indiana, and so left 

Allenbrook, if they were indeed living there, 

behind.63 Real evidence that they lived there, 

however, remains elusive. The most popular, and 

least likely, candidate to be a tenant at Allenbrook is 

Theophile Rochè. Several writers, DeVane and 

Martin as well as Skinner, for instance, suggest that 

Rochè used Allenbrook as both a residence and an 

office. Given the popularity of this theory, it is useful 

here to consider why this scenario is unlikely.

Theophile Rochè did not appear in the 1860 Federal 

Census of Cobb County or in any other 1860 United 

States censuses. However, beginning in 1863, he 

worked as a weaver for the Ivy Woolen Mill, though 

he first worked as a weaver for the Roswell 

Manufacturing Company cotton mill. Theophile 

Rochè is likely the person listed as “Theodore” 

Rochè in the 1863 roster of the Roswell Battalion. 

This indicates that he resided in Roswell by June of 

that year. Nevertheless, they left him behind a year 

later when the Roswell Battalion headed for Atlanta. 

Although Rochè claimed he was an owner of the Ivy 

Mill, no documentary evidence for this claim has 

been uncovered. Theophile Rochè filed a claim for 

damages with the French and American Claims 

Commission in 1883, but the Commission dismissed 

the claim for lack of prosecution.64 This may be 

because Rochè again lived in France at the time, or it 

also may be because he did not have sufficient proof 

of his ownership to prosecute his claim. T. D. 

Adams, in his statement to the Claims Commission 

commented that that “Roche was not possessed of 

any means.”65 Although James King later testified 

that he left the mill under the charge of his “head 

man” when he pulled his battalion south across the 

Chattahoochee, it is probable that this title, if he 

meant Roche, was quite recent. Author Michael 

Hitt names Samuel Bonfoy/Bonfoir as the 

superintendent of the Ivy Mill. Bonfoy/Bonfoir was 

arrested with the other mill worker when Union 

forces came through Roswell. Theophile Rochè was 

likely a “superintendent” for only about four days 

before he left Roswell for Marietta with the other 

mill workers. It is apparent that James King based 

Theophile Rochè’s elevation from weaver to 

superintendent of the Ivy Mill solely on Rochè’s 

French citizenship, hoping to protect his mill from 

the approaching Federal forces. This citizenship 

only assumed importance as the advance of the 

enemy became certain. Therefore, it is improbable 

that Rochè functioned as superintendent before 

James R. King left Roswell, making it extremely 

unlikely that he ever inhabited Allenbrook on any 

kind of a permanent basis. In fact, evidence from T. 

D. Adams reveals that, when the Union forces took 

Roswell, Rochè was staying at Bulloch Hall. He had 

apparently been entrusted with its safekeeping by 

63. Hitt, p. 156.

64. DeVane and Martin, n.p.

65. Adams, n.p.
National Park Service 17

Part I: Developmental History

Mrs. Thomas E. King when she left Roswell on July 

5 for safer quarters. To preserve his charge, he also 

raised the French flag above this residence.66 

Fortunately, the Federal soldiers were instructed to 

destroy only the manufacturing concerns and to 

protect the homes of citizens, so this action did not 

have the same deleterious effect on Bulloch Hall 

that it had on Ivy Mill.67

Other mill superintendents also remained in 

Roswell; Rochè’s presence was not unique. 

According to Walsh, the silver communion service 

of the Presbyterian Church came into the 

possession of Olney Eldredge, mill superintendent, 

during the occupation of Roswell by the first wave 

of Federal troops. Members of the congregation 

transported the communion service to the home of 

Eldredge hidden in a barrel of oats.68 From there, it 

was apparently carried, piece by piece in baskets of 

food, to an elderly, infirm woman, Mrs. Stephen 

Whitmire, who was likely allowed to remain in 

Roswell when the rest of the mill workers, including 

the daughter who brought her the baskets of food, 

were sent to Marietta.69 Eldredge and Mr. Bonfoir, 

were arrested with the other workers and removed 

to Marietta.70 Eldredge, at least, returned to 

Roswell by the end of the year. T. D. Adams, Clerk 

for the Roswell Manufacturing Company and 

assistant Postmaster of Roswell during the Civil 

War, also remained behind, but he was never 

arrested and remained in Roswell until August, 

1864.71 After the initial detail of Union soldiers left 

Roswell, it appears that other families moved into 

some of the great houses in town, if they were not 

employed to reside in them before. The Reverend 

Nathaniel Pratt, writing to Barrington Simerall King 

in December of 1864, detailed the damage to the 

houses of Barrington King, the Dunwoodys, the 

Mintons, the Proudfoots, and the Smiths, as well as 

to that of James King. Most of the damage was done 

not by Union forces but by Confederate soldiers 

home on leave, with or without permission. He 

commented that “the families living in them do not 

keep them very neatly.”72 It is not known who these 

families were at the time; certainly Theophile Rochè 

was no longer at Bulloch Hall, and John and Mary 

Brown were no longer at Allenbrook. Barrington 

Simmerall King, son of Barrington King, 

accompanied his wife and children to Roswell the 

following month and installed them at Barrington 

Hall.73 By then, Roswell was almost a ghost town, 

with only the old and infirm remaining, along with a 

few who were not obviously associated with the 

Roswell mills, such as the Rev. Pratt and T. D. 

Adams.

On reflection, one can hardly fault those left behind 

for making use of the available resources in a time of 

deep privation. The paternalistic members of the 

wealthy class abandoned them to the tender mercies 

of the Union army and headed for safer ground. 

Thanks to the “liberal foraging on the countryside” 

of soldiers from both sides of the conflict, starvation 

was a very real possibility. Even firewood for 

cooking became scarce as soldiers demolished 

fences and small wooden structures for use in their 

own campfires. It is a small wonder that the 

remaining population felt no great sense of 

responsibility to the absentee owners of the 

properties they occupied.

Reconstruction 

and Change: 1866-

1932

The war lasted less than a year after the burning of 

the Roswell Mills. Barrington King returned to 

Roswell in June of 1865 and began to rebuild the 

second cotton mill, called the New Mill. However, 

he died in 1866, in the middle of his rebuilding 

project, and his holdings passed to his widow, his 

surviving children, and the widows of his sons who 

did not survive him.74 The shareholders of the 

Roswell Manufacturing Company elected George 

H. Camp as President of the company. He 

continued to rebuild the New Mill according to the 

plans of Barrington King and presented it to them 

completed at the October 1867 meeting of the 

shareholders, along with his resignation.75 As 

inducement to withdraw his resignation, the 

66. Adams, n.p.

67. Captain Robert P. Kennedy, U.S.A to Captain d. E. 

Livermore, 3rd Ohio Volunteer Cavalry, U.S.A., July 6, 

1864. A transcript of this order is housed in the 

Archives of the Roswell Historical Society.

68. Walsh, p. 66.

69. Ibid.

70. William King, quoted in Hitt, p. 50.

71. Adams, n.p.

72. Walsh, p. 67.

73. Galloway, p. 98.

74. Coleman, p. 4.

75. “Meetings,” pp. 107-108.
18 Allenbrook HSR

Historical Background & Context

shareholders offered to raise his pay to $5,000 per 

year. They also offered to buy or rent the home of 

James R. King for Camp, indicating that they did not 

expect King to want it within the next year. Camp 

declined their offers, and the shareholders promptly 

voted to offer the presidency of the company to 

General Andrew J. Hansell, another shareholder of 

the Roswell Manufacturing Company.

In fact, James R. King did not immediately return to 

Roswell. After the fall of Roswell, his battalion was 

made a permanent company by Brigadier General 

M. J. Wright and ordered to turn their artillery over 

to the arsenal in Atlanta. They were then made a 

mounted company, but, although they were 

mustered as a mounted company, many of the men 

never received horses. “After the fall of Atlanta, 

Captain King was ordered to report to General 

Howell Cobb, who assigned the company to 

General Alfred Iverson, who in turn assigned them 

to Hannon’s brigade.”76 He was captured by 

Federal troops about August 28, 1864 at Macon, 

Georgia.77 However, in February 1865, he visited 

Roswell, so he must have been released. After the 

war, King moved his family to New Jersey, where he 

remained until about 1868. While in New Jersey, he 

represented the Roswell Manufacturing Company 

in the purchase of new machinery for the rebuilding 

of the New Mill. When he returned to Georgia, 

James King did not return to Allenbrook. The 1870 

census enumerated him in Marietta as an “Owner of 

Cotton Mills.”78 By the 1880 census, however, he 

again lived in Roswell.79 According to the Historic 

American Buildings Survey records, James R. King 

purchased the estate known as Holly Hill in Roswell 

shortly after the Civil War,80 so it is probable that he 

lived there and not at Allenbrook in 1880. When 

King rebuilt the Ivy Mill is not known, but “an 1880 

census report on water power noted that an existing 

frame dam was improved in 1871, which suggests that 

the mill may have been rebuilt at this time.”81 

However, King had other enterprises in mind than 

textile production. In 1873, he revived interest in a 

railroad connection between Roswell and Atlanta 

and set to work on the grading using leased convict 

labor in place of the slaves used before the Civil 

War.82

James R. King bought Thomas King’s share of the 

Ivy Mill and Allenbrook on July 16, 1874. Two weeks 

later, he sold his holdings to the Empire 

Manufacturing Company, in which he had an 

interest. The Empire Manufacturing Company 

produced cotton goods at the Ivy Mill for only a 

short time. In 1875, James Robertson, then president 

of the Roswell Manufacturing Company, undertook 

the task of disposing of the Empire Mills property 

and settling its debts. He first sold the mill and 

lands to the estates of Edward Houston and Charles 

R. Mills, apparently to clear a lien on the property. 

Then, the Roswell Manufacturing Company bought 

the property and moved the mill machinery to its 

new mill. In 1877, The Laurel Mills Manufacturing 

Company bought the property and converted it 

back to a wool mill.83 Although the mills again 

manufactured the “Roswell Gray” material for 

uniforms, the mill ceased operation in 1911 when the 

company went into bankruptcy.84 In June of 1917, 

George A. Wing [one of the partners in the Laurel 

Mills Manufacturing Company] sold portions of 

lots 456, 457, 421 and two nearby lots to I. M. 

Roberts et. al. The March 1, 1917 edition of the Cobb 

Country Times announced that the “Atlanta 

Woolen Mills Manufacturing Company have 

bought a part of the old machinery at Laurel Mills 

here and are moving it down there to put in 

operation soon.”85 The rest of the machinery was 

purchased by the Georgia Manufacturing Company 

and moved to Gainesville.86 In 1923, Georgia Power 

Company purchased the Laurel Mill property, 

including Allenbrook.87 At that time, Georgia 

Power was acquiring properties for the purpose of 

building hydroelectric power plants, which is likely 

76. Hitt, p. 103.

77. Ibid., p. 117.

78. Ninth Census of the United States, 1870 Population 

Schedule, Cobb County, GA, reviewed online at 

Ancestry.com, 2004.

79. Tenth Census of the United States, 1880 Population 

Schedule, Cobb County, GA, reviewed online at 

Ancestry.com, 2004.

80. National Park Service. Historic American Buildings 

Survey/Historic American Engineering Record (HABS/

HAER). Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress Prints 

and Photographs Division, 1936. Reviewed online at 

<http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/hhtml/hhome.html>.

81. Braley, Wood, and Price, p. 17.

82. Walsh, p. 85.

83. Anonymous, “Background History,” unpublished 

manuscript found in the archives of the 

Superintendent of the Chattahoochee River National 

Recreation Area, n.d., n.p.

84. DeVane and Martin, n.p., and Anonymous, 

“Background History,” n.p.

85. Braley, Wood, and Price, p. 18.

86. Records of the Roswell Bank, Boxes 1-4, housed in the 

Archives of the Roswell Historical Society.

87. Anonymous, “Background History,” n.p.
National Park Service 19

Part I: Developmental History

the cause of the purchase of the Laurel Mill 

properties. By 1924, the Georgia Power Company, 

as well as locals in search of building materials, were 

dismantling the Laurel Mill. A severe drought in 

1925 caused the Georgia Power Company to 

abandon plans to build more hydroelectric power 

plants. The company never built on the Laurel Mill 

site. In 1926, the Directors of the Roswell 

Manufacturing Company used the original hewn 

roof and floor timbers from the abandoned 

buildings to enlarge their newest mill, built in 1882.88

An anonymous researcher documented some of the 

residents of Allenbrook during the time the Laurel 

Mills Manufacturing Company owned the property. 

This researcher apparently gleaned most of the 

information through personal interviews conducted 

some time in the late 1970s or early 1980s. 

According to this researcher, Nathaniel L. Sherman 

lived in Allenbrook in the late 1880s. His 

descendants believed that he was a superintendent 

or manager for the Laurel Mill.89 The Sherman 

family had a long association with the King family as 

well as with the Ivy/Laurel Mill. Nathaniel L. 

Sherman’s father, Randolph E. Sherman, a native of 

Rhode Island, appears in the 1840 Federal Census 

records of Cobb County after the enumeration of 

Willis Ball.90 Willis Ball was the carpenter- architect 

whom Barrington King hired to build his home, 

Barrington Hall. Other Roswell friends of the Kings 

also hired Ball to design and build their “temple 

houses,” the Greek Revival mansions that the 

wealthy residents constructed for their use in the 

early days of Roswell.91 A northeastern carpenter 

himself, Randolph E. Sherman probably worked for 

Willis Ball constructing these houses. In the 

minutes of the 1852 fall meeting of the Roswell 

Manufacturing Company, Sherman’s name is on a 

list of renters of “The Bricks,” the apartment 

buildings reportedly built for workers at the 

company’s cotton mill. The list included the 

notation, “2 yrs,” indicating the length of time he 

had lived at “The Bricks.”92 However, this should 

probably not be considered an indication that 

Sherman worked in the cotton mill as he very likely 

continued to use his carpenter skills to make a 

living.

In the 1860 Federal census records of Cobb County, 

Randolph E. Sherman and his family apparently 

lived closer to the Ivy Mill. In fact, they lived only 

six houses away from James R. King and his family 

at the time.93 It is possible that James and Thomas 

King employed Sherman as a carpenter in the 

construction of the Ivy Mill, especially considering 

his association with Roswell and Barrington King. 

Randolph E. Sherman’s name is also on the roster of 

the Seventh Infantry Regiment of Georgia, of which 

Thomas King was captain. Sherman’s three sons, 

John D., Nathaniel L., and Luther Sherman, enlisted 

as Privates in the same company. Pvt. Luther 

Sherman was captured and sent to military prison, 

first in Louisville, Kentucky, and later to Camp 

Douglas in Illinois, where he died.94 It is unknown 

whether Randolph E. Sherman survived the 

conflict. He is not listed in the 1870 census of Cobb 

County. Nathaniel Sherman and his older brother, 

John, appear in this census, their families living side 

by side, in the Lemons District of Cobb County. 

Both worked in a woolen mill. By the 1880 census, 

both Nathaniel and John Sherman lived in Roswell 

again. The census- taker enumerated them living 

close to one another and both working in a woolen 

mill.95 This mill is the Laurel Mill, the only wool 

mill in the area.

According to his descendants, Nathaniel Sherman 

lived at Allenbrook in 1887 when he purchased an 

adjoining property and built a house for his 

daughter. This house later became known as “the 

McDerment House.”96 It is not possible to check 

the 1890 census for Sherman families and 

McDerment families living in close proximity 

because fire destroyed the census records. A search 

of the 1900 Federal Census records inconveniently 

revealed two separate Sherman families living next 

to two separate McDerment families, making it 

difficult to determine which family possibly lived at 

Allenbrook.97 However, a comparison of the ages 

of the McDerment wives in this census indicated 

88. Coleman, p. 6.

89. Anonymous, “Background History,” n.p.

90. Sixth Census of the United States, 1840 Population 

Schedule, Cobb County, GA, reviewed online at 

Ancestry.com, 2004.

91. Walsh, p. 39.

92. “Meetings,” p. 35.

93. Eighth Census of the United States, 1860 Population 

Schedule, Cobb County, GA, reviewed online at 

Ancestry.com, 2004.

94. Hitt, pp. 140, 145.

95. Tenth Census of the United States, 1880 Population 

Schedule, Cobb County, GA, reviewed online at 

Ancestry.com, 2004.

96. Anonymous, “Background History,” n.p.
20 Allenbrook HSR

Historical Background & Context

that the most likely candidate to be a daughter of 

Nathaniel L. Sherman lived in the dwelling 

designated 149 in the census records. Unfortunately, 

age and bad ink obscure the names on the page, so it 

is not possible to compare them to the names of the 

children of Nathaniel L. Sherman in the 1880 

census. If the McDerment family living in dwelling 

149 is the daughter of Nathaniel Sherman with her 

husband and children, the likely residents of 

Allenbrook are the members of the Sherman family 

listed immediately before them. In 1900, this was 

the family of John D. Sherman, brother of Nathaniel 

Sherman. By 1900, John D. Sherman and his son, 

William, were shareholders in the Oxbo Road 

Manufacturing Company, also known as “The Pants 

Factory,” in Roswell. A further clue that they lived at 

least near the Ivy Mill is that the census listed some 

of them, as well as some of their neighbors, as 

woolen mill workers.

Between 1903 and 1905, two families occupied the 

building simultaneously. The Copeland and Beaver 

families rented the house from the Laurel Mills 

Manufacturing Company. Ewell “Ollie” Copeland, 

who worked for the Laurel Mills, died there in 

1905.98 The residents of Allenbrook between 1905 

and 1932 are unknown. However, the building was 

vacant for some time before 1932, when the Barnett 

Allen Bells purchased the property. By 1932 it, was 

in a state of disrepair. It is probable, therefore, that 

no one occupied the building from at least 1923, 

when the Georgia Power Company purchased the 

property, until 1932. It may have been empty as early 

as 1911, when the Laurel Mills Manufacturing 

Company closed its doors.

On January 1, 1932, Milton County, a small county 

north of Fulton County, merged with Fulton 

County. To facilitate this merger, Cobb County 

ceded a small eastern portion to Fulton County, 

providing a “land bridge” to the former Milton 

County. This political realignment gave Fulton 

County its unusual shape and moved the City of 

Roswell, as well as Allenbrook and the former Ivy 

Mill, out of Cobb County and into Fulton County.99

Barnett Allen Bell 

and Allenbrook: 

1932-1978

Mr. and Mrs. Barnett Allen Bell purchased 

Allenbrook and surrounding grounds in 1932 and 

moved there from their home in Peachtree Heights, 

an unincorporated area north of Atlanta.100 

According to the 1930 Federal Census records, 

Barnett Allen Bell was born in Georgia about 1892, 

and his wife, Agnes M. Bell, was born in the Irish 

Free State about 1893.101 Barnett Bell was, according 

to the 1930 census, an “estimator for a power 

company,” presumably Georgia Power Company, 

from which they purchased their property, naming 

their new estate Allenbrook.102 According to the 

anonymous researcher who interviewed Barnett 

Bell, Jr. in 1980, the house originally had only four 

rooms, two on either side of a wide hallway down 

the center, plus an attic loft accessed by a steep and 

narrow set of stairs without handrails. The Bells 

remodeled it in the 1930s, adding a bath downstairs 

and the two bedrooms and bath upstairs.103

The National Park Service acquired the house and 

surrounding land in 1978 from Mrs. Barnett Allen 

Bell, though she continued to live there until 

November or December of 1979.104 The Park 

Service included Allenbrook in the Chattahoochee 

River National Recreation Area at the entrance to 

the Vickery Creek Unit of the Park. In 1983, the 

National Park Service, the Roswell Historical 

Society, and the City of Roswell reached an 

agreement that allowed the Historical Society to 

operate and maintain the house as their 

headquarters and as a welcome center for the city. 

While used by the Roswell Historical Society, the 

building housed a museum, a meeting room, a 

kitchen, a gift shop, and offices. In 1988, the City of 

Roswell expanded their Historic District to the 

Chattahoochee River, thus encompassing 

Allenbrook within its confines. The Roswell 

97. Twelfth Census of the United States, 1900, Population 

Schedule, Cobb County, GA, reviewed online at 

Ancestry.com, 2004.

98. Anonymous, “Background History,” n.p.

99. “Official Fulton County Website, Fulton County, 

Georgia – History,” reviewed at 

www.co.fulton.ga.us.com.

100. Richards, n.p., and Fifteenth Census of the United 

States, 1930 Population Schedule, Fulton County, GA,

reviewed online at Ancestry.com, 2004.

101. Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1930 

Population Schedule, Fulton County, GA, reviewed 

online at Ancestry.com, 2004.

102. DeVane, n.p.

103. Anonymous, “Background History,” n.p.

104. Ibid.
National Park Service 21

Part I: Developmental History

Historical Society vacated Allenbrook in 1997, and 

the building remains vacant today.

Conclusion

In summary, the available evidence, though largely 

circumstantial, indicates that James R. King was 

probably the original builder and earliest tenant at 

Allenbrook. The date of construction was likely 

between 1851 and 1856; he doubtless built it to be 

near his new mill, the Ivy Mill. Corroborating 

documentation has not been uncovered to support 

the suggestion that John Brown, loom boss at the 

Ivy Mill, occupied Allenbrook during the Civil War. 

However, it is possible that this is true. Theophile 

Rochè probably never inhabited Allenbrook. After 

the Civil War, James R. King did not return to 

Allenbrook, and it is unknown who occupied it 

between the end of the Civil War and 1880. 

Nathaniel Sherman and his family were tenants at 

Allenbrook in 1887, and may have even lived there as 

early as 1880. By 1900, however, his brother, John 

Sherman, probably lived at Allenbrook with his wife 

and five daughters. Both Nathaniel and John 

Sherman worked at the Laurel Mill, formerly 

known as the Ivy Mill. John Sherman later became 

a shareholder in the Oxbo Road Pants Factory in 

Roswell. John Sherman left Allenbrook by 1903, 

when two families, the Copelands and the Beavers, 

occupied it simultaneously. At least one of these 

families was associated with the Laurel Mills. The 

Laurel Mills closed in 1911. The Laurel Mills 

Manufacturing Company principals sold the 

machinery in 1917 and the land and buildings in 

1923. In 1932, an employee of Georgia Power 

Company, Barnett Allen Bell, purchased the part of 

the property on which Allenbrook stands. He and 

his wife renovated the building for their home and 

gave Allenbrook its name. In 1978, Mrs. Barnett 

Allen Bell sold her property to the National Park 

Service. The Park Service maintains the property as 

the gateway to the Vickery Creek Unit of the 

Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area. 
22 Allenbrook HSR

Historical Background & Context
National Park Service 23

There is little doubt that Allenbrook was built as a 

residence and was always used as a residence until 

1979. There is no real evidence that it was ever used 

as an office for a mill superintendent, as earlier 

historians suggest, although it is certainly possible 

that James R. King set aside one room in the house 

as his personal office. In 1978, Mrs. Barnett Allen 

Bell sold the property to the National Park Service 

to be a part of the new Chattahoochee River 

National Recreational Area. The intention was that 

the building was to be the entrance to the Vickery 

Creek unit of the Park. In 1983, an agreement was 

reached between the National Park Service, the 

Roswell Historical Society, and the City of Roswell 

that allowed the Historical Society to operate and 

maintain the house as their headquarters and as a 

welcome center for the city. While used by the 

Roswell Historical Society, the building housed a 

museum, a meeting room, a kitchen, a gift shop, and 

offices. By 1998, the Roswell Historical Society had 

vacated Allenbrook, and the National Park Service 

began stabilization, restoration, and renovation 

work on the building.

Original 

Construction

The specific construction date for Allenbrook is 

unknown. The building is unquestionably of 

antebellum construction. The exterior and bearing 

walls of the building are of hand- molded brick on a 

granite foundation. The granite foundation relates 

the building to other mill structures in the area. The 

first two factories and the contemporaneous 

machine shop upstream from Allenbrook were also 

built of brick with granite foundations. Henry 

Merrell mentioned that “twenty or thirty” slaves 

built the 1839 cotton mill,105 so it is probable that 

slaves also constructed other structures. Tradition 

states that slaves owned by the Kings made the 

bricks for Allenbrook.106 Therefore, the handmolded bricks place the construction of the 

building between 1839, when the King family arrived 

in the area and began to build, and 1865. However, 

historic evidence indicates that Allenbrook was 

built sometime between 1851 and 1856.

Earlier historians make architectural connections 

between Allenbrook and other structures built by 

the Roswell Manufacturing Company. Walsh and 

Skinner, for instance, both identify the style of the 

house as a “saltbox” and point to the New England 

origins of Roswell King as the inspiration behind 

the design.107 However, the building is not a saltbox 

style but a Plantation Plain style, which is more 

prevalent in Virginia and parts south, although the 

placement of interior chimneys rather than having 

chimneys on the exterior, gable ends is more typical 

of a New England design than a Piedmont one. 

Allenbrook is also unusual in that the builder 

articulated the Plantation Plain style in brick rather 

than in frame and clapboard. Walsh also cites the 

brick corbelling at the cornices of the building as 

evidence that the construction of Allenbrook 

occurred at approximately the same time and by the 

same person as other buildings associated with the 

Roswell Manufacturing Company.108 The mill 

operatives’ apartments, known as “The Bricks,” 

built c. 1840, and the machine shop for the second 

cotton mill, built in 1852, do indeed have decorative 

brickwork at the cornices of the buildings. 

However, the corbelling at Allenbrook is a V- shape, 

105. Skinner, p. 153.

106. D’Avino, n.p.

107. Walsh, passim, Skinner, p. 463, and Maynita Gerry, 

“Confederate House is a Pleasant Home,” Atlanta 

Journal Constitution, p. 20, date unknown. Based on 

references in the article, it appears the article was 

written about 1953.

108. Walsh, p. 53.

Chronology of 

Development and Use
24 Allenbrook HSR

Chronology of Development and Use

a much more detailed decorative feature than the 

semi- dentil brickwork at the cornice of “The 

Bricks” and the machine shop. These features are 

sufficiently different to invalidate drawing the 

conclusion from the comparison that the buildings 

are related.

Today, the building’s exterior is suggestive of its 

original appearance. Constructed in the Plantation 

Plain style – an I- house with a rear shed extension – 

and with elements of the Greek Revival style, 

Allenbrook experienced few changes to its historic 

appearance. While some changes have been made to 

the exterior over the past seventy years, most, 

though not all, were sensitive to the building’s 

character. The interior of the building has 

undergone more significant changes. However, the 

original plan is still evident throughout much of the 

house. Furthermore, a significant amount of the 

historic materials have been retained throughout the 

years. Fortunately, thanks to prudent record keeping 

over the past twenty- five years and to research, 

many of the changes made to the house can be 

documented and placed within a specific timeframe. 

Allenbrook was constructed as a two- story 

building, two rooms deep on the lower story and 

one room deep on the upper story. The floor plan 

was originally rectangular, with a central hall (Room 

102) dividing the first floor into east and west 

sections. There were four rooms on the first floor, 

and one, open room on the second floor. A steep 

and narrow set of steps with no handrails, almost a 

ladder, provided access to the upper floor from the 

central hall. There are four fireplaces in the building, 

one located in each of the four rooms on the first 

floor. There are two chimneys providing flues for 

the fireplaces, symmetrically located on the north 

side of the two- story portion of the building, which 

faces south. The interior flooring is wide, heartpine boards.

The building is constructed of hand- made brick on 

a continuous granite foundation. An interesting 

feature of the brick walls is the presence of painted 

white penciling marks in the mortar joints. Penciling 

was a common nineteenth- century decorative 

treatment, where the mortar joints of bricks were 

painted to give the appearance of thin, more precise 

joints. There is evidence of these white lines on the 

west, south, and east elevations. The building has a 

hipped roof over the main, two- story portion, and a 

shed roof over the rear extension. The exterior brick 

walls indicate that the extension is an original 

feature of the building, not an addition. Saw marks 

on the historic wood roof framing and some interior 

wall framing indicates the use of both sash and 

circular saws. The Roswell Manufacturing 

Company holdings by 1851 included both a brick kiln 

and a sawmill that likely provided raw materials for 

the building. Historically, Allenbrook had a onestory porch supported by brick piers and covered 

FIGURE 1. Existing First Floor Plan

FIGURE 2. Existing Second Floor Plan
National Park Service 25

Part I: Developmental History

with a hipped roof that sheltered the front door and 

both windows on the first story. A shadow line of 

this porch is evident over the front entrance to the 

house. A watercolor painted by Barnett A. Bell in 

1932 documents the existence of the porch.109 This 

is the only known pictorial evidence of the porch. 

Although consistent with the original nineteenthcentury Plantation Plain style of Allenbrook, it is 

unknown whether this porch was constructed with 

the house or was a later addition.

Examination of the existing features of the house, in 

consideration of its presumed original floor plan, 

reveals that there were likely thirteen double hung 

windows in the house when first constructed. Most 

of the existing window openings appear original to 

the house and include window openings 1 through 4 

and 6 through 13. According to the Barnett Bell’s 

1932 watercolor, a window was originally located on 

the north elevation of the house where Door 7 

currently exists. The original window openings are 

larger in size than those added later. The locations 

of the original doors of the house are more difficult 

to confirm, as changes made to the floor plan 

involved both the addition of new rooms and the 

modification of existing door openings. However, it 

appears that door openings 1, 2, 3, and 4 were all 

original, given the presumed earliest floor plan of 

the house. Additionally, door opening 5 may be an 

original opening, as the door hanging in the 

opening is a two- panel door similar to Doors 2, 3 

and 4. The two- panel doors all have two vertical, 

flat panels, a configuration commonly seen in 

eighteenth- century domestic architecture. Two 

other doors are known to have originally existed in 

the house. A door was located on the north 

elevation of the house where Window 5 currently 

exists. Evidence of this includes Barnett Bell’s 1932 

watercolor, and photographs included in Ali Miri’s 

1994 report showing brick patching in the north 

wall beneath Window 5. Also, a small door opening 

was located in the east wall of the first floor hall, 

beneath the stairs, and led to the dining room, 

Room 103. Furthermore, the arched opening to 

Room 101, while known to be a later modification, 

includes the original opening to the room. 

There is evidence of white paint on most of the 

historic shingle lath and the rafters exposed on the 

interior of the shed rooms. While some of the 

shingle lath is unpainted, yet appear aged, the 

absence of unused nail holes in the painted lath 

indicates that they were not recycled from another 

structure for use in Allenbrook. Therefore, it 

appears that the shed rooms did not originally have 

a finished ceiling, and the exposed roof structure 

was painted.

Later Alterations

The shed section at the north of the house has been 

subjected to significant changes over the years. 

Many of the earlier finishes have been removed, 

complicating interpretation of the chronological 

development of the house. The fact that there are 

two fireplaces in this portion of the house indicates 

that the shed area has likely always been partitioned 

in some fashion and was probably never a single 

room. The north walls of Rooms 106 and 107 were 

completely rebuilt by the National Park Service 

between 1998 and 2002, and are currently 

unfinished, so these do not provide information 

regarding earlier construction and finishes. The 

remaining wall finishes in the rear shed rooms aid in 

understanding how this section of the house 

evolved. Where intact, the original walls of Room 

104 are finished plaster on lath painted white up to 

the exposed shed roof structure, indicating the 

109. The 1932 watercolor of Allenbrook is signed “Barnett 

A. Bell” and is included in the Bell Family scrapbook 

for the renovation of the house. The scrapbook is 

held by the Roswell Historical Society Archives, 

Roswell, Georgia.

FIGURE 3. Living Room (Room 101), published in 

Atlanta Constitution, 1957. Source: Roswell 

Historical Society.
26 Allenbrook HSR

Chronology of Development and Use

there was no lowered ceiling in this room. Likewise, 

the original west and south walls in Room 107 and 

the south wall of what is now known as Room 108 

are finished with plaster and white paint up to the 

shed roof structure, indicating that this room also 

originally did not have a lowered ceiling. The south 

wall of Room 105, above the door opening, is 

finished with an unpainted, mottled, reddishbrown skim coat, apparently of plaster. This 

variation from the south walls to the east and west 

indicates that, at some point, walls extended to the 

roofline on either side of this section, forming a rear 

hall like the front hall. This rear hall existed when 

the Bell family purchased Allenbrook, and is 

believed to have been original to the house. Because 

the presence of painted shingle lath over the entire 

shed area indicates that it was originally exposed to 

the interior, including in the rear hall, it is 

reasonable to assume that the walls of the rear hall 

may have once been finished up to the roofline. The 

upper portion of the east wall of the rear hall, above 

the former ceiling level, is currently unfinished 

revealing the wood lath and plaster keys of the west 

wall of Room 104 and the exp1osed framing of the 

east wall of the rear hall. If they existed, finishes of 

the upper portions of the walls in the rear hall, 

Rooms 105 and 106, deteriorated and/or were 

removed at some unidentified time. The variation 

of the wall finishes above the level of the ceilings 

installed by the Bell family indicates that a lowered 

ceiling was installed in the hall at some point after 

the original construction of the house, though it is 

unclear when this installation occurred. The 

lowered ceiling may have been installed during the 

occupancy of the James R. King family in the 1850s 

and early 1860s, or it might have been installed after 

1932. Since it is currently missing, it is not possible 

to accurately date the installation of the lowered 

ceiling in the hall, although it is possible to 

definitively state that there was one.

Barnett Bell 

Renovation

Barnett Allen Bell “restored” Allenbrook sometime 

in the 1930s, after purchasing the house in 1932. The 

work undertaken by the Bells is more correctly 

called a renovation, especially since it involved more 

new construction than restoration of historic 

features. Part of the renovation included the 

addition of a bathroom (Room 106) at the north end 

of the hall on the first floor, between the two shed 

rooms (Rooms 104 and 107). This involved the 

addition of a wall dividing the rear hall into two 

rooms. At this time the rear door to the central hall 

was removed and a window (Window 5) was created 

in its place. The north window in Room 104 was 

removed, and a door was created (Door 7). A closet 

was added in each of Rooms 104 and 107. The door 

opening in the east wall of the first floor hall, 

beneath the second floor landing, and which led to 

Room 103, was closed and a built- in case with 

shelves was constructed in its place in Room 103. 

The renovations made to the first floor added four 

new doors and one new window to the building, 

while two existing doors and one existing window 

were removed. Doors 6 through 9 and Window 5 

were all added at this time. 

Additional changes were made to the first floor of 

the house during this period. According to Barnett 

Bell’s handwritten note, they installed the arched 

doorway in the living room, Room 101, and 

constructed the existing stairs, including the 

handrail leading to the top of the steps and along the 

upper landing. This staircase replaced a set of 

steeply- pitched steps only 18” wide and without a 

railing that led to the upper floor. These steps faced 

in the opposite direction from the current stairs. 

Further, Mr. Bell notes the origin and date of the 

newel post located at the base of the staircase. It was 

relocated from the Glades Plantation, home of 

Major John Bell, and dates to 1840. 

According to the 1957 Atlanta Constitution article on 

Allenbrook, the Bells replaced the hearths at the 

fireplaces using fieldstone to complement the 

existing heart- pine floors.110 Additionally, Barnett FIGURE 4. Kitchen (Room 104), 1984. Source: 

Roswell Historical Society.
National Park Service 27

Part I: Developmental History

Bell’s handwritten note identifies the mantel in the 

living room (Room 101) as dating to the post- 1930 

work and the pine mantel in the sitting room (Room 

107) as original to the house. The mantel in the 

dining room (Room 103) is very similar to that in 

Room 101 and, although not stated in the article or 

in the note, may have also been installed by the Bell 

family. Likewise, the pine mantel in the kitchen is 

identical to that in the sitting room and, therefore, is 

likely original to the house. All of the mantels were 

painted except for the one in the sitting room. The 

Bells removed the layers of paint from this mantel 

down to the original heart- pine wood and polished 

it with linseed oil and wax.

Crown and base molding were installed throughout 

the interior during the 1930s. The first finished 

ceilings may have been installed in the shed rooms 

at this time, as well. It is clear from both 

photographic and physical evidence that finished 

ceilings existed throughout the shed rooms by the 

1950s. Photographs taken of the interior in 1957 and 

1984 illustrate the former ceiling and crown molding 

conditions of Rooms 104 and 107. The varied paint 

scheme, the finishes, and the exposed framing 

currently existing in these rooms reveals significant 

information about their evolution. A ceiling of 

plaster on lath was first installed, following the pitch 

of the roof, in Room 104 and its closet, 109. This is 

evidenced by the presence of severely deteriorated 

lath nailed to the roof rafters and partly covered by 

remnants of plaster in Room 109 and by crown 

molding remaining along the interior roofline in 

Room 104. Another ceiling of plasterboard was, 

apparently, later applied directly to the roof rafters 

after removal of the old ceiling of lath and plaster. 

This is supported by the presence of paper 

remnants nailed to the roof framing in this room, 

indicating that, at some time, the ceiling was likely 

plasterboard. This ceiling was not installed in Room 

109; therefore, it was installed in Room 104, after 

Room 109 was built. It is possible that the plasteron- lath ceiling once present in these rooms also 

predated the existence of the closet, Room 109.

The finished ceilings installed in Rooms 106, 107 and 

108 were horizontally installed and lower. Evidence 

of this includes the shadow lines where crown 

molding once existed, found two- thirds of the way 

up the west and south walls of Room 107. A further 

indication of this former ceiling is the truncated 

walls in these rooms. The east, west, and north walls 

of Room 105, the south and west walls of Room 106, 

the east wall of Room 107, and the north and east 

walls of Room 108 rise only to the approximate level 

of the crown molding shadow lines in Room 107. 

The presence of this lowered ceiling provided for 

attic space above, probably accessed via Room 108, 

the closet in Room 107. The truncated walls in 

Rooms 105, 106, 107 and 108 reveal similar framing 

conditions, indicating they were likely installed 

contemporaneously. A horizontal framing member 

is attached to the south walls of Room 105 and 108, 

just above the level of the former ceilings. The 

framing indicates that the Bells likely rebuilt the east 

wall of Room 107 as part of their remodeling efforts. 

This is supported by the fact that framing for the 

east wall of Rooms 106 and 107 above the ceiling 

level no longer exists. Since the differential wall 

finishes of the south walls of Rooms 105, 107, and 108 

indicate that the east wall of Room 107 once 

extended to the roofline, it appears that the Bells 

rebuilt rather than remodeled the wall, making it 

shorter in the process. The wall between Rooms 105 

and 106 was then built to the same height as this 

shorter wall, and the lowered ceilings installed over 

at least Rooms 106, 107, and 108, and possibly over 

105.

A shadow on the floorboards in the first floor hall 

indicates that a door may have once separated the 

front (Room 102) and rear halls (Room 105/106). 

After the door, trim and framing were removed, the 

walls and the remainder of the opening were 

110. Richards, 1957.

FIGURE 5. Sitting Room (Room 107), published in 

Atlanta Constitution, 1957. Source: Roswell 

Historical Society.
28 Allenbrook HSR

Chronology of Development and Use

refinished. A variation in the baseboard on the north 

wall of Room 102 provides supporting evidence for 

the possible existence of an earlier door at this 

location. As stated earlier, the Bells installed all of 

the base and crown molding in the house sometime 

after 1932. The east end of the baseboard on the 

north wall of Room 102 is actually plaster, molded to 

resemble the adjacent baseboard. While no similar 

evidence exists in the baseboards of the opposite 

wall, the presence of this feature along with the 

shadow on the floorboards, supports the possibility 

of an earlier door. This door is not mentioned in the 

existing documentation of changes made by the Bell 

family. It is likely that it either predated the Bells or 

was installed by them during their renovation 

efforts, given that the repair made to the baseboard 

clearly occurred sometime after 1932. 

Although all of the interior door and window trim, 

base and crown molding, treads and risers of the 

interior stairs, and the two fireplace mantels added 

by the Bells in Rooms 101 and 103 are currently 

painted a medium blue, historic photographs of the 

interior included in the Atlanta Constitution article 

from 1957 reveal that the crown molding and 

mantels that were painted were a lighter color, 

possibly white. Additionally, these photographs 

indicate that the chimney breasts on both the Room 

101 and Room 107 fireplaces were painted a light 

color, possibly white, and the associated fireboxes 

were painted a dark color, likely black. The walls 

illustrated in the photographs appear to be white.

According to the anonymous researcher who 

interviewed Barnett Bell, Jr. in 1980, the upper floor 

when the Bells purchased the house was open space 

accessed by a steep and narrow set of stairs without 

handrails. In his handwritten note, Barnett Bell 

refers to the upper floor as a “loft.” While it may 

seem unusual that families with several children 

lived in this building without installing some 

partitioning in this area, there is no physical 

evidence to support that this occurred, and there is 

written evidence to support that it did not.

An interesting feature of the upper hall is the 

significant step- up located on either side of the 

landing at the top of the stairs. This feature may have 

been necessitated by the change in orientation of the 

stairs. According to Barnett Bell, the stairs to the 

second floor originally began near the middle of the 

house and ascended toward the south, or front. 

However, when the Bells installed the new stairs, 

they oriented them in the opposite direction. The 

need to reduce the pitch of the stairs while keeping 

the door to the east room on the first floor clear may 

have resulted in a stairway that reached the upstairs 

back wall one step short of the upper level. This 

made it necessary to incorporate a step on both 

sides of the landing to access the rooms on either 

side. However, it is also possible that the stairs were 

intentionally designed in this fashion. 

The Bells entirely reconfigured the second floor 

during the post- 1930 renovation. The open space 

was divided into three rooms, two closets, and a 

hall. Some physical characteristics support the 

written documentation that the upper floor was 

originally one large open space. The floorboards 

throughout the entire second floor are all similarly 

sized and run in the same direction, with no breaks 

at the room divisions. There is no evidence in the 

floorboards the rooms were ever partitioned other 

than as they are now. Additionally, examination of 

the deteriorated wall finish in the stairwell at the 

second floor level reveals that the wall may be 

finished plaster on gypsum or plaster board instead 

of the plaster on wood lath of the original walls, as 

no lath was observed in the exposed section of this 

wall. However, the deteriorated section is small, 

limiting visual access. The scope of work for this 

report calls for non- destructive inspection, so it was 

not possible to remove additional portions of the 

wall to inspect the underlying construction. Used as 

early as 1900, plaster on gypsum board lath is 

commonly seen in houses built in the 1920s and 30s 

and by the mid- 1940s predominates over the use of 

plaster on wood lath. While this finding supports 

the presumed date of the second floor walls, wood 

lath and plaster keys can be observed in several of 

the upper floor walls that are presumed added by 

the Bells. These walls include the east wall of Room 

110 and the west wall of Room 114. This condition 

can be observed through the attic access in the 

closet, Room 111, and the attic access in the 

bathroom, Room 113. The Bell family renovated the 

first floor shed rooms with plaster on lath walls. 

Therefore, it is probable that they renovated the 

second floor “loft area” using the similar 

construction materials. If the exposed portion of the 

wall is, in fact, constructed of plasterboard, and not 

plaster on lath, it is probable that the upper portion 

of the east wall of the stairwell was refinished at 

some point after the initial renovations undertaken 
National Park Service 29

Part I: Developmental History

by the Bells. Additional physical evidence of the 

subdivision of second floor includes the base and 

crown molding and all of the room and closet 

doors. The molding and doors match those 

installed in the first floor rooms after 1930. This 

evidence supports the written documentation that 

this area of the house was originally an open loft 

and was modified by the Bells. 

The reconfiguration of the second floor introduced 

seven new doors (Doors 11 through 17) and one new 

window (Window 14) to the building. The doors 

leading to the renovated spaces in the house are 

similar in design with the exception of Door 17, 

which is a small, board- and- batten door leading to 

the second story attic. Doors 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 

16 all have five, equally- spaced panels running 

horizontally from the top to the bottom, and 

machine- molded stiles and rails. These 

characteristics are indicative of early twentieth 

century door styles and, therefore, support that the 

Bell family installed them when they renovated the 

interior of the house.

Plumbing and electricity were installed in the house 

during the post- 1930 renovation. Throughout the 

house are features of this original service, including 

the bathtub, toilet, and sink in the upstairs 

bathroom and lighting fixtures and/or fittings in 

Rooms 101, 110, and 113. Wall sconces were installed 

on either side of the arched opening in the east wall 

of Room 101, and a cast iron sconce was installed to 

the right of Door 16 on the east wall of Room 110. A 

small, ceramic fixture was installed above the sink in 

Room 113 at this time as well. An interesting feature 

of the stairway is the electric light fixture installed 

on top of the newel post at the top of the stairway. It 

is probable that the Bell family installed this fixture 

when the other electrical lights were installed.

Additional modifications were made to the exterior 

of the house in the 1930s and 1940s. It appears that 

the existing board- and- batten shutters were 

installed at this time. While evident in the 1940 

photographs of Allenbrook, window shutters are 

not depicted in the 1932 watercolor painted by 

Barnett Bell. A photograph dating to 1957 shows 

board- and- batten shutters, matching those on the 

windows, flanking the front door. The shutters are 

not evident in the 1940 photograph of the house, 

indicating the door shutters were installed between 

1940 and 1957. A photograph printed in an unnamed 

newspaper believed to date to sometime in 1983, 

based on extrapolated information, shows these 

shutters.111 A 1984 photograph of the house reveals 

that the shutters had been removed sometime in 

1983 or 1984.

These two watercolors were likely painted by Bell 

from memory some time after the renovations. The 

strongest evidence of this is the depiction of the 

windows. Amateur artists drawing houses from 

111. Mohr, Merri Ann. “Allenbrook Restoration Awaits 

Funding.” unknown newspaper, circa 1983., page 68. 

Copy found in Roswell Historical Society Archives.

FIGURE 6. Watercolor of Allenbrook by Barnett 

A. Bell, Front Elevation. Courtesy of Roswell 

Historical Society Archives.

FIGURE 7. Watercolor of Allenbrook by Barnett 

A. Bell, Courtesy of Roswell Historical Society 

Archives.
30 Allenbrook HSR

Chronology of Development and Use

memory often depict six over six windows as three 

over three. They recall that the window frame has 

six panes; they often forget that a double- hung 

window has two frames. Bell also had difficulty 

depicting the hipped roof of the porch properly, 

most likely because he was not viewing it at the time 

he painted it. Because this painting was probably 

not painted until after the changes were made, using 

these watercolors to recreate the exterior 

appearance of the building should be with extreme 

caution.

According to documentation included in the 

Allenbrook papers on file at the National Park 

Service, the one- story porch with the hipped roof 

was removed shortly after the Bell family moved 

into the house.112 A small porch with a gabled roof 

was constructed in its place. Supporting the roof are 

two square posts at its outer edge. Flanking the 

doorway are two square pilasters. The shadow line 

of the porch roof and pilasters are still evident 

around the front door. This second porch was not 

long lived, however, as a photograph of the house 

dated circa 1950s illustrates a full- length, full- height 

porch on the front elevation. This porch had a flat 

roof without a finished ceiling and was supported by 

square columns and a brick floor. A shadow line of 

this feature is visible beneath the cornice on the 

south elevation of the house. The brick stoop 

constructed by the Bells on the north elevation at 

the newly created rear entrance is shown in a 1940 

photograph. The railing appears to have originally 

consisted of no more than metal pipes spanning the 

bracketed roof supports and extending to the 

exterior north wall and down the north side of the 

granite steps. Today, the National Park Service has 

constructed a new wood railing with square 

balusters on the rear stoop, but there are other 

existing details that differ from the apparent original 

conditions. The existing bracketed square columns 

are fluted and are larger than the wood posts in the 

1940 photograph. Also, the rear door is currently 

surrounded with wood trim, and a fluted wood 

pilaster is located to the east of the door. Neither of 

these features is present in the 1940 photograph. 

Based on Ali Miri’s 1994 report, these features were, 

however, present in 1994, along with a wood railing 

with square balusters, matching that, which exists 

today. It is reasonable to suggest that, when the 

second, gabled front porch was dismantled to build 

the third two- story porch, the square columns and 

one of the pilasters were reused on the rear porch. 

Additionally, it is likely that the pipe railing was 

changed to the existing style at that time. 

Existing documentation reveals that the site of 

Allenbrook when the Bell family occupied the 

FIGURE 10. South elevation, 1940. Source: 

Roswell Historical Society.

FIGURE 11. North elevation and rear yard, 

1940. Source: Roswell Historical Society. 112. Anonymous, “Background History.” n.p.
National Park Service 31

Part I: Developmental History

house varied from that which exists today. The Bells 

made significant changes to the site. This included 

raising the ground level and paving the porch area in 

front of the house “with brick salvaged from the old 

mill,”113 as well as creating a “terrace” in the back. 

This site work is illustrated in the 1940 photographs. 

The terrace appears to be of stone, possibly the 

same granite that was used in the construction of 

foundations for the Ivy/Laurel Mill structures. 

They spent five years clearing the underbrush from 

the back of their house to the edge of the creek. 

Today, the historic bricks and pavers have been 

removed in both the front and rear yard. In 1978, 

Mrs. Barnett Bell had the Allenbrook property 

surveyed. This survey shows a drive that encircles 

the house and extends southwest to Atlanta Road. It 

is unknown if this drive was an historic feature of 

the property that predated the Bell family. 

However, it appears in the 1940 photograph, 

unpaved but edged with bricks set at a 45- degree 

angle. The entrance to this drive from Atlanta Road 

still exists.

NPS Treatment

In 1978, the National Park Service acquired 

Allenbrook and the surrounding land for inclusion 

in the Chattahoochee National Recreation Area. In 

1983, the Roswell Historical Society reached an 

agreement with the National Park Service to lease 

Allenbrook for its offices and as the Roswell 

Welcome Center. During their tenancy, the Roswell 

Historical Society renovated the building, installing 

a new gypsum board ceiling in the upstairs, eastern 

bedroom, Room 114, and in the dining room, Room 

103. In addition, new telephone lines, power outlets, 

and lighting were installed to support their office 

functions. The board- and batten shutters flanking 

the front door were removed. At some point during 

their occupation, the Roswell Historical Society 

painted a floor cloth on the floor of the downstairs 

hall. Text included in one of the Society’s past 

brochures on Allenbrook states that the floor cloth 

was stenciled as an interpretation of decorative 

treatments typical of homes of similar vintage. 

There is no physical evidence that this interpretive 

treatment is historically accurate for Allenbrook. In 

addition to renovations, continued maintenance of 

the building during this period was achieved 

through the cooperation of the Roswell Historical 

Society and the National Park Service. According to 

their records, some of the maintenance included 

repairing some of the windows, installing 

commercial- grade carpet throughout and vinyl 

flooring in the kitchen, replacing the baseboard on 

the south wall of the dining room, Room 103 due to 

water damage, painting, and managing insect 

infestation.

Ali Miri’s 1994 report inventoried the building 

materials and documented the most significant 

problems with the building. The problems 

identified were 1) a lack of drainage around the 

building, 2) cracks in the north wall of the building 

caused by expansion and contraction of the clay 

floor beneath, 3) the unfinished concrete block 

basement wall, 4) temporary wood and metal 

support posts in basement, 5) bulging on the lower 

part of the north wall at the basement door and 6) 

various site and driveway improvements needed. 

Between 1998 and 2002 the National Park Service 

undertook a series of stabilization and rehabilitation 

treatments to the house, many of which addressed 

the problems identified in Ali Miri’s report. The 

treatments were primarily completed over the 

course of two rehabilitation campaigns, 1998 to 1999 

and 2000 to 2002, and included: 

■ Reconstructing the north wall of the house.

■ Repointing masonry joints where needed 

due to prior inappropriate repair treatments. 

All new mortar matches the original in color, 

113. Richards, 1957.

FIGURE 14. Southeast elevation, circa 1940s. 

Source: Roswell Historical Society.
32 Allenbrook HSR

Chronology of Development and Use

material, and application as identified in an 

analysis completed in 2001; however, some of 

the historic mortar on the north elevation was 

different in color from the original. The 

contractor did not replicate this historic brick 

and mortar patching beneath Window 5 or the 

historic penciling.

■ Installing a continuous concrete footing 

beneath the north wall foundation.

■ Supplementing the roof structure and 

reconstructing the floor structure in the rear 

extension. 

■ Constructing full- height, cement- block 

walls in the basement. 

■ Installing an interior support beam and 

columns in the basement. 

■ Installing a vapor barrier in the crawl space 

beneath the south end of the house and metal 

vents in the north wall of the basement. 

■ Installing new doors to the basement. 

■ Restoring the window sashes. 

■ Reglazing the windows. 

■ Replacing the exterior doors and door 

frames.

■ Replacing the sill at the front door.

■ Replacing two window frames (Windows 5 

and 6).

■ Installing new hardware on all the windows, 

shutters, and exterior doors. 

■ Installing wood framed, screened doors on 

the two main exterior doors.

■ Installing interior storm windows on all the 

exterior windows.

■ Removing the ceilings throughout the shed 

rooms (Rooms 104, 105, 106, 107, 108 and 109). 

■ Removing and storing the crown moldings 

throughout the shed rooms (Rooms 104, 105, 

106, 107, 108 and 109). 

■ Removing all appliances and plumbing 

fixtures from the first floor.

■ Removing the furnace.

■ Replacing damaged wooden roof shingles 

with like materials.

■ Installing gutters and downspouts on the 

north and south elevations of the house, and 

installing drainage pipes beneath the north end 

of the house.

■ Regrading the east, south, and west sides of 

the house to divert water away from the 

building. 

■ Removing the historic brick pavers in the 

south and north yard and installing a brick pad 

outside the front door (south elevation), and a 

path leading to the existing Park parking lot.

■ Removing vegetative growth from east 

elevation and northeast corner of house.

■ Painting the exterior windows, shutters, 

and doors.

■ Installing foil radiant barriers and cellulose 

insulation in the attic.

■ Reconstructing portions of the roof 

framing,.

■ Repairing the chimney bases.

■ Installing interior storm windows in all the 

window openings. 

■ Installing new HVAC equipment and a 

security system.

The building currently remains vacant yet 

maintained by the National Park Service. The past 

treatments undertaken by the Park successfully 

stabilized the building. However, some of the work 

completed resulted in a loss of some of the historic 

finishes such as the characteristic brick patching on 

the north exterior wall, as well as the ceilings and 

some of the interior wall finishes in the shed rooms. 

Additionally, changes were made to the site, 

including the abandonment of the historic drive and 

the removal of the historic pavers in both the front 

and rear yard. Although, the removal of these 

finishes was largely necessitated by the stabilization 

and current use priorities, it will be important to 

reintroduce some of the historic features for 

interpretation.
National Park Service 33

The following section is a physical description of 

Allenbrook as it currently exists (2004). Significant 

changes made to the building and their estimated 

age are identified where applicable. For a more 

detailed history of these changes, please consult the 

“Chronology of Development and Use” section of 

this report.

Summary of 

Historic Character

Located on a bluff on the north side of State Route 9 

(Atlanta Street), Allenbrook is situated on a wooded 

lot southwest of Big (Vickery) Creek. The house 

faces south. A vegetative buffer exists between the 

house and Atlanta Street and to the west of the 

house. To the rear (north) of the house is a gently 

sloping lawn, which abuts a walking trail, part of the 

National Park Service’s Vickery Creek unit of the 

Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area. To 

the east of the house is a grassed area bordered by 

sporadic vegetation. A brick pathway leads from the 

National Park Service parking area located to the 

east of Allenbrook and extends to the brick patio at 

the front of the house. The mill ruins with which 

Allenbrook is associated are located to the 

southeast of the house, east of the intersections of 

Atlanta Street (which becomes Roswell Road), 

Riverside Road, and Azalea Drive. 

FIGURE 16. Existing first floor plan, left, and second floor plan, right.

Physical 

Description
34 Allenbrook HSR

Physical Description

Allenbrook is a two- story, brick I- house with a rear 

shed. This configuration is regionally known as the 

Plantation Plain style. The building has a rectangular 

floor plan, both hipped and shed roofs, two central 

chimneys, and a granite foundation. The house has 

eleven rooms and four closets. Located above the 

second story is an attic space running the full length 

and width of the second floor. There are eighteen 

doors, fourteen windows, and four brick fireplaces 

in the house. On the rear elevation of the house is a 

stoop covered by a shed roof supported by square 

columns. 

The interior of the house is divided into seven 

rooms on the first floor and four rooms on the 

second floor. From the front of the house to the 

back, the first floor consists of two rooms (Rooms 

101 and 103) flanking a central hall (Room 102) 

followed by another pair of rooms (Rooms 104 and 

107) flanking a central hall (Room 105) and a 

bathroom (Room 106). A staircase is located along 

the east wall of the front hall (Room 102) and leads 

to the second floor hall (Room 112). To the south of 

the hall is the upstairs bathroom (Room 113). 

Flanking the upstairs hall and bathroom are two 

bedrooms (Rooms 110 and 114). The house has four 

closets, two on the first floor (Rooms 108 and 109) 

and two on the second floor (Rooms 111 and 115). See 

illustrations on the following page.

Structural System

There is limited accessibility to the structural 

framing of Allenbrook. Portions of the floor, roof, 

and wall structures were exposed, and therefore, 

were assessed. Much of the first floor framing has 

been reconstructed. Likewise, the hipped roof 

framing that was visible was largely reconstructed. 

The historic shed roof framing is intact, but has 

been supplemented with new members. As most of 

the wall framing is concealed by the wall finishes, it 

is presumed that the historic fabric is largely intact. 

Portions of the wall framing in the shed rooms and 

stairwell have been reconstructed.

All measurements of new framing members 

provided in this section are nominal, unless 

otherwise noted. Measurements of historic framing 

are actual unless otherwise noted.

FIGURE 17. Concrete block retaining wall along 

south side of excavated basement.

FIGURE 18. New 2” by 10” supplementary 

support beams at north, two-story wall.

FIGURE 19. Bricks stacked in basement.
National Park Service 35

Part I: Developmental History

Foundation

Originally a continuous rubble stone (granite) wall 

bearing on clay, the foundation of Allenbrook has 

been largely reconstructed using both historic and 

new materials along the entire north elevation and 

along portions of the east and west elevations. 

During the National Park Service stabilization work 

completed between 2000 and 2002, a continuous 

28” by 14” concrete footing was constructed beneath 

these walls, with three #5 rebar running horizontal 

2” from the bottom of the footing. Bearing on these 

footers are foundation walls constructed of 71⁄2” by 

1’- 31⁄2” concrete blocks (CMU).

Prior to the 2000- 2002 stabilization, the granite 

foundation walls were partially braced along the 

interior by a concrete block wall. The concrete wall 

installed between 2000 and 2002 extends along the 

inside of the granite foundation wall along the entire 

north side and along portions of the east and west 

sides of the shed area of the house. The east and 

west walls connect with a concrete retaining wall 

that has been constructed along the south side of the 

basement area. A section of this wall projects further 

to the south than the rest of the retaining wall, 

possibly to accommodate the HVAC equipment.

Between 2000 and 2002, a series of columns and a 

beam were installed south of the inside face of the 

reconstructed north wall. According to National 

Park Service drawings, each column is supported by 

a concrete footing measuring 24” by 24” by 12”. In 

addition, drawings indicate that the National Park 

Service installed two 2” by 10” supplementary 

support beams abutting the historic, load- bearing 

granite foundation wall beneath the north, twostory wall. This rubble wall provides foundation 

support for the fireplaces and walls above. The 2” by 

10” support beams are supported by concrete blocks 

and shims on undisturbed soil.

Access to the building foundation and basement is 

through Door 10 and down a small set of frame steps 

constructed by the National Park Service. Of 

particular note is a stack of bricks located adjacent 

to the stairs in the basement. It is presumed that 

these bricks are some of those salvaged from the site 

work on the front and rear yards during the 

stabilization and rehabilitation treatments 

undertaken by the National Park Service between 

1998 and 2002.

FIGURE 20. Floor joists in attic.

FIGURE 21. New north wall framing in Room 104.

FIGURE 22. East wall of stairwell in Room 102. 

Note gypsum board wall finish.
36 Allenbrook HSR

Physical Description

Floor Framing

The first floor framing is only visible in the 

excavated basement under the north third of the 

building. Visible in the basement are new 2” by 10” 

joists spaced at approximately 15” to 16” on center. 

The joists span from the top of the new, concrete 

block, north wall to the historic rubble, loadbearing wall and adjacent supplementary 2” by 10” 

support beams beneath the north two- story wall. A 

new 2” by 6” sill plate is bolted to the top of the 

concrete block walls along the north, east, and west 

elevations. A new 2” by 4” sill plate is joined to the 2” 

by 10” supplementary support beams at the rubble, 

load- bearing wall. Rolled batt insulation has been 

installed between the joists. This floor framing and 

insulation dates to the 2000- 2002 National Park 

Service stabilization work. Beyond the concrete 

block retaining wall installed between 2000 and 

2002, a very shallow crawl space exists. The limited 

height of this space and the presence of the concrete 

block wall prevented access to the southern half of 

the first floor framing. The only historic materials 

observed from this vantage were the granite rubble 

stone foundations of the chimneys and the north 

wall of the two- story portion of the building. All of 

the floor framing observed in this area appeared 

new but could not be reached for measurement.

Finished ceilings in the first floor rooms conceal the 

second floor framing. However, the depth of the 

second floor header at the stairs is 91⁄4”. Given the 1” 

thickness of the floorboards above, the joists must 

measure approximately 8” deep. Ali Miri’s 1994 

report indicates that the joists are 2” by 8”. 

Examination of the nails in the floorboards above 

reveals the joists are likely spaced approximately 24” 

on center.

Wall Framing

At the perimeter of the house and at the two- story 

interior masonry wall, the walls are load- bearing 

masonry. The structural integrity of the solid 

masonry exterior walls is enhanced by a header 

course every three courses of running bond. The 

interior wall structure is only revealed in a few 

places throughout the house. A portion of the east 

wall in Room 102, along the stairway, has been 

removed to reveal the wall structure and interior 

plumbing. The studs at this location are circular 

sawn, measure 2” by 4”, nominal, and are spaced 

approximately 16” on center. The Bell family opened 

this wall during renovations to accommodate 

plumbing. The finish material at this location is 

gypsum board that was installed as a patch to the 

wall. Also, where the truncated walls exist in Room 

105, the top plate is exposed. These historic 

members measure 2” by 4”, and date to the 

renovation work done by the Bell family. The 

framing of the north wall in Room 104 is exposed 

FIGURE 23. Posts and beam providing central 

support to hipped roof.

FIGURE 24. Shed roof framing as seen from 

Room 106.
National Park Service 37

Part I: Developmental History

and measures 2” by 4”, nominal, spaced 16” on 

center. This wall was entirely rebuilt by the National 

Park Service contractor between 2000 and 2004.

Roof Framing 

Due to the recent stabilization treatments made by 

the National Park Service in the attic, including a foil 

radiant barrier applied to the underside of the roof 

and duct work and blown cellulose fiber insulation 

installed throughout, very limited access is available 

to the framing of the main hipped roof. Most of the 

framing that is visible may be seen through the 

access in the ceiling of Room 114. The framing that is 

visible is almost entirely new, including 2” by 4” 

posts spaced at 15” on center, serving as vertical 

ridge support. These posts bear on two beams 

sistered together, measuring 2” by 6” and 2” by 10” 

and running east to west.

The shed roof framing is exposed to the interior of 

Rooms 104 through 109. 2” by 7” rafters, spaced at 

15” on center exist which appear historic. 

Supplementing the historic framing are new 2” by 8” 

rafters sistered to some of the historic rafters. At the 

north wall beam, new 2” by 10” boards have been 

sistered to the rafters to provide additional support 

to the roof structure. 

The shed roof framing over the north stoop is 

comprised of new 2” by 4” rafters spaced at 221⁄2” on 

center. This roof structure was reconstructed 

between 2000 and 2002, by the National Park 

Service contractor. 

Exterior Finishes

Stoop

Located on the north elevation at the rear entrance 

to the building (Door 7), approximately 6’- 31⁄2” from 

the eastern end, is a covered stoop. At its northern 

end, the stoop measures 5’- 4” square by 3’- 31⁄2” tall. 

The ground rises toward the front, or south side, of 

the house. Due to this incline, the stoop measures 

approximately 3’- 0” tall at its southern end. The 

stoop is constructed of dark red bricks measuring 

approximately 3” by 8”, and is accessed from the 

west by granite stairs. This brick is darker in shade 

that those used on the balance of the exterior walls. 

The stairs are comprised of randomly- sized stones 

joined with mortar. The stones measure 2” to 3” 

thick, 10” to 14” wide and 8” to 16” in length. The

height of the stairs is 2’- 71⁄2”, and there are five stairs 

to the stoop. The stairs are comprised of five 61⁄2” 

risers and five 11” treads. A balustrade extends up 

the north side of the stairs. The balusters measure 1” 

square and are spaced at 4” on center. The rails 

measure 4” by 2” by 5’- 9” long. Located at the top 

and bottom of the balustrade is a newel post, 

measuring 31⁄2” square and 3’- 7” tall. The top 2” 

sections of the newel posts are a pyramidal shape. It 

FIGURE 25. Framing for shed roof at rear stoop.

FIGURE 26. Stoop at rear entrance to house.
38 Allenbrook HSR

Physical Description

is known that the stoop was constructed sometime 

after 1932 by the Bell family. The stoop was 

dismantled when the National Park Service 

contractor reconstructed the north wall between 

2000 and 2002. All of the materials on the stoop are 

historic with the exception of the balustrade, which 

was constructed between 2000 and 2002 by the 

National Park Service contractor.

A shed roof covers the stoop. A National Park 

Service contractor reconstructed this roof between 

2000 and 2002. Supporting the shed roof at the 

stoop are three historic columns, one of which is 

engaged in the southern wall of the house. This 

engaged column, or pilaster, measures 

approximately 8” by 4” by 7’- 33⁄4”. The remaining 

two columns measure 81⁄2” square by 7’- 33⁄4” tall. 

Both the pilaster and columns have square shafts 

with a simple base and capital, derivative of the 

Tuscan order. The lower surfaces of the shafts are 

fluted. The flutes measure 1” by 3’- 10”. Each of these 

columns has one bracket at the top, which frames 

into the beam above, providing additional support 

to the roof structure. The brackets measure 31⁄2” 

square and 2’- 11⁄2” long. Spanning the columns on 

the east, north, and a portion of the west sides of the 

stoop is a balustrade. The balusters measure 1” 

square and are largely spaced at 4” on center. The 

rails measure 2” by 4” and, from the east side to the 

west side of the stoop, measure 4’- 21⁄2”, 4’- 9” and 

1’- 03⁄4” long. The balustrades along the stoop and 

the stairs are new features of the building installed 

between 2000 and 2002 by the National Park 

Service contractor.

Walls

The exterior walls of the house are load- bearing, 

masonry walls of hand- molded red brick laid 

primarily in a pattern of three courses of running 

bond to one course of header bond, called a four 

course common bond. The exterior brick 

dimensions are approximately 3” by 8”. The brick is 

lighter in color than that used to construct the stoop 

on the north elevation. On the east, south and west 

elevations are penciling marks in the historic mortar 

joints. The penciling is white, painted lines applied 

to the joints to give the brick walls a more finished 

appearance, an historic treatment. The lower 

portion of the exterior walls on the north, east, and 

west elevations are constructed of rubble stone 

(granite) of random sizes. This stonework defines 

the basement level of the house. The height of the 

stonework varies with the surrounding grade. Along 

the north elevation, the granite wall extends 

approximately 3’- 81⁄2” above grade. Along the east 

and west elevations, it extends from 3’- 0” above 

grade at the northern end of the walls to 

approximately 3” to 4” above grade towards the 

FIGURE 27. Detail of column base.

FIGURE 28. Stoop located at rear entrance to 

house.
National Park Service 39

Part I: Developmental History

southern end of the walls. The stones measure 2” to 

6” thick and 10” to 16” long.

Located along the eaves of the south, east, and west 

walls and along the two- story north wall is 

decorative brick corbelling in a v- shaped pattern. 

From the bottom of each v- shape, the pattern is 

comprised of three brick courses, beginning with 

one header at the bottom, followed by two headers 

and finishing with one header and one stretcher. 

Two continuous courses of brick are above the 

corbelling. 

Flat arches form the head of the window openings 

on the south, east, and west elevations. A flat arch is 

also over Door 1 on the south elevation. On the 

south elevation, the arches are comprised of two 

soldier courses of brick and measure approximately 

1’- 4” wide and 3’- 4” long. The arches vary on the 

east and west elevations. On the two- story walls of 

the east and west elevations, the arches are like those 

located on the south elevation. The window arches 

located in the shed walls of the east and west 

elevations are approximately 8” wide and 3’- 0” 

long.

On the south elevation, just below the second story 

windows, are shadow lines of two of the former 

porch roofs. The National Park Service contractor 

repointed and reconstructed some of the exterior 

brick and granite walls between 2000 and 2002. 

Specifically, the entire north wall was reconstructed 

using both historic and new brick as well as granite 

to match the historic. Additionally, foundation vents 

were installed at the top of the granite section of the 

north wall. As directed in the National Park Service 

contracting documents, all new bricks were 

specified to match the historic in size, shape, 

texture, and color and were to be molded with the 

year of firing, 1998, on the face of each brick. This 

last directive was apparently to avoid any future 

confusion as to which materials were original and 

which were the result of later modifications. Ali 

Miri’s 1994 report illustrates that the section of the 

north wall beneath the bathroom window (Window 

5) was filled with brick lighter in color than the 

surrounding materials when this area was modified 

and the window created between 1930- 1940. When 

the north wall was reconstructed between 2000 and 

2002, the National Park Service contractor did not 

match the brick to that which existed historically in 

the area under Window 5, but instead matched the 

FIGURE 29. View of exterior walls. Note penciling 

of the mortar joints.

FIGURE 30. View of southeast corner.

FIGURE 31. Flat arches typical of windows on 

south, east, and west elevations of main block 

of house.
40 Allenbrook HSR

Physical Description

remaining, older historic brick and mortar, thus 

mostly obliterating evidence of the earlier door.

Roofing

The main gable and shed roof of the house are 

finished with cedar shingle roofing. The shingles are 

of random sizes, measuring from 5” to 111⁄2” wide and 

1⁄2” thick with a 5” to 51⁄2” exposure. Exposed on the 

interior of Rooms 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, and 109, the 

historic shingle lath is randomly sized from 7” to 14” 

wide by 1⁄2” thick. The lath is spaced at 1⁄2” to 2” 

apart. Some of the lath and rafters show evidence of 

white paint in numerous places, indicating that 

there was likely not a finished ceiling in the shed 

portion of the house originally. While it is possible 

that the boards were recycled from another 

structure when installed, no unused nail holes were 

observed. Some of the lath are unpainted and 

appear to be later replacements. Copper flashing 

was installed at the joint between the north wall and 

north shed roof. All of the cedar roofing was 

installed during the 2000- 2002 rehabilitation 

treatments completed by a National Park Service 

contractor.

The rafter ends are enclosed behind a simple fascia 

board. There is a small dentil molding at the soffit of 

the cornice along the south, east, and west 

elevations of the house. 

Half round, 6” galvanized gutters are mounted at the 

north end of the main shed roof and the shed roof 

extension that covers the rear stoop. Galvanized, 

round downspouts measuring 4” wide are located at 

each end of the north elevation and at the northeast 

corner of the rear stoop. Additionally, half round 

gutters are mounted at the south end of the hipped 

roof. This gutter wraps the corners of the roof to the 

east and west and connects to round downspouts. 

Chimneys

Two brick chimneys are symmetrically positioned 

on the north elevation of the two- story portion of 

the house. These chimneys are located on the north 

elevation of the second story of the house, at the 

joint with the shed rooms. Brick corbelling exists on 

the upper portion of the chimneys. The eastern 

chimney serves as the flue for the fireplaces in 

Rooms 103 and 104. The western chimney serves 

Rooms 101 and 107. Judging from the watercolors of 

Barnett Allen Bell, which show the chimneys to be 

incomplete at the tops, the top portions were rebuilt 

FIGURE 32. Typical flat arch at windows on east 

and west ends of addition.

FIGURE 33. Cedar shingle roofing on shedroofed addition.

FIGURE 34. Gutter and downspout at northeast 

corner.
National Park Service 41

Part I: Developmental History

by the Bells. The chimneys are historic, but the 

bottom portions were repaired during the 2000 to 

2002 National Park Service treatments. The new 

mortar and brick used matches the historic in size, 

color and materials. 

The eastern chimney has a galvanized metal cap. 

Mounted to the west elevation of the western 

chimney is a radio antenna. The National Park 

Service installed this antenna as part of their 

communication network. In addition to the two 

chimneys, a metal vent pipe projects from the shed 

roof over the wall separating Rooms 104 and 106. 

Currently, nothing is associated with this pipe 

located in these rooms. However, it is likely a 

plumbing stack once associated with the bath 

fixtures that existed in Room 106.

Doors and 

Windows

Doors

There are eighteen historic door openings in the 

building. Thirteen of these openings are currently 

fitted with historic doors. The two entrances into 

the first floor of the building (Doors 1 and 7), as well 

as the north entrance to the basement (Doors 10), 

have all been fitted with new doors. Door 18, located 

on the east elevation of the basement wall, has been 

closed with a new, fixed, plywood panel. All the new 

doors and the fixed plywood panel were installed by 

the National Park Service contractor between 2000 

and 2002. The historic door to the first floor 

bathroom (Door 9, Room 106) has been removed 

from the opening and is currently stored in Room 

101. The historic door types in the building are 

primarily stile- and- rail, with the exception of Door 

17, which is comprised of tongue- and- groove 

beaded boards. 

There are three types of stile- and- rail doors in the 

house. Type 1 has two, long, vertical, side- by- side 

panels. The panels on these doors are flat and have 

no molding. Doors 2, 3, 4 and 5 are Type I and are 

believed to be original to the house. Type 2 has five 

equally- spaced panels running horizontally from 

the top to the bottom, with machine- molded stiles 

and rails. Doors 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 are Type 

2 and were likely installed by the Bell family 

sometime after 1930. Type 3 has four vertical panels 

arranged in a Latin cross configuration. The panels

are flat and have applied molding. Doors 1 and 7 are 

Type 3 and are new, installed between 2000 and 

2002 by the National Park Service contractor. 

Generally, a 5” to 5 1⁄2” frame surrounds each of the 

door openings. With the exception of the newlyinstalled doors (Doors 1, 7, 10 and 18), all the 

hardware on the doors is historic. The historic 

hardware consists of metal butt hinges, metal

FIGURE 35. Chimneys on north elevation of 

second story. Note that the left chimney has a 

galvanized metal cap. 

FIGURE 36. First floor plan showing door 

locations.
42 Allenbrook HSR

Physical Description

doorknobs, (some of which are laminated), glass 

doorknobs, and rim- and- mortise locks. Where 

applicable, all of the brass plates measure 21⁄4” by 7” 

and all of the metal doorknobs measure 21⁄2” in 

diameter. The glass knob measures 2” in diameter. 

While many of the door and hinge types are similar 

in size, variations are prevalent enough to warrant 

individual descriptions. The location, unique 

characteristics, and individual measurements of 

each of the doors are discussed on the following 

pages. For simplification, some of these 

characteristics are included in table format. 

Door 1: Two doors are in this opening: a four- panel 

door (Type 3) and a screened door on the exterior, 

both of which were installed by the National Park 

Service contractor between 2000 and 2002. The 

opening is original to the building. The Type 3 door 

in this opening measures 2’- 113⁄4” by 6’- 111⁄2” by 13⁄4”. 

Applied to each of the panels is 1⁄2” molding. See 

details included at the end of the door descriptions. 

The screened door measures 3’- 01⁄4” by 6’- 103⁄4” and 

is comprised of two panels of wire screen framed 

between stiles and rails. A metal door handle is 

affixed to the exterior elevation of the door on the 

left stile. Both of the doors and the frame have been 

painted white. The threshold measures 

approximately 1’- 7” wide by 11⁄2” thick. The 

hardware for this door consists of a lever- type door 

handle and core lock, a deadbolt, and butt hinges. 

The lever- type handle measures approximately 43⁄4” 

and is mounted on 31⁄4” base. The deadbolt lock is 

FIGURE 37. Doors 1-11.

FIGURE 38. Second floor plan showing door 

locations.
National Park Service 43

Part I: Developmental History

located just above the door handle. The butt hinges 

on the screen door measure 21⁄2” by 23⁄4”. All of the 

hardware is modern and was installed between 2000 

and 2002 by a National Park Service contractor.

Door 2: Door 2 is Type 1 and measures 2’- 11⁄2” by 6’-

11”. The opening is original to the building. Both the 

door and the frame are painted blue. The threshold 

measures 83⁄4” wide by 1⁄4” to 1⁄2” thick. The hardware 

for this door consists of laminated metal doorknobs, 

a mortise lock, and butt hinges.

Door 3: Door 3 is Type 1 and measures 3’- 3” by 6’-

10”. The opening is original to the building. Both the 

door and the frame are painted blue. This door 

opening does not have a threshold. The hardware 

for this door consists of laminated metal doorknobs, 

a mortise lock, and butt hinges.

Door 4: Door 4 is Type 1 and measures 3’- 0” by 6’-

81⁄4”. The opening is original to the building. Both 

the door and the frame have are blue. This door 

opening does not have a threshold. The hardware 

for this door consists of laminated metal doorknobs, 

a mortise lock, and butt hinges. 

Door 5: Door 5 is Type 1 and measures 2’- 11⁄2” by 6’-

11”. The opening appears to be original to the 

building. Both the door and the frame are painted 

blue. The threshold measures 83⁄4” wide by 1⁄4” to 1⁄2” 

thick. The hardware for this door consists of 

laminated metal doorknobs, a mortise lock, and butt 

hinges.

Door 6: Door 6 is Type 2 and measures 2’- 0” by 6’- 8 

1⁄2”. The opening was made by the Bell family after 

1932. The western frame measures 1” wide and abuts 

the corner of the south and west walls. Both the 

door and the frame are painted blue. This door 

opening does not have a threshold. The hardware 

for this door consists of laminated metal and glass 

doorknobs, a rim lock, and butt hinges.

FIGURE 39. Doors 10-18.

FIGURE 40. Typical hardware.
44 Allenbrook HSR

Physical Description

Door 7: Door 7 is a Type 3 four- panel door with a 

screened door on the exterior, both of which were 

installed by the National Park Service contractor 

between 2000 and 2002. The door opening was 

made by the Bell family after 1932. The door in this 

opening measures 2’- 11” by 6’- 10” by 13⁄4”. Applied to 

each of the panels is 1⁄2” molding. See details 

included at the end of the door descriptions. The 

screened door measures 2’- 103⁄4” by 6’- 10” and is 

comprised of two panels of wire screen framed 

between stiles and rails. A metal door handle is 

affixed to the exterior elevation of the door on the 

left stile. Both of the doors and the frame are 

painted white. 

A 63⁄4” frame surrounds the door opening. Both the 

door and the frame are painted white. The threshold 

measures 113⁄4” wide by 13⁄4” thick. The hardware for 

this door consists of a lever- type door handle and 

core lock, a deadbolt, and butt hinges. The levertype handle measures approximately 43⁄4” and is 

mounted on 31⁄4” base. The deadbolt lock is located 

just above the door handle. The butt hinges on the 

screen door measure 21⁄2” by 23⁄4”. This door and all 

the hardware is modern and was installed between 

2000 and 2002 by a National Park Service 

contractor.

Door 8: Door 8 is Type 2 and measures 1’111⁄2” by 6’-

71⁄4”. The door opening was made during the 1930s 

renovations. Both the door and the frame are 

painted blue. This door opening does not have a 

threshold. The hardware for this door consists of 

metal doorknobs, a rim lock, and butt hinges. 

Door 9: Door 9 has been removed from its opening 

and is currently stored in Room 101. Door 9 is Type 2 

and measures 1’111⁄2” by 6’- 71⁄4”. The opening for this 

door consists of the exposed framing. This door 

opening was made by the Bell family after 1932. A 

51⁄4” by 1” piece of trim finishes this opening along 

the south jamb. Both the door and the trim are 

painted blue. This door opening does not have a 

threshold. The hardware for this door consists of 

metal doorknobs, a rim lock, and butt hinges. .

Door 10: Door 10 is flat and measures 2’- 8” by 3’-

83⁄4” by 13⁄4”. Framing the opening on the left and 

right are two 33⁄4” by 3⁄4” boards. Both the door and 

the frame are painted white. The hardware for this 

door consists of a deadbolt and butt hinges. The 

butt hinges measure 21⁄2” by 23⁄4”. This door and all of 

the hardware is modern and was installed between 

2000 and 2002 by a National Park Service 

contractor. 

According to photographs and drawings made of 

the building prior to the 2000- 2002 National Park FIGURE 41. Typical door jambs.
National Park Service 45

Part I: Developmental History

Service stabilization treatments, this door was 

originally of board- and- batten construction and 

had strap hinges.

Door 11: Door 11 is Type 2 and measures 2’- 0” by 6’-

81⁄2”. The door opening was made by the Bell family 

after 1932. Both the door and the frame are painted 

blue. This door opening does not have a threshold. 

The hardware for this door consists of metal 

doorknobs, a mortise lock, and butt hinges. 

Door 12: Door 12 is Type 2 and measures 2’- 0” by 6’-

81⁄2”. The door opening was made by the Bell family 

after 1932. Both the door and the frame are painted 

blue. This door opening does not have a threshold. 

The hardware for this door consists of metal 

doorknobs, a mortise lock, and butt hinges. 

Door 13: Door 13 is Type 2 and measures 2’- 73⁄4” by 

6’- 8”. The door opening was made by the Bell 

family after 1932. Both the door and the frame are 

painted blue. The threshold measures 51⁄2” by 3⁄4”. 

The hardware for this door consists of metal 

doorknobs, a mortise lock, and butt hinges. 

Door 14: Door 14 is Type 2 and measures 2’- 0” by 6’-

8 1⁄2”. The door opening was made by the Bell family 

after 1932. Both the door and the frame are painted 

blue. This door opening does not have a threshold. 

The hardware for this door consists of metal 

doorknobs, a mortise lock, and butt hinges. 

Door 15: Door 15 is Type 2 and measures 2’- 0” by 6’-

8 1⁄2”. The door opening was made by the Bell family 

after 1932. Both the door and the frame are painted 

blue. This door opening does not have a threshold. 

The hardware for this door consists of metal 

doorknobs, a mortise lock, and butt hinges. 

Table 1: Door Characteristics

Door width height door type age hinge size lock type

1 3’ 6’-11-1/2”

4 panel original opening

new door 2-1/2 x 2-3/4 modern lever

2 3’ 7’ 2 panel original 2 x 3-1/2 mortise w/ porcelain 

knob

3 3’-3” 6’-10” 2 panel original 2 x 3-1/2 mortise w/ porcelain 

knob

4 3’ 6’-9” 2 panel original 2 x 3-1/2 mortise w/ porcelain 

knob

5 3’ 7’ 2 panel original 2 x 3-1/2 mortise w/ porcelain 

knob

6 2’ 6’-10” 5 panel added after 1932 1-1/4 x 3 mortise w/ porcelain 

knob and glass knob

7 2’-11-1/2” 6’-10” 4 panel opening after 1932 door 

replaced 2000

2-1/2 x 2-3/4 modern lever

8 1’-11-1/2” 6’-7” 5 panel opening and door after 

1932

1-3/4 x 3-1/2 metal rim lock

9 2’-2” 7’-5” 5 panel opening and door after 

1932

1-3/4 x 3-1/2 mortise w/ porcelain 

knob

10 1’-9-1/2” 2’-3” 5 panel original opening

new door

2 x 3-1/2 modern deadbolt

11 2’ 6’-9-1/2” 5 panel opening and door after 

1932

1-1/4 x 3 mortise w/ metal knob

12 2’ 6’-10” 5 panel opening and door after 

1932

1-1/4 x 3 rim lock w/ metal knob

13 2’-7-1/2” 6’-10” 5 panel opening and door after 

1932

2 x 3-1/2 mortise w/ metal knob

14 2’ 6’-8” 5 panel opening and door after 

1932

1-3/4 x 3-1/2 mortise w/ metal knob

15 2’-1/2” 6’-10' 5 panel opening and door after 

1932

1-1/4 x 3 rim lock w/ metal knob

16 2’-7-1/2” 6’-10” 5 panel opening and door after 

1932

2 x 3-1/2 rim lock w/ metal knob

17 1’-5-3/4” 2’ tongue-andgrooveopening and door after 

1932

2-1/2 rim lock w/ metal knob

18 2’-3-1/2” 2’-3” plywood

panel

original opening

new door

n/a n/a
46 Allenbrook HSR

Physical Description

Door 16: Door 16 is Type 2 and measures 2’- 73⁄4” by 

6’- 8”. The door opening was made by the Bell 

family after 1932. Both the door and the frame are 

painted blue. The threshold measures 51⁄2” by 3⁄4”. 

The hardware for this door consists of metal 

doorknobs, a mortise lock, and butt hinges. See 

photographs on the following pages.

Door 17: Door 17 is located on the upper portion of 

the north wall of Room 113 and provides access to 

the attic. The door opening was made by the Bell 

family after 1932. The door measures 1’- 53⁄4” by 2’- 0” 

and is comprised of six, tongue- and- groove, 

beaded boards, five of which measure 31⁄4” wide. The 

sixth board measures 11⁄2”. A 41⁄2” frame surrounds 

the opening. Both the door and the frame are 

painted blue. The hardware on this door consists of 

a metal rim lock with a thumb turn latch and 

decorative butt hinges that measure 21⁄2” by 13⁄4”. See 

photographs on the following pages.

Door 18: The historic door for this opening has been 

removed. A 1’- 8” by 2’- 3” by 3⁄4” plywood panel has 

been installed in the opening, framed on either side 

with 33⁄4” by 3⁄4” plywood trim. Both the door and the 

frame are painted white. According to photographs 

and drawings made of the building prior to the 

2000- 2002 National Park Service stabilization 

treatments, this door was originally of board- andbatten construction.

Windows

There are fourteen windows in Allenbrook. All but 

one of these windows have double- hung sashes, 

each with six divided lights. Window 14, located in 

the wall dividing Room 112, the upstairs hall, and 

Room 113, the upstairs bath, is a fixed, single- light 

window. Window openings 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 

12, and 13 appear to be original to the house. 

According to photographs included in Ali Miri’s 

1994 report, Window 5 was installed in place of an 

original door, evidenced by the brick patching in the 

north wall beneath the window. The handwritten 

note from Barnett Bell, included in Miri’s report, 

confirms this observation and dates this window to 

after 1932. Likewise, Window 14 was added by the 

Bell family after 1932, when the upstairs loft was 

subdivided into rooms. Ali Miri’s report also 

indicates a window was originally located on the 

north elevation of the house where Door 7 currently 

exists. 

The original window openings are larger in size than 

those added later. Typically, the window openings 

measure 2’- 11” by 4’- 51⁄2” and are finished with 5” 

wide trim along the top and two sides. The general 

overall measurements of the windowsills are 1’- 03⁄4” 

by 3’- 11” by 11⁄2”. A 3” by 1⁄2” stool is attached to the 

top of the sill on the interior of the opening. The 

sashes measure 2’- 101⁄2” by 2’- 31⁄2”. The muntins in 

each sash are molded and measure 1” wide by 3⁄4” 

thick. Windows 5, 6, and 14 have unique 

measurements. See the individual descriptions for 

details. 

FIGURE 42. First floor window openings.

FIGURE 43. Second floor window openings.
National Park Service 47

Part I: Developmental History

Several of the windows have one or more broken 

panes. All of the window sashes are painted white 

and, on the interior, the trim is also painted white. 

The National Park Service installed new hardware 

on the historic sashes and interior storm windows in 

the historic openings, likely to provide for security 

and insulation. Tongue- and- groove, board- andbatten shutters are mounted on the exterior of each 

of the windows except at Window 14, which is an 

interior window. The shutters are comprised of 

eight boards, each measuring between 11⁄4” to 21⁄2” 

wide and 3⁄4” thick. Overall, a shutter measures 

approximately 1’- 5” wide by 4’- 5” tall. The exterior 

trim around the windows typically measures 13⁄4” 

wide by 11⁄4” thick. Both the exterior trim and the 

shutters have been painted white. The National Park 

Service contractor installed new strap hinges and 

slide bolts on all the shutters. New shutter dogs have 

also been mounted to the exterior brick wall surface 

on either side of the exterior windows. The 

locations of the windows are detailed on the floor 

plan below. Where unique, the window 

characteristics are discussed on the following pages. 

Window 1: This window opening is typical. At the 

initial investigation, two center panes in each of the 

sashes were shattered. More panes have been lost 

since.

Window 2: This window opening is typical. All the 

windowpanes in the two sashes have been shattered. 

Window 3 This window opening is typical. All the 

windowpanes in this window are intact. 

Window 4: This window opening is typical. All the 

windowpanes in the two sashes have been shattered. 

A sash stay is located approximately halfway up the 

north jamb of the window. The stay is wood and 

measures approximately 1” by 3” by 1”.

Window 5: Window opening 5 measures 2’- 8” by 3’-

0”. The opening is finished with trim along the top 

and sides, measuring 31⁄2” and 5” wide, respectively. 

A new sill has been installed, which measures 73⁄4” by 

2’- 8”. A new head and jamb have also been 

installed. The National Park Service contractor 

installed the new materials in this window. The 

sashes measure 2’- 71⁄2” by 1’- 63⁄4”. The muntins in 

each sash measure 1” wide by 3⁄4” thick. All the 

windowpanes in this window are intact. 

FIGURE 44. Windows 1-5.
48 Allenbrook HSR

Physical Description

This window was added to the house during the 

1930s renovations of the house.

Window 6: Window opening 6 measures 2’- 11” by 

4’- 4”. The opening is finished with trim along the 

top and sides, measuring 6” and 5” wide, 

respectively. A 1’- 51⁄2” by 3’- 11” by 11⁄2” sill finishes the 

opening. The sashes measure 2’- 101⁄2” by 2’- 3”. The 

muntins in each sash measure 1” wide by 3⁄4” thick. 

The National Park Service contractor installed a 

new head and jamb in this window. All the 

windowpanes in this window are intact.

Window 7: This window opening is typical. All the 

windowpanes in this window are intact.

Window 8: This window opening is typical. All the 

windowpanes in this window are intact.

Window 9 This window opening is typical. One of 

the windowpanes in the lower sash is shattered.

Window 10: This window opening is typical. Two of 

the windowpanes in both the upper and lower 

sashes are shattered.

Window 11: This window opening is typical. One of 

the windowpanes in the upper sash and two in the 

lower sash are shattered. 

Window 12: This window opening is typical. All the 

windowpanes in this window are intact.

FIGURE 45. Windows 6-9.

FIGURE 46. Window details.
National Park Service 49

Part I: Developmental History

Window 13: This window opening is typical. All the 

windowpanes in this window are intact. 

Window 14: Window 14 is a fixed, single- pane 

window located on the wall separating Room 113, the 

upstairs bath, and Room 112, the upstairs hall. This 

window was added during the 1930s renovations. 

The windowpane measures 2’- 1” by 1’- 5”. The 

window is finished with trim measuring 5” by 3’-

01⁄2” by 3⁄4” along the top and bottom and 5” by 1’-

63⁄4” by 3⁄4” along the sides. A 3⁄4” molding frames the 

interior edges of the trim. 

Interior Finish 

Materials and 

Characteristics

Several of the interior finishes are similar 

throughout the first and second floors of the house. 

All of the floorboards are tongue- and- groove and 

measure 11” to 111⁄4” wide by 1” thick and run east to 

west. Upon inspection, no saw marks were evident. 

It appears the floorboards are planed and original to 

the house. 

Paint

All of the walls and ceilings, where present, are 

painted white. The crown and base molding, 

window casings, and doors are all painted blue. 

Likewise, the fireplace mantels in Rooms 101, 103 

and 104 are painted blue. The mantel in Room 107 is 

unpainted. The brick chimneybreasts and fireboxes 

in all four of the fireplaces are painted black. The 

stairs leading from Room 102 to Room 112 are 

painted blue, the balusters and newel posts are 

painted white, and the handrail is stained dark 

brown.

Basement

The house has a partial basement at the north side 

that extends to a shallow crawl space along the 

south side. As discussed in the Structural Systems 

section of this report, the walls of the basement are 

concrete block, constructed by a National Park 

Service contractor between 2000 and 2002. The 

basement floor is poured concrete. A metal drainage 

grate is in the floor near the basement stairs. As 

noted in Ali Miri’s 1994 report, the floor of the 

basement was originally clay. It is presumed the 

existing floor was laid during the 2000- 2002 

stabilization of the house.

FIGURE 47. Windows 10-14.
50 Allenbrook HSR

Physical Description

Room 101 / Living Room

Room 101 is in the southwest corner of the house, on 

the first floor. The overall measurements of this 

room are 16’- 4” by 16’- 7”. The room is accessed via 

the central hall, Room 102, through an arched 

opening in its east wall. There are no doors in this 

opening. According to the handwritten note by 

Barnett Bell, the archway was added to the house by 

the Bell family. The overall measurements of the 

opening are 5’- 111⁄2” by 6’- 101⁄4” by 51⁄2”. Door 9, 

which is marked as belonging to the first floor 

bathroom, Room 106, is propped against the north 

wall to the west of the fireplace. 

Ceiling. The height of the ceiling in Room 101 is 8’-

81⁄2” above the finished floor. Water damage is 

evident in various areas of the ceiling.

Walls. The walls are plaster on lath and finished 

with white paint. The lath measures approximately 

11⁄2” wide by 1⁄4” thick. Water damage is evident on 

various areas of the walls throughout the room. 

Trim. Molding measuring 31⁄2” by 3” crowns the 

walls. The baseboards along the walls in this room 

are 91⁄2” wide. There are 1” quarter- round moldings 

along bottom of the baseboards. The quarter- round 

moldings are unfinished. All the crown and base 

molding was added during the 1930s renovations of 

the house. 

Fireplace. Located on the north wall is a brick 

fireplace with a mantelpiece measuring 5’- 5” wide. 

Overall, the fireplace is 4’- 113⁄4” wide and 4’- 51⁄2” tall 

above the finished floor. The firebox measures 2’- 6” 

wide. Separating the mantel piece and the firebox is 

a header that measures 73⁄4” wide. Flanking the 

firebox is pilaster- like detailing. The hearth is 

fieldstone and measures 4’- 9” wide. According to a 

handwritten note by Barnett A. Bell, the mantel is 

made of pine and was added, along with the 

fieldstone hearth, to the house by the Bell family. 

Electrical and Heating and Cooling Fixtures. 

Exposed wiring is located on either side of the 

opening to Room 101, on the east wall. This wiring 

likely provided electrical service to wall sconces at 

one point. A track is mounted to the ceiling that 

once held track lighting. Other electrical fixtures in 

this room include a duplex outlet in the baseboard 

of the east wall, two three- pronged outlets in the 

baseboards of the south and west walls, and a 

FIGURE 48. Grate in basement floor.

FIGURE 49. Arched opening in east wall of Room 101.

FIGURE 50. Fireplace in Room 101.
National Park Service 51

Part I: Developmental History

security system motion sensor in the southeast 

corner of the room. 

The heating and cooling fixtures include a 1’- 31⁄2” by 

1’- 11⁄2” return vent in the floorboards, located 

approximately 1”from the north wall, just east of the 

fireplace, and two supply vents. One vent is located 

approximately 11” from the west wall and measures 

1’- 31⁄4” by 51⁄2”. The other vent is located 

approximately 11⁄2” off the south wall and measures 

2’- 8” by 10”. 

Room 102

Room 102 is the central hall on the first floor. The 

staircase leading to the second floor is located along 

the east wall in this room. The overall measurements 

of this room are 8’- 31⁄2” by 16’- 1”. 

Ceiling. The height of the ceiling in Room 102 is 8’-

91⁄2”. The ceiling is plaster on lath. Severe water 

damage is evident on a portion of the ceiling near 

the arched opening to Room 101 to the west. The 

ceiling at the base of the stairs is angled. It is 

presumed that this was a post- 1932 modification to 

the ceiling to accommodate plumbing for the 

second story bathroom located above the southern 

end of the first floor hall.

Flooring. Along the west wall, just north of the 

arched opening to Room 101, very faint remnants of 

a painted floor cloth can be seen. Historic 

documents indicate that the Roswell Historical 

Society painted this floor cloth during their 

occupation of the building in the late 1980s. At the 

north end of the hall, a faint shadow exists on the 

floorboards. This shadow may be indicative of an 

earlier door at this location. 

Staircase. A staircase leading to the second floor is 

located along the east wall of the hall. The height of 

the staircase from the finished floor of Room 102 to 

the underside of the top landing is 7’- 5”. The stairs 

are comprised of nine 12” by 3’- 3” by 11⁄4” treads and 

eleven 8” risers. At the base of the stairs is a shallow 

tread measuring 12” by 3’- 9” by 11⁄4” and, at the top 

of the stairs, immediately before the landing, is a 

101⁄2” by 3’- 3” by 11⁄4” tread. A balustrade comprised 

of fifteen 1” square balusters, a 21⁄2” by 3” hand rail, a 

4’- 41⁄4” tall, ornamental newel post at the base and a 

4’- 11⁄2” tall simple newel post at the top encloses the 

stairs to the west. The risers and treads of the 

staircase are painted blue. The balusters and the

FIGURE 51. Fireplace in Room 101.

FIGURE 52. View of staircase in Room 102.
52 Allenbrook HSR

Physical Description

newel post at the bottom of the stairs are painted 

white, and the handrail and the newel post at the top 

of the stairs are stained a dark color, possibly 

walnut. According to the handwritten note by 

Barnett Bell, the staircase was added by the Bell 

family, and the newel post at the base of the stairs 

was recycled from the Glades Plantation and is of 

circa 1840 vintage. The underside of the stairs is 

finished with horizontally- installed beaded boards 

measuring 31⁄4” wide with two 1⁄4” beads per board. 

The boards span two stringers. The beaded board 

finish is painted white. 

Walls. The walls are plaster on lath. The lath 

measures approximately 11⁄2” wide by 1⁄4” thick. A 

portion of the east wall near the lower steps in the 

staircase was opened to install plumbing during the 

post- 1932 renovations undertaken by the Bell family. 

This area of the wall was patched with gypsum 

board, a portion of which has been removed, 

exposing the lath. Beneath the staircase on the east 

wall is the finished backside of the built- in- case 

located in the west wall of Room 103. The back of 

the case is finished with horizontally- installed 

beaded boards. The boards measure 31⁄4” wide, each 

having two 1⁄4” beads. The beaded boards are framed 

on the left with 11⁄4” wide trim and on the right side 

with 3⁄4” wide trim. The case was added to the house 

by the Bell family.

Trim. Molding measuring 2” by 21⁄2” crowns the 

walls. Baseboards measuring 91⁄2” to 101⁄2” wide 

finish each of the walls in this room. There are 1” 

quarter- round moldings along the bottom of the 

baseboards. The quarter- round moldings are 

unfinished. The molding was added to the house by 

the Bell family.

Electrical and Heating and Cooling Fixtures. There 

are no light fixtures in the hall. However, a switch 

plate is mounted on the west wall. A three- pronged 

outlet is mounted on the baseboard of the east wall 

beneath the staircase. Another three- pronged outlet 

is mounted on the baseboard of the west wall. 

Electrical wiring conduit is located in the north 

corner of the west wall. A smoke detector is 

mounted on the ceiling. The only heating and 

cooling fixture in the hall is a 101⁄2” by 1’- 13⁄4” supply 

vent located approximately 1” from the southern 

end of the west wall.

FIGURE 53. Baseboard on north wall of Room 

102. Note that right end is plaster.

FIGURE 54. Beaded-board paneling on 

underside of staircase.

FIGURE 55. Water-damaged ceiling in Room 102.
National Park Service 53

Part I: Developmental History

Room 103 / Dining Room

Room 103 is in the southeast corner of the house, on 

the first floor. The overall measurements of this 

room are 14’- 01⁄2” by 16’- 7”. The room is accessed 

from the central hall, Room 102, through Door 2, 

located in its western wall near the southeast corner. 

Ceiling. The height of the ceiling in Room 103 is 9’-

11⁄2” to 9’- 3” above the finished floor. The ceiling is 

newer gypsum board and was apparently installed 

by the Roswell Historical Society circa 1980s.

Walls. The walls are plaster on lath and finished with 

white paint. The lath measures approximately 11⁄2” 

wide by 1⁄4” thick. A built- in- case in the west wall 

measures 2’- 71⁄2” by 6’- 0” by 5”. Five shelves line the 

case, each measuring 1’- 91⁄2” by 5” by 3⁄4”. The head 

and jamb of the case are 5” wide. A 4” by 1⁄4” trim 

lines the head and jamb on the interior of the case. A 

21⁄2” quarter- round trim frames the case. This case 

was installed by the Bell family in the location of a 

former door opening sometime after 1932.

Trim. .Molding measuring 31⁄2” by 3” crowns the 

walls. Baseboards finish each of the walls in this 

room. All the crown and base molding was added to 

the house by the Bell family. The finish 

characteristics on the north wall include trim 101⁄4” 

wide to the east of fireplace and 71⁄2” wide to the 

west. There is 1” quarter- round trim molding along 

the bottom of the east baseboard on this wall, and 

the molding is unfinished. On the east, north and 

west walls, the trim is 71⁄2” to 8” wide with 1” 

quarter- round shoe molding. The molding is 

unfinished.

Fireplace. Located on the north wall is a brick 

fireplace with a wood mantelpiece, measuring 5” by 

5’- 9” by 11⁄2”. Overall, the fireplace is 5’- 21⁄2” wide 

and 4’- 51⁄2” tall above the finished floor. The firebox 

measures 2’- 6” wide. Separating the mantel piece 

and the firebox is a detailed header that measures 

73⁄4” wide. Flanking the firebox is pilaster- like 

detailing. The hearth is fieldstone and measures 4’-

10” wide. The mantel is similar to that located in 

Room 101, which was added to the house, along with 

the fieldstone hearth, by the Bell family. Though not 

so documented, it is reasonable to assume that this 

mantel and hearth were also added by the Bells.

Electrical and Heating and Cooling Fixtures. One 

light fixture is mounted on a track on the ceiling. A

duplex outlet is mounted on the baseboard of the 

west wall, two three- pronged outlets are mounted 

on the baseboard of the east wall, and one threepronged outlet and a phone jack are mounted on the 

baseboard of the south wall. Additionally, a 

thermostat and a security system motion sensor are 

mounted on the west wall. Electrical wiring is 

exposed in the built- in- case in the west wall and 

just south of the case. The heating and cooling 

fixtures include a 1’- 33⁄4” by 1’- 13⁄4” return vent in the

FIGURE 56. Built-in case on west wall of 

Room 103. 

FIGURE 57. Flooring in Room 103.
54 Allenbrook HSR

Physical Description

floorboards located approximately 5” from the west 

wall, in the northwest corner, as well as two supply 

vents. One vent is located approximately 9” from the 

east wall and measures 1’- 31⁄2” by 51⁄2”. The other 

vent is located flush against the baseboard of the 

south wall and measures 2’- 8” by 10”.

Room 104 / Kitchen

Room 104 is in the northeast corner of the house, on 

the first floor. The overall measurements of this 

room are 14’- 10” by 14’- 10”. 

Ceiling. There is no finished ceiling in this room, so 

the shed roof framing and roofing materials are 

exposed to the room. The height to the top of the 

north wall beam is 7’- 9” and to the top of the south 

wall beam is 13’- 6”.

Flooring. The flooring is typical throughout this 

room except for a few boards that measure 8” and 9” 

in width.

Walls. The south, east, and west walls are plaster on 

lath. The lath measures approximately 11⁄2” wide by 

1⁄4” thick. A portion of the plaster is removed along 

the northern end of the east wall, revealing the 

exterior brick wall underneath. A portion of the 

west wall is opened to expose interior plumbing, 

likely installed for the adjacent former bathroom, 

Room 106. The north wall was reconstructed by the 

National Park Service contractor and is exposed 

framing. The wall structure is comprised of 11⁄2” by 

33⁄4” studs, measuring 7’- 3” tall and spaced at 16” on 

center. The top plate is comprised of two sistered 

11⁄2” by 31⁄2” boards, and the sill is a single 11⁄2” by 31⁄2” 

beam. Plywood sheathing is exposed to the room. 

Trim. Flat molding measuring 51⁄2” with a 1⁄4” bead 

and a 1” quarter- round trim along the bottom 

crowns the south, east, and west walls. This molding 

was added to the house by the Bell family, sometime 

after 1932. 

Fireplace. Located on the south wall is a brick 

fireplace with a wood mantelpiece. Overall, the 

fireplace is 5’- 11⁄2” wide and 4’- 7” tall above the 

finished floor. The firebox measures 2’- 9” wide by 

2’- 81⁄2” tall by 1’- 3” deep. The mantel shelf measures 

101⁄2” by 5’- 101⁄2” by 1”. Separating the mantel shelf 

and the firebox is a detailed header that, overall, 

measures approximately 5’- 11⁄2” wide by 121⁄2” tall. 

Flanking the firebox are the sides of the 

FIGURE 58. Flooring in Room 104.

FIGURE 59. Doors 5, 6, &, 7 in Room 104.

FIGURE 60. Fireplace in Room 104.
National Park Service 55

Part I: Developmental History

mantelpiece, which measure approximately 10” wide 

by 3’- 71⁄2”. The hearth is 4’- 9” wide. This mantel is 

similar to that located in Room 107, which, 

according to a handwritten note by Barnett A. Bell, 

is heart- pine and original to the house. It is 

reasonable to assume that this mantel is also 

original. The fieldstone hearth was added to the 

house by the Bell family sometime after 1932.

Electrical and Heating and Cooling Fixtures. There 

is a mounting for a fluorescent light fixture on the 

west wall, 73⁄4” north of Door 3. The fixture measures 

3” by 4’- 0” by 11⁄2”. According to a photograph 

included in Ali Miri’s 1994 report, this fixture held 

task lighting. Other electrical fixtures in this room 

include: two duplex outlets on the west wall, north 

of Door 3; exposed sconce wiring on the east wall 

west of Door 4; a light switch for the exterior light 

outside Door 7 on the north wall; a smoke detector 

mounted on a rafter in the southwest corner of the 

room; and a security system motion detector in the 

southwest corner of the room, over Door 3. 

Additionally, an electrical breaker box is mounted to 

the southern end of the east wall. 

The heating and cooling fixtures include two supply 

vents measuring 51⁄2” by 1’- 3”. One is located 5” from 

the east wall beneath Window 4 and the other is 

located 51⁄2” from the north wall, east of Door 7.

Room 105

Room 105 is centrally located north of Room 102, on 

the first floor. The overall measurements of this 

room are 6’- 1” by 8’- 8”.

Ceiling. There is no finished ceiling in this room, so 

the shed roof framing and roofing materials are 

exposed to the room. It appears that a lowered 

ceiling once existed in this room, as is evidenced by 

the truncated walls.

Walls. The walls do not extend all the way to the 

underside of the roof in this room. The ceiling that 

formerly existed in this room rested on the tops of 

the walls, creating an attic space above. The walls are 

7’- 71⁄2” tall. The east, north, and west walls are 

plaster on lath and date to the post- 1932 renovation 

work completed by the Bell family. The south wall, 

above the doorway, is exposed brick.

Electrical and Heating and Cooling Fixtures. An 

ADT security system code pad is mounted on the

FIGURE 61. Mantel in Room 104.

FIGURE 62. View of upper portion of east and 

south walls in Room 105 and exposed roof 

framing above.

FIGURE 63. Detail of truncated west wall in Room 

105, looking towards Room 107.
56 Allenbrook HSR

Physical Description

southern end of the west wall. It appears to be 

functioning. A damaged thermostat is mounted on 

the north jamb of Door 3, in the east wall. 

Room 106 / Bathroom

Room 106 is centrally located north of Room 105, on 

the first floor. The overall measurements of this 

room are 6’- 0” by 5’- 10”. This room was formerly 

used as a bathroom, though it currently does not 

contain plumbing fixtures. The contractor for the 

National Park Service removed the plumbing 

fixtures during the 2000- 2002 stabilization projects. 

The plumbing stack still exists on the outside of the 

building.

Ceiling. There is no finished ceiling in this room, so 

the shed roof framing and roofing materials are 

exposed in the room. A lowered ceiling once 

existed in this room, as evidenced by the truncated 

east, south, and west walls.

Flooring. The flooring is plywood, probably 

installed by the National Park Service upon removal 

of the plumbing fixtures.

Walls. The south, east, and west walls are 

plasterboard applied over lath. Wallpaper finishes 

the walls. The north wall has been reconstructed by 

the National Park Service contractor and is exposed 

framing. The wall structure is comprised of 11⁄2” by 

33⁄4” studs, measuring 7’- 3” tall and spaced at 16” on 

center. The top plate is comprised of two sistered 

11⁄2” by 31⁄2” boards, and the sill is a single 11⁄2” by 31⁄2” 

beam. Plywood sheathing is exposed to the room.

Electrical and Heating and Cooling Fixtures. A 

switch plate and a three- pronged outlet are located 

on the west wall. 

Room 107 / Sitting Room

Room 107 is in the northwest corner of the house, 

on the first floor. The overall measurements of this 

room are 17’- 6” by 14’- 81⁄2”

Ceiling. There is no finished ceiling in this room, so 

the shed roof framing and roofing materials are 

exposed to the room. The height to the top of the 

north wall beam is 7’- 6” and to the top of the south 

wall beam is 13’- 1”. A lowered ceiling once existed in 

this room, evidenced by the truncated east and 

south walls and by the shadow lines of crown 

FIGURE 64. East wall in Room 106.

FIGURE 65. Southeastern view in Room 107.
National Park Service 57

Part I: Developmental History

molding visible approximately two- thirds of the 

way up the wall.

Flooring. The flooring is typical throughout this 

room except for a few boards that measure 8” and 9” 

in width.

Walls and Trim. The wall characteristics are the 

same as those identified in Room 104. However, in 

Room 107, there are shadow lines of wall molding 

that existed on the south and west walls. This 

molding ran horizontally just above window level, 

finished the southwest corner of the room, and also 

ran along the base of the walls. Stacks of blue 

molding are piled against the south wall of this 

room. It is presumed that this is the molding that 

once finished the walls. 

Fireplace. Located on the south wall is a brick 

fireplace with a wood mantelpiece. Overall, the 

fireplace is 4’- 11” wide and 4’- 5” tall above the 

finished floor. The firebox measures 2’- 9” wide by 

2’- 81⁄2” tall by 1’- 3” deep. The mantel shelf measures 

10” by 5’- 9” by 1”. Separating the mantel shelf and 

the firebox is a detailed header that, overall, 

measures approximately 4’- 11” wide by 121⁄2” tall. 

Flanking the firebox are the sides of the mantelpiece, which measure approximately 10” wide by 3’-

71⁄2”. The hearth is 4’- 11” wide. According to the 1957 

newspaper article about Allenbrook, the mantel is 

heart- pine and original to the house. The fieldstone 

hearth was added to the house by the Bell family, 

sometime after 1932.

Electrical and Heating and Cooling Fixtures. There 

are two duplex outlets in this room: one is on the 

east wall, and the other is on the west wall beneath 

Window 7. A light fixture and electrical wiring 

conduit are mounted to the rafters in the roof 

structure. The heating and cooling fixtures include 

two supply vents measuring 51⁄2” by 1’- 3” and one 

return vent measuring 1’- 4” square. The supply 

vents are located 31⁄2” from the west wall beneath 

Window 7 and 1⁄2” from the north wall beneath 

Window 6. The return vent is located 41⁄2” from the 

western end of the south wall. 

Room 108

Located in the southeast corner of Room 107 is a 

closet, Room 108. The overall measurements of the 

closet are 5’- 7” by 2’- 0”. 

FIGURE 66. View of Room 107, looking west.

FIGURE 67. Fireplace in Room 107.

FIGURE 68. View of exposed roof framing in 

Room 107.
58 Allenbrook HSR

Physical Description

Ceiling. There is no finished ceiling in this room, so 

the shed roof framing and roofing materials are 

exposed in the room. A lowered ceiling once existed 

in this room, evidenced by the truncated east and 

north walls.

Flooring. The flooring is plywood, probably 

installed by the National Park Service during the 

2000- 2002 rehabilitation projects.

Walls . The walls are plasterboard. Shelves line the 

south and west walls of the closet. On the south wall 

are a shelf and a clothes hanging bar. The shelf 

measures 111⁄2” by 4’- 8” by 3⁄4”. On the west wall are 

three shelves that measure, from top to bottom, 1’-

2” by 2’- 0” by 3⁄4”, 1’- 4” by 2’- 0” by 3⁄4”, and 1’- 6” by 

2’- 0” by 3⁄4”. 

Electrical and Heating and Cooling Fixtures. A 

switch plate and light socket are mounted on the 

north wall. An ADT central monitoring security 

system is mounted on the east wall of the closet. It 

appears to be functioning. 

Room 109

Located in the southwest corner of Room 104 is a 

closet, Room 109. The overall measurements of the 

closet are 3’- 3” by 2’- 51⁄2”.

Ceiling. The ceiling is plaster on lath. The ceiling is 

attached to the underside of the roof rafters and 

follows the pitch of the roof, so the height varies.

Flooring. Wood subflooring is exposed in the 

closet. It is covered by the remnants of patterned 

linoleum, which has been laid across the floor and 

2” up the side of the west wall.

Walls. The west wall is the exposed framing and 

plaster on lath that is the back of the finished wall in 

Rooms 105. Sash- sawn framing in this wall indicates 

it is likely part of the original construction. The east, 

north and south walls are plasterboard. Shelf 

brackets line the north, east, and south walls of the 

closet. These brackets are boards nailed to the walls 

and currently do not support any shelving. On the 

east wall, there are two brackets that measure 13⁄4” by 

23⁄4” by 2’- 81⁄2”. On the south wall there is a set of two 

brackets and a set of three brackets, divided by a 13⁄4” 

by 2” board. The set of two brackets measures 13⁄4” 

by 23⁄4” by 2’- 81⁄2”. The set of three brackets 

measures 3⁄4” by 21⁄4” by 1’- 21⁄4”. On the north wall, 

there are three brackets, each measuring 21⁄4 by 3⁄4” by 

11’. The shelf measures 111⁄2” by 4’- 8” by 3⁄4”. On the 

west wall there are three shelves that measure, from 

top to bottom, 1’- 2” by 2’- 0” by 3⁄4”, 1’- 4” by 2’- 0” 

by 3⁄4” and 1’- 6” by 2’- 0” by 3⁄4”. 

Electrical and Heating and Cooling Fixtures. 

Exposed wiring and a light socket are located on the 

west wall. 

Room 110

All interior walls and windows, most wall coverings, 

all doors, and electrical and plumbing fixtures on 

the second floor date to the renovations completed 

by the Bell family in the 1930s. Only the flooring, 

exterior walls and windows, and roof structure of 

the upper level are original to the building. 

However, all these features are historic. 

Modifications made by the Roswell Historical 

Society in the 1980s are noted and are non- historic.

FIGURE 69. View of closet 108.
National Park Service 59

Part I: Developmental History

Room 110 is in the southwest corner of the house, on 

the second floor. The overall measurements of this 

room are 16’- 9” by 16’- 2”. The National Park 

Service currently uses this room to house a 

communications radio. 

Ceiling. The height of the ceiling in Room 110 is 

10’- 01⁄2” above the finished floor. The ceiling is 

plaster and is painted white.

Walls. The walls are plaster on lath. The lath 

measures approximately 11⁄2” wide by 1⁄4” thick. 

Trim. Molding measuring 2” crowns the walls. 

Baseboards measuring 10” wide with a 1” quarterround trim finish each of the walls in this room. 

Electrical and Heating and Cooling Fixtures. Two 

fluorescent light fixtures are mounted on the ceiling. 

Additionally, one decorative cast iron sconce is 

mounted to the east wall south of Door 16. Six 

duplex outlets are mounted to the baseboards in this 

room: two on the north and west walls and one on 

the south and east walls. The outlet on the east wall 

is located just above the baseboard. The heating and 

cooling fixtures include two supply vents in the 

ceiling, along the north and south walls.

Room 111

Located on the east wall of Room 110 is a closet, 

Room 111. The overall measurements of the closet 

are 1’- 91⁄4” by 4’- 01⁄2”.

Ceiling. The ceiling is beaded board running north 

to south. Each board measures 31⁄4” wide with two 

1⁄4” beads. A square opening in the ceiling provides 

very limited access to the attic.

Walls. The walls are finished with beaded board. 

The boards are horizontally installed and measure 

31⁄4” wide with two 1⁄4” beads. One 81⁄2” wide shelf 

supported by a 31⁄4” wide bracket is mounted on the 

north wall of the closet.

Electrical and Heating and Cooling Fixtures. A 

ceramic light socket is mounted on the west wall of 

the closet, north of Door 15.

Room 112

Located just beyond the top stair landing is the 

second floor hall. The landing measures 2’- 41⁄2” by 

3’- 3”. There is 3⁄4” quarter- round molding framing

FIGURE 70. Flooring in Room 110.

FIGURE 71. Sconce mounted on east wall in 

Room 110.

FIGURE 72. View to hall from Room 110.
60 Allenbrook HSR

Physical Description

the north, east, and west sides of the landing. From 

the landing is a step up on either side to the hall 

floor, which leads to Rooms 110 to the west and 

Room 114 to the east. The risers in the landing steps 

measure 83⁄4” by 3’- 2”. The measurement of the 

tread outside Room 114 is 2’- 43⁄4” by 2’- 51⁄2”. The 

overall measurements of the hall to the west of the 

landing are 4’- 101⁄4” by 11’- 0”. The hall narrows 

towards the south at a point approximately 6’- 7” 

from the north wall. The hall from this point to the 

southern wall is 1’- 8” by 4’- 61⁄2” wide. 

Ceiling. The ceiling is plaster.

Flooring. The flooring is comprised of a random 

arrangement of 61⁄2” to 111⁄4” tongue- and- groove 

boards running east to west. The floorboards are 

unfinished. There is 3⁄4” quarter- round molding at 

the joint between the treads and risers at the steps 

from the landing.

Walls. The north wall is plaster on lath. While they 

appear to be finished with plaster, it is unknown if 

the east, west and south walls are plasterboard or are 

plaster on lath due to lack of access to the interior 

framing. Window 14, which leads to Room 113, is 

located in the south wall.

Trim. There is 3⁄4” quarter- round molding at the 

base of the walls.

Balustrade at Staircase. Framing the stairwell to 

the west is a balustrade spanning from the top newel 

post to the south wall of the hall. The balustrade is 

comprised of twenty- one 2’- 51⁄2” by 11⁄4” by 1” 

balusters spaced at approximately 41⁄2” to 51⁄2” on 

center. A 2’- 111⁄2” by 3” square newel post is located 

at the end of the balustrade at the south wall. A 21⁄2” 

by 3” handrail spans the newel posts and balusters. 

The balusters are painted white, and the newel posts 

and handrail are stained a dark color, possibly 

walnut. 

Electrical and Heating and Cooling Fixtures. A 

single bulb light is mounted to the newel post at the 

top of the stairs. This fixture has a ceramic casing 

over it. 

Room 113

Located between Rooms 110 and 114 on the south 

side of the house is a bathroom. The overall 

measurements of this room are 9’- 11” by 4’- 9”.

Ceiling. The height of the ceiling is 10’- 1” above the 

finished floor. The ceiling is plaster. 

Walls. The south wall is plaster on lath. While they 

appear to be finished with plaster, it is unknown if 

the east, west, and north walls are plasterboard or 

FIGURE 73. South wall of Room 112. Note 

Window 14, which opens to bathroom.

FIGURE 74. Over view of landing at top of stairs 

in Room 112.
National Park Service 61

Part I: Developmental History

plaster on lath due to lack of access to the interior 

framing. 

Trim. A 3” by 1” chair rail molding is located on the 

north wall, 4’- 13⁄4” above the finished floor. A 91⁄2” 

baseboard with 13⁄4” trim and 1” quarter- round 

molding is along the south wall. 

Bathroom Fixtures. A free- standing, ball- foot 

bathtub, a toilet, and a wall- mounted sink are 

located along the north wall of this room. The tub 

appears to retain its original fixtures. Above the sink 

is a built- in medicine cabinet. The medicine cabinet 

measures 2’- 01⁄2” by 2’- 101⁄4” by 11” deep. The lower 

part of the cabinet is open, while the upper part is 

enclosed with a mirrored door measuring 1’- 71⁄4” 

tall. A small glass knob is screwed to the left stile on 

the door. There are two 21⁄4” decorative butt hinges 

on the door. A 31⁄4” frame surrounds the cabinet. 

Inside the cabinet are three 3⁄4” thick shelves. Above 

the medicine cabinet is Door 17, which accesses the 

attic space. A towel bar is located on the west wall, at 

the foot of the tub.

Electrical and Heating and Cooling Fixtures. There 

is a ceramic, wall- mounted light fixture above the 

medicine cabinet. A duplex outlet is located on the 

north wall between the sink and the toilet. 

The heating and cooling fixtures include gas service 

pipes located at the east end of the tub. 

Room 114

Room 114 is in the southeast corner of the house, on 

the second floor. The overall measurements of this 

room are 11’- 9” by 16’- 4”. 

Ceiling. The height of the ceiling in Room 114 is 9’-

11” above the finished floor. The ceiling is newer 

gypsum board and is painted white. A 1’- 9” by 2’- 8” 

framed opening in the ceiling provides limited 

access to the attic. The opening is trimmed with 

mitered 31⁄4” by 1⁄2” framing and enclosed with 

painted gypsum board. It is presumed that the 

ceiling was installed by the Roswell Historical 

Society circa 1980s.

Flooring. The flooring is typical throughout this 

room except for one 5” board at the north wall. 

Walls. The south, east, and west walls are plaster on 

lath finished with white paint. The lath measures 

approximately 11⁄2” wide by 1⁄4” thick. The north wall 

FIGURE 75. Overview of second-floor 

bathroom, Room 113.

FIGURE 76. Flooring in Room 114.
62 Allenbrook HSR

Physical Description

is newer gypsum board, presumably installed by the 

Roswell Historical Society circa 1980s. 

Trim. Molding measuring 2” crowns the walls. 

There are 10” wide baseboards throughout the 

room. A 1” quarter- round molding finishes the 

bottom of the baseboard. The molding is 

unfinished. 

Electrical and Heating and Cooling Fixtures. There 

are six recessed lights in the ceiling. Additionally, a 

ceiling fan with only two blades (two others are 

missing) is centered on the ceiling. These were likely 

installed by the Roswell Historical Society. Other 

electrical fixtures include six duplex outlets, one 

single outlet, and two telephone jacks mounted on 

the baseboards throughout the room. Three duplex 

outlets and two jacks are located on the east wall, 

and one outlet is located on each of the north, west, 

and south walls. The outlet on the west wall is 

located just above the baseboard. The single outlet is 

located above the baseboard on the east wall just 

north of Window 12. Electrical wiring conduit runs 

to this outlet along the east baseboard toward the 

north wall and along the north baseboard. The 

heating and cooling fixtures include two supply 

vents in the ceiling, along the east and south walls.

Room 115

Located on the west wall of Room 114 is a closet, 

Room 115. The overall measurements of the closet 

are 1’- 8” by 6’- 6” by 7’- 5”.

Ceiling. The ceiling is beaded board, running north 

to south. Each board measures 31⁄4” wide with two 

1⁄4” beads. 

Walls. The walls are finished with beaded board. 

The boards are horizontally installed and measure 

31⁄4” wide with two 1⁄4” beads. Four 1’- 8” by 1’- 33⁄4” by 

3⁄4” plywood shelves are supported by eight 2” by 1’-

1” by 3⁄4” plywood brackets on the south wall of the 

closet. One 2’- 5” by 1’- 8” by 3⁄4” plywood shelf is 

supported by two plywood brackets measuring 2’-

41⁄2” by 3” by 3⁄4” and 2’- 0” by 13⁄4” by 3⁄4” on the north 

wall of the closet. A hanging rod is mounted below 

the north shelf.

Electrical and Heating and Cooling Fixtures. A 

ceramic mounted light socket is located on the east 

wall of the closet, north of Door 12.

Attic

Very limited access is available to the attic. Three 

accesses were located: 1) through an opening in the 

ceiling of Room 111 (the closet of Room 110), 2) 

Through Door 17 in the north wall of Room 113, and 

3) through an opening in the ceiling of Room 114. In 

FIGURE 77. View of closet (115) in Room 114.

FIGURE 78. Ceiling in Room 114.
National Park Service 63

Part I: Developmental History

addition, efforts of the National Park Service to 

provide insulation for the structure have 

significantly reduced the amount of space within the 

attic. The reduction of available space and the 

covering of the floor surface made complete 

inspection of the attic impossible. From what could 

be observed through the openings to the attic, some 

of the interior walls of the attic are the historic, 

exposed plaster on lath. From the opening in Room 

111, 2” by 4”, nominal studs, spaced at 161⁄2” on center 

were observed. A foil radiant barrier has been 

installed in the attic, limiting a view of the roof 

structure. Additionally, a significant amount of 

cellulose insulation material has been blown 

throughout the attic space. The framing, foil radiant 

barrier, and cellulose insulation were installed 

between 2000 and 2002 by the National Park 

Service contractor. See the “Structural Systems”

section of this report for more information on the 

attic.

Structural Evaluation

The contract for this Historic Structure Report did 

not provide for a structural evaluation by a 

Professional Structural Engineer.

Electrical Evaluation

The contract for this Historic Structure Report does 

not provide for an electrical evaluation by a 

Professional Electrical Engineer.

Summary of Materials Research 

Findings

The contract for this Historic Structure Report does 

not provide for a materials research investigation 

and analysis. However, in preparation for the 2000-

2002 stabilization work by the contractor for the 

National Park Service, a mortar analysis was 

completed.
64 Allenbrook HSR

Physical Description
National Park Service 65

At the time of this report, the National Park Service 

had not formed a plan for the treatment and use of 

Allenbrook. The purpose of this report is to 

provide information about the history, chronology 

of development, and current condition of the 

property as well as some direction for treatment and 

use of the property based on these findings. This 

section outlines issues surrounding use of the 

building and grounds as well as legal requirements 

and other mandates that circumscribe its treatment. 

There follows an evaluation of the various 

alternatives for treatment and a description of the 

recommended treatment.

Research reveals that Allenbrook was most likely 

built by James R. King between 1851 and 1856, 

probably for his own use as owner of the newlyconstructed Ivy Mill. From the time of its 

construction until its purchase in 1932, it was 

generally occupied by persons associated in some 

way with the Ivy Mill, later known as the Laurel 

Mill. The final private owner, Barnett A. Bell, 

purchased the house from the Georgia Power 

Company, which had purchased it along with the 

defunct Laurel Mill, probably for the purposes of 

demolishing the mill and building a hydroelectric 

power plant. Therefore, it appears that Allenbrook 

could be considered culturally associated more 

closely with the Ivy/Laurel Mill complex than with 

the Roswell Mills.

The significance of Allenbrook extends beyond its 

use to its architecture and materials. The building 

style is Plantation Plain. The use of brick rather 

than frame construction is rare for the Plantation 

Plain style. Though some modifications have been 

made to the house over the intervening one 

hundred and fifty years, the original style and 

configuration remains largely intact, a statement 

that cannot be made of many other homes of the 

same vintage. Therefore, the historic architectural 

significance of this house is apparent. 

The National Park Service purchased the 

Allenbrook property to provide an entry and access 

to the Vickery Creek Unit of the Chattahoochee 

River National Recreational Area. The Park Service 

installed a small parking area east of the house, with 

a wayside map to the hiking trails along that side of 

Vickery Creek. The National Park Service has not 

determined a specific use for the house, though 

several campaigns of stabilization and rehabilitation 

have been completed since 1998.

Requirements for 

Treatment and Use

Treatment of the building should be guided by the 

International Building Code, including the code’s 

statement regarding historic buildings as follows:

3406.1 Historic Buildings. The provisions of 

this code related to the construction, repair, 

alteration, addition, restoration and movement 

of structures, and change of occupancy shall not 

be mandatory for historic buildings where such 

buildings are judged by the building official to 

not constitute a distinct life safety hazard.

Threats to public health and safety will be 

eliminated, but, because this is an historic building, 

alternatives to full code compliance are 

recommended where compliance would needlessly 

compromise the integrity of the historic building.

Applicable Laws and NPS Policy. Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) 

mandates that federal agencies, including the 

National Park Service, take into account the effects 

of their actions on properties listed in or eligible for 

Treatment and 

Use
66 Allenbrook HSR

listing in the National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP) and give the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment. 

The National Park Service’s “Cultural Resource 

Management Guideline” (DO028) requires 

planning for the protection of cultural resources 

whether or not they relate to specific authorizing 

legislation or interpretive programs of the parks in 

which they lie. Therefore, Allenbrook should be 

understood in its own cultural context and 

managed in the light of its own value so that it may 

be preserved and rehabilitated, for the enjoyment of 

present and future generations.

To help guide compliance with the statutes and 

regulations, the Secretary of the Interior has issued 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. 

Standards are included for each of four separate but 

interrelated approaches to the treatment of historic 

buildings: preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, 

and construction. These approaches define a 

hierarchy that implies an increasing amount of 

intervention into the historic building. The 

National Park Service’s Preservation Briefs also 

provide detailed guidelines for appropriate 

treatment of a variety of materials, features, and 

conditions found in historic buildings. Regardless 

of approach, a key principle embodied in the 

Standards is that changes to the building be 

reversible. Alterations, additions, or other 

modifications should be designed and constructed 

in a way that they can be removed in the future 

without loss of existing historic materials, features, 

or characteristics. 

Functional Requirements. The National Park 

Service has not determined a use for the Allenbrook 

building. Functional requirements would depend 

on the use to which the building is put, and should 

be defined at the time that use is determined. If the 

building is not open to the public and is interpreted 

in its current historic state, only maintenance is 

required. If opened to the public, access and safety 

issues, including fire safety, must be addressed.

Life Safety. When the National Park Service 

selects a use for Allenbrook, issues of safety must be 

resolved, both for visitors and for Park Service 

personnel. In its current condition, Allenbrook 

does not appear to present a hazard to human safety 

as long as the building remains closed to the public. 

If it is opened to the public, issues of fire safety 

should be addressed, mainly those of egress during 

a fire and protection from live, exposed electrical 

wiring.

Security. Allenbrook is in a somewhat remote 

location and is currently unoccupied. Casual 

vandalism is reported on an ongoing basis. It is 

recommended that the existing alarm system be 

activated and monitored to prevent further 

intrusion. If the existing system is not a monitored 

system, a monitored system should be installed with 

the appropriate signage 

Fire Protection. Allenbrook does not have an 

active fire alarm system or sprinkler system. The 

introduction of a sprinkler system to the historic 

building is not recommended. Such a system would 

have an impact on the rooms designated to 

accommodate the vertical riser, on the ceilings, and 

on the attic. Given the historic character of the 

existing ceilings in the building, the sprinkler piping 

would have to be installed exposed on the ceiling in 

the first floor, and either installed exposed on the 

ceiling in the second floor or installed in the attic 

with the sprinkler heads penetrating the ceilings. 

Operationally, running sprinkler piping in the attic 

would not have a significant impact on 

interpretation, but the negative impact on the 

historic ceilings to allow for penetration of the 

sprinkler heads or to affix the sprinkler piping to 

the surfaces would be notable. Therefore, unless 

there is significant concern of fire from vandalism or 

vagrancy, a sprinkler system is not recommended.

The following measures should be taken to protect 

Allenbrook and its contents from fire:

■ Smoke and fire detection alarms should be 

installed in each room, including all closets, the 

attic, and the basement area and wired to the 

existing alarm system.

■ Storage in the building should not include 

flammable materials.

■ The building should be locked whenever it 

is not in use, and should be under the 

supervision of National Park Service personnel 

or volunteer when not locked.

■ Contents of the building should be 

replaceable.
National Park Service 67

Part II: Treatment and Use

■ A fire response plan should be established 

using appropriate portable fire extinguishers 

and other support equipment, which National 

Park Service staff should be trained to use.

Energy Conservation. Allenbrook has a heating 

system, which is operational and should be 

maintained. Energy conservation measures were 

installed in the attic by the National Park Service 

during 2000- 2002 stabilization and rehabilitation 

activities. These are in the form of blown- in 

cellulose insulation between the ceiling joists and 

foil radiant insulation panels applied to the roof 

structure. The original plaster- on- brick walls 

provide significant insulating properties as well. 

The shed rooms in the back of the house, where the 

ceiling has been removed, are spaces that still 

require some energy conservation measures. When 

the National Park Service replaces the ceilings in 

this area and reinstalls the molding, insulation 

should be placed in this attic area. However, any 

insulating treatments should not impact the 

remaining historic fabric of the roof structure. 

Abatement of Hazardous Materials. Whether or 

not the building is open to the public, the building 

should be kept clean and free of bird and rodent 

droppings, which can be a health hazard. A 

Materials Analysis was not performed for this 

report, so the existence of remaining hazardous 

materials such as lead paint is unknown, but the age 

of the building and date of rehabilitation suggest 

that such materials might exist. A Materials Analysis 

should be performed at Allenbrook. It should 

include a paint analysis and a plaster analysis, at the 

least, to enable the Park Service to accurately 

replicate these materials for maintenance and repair 

purposes. A mortar analysis was performed at 

Allenbrook in conjunction with stabilization 

procedures undertaken by the National Park 

Service in 2000- 2002. In addition, the 1998- 2000 

stabilization treatments included the abatement of 

asbestos- containing materials. 

Handicapped Accessibility. The building is 

currently accessible in the lower level. All the major 

rooms of the ground level have door openings and 

thresholds compliant with ADA accessibility 

requirements. The closets and the bathroom are 

not accessible, and the entire upper level is not 

accessible. In the building’s current configuration, 

handicapped access would be provided only 

through the front door, which has a threshold 11⁄2” 

thick and is about an inch above ground level. A 

portable ramp would be sufficient to achieve 

accessibility at this location. The bathroom area on 

the first floor is only 6’ by 5’ with a 2’- 2” door 

opening, not sufficient for a handicappedaccessible bathroom, and it is not recommended 

that one be supplied. Pending a decision on the 

ultimate use for the building, it is recommended that 

the interior of the building not be accessible to the 

public, and thereby rendering full compliance with 

ADA requirements unnecessary. 

The grounds of Allenbrook, including the parking 

areas, constitute a barrier to handicapped 

accessibility. To address this, a smooth surface for 

handicapped parking, with ramp access to the 

walkway to the building, should be provided, along 

with appropriate signage. The existing walkway 

appears to be sufficiently level to allow handicapped 

access, but vigilant maintenance is required to keep 

the brick surface from becoming uneven from 

encroaching vegetation and subterranean tree 

roots.

It is suggested that, to provide visual access to the 

rear of the building for the disabled, the access path 

to the Vickery Creek trailhead be resurfaced with a 

harder, level, and more durable material resembling 

the dirt path currently in use. If kept free of 

vegetation, such a path would not only enhance the 

visitor experience to the Allenbrook house, but 

would also provide better access to the hiking trails 

along the creek.

Alternatives for 

Treatment

Three main approaches to treatment of Allenbrook 

can be considered: preservation, rehabilitation, or 

restoration. Each implies a successively more 

aggressive approach to intervention into the existing 

building, possibly with a corresponding 

diminishment in the existing historic fabric. 

Preservation may not satisfy requirements for use, 

while rehabilitation may not facilitate, and, in fact, 

may diminish, opportunities for historical 

interpretation. Additionally, some historic buildings 

do not possess the architectural integrity to warrant 

a full restoration to their original conditions. In such 

cases restoration to a later period of a building’s 
68 Allenbrook HSR

history can be the optimal approach to treatment, 

particularly if many of the original features have 

been lost. An examination of these approaches is 

useful in determining the best treatment for 

Allenbrook.

Preservation

This treatment would maintain the existing features 

and fabric by effecting timely repairs and routine 

maintenance, and by controlling the interior 

environment to prevent further damage from heat, 

cold, or humidity. Such activities would include 

replacing broken window panes, replacing roofing 

shingles with materials that match the historic as 

required, gently cleaning surfaces as necessary, and 

applying paint where appropriate to protect the 

underlying materials. It would also require repair of 

damaged wall surfaces on the interior and could 

include sealing of bare wood surfaces to protect 

them from further deterioration. Water damage to 

surfaces such as walls, ceilings, and floors would be 

repaired, and the source of the damage stopped if it 

still exists. The ceilings in the downstairs shed 

portion of the building have been removed. It is 

unclear what condition these ceilings were in prior 

to the 1998- 2000 National Park Service stabilization 

work on the roof. According to the construction 

administration documents, some finished ceiling 

materials were removed from these rooms, but the 

condition was not discussed. The exposed roof 

structure would be retained, and the ceilings would 

not be reinstalled because they are not vital to the 

preservation of the building. The existing molding 

still intact in Room 104 and that has been removed 

in Room 107 would be retained, and the removed 

molding would be inventoried and stored. The 

heating and cooling system would be retained and 

the automatic thermostat repaired to regulate 

temperatures within the building to mitigate spikes 

in temperature and humidity. It would not be 

necessary to replace the damaged ceiling fan in the 

upstairs bedroom, but, if not replaced, it would at 

least be removed and the ceiling repaired, as it is not 

significant to the historic character of the building.

If preservation were the recommended treatment, 

the building, most notably the interior, would not 

be improved or even returned to a previous state of 

functionality. The bathrooms would not be 

reinstated as functional. The National Park Service 

has upgraded the heating and cooling system during 

the 2000- 2002 treatments. This system would not 

be removed. Likewise, the existing electrical system 

would not be upgraded, beyond what is minimally 

necessary as required for public visitation. 

As discussed, the National Park Service has already 

completed an extensive program of stabilization and 

repairs to the building. The reconstructed portions 

of the building, such as the roof structures, 

foundation, and floor framing, because they are 

new, would not require more than routine 

maintenance. The most notable exception to this is 

the condition of the interior wall on the east side of 

the stairway, which would require substantial repair. 

It should be noted also that the investigation of this 

report was non- destructive, so the interior 

conditions of walls and other inaccessible features 

have not been ascertained.

While this approach would not diminish what 

remains of the historic fabric, it would also not 

improve the Park’s ability to interpret the historic 

building. Currently, the presentation of the 

building, both interior and exterior, is that of an 

ante- bellum building adapted to modern needs and 

altered for structural stability, with features 

reflecting styles and tastes of the early to midtwentieth century imposed upon those of the midnineteenth. However, some of the historic fabric has 

been altered and lost during the stabilization 

treatments. Interior and exterior preservation, 

therefore, as an overall approach, would be 

appropriate if the Park wishes to interpret the 

complete history of the building and its occupants 

to present day or to use it as a marker for the 

beginning of the hiking trails in the Vickery Creek 

Unit of the Chattahoochee River National 

Recreational Area, with no visitor access to the 

interior.

Rehabilitation

One of the most common approaches to the 

treatment of historic buildings, rehabilitation 

provides modifications to a building to bring it into 

better compliance with current building codes and 

expectations for creature comforts. With this 

approach, the heating and electrical systems could 

be upgraded to provide code compliance and 

human comfort. The kitchen might be reinstated, 

and the bathrooms might be made functional. All 

work would be designed to be reversible and would 

not diminish the historic building fabric or the 
National Park Service 69

Part II: Treatment and Use

house’s historic character beyond the changes that 

have already been made.

Once a use has been determined for Allenbrook, 

decisions must be made about what period of 

historic significance to interpret. Whether a specific 

period is interpreted, such as the King family 

ownership of the building, circa 1851 to 1874, or if the 

complete history of Allenbrook is presented, 

rehabilitation would allow for a wider range of uses. 

Rehabilitation would also not require a strict 

interpretation of any one period, as this treatment 

focuses more on the ultimate needs for functional 

rather than interpretive use. However, as with any 

treatment approach for the building, rehabilitation 

must respect the historic character and fabric, as 

guided by The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 

for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Because 

rehabilitation would render the interior of the 

building accessible, the National Park Service could 

use the building for a number of functions. One 

option would be to provide housing for the Park’s 

rangers, thereby continuing the historic use of the 

building as a residence. This option would also 

provide continued occupancy for the building, 

resulting in a greater level of long- term security and 

protection from vandalism. 

Another option is to use the building as a classroom 

facility to host presentations to groups such as 

school children on nature outings, hikers, or those 

interested in the historic background of the Roswell 

area and textile mills. Incorporating the 

interpretation of the architectural elements of the 

building into this use would require identification of 

the known original features and the later additions, 

including an explanation of how and when things 

were changed, and why. This process would be a 

valuable educational tool, especially for younger 

visitors, to interpret how modern twentieth century 

householders adapted older buildings to their use 

by installing such amenities as an indoor kitchen 

and bathroom, electricity, and central heating.

Alternatively, the interior could be rehabilitated for 

administrative support. The Headquarters of the 

Chattahoochee River National Recreational Area of 

the National Park Service are located approximately 

three miles from Allenbrook, and provide office 

space for the Area’s staff. If staffing space 

requirements are at or near capacity in the 

Headquarters complex, Allenbrook may prove 

useful in affording extra administrative offices. 

Alternately, locating auxiliary offices in Allenbrook 

may prove useful if a plan is developed to actively 

engage a continuous flow of visitors to the Vickery 

Creek Unit to learn about the natural and cultural 

history of the area. Such a plan may necessitate 

having one or more full- time rangers on- site, 

thereby mitigating the risks of vacancy. However, 

using Allenbrook for administrative office space 

may require significant intrusion into the remaining 

historic fabric to ensure the structural stability of the 

second floor, and is, therefore, not considered to be 

an optimal approach to rehabilitation. 

Finally, consideration has been given to using the 

building as a house museum. While such a function 

could provide adequate occupation of the building, 

such a use would likely result in significantly higher 

administrative costs. Additionally, this use appears 

inconsistent with the existing programming and 

functional goals of the Park. Therefore, this use 

would be the least optimal approach to 

rehabilitation and not recommended. 

Restoration

Not all buildings possess the historic significance to 

warrant restoration to a specific period. It is 

important to consider why treatment of this 

property should extend beyond preservation. The 

following discussion outlines the three reasonable 

options for restoration. 

Option One. The first option for restoration is to 

return Allenbrook to its historic appearance before 

1932, when the Georgia Power Company sold it to 

the Barnett A. Bell family. This period represents the 

building’s association with the Ivy and Laurel Mills 

during the ante- and post- bellum years, especially 

through a succession of residents who worked 

there. Furthermore, this period embodies a direct 

association with the King family, notable for their 

role in founding Roswell and introducing the mill 

industry to the area. 

Thanks to Barnett Bell’s 1932 watercolor painting of 

Allenbrook, we have general knowledge of what the 

exterior of the building looked like prior to the 

Bell’s renovations. The challenge lies in determining 

the original appearance of the house. No pictorial 

documentation of the house before 1932 is known to 

exist. However, some theories can be formed from 

the existing records of ownership and occupancy 
70 Allenbrook HSR

and from an analysis of the remaining material 

evidence. Current research revealed sporadic 

information on the likely occupants of Allenbrook 

from its construction date, circa 1851- 1856. After 

James R. King and family vacated the house, at least 

by the end of the Civil War, it appears to have been 

occupied by employees of the Ivy/Laurel Mill until 

at least 1905. The Laurel Mills ceased operation in 

1911. Who, if anyone, occupied Allenbrook between 

1905 and 1911 is unknown, but the residents, if any, 

were probably also employees of the mills. The 

residents of Allenbrook between 1911 and 1923, are 

also currently unknown. The Georgia Power 

Company owned the property from 1923 to 1932. 

Given the reported run- down state of the building 

in 1932, it is likely that the building was empty and 

no changes were made to it during this period. The 

basis for this assumption is the lack of information 

on occupants of Allenbrook during this time. It is 

reasonable to suggest that, given the circumstances 

surrounding the closure and dismantling of the 

Laurel Mills, the condition of the building by 1932, 

and the lack of available data on occupants from 

1905 to 1932, Allenbrook may have been vacant 

during that time. In any case, the inhabitants of 

Allenbrook from the Civil War to 1932 were renters, 

not owners, and would have made few, if any, 

significant changes to the buildings. Until 1932, the 

owner of Allenbrook was always the corporation 

that owned the Ivy/Laurel Mill. It is unlikely that 

the corporation took much interest in improving the 

housing structure, and, therefore, improbable that 

they made any significant changes to it. The 

exterior appearance of Allenbrook as illustrated in 

Barnett Bell’s watercolor is fairly consistent with the 

Plantation Plain style and shows the brick walls and 

stone foundation characteristic of the Ivy Mill 

buildings known to have been constructed by James 

King around 1856. Therefore, that which is depicted 

in the watercolor together with what we know from 

Barnett Bell’s records and interviews about the 

interior of the house in 1932, is likely illustrative of 

the original appearance of Allenbrook. 

A loyal interpretation of this period would require 

extensive restoration work, primarily on the 

interior. A materials analysis would also be required 

for the interior to determine some of the earlier 

and/or original finishes. Such an analysis was not 

included in the contract for this study. However, 

because Allenbrook does possess many of its 

original characteristics, returning to the pre- 1932 

period is feasible. Returning the house to this earlier 

period would involve some change to its exterior, 

including the reconstruction of the one- story, front 

porch with the hipped roof on the front, removal of 

the back stoop and reconstruction of the original 

back door, where Window 5 now exists. According 

to the watercolor by Barnett Bell, the porch had 

four risers from ground level to the finished floor 

level of the building. In this watercolor, 

approximately twelve inches of foundation are 

revealed on the south side of the house, where they 

are now concealed by earth. The artist also 

included a depression in the ground level at the 

location of the porch, although it is unclear whether 

this was the actual configuration of the ground or an 

artistic device to allow for the proper depiction of 

the porch. Currently, the finished floor level of the 

building is only about two inches above ground 

level, and the ground then rises several inches 

toward the south, away from the front door. This 

indicates that grading of the front yard, including 

the addition of fill dirt, occurred after the removal 

of the hipped- roofed porch. The 1940 photograph 

of Allenbrook illustrates this change in grade. Reinstating the porch would likely involve removal of 

at least sixteen inches of fill at the south, or front, 

side of the building. It is possible that this removal 

could negatively impact drainage as well as the 

structural stability of the foundation wall on the 

south side. Archaeological investigation of the front 

yard would be required to more accurately 

determine the historic grade. While considerable 

site work has been done to the front and rear yards 

of Allenbrook, archaeological remains of the hipped 

roof porch footprint, as well as any other pre- 1932 

site features, may still exist and prove important to 

the accurate exterior restoration of the building.

Additional changes to the exterior would involve 

returning the doors and windows to their historic 

appearance, consistent with the 1932 watercolor, 

and the existing shutters installed by the Bell family 

would be removed. Penciling on the north exterior 

wall would be applied to match the detailing on the 

east, west, and south exterior walls. In addition to 

the front yard, archaeological investigation of the 

rear yard and surrounding site could be used to 

determine the prior existence and location of 

historic outbuildings.

The interior of the house would require a large 

amount of restoration work to remove 
National Park Service 71

Part II: Treatment and Use

modifications made by the Bells and subsequent 

tenants. The stairway in the entrance hall would be 

removed, reversed, and returned to its original, 

steeper, narrower configuration, accessing the 

upper “loft” area without benefit of handrails. For 

this reason, visitors would not be permitted to the 

upper level, though it would be lighted to provide 

the opportunity to view it from the lower level. The 

entire upper floor would be returned to its original, 

open configuration, removing the later walls, 

plumbing, ceilings and bathroom fixtures. The walls 

installed by the Bells to create the bathroom and 

closets on the first floor would be removed and the 

rear hall walls would be extended up to the roof 

structure. The large, arched opening from the hall to 

the living room would be returned to its original size 

and location. Materials analysis of both the west 

wall structure of the rear hall, Room 105, and the 

east wall structure of Room 101, some of which 

might necessarily be destructive, would more 

accurately reveal their vintage. Specifically, 

comparison of the framing of the west wall in Room 

105 with that known to be original to the house, 

such as in the west wall of Room 103, would likely 

indicate whether or not the former was a 

reconstruction by the Bell family, as theorized. 

Likewise, examination of the east wall framing in 

Room 101 may reveal the former location of the 

original door opening to this room off the hall. 

However, it is possible that the entire wall structure 

was significantly rebuilt at the time the Bell family 

created the arched opening, thereby destroying all 

evidence of the original opening. Materials analysis 

of the wall separating the front and rear hall may 

also provide more information about the 

approximate age of the door believed to have once 

existed at this location. If restored, a two- panel 

door like those believed to be original to the house 

should be hung in the opening. The opening to the 

dining room under the stairs that the Bells 

converted to a built- in cabinet would also be 

returned to its original state. As with the hallway, a 

two- panel door probably hung in this opening.

The plan of the first floor, while it appears that it 

was originally constructed as a central hall plan with 

two rooms on either side, is slightly irregular. The 

east and west walls of the first floor hall in the front 

of the house do not align with those of the rear shed 

rooms. The front hall (Room 102) is wider than the 

rear hall (Room 105) and the east wall of the front 

hall is slightly angled from north to south. 

Additionally, the doors to the rear shed rooms 

(Doors 4 and 6) are not on axis. Door 2 is located on 

the southern end of the wall between Room 103 and 

the front hall. Given the location of the front door to 

the house (Door 1), it is highly unlikely that the 

original door to Room 101, west of the front hall was 

located on axis with Door 2 (see first floor plan on 

page 37). As it is clear that the Bells renovated a 

significant portion of the house, it is possible that 

they made further alterations to the downstairs than 

is currently known. Again, a detailed materials 

analysis of the wall finishes, and, if possible, the 

underlying structure, would shed more light on the 

original configuration of the floor plan and age of 

the existing materials. 

Materials analysis may also reveal the earliest 

decorating scheme, if there was one. The 

architectural surfaces would be restored to their 

original condition, likely painted wood surfaces, 

with the exception of the floorboards. The floor 

cloth painted in Room 102 by the Roswell Historical 

Society is not based on historic documentation and 

would be removed. It is possible the finishes may 

have been more elaborate when James R. King 

occupied the building than they were when it was 

occupied by a superintendent or other worker of 

the Ivy Mill or Laurel Mill. However, this is pure 

conjecture. It is known, from the 1957 Atlanta 

Constitution article that the mantels existing in the 

house when purchased by the Bells were painted.

As described, restoring Allenbrook to its pre- 1932 

appearance would involve some additional research 

into the finishes and features that existed at that 

time. Also, a large amount of material that has 

acquired its own historic significance would be 

removed from the house, primarily on the interior. 

Absent a current interpretive plan for the building, 

restoring the interior of the building to this period 

would preclude future opportunities to represent 

the later histories of Allenbrook. However, restoring 

the exterior of the building would prove valuable to 

the interpretation of a significant building style and 

period of growth in Roswell and Southern history. 

Therefore, while exterior restoration should be 

considered, restoring the interior of the building to 

its pre- 1932 appearance is not recommended at this 

time.

Option Two. The second option is to restore the 

building to the period in which the Bells owned the 
72 Allenbrook HSR

property, between 1932 and 1979, when Mrs. Barnett 

A. Bell moved out of Allenbrook, having sold it to 

the National Park Service in 1978. As of this writing, 

the historic significance of the Bell family is 

undetermined. However, it is known that Barnett A. 

Bell was an estimator for the Georgia Power 

Company, the company from which he purchased 

Allenbrook. As discussed earlier in this report, it is 

possible that the Georgia Power Company had 

interests in the Laurel Mill property because of its 

proximity to the Vickery Creek, with its potential for 

hydroelectric power. Apart from this possible 

historic association, restoration to this period 

would allow interpretation of a common trend 

during the twentieth century: the adaptation of 

older buildings to modern needs. The visitor would 

be able to see how modern requirements for 

conveniences such as indoor plumbing, cooking 

facilities, and electricity can be successfully 

imposed upon an older home without such 

facilities. This interpretive approach would allow 

the layers of history embodied within Allenbrook to 

be expressed.

Restoration to this period would require the 

removal of all renovations made by the Roswell 

Historical Society such as the gypsum board ceiling 

with recessed lighting, the ceiling fan in the upper 

floor bedroom, and the painted floor cloth in the 

lower hall. The bathrooms and kitchen would be 

reinstated, and architectural surfaces would be 

restored to reflect the pre- 1979 period. As with the 

first option, this treatment would require additional 

research to determine what interior surface finishes 

and fixtures existed in Allenbrook by the end of this 

period. Complete information was not discovered 

during the course of this research at the archives of 

the Park, but may exist elsewhere. The National 

Park Service has already largely restored the 

exterior of the building with a few notable 

exceptions. In rebuilding the north wall between 

2000 and 2002, the National Park Service 

contractor replaced the bricks and mortar used by 

the Bells to close the back door with bricks and 

mortar matching those original to the building rather 

than matching those used by the Bells. If restored to 

the 1932- 1979 period, this treatment would be 

corrected, using bricks and mortar to match the 

historic pattern of the infilled wall. Several 

photographs exist that serve as adequate historic 

documentation of this feature. Additionally, the 

penciling found on the original brickwork, still 

evident on the west, south, and east elevations of the 

building, was not replicated on the new north wall. 

This detailing would be restored using the east, 

west, and south walls as example. The two- story 

columned porch and the board- and- batten 

shutters that flanked the front door would be 

reconstructed according to their historic 

appearance. Both features are known to have 

existed in 1979, the last year Mrs. Bell occupied the 

house. 

This restoration option would interpret the entire 

period of occupancy of the Barnett A. Bell family. 

Unfortunately, photographic documentation of the 

interior and exterior of the building in 1979, if in 

existence, has been unavailable to date. Many of the 

changes made to the building by the Bell family are 

known to have been undertaken shortly after they 

purchased the property in 1932. However, it is 

unclear what the full range of interior finishes was in 

1979, when Mrs. Bell moved out of the house. 

Therefore, if this treatment option is chosen, 

additional research will be required to accurately 

interpret the period of 1979.

Option Three. The third option is to restore the 

building to the 1940 period. By this point in history, 

Barnett Bell had purchased the house from the 

Georgia Power Company and assigned it the name 

“Allenbrook.” While it is known that some physical 

changes have occurred to the building exterior since 

1940, it is that year which is easily identifiable 

through historic documentation. Information on 

the changes to the exterior by this time is supporting 

evidence that the interior modifications made by 

the Bells were completed by 1940. The historic 

significance of this year is that it represents a point 

in time when most of the physical changes to the 

building’s historic character had occurred and that 

it allows for the limited interpretation of all of the 

building’s residential occupants. As with the 1932-

1979 period of interpretation, restoration to 1940 

would illustrate the twentieth century trend of 

adapting older buildings to meet modern needs. 

What distinguishes this period from the 1932 to 1979 

period, for interpretive purposes, is the lack of 

documentation on the interior finishes and physical 

condition of the house during the later period. The 

1940 photographs likely illustrate the earliest 

modifications made by the Bells to the exterior of 

the house. These exterior changes reveal that the 

interior first floor bathroom was installed by that 
National Park Service 73

Part II: Treatment and Use

time, as the rear entrance was relocated to the room 

now known as the kitchen. The written 

documentation from Barnett Bell, along with 

interviews from 1957 and later, indicates that many 

of the changes to the building were made shortly 

after the Bells purchased the house. It is reasonable 

to suggest that the Bells completed most of the 

interior changes by 1940, eight years later. If, as 

theorized, the building was vacant for many years, 

and knowing that the condition of the building was 

“run- down,” these interior, modern improvements 

would have likely been needed immediately. 

Restoration to this period would require the 

removal of all renovations made by the Roswell 

Historical Society, such as the gypsum board ceiling 

with recessed lighting, the ceiling fan in the upper 

floor bedroom, and the painted floor cloth in the 

lower hall. The bathrooms and kitchen would be 

reinstated, and architectural surfaces would be 

restored to reflect the 1940 period. Photographs of 

the interior, showing the living and sitting rooms, 

Rooms 101 and 107 respectively, taken in 1957 give 

some clue to the interior finishes. While it is 

possible that these differed from those that existed 

in 1940, some assumptions can be made. A materials 

analysis could reveal the actual paint scheme 

present circa 1940. Using information extrapolated 

from the historic documentation of Allenbrook, 

along with a materials analysis, a fairly accurate 

representation of the 1940 appearance of the 

interior of the building could be made. Interior 

modifications would include restoring the ceilings 

and crown molding to the shed rooms, reinstalling 

the door to the first story bathroom, reintroducing 

the first story bathroom and kitchen fixtures and 

possibly the door between the rear and front halls. 

Likewise, lighting fixtures such as the sconces on 

either side of the arched doorway in the living room 

would be reinstalled. 

On the exterior, the second front porch with the 

gabled roof, the north wall with the infilled 

brickwork at Window 5, and the rear stoop with its 

simplified, metal hand rail would be restored. The 

brick hardscaping would be restored to the front 

and rear yards, preferably using any remaining 

historic bricks that exist.

As with restoring the building as described in 

Option Two, restoring the interior of the house to 

the 1940 period may prove premature absent a plan 

for future use. Along with the materials analysis 

such a restoration treatment would necessitate, a 

significant amount of interior work would be 

required to return the architectural surfaces to this 

time period, resulting in added administrative and 

construction costs. Additionally, undertaking 

restoration efforts to depict the 1940 appearance 

may overshadow the earlier features of the house 

should an interpretive plan to illustrate the history 

of the King family, the later tenants of Allenbrook 

and the associated mill industry be established.

Recommended 

Treatment

Allenbrook is an interesting historic resource of the 

north Georgia area in that it is a brick Plantation 

Plain style building that has retained much of its 

original materials and configuration for more than 

one hundred years after its construction. While 

brick houses are not unusual to the Piedmont 

region of Georgia in the middle and late 1800s, given 

the readily available supply of clay, the articulation 

of this style, with elements of the Greek Revival 

style, is indicative of the upper class standing of its 

original owners. Additionally, elements of the 

building, such as the rear, interior chimneys are 

reflective of the northern building influences on the 

King family, who were originally from New 

England. More typical Plantation Plain style houses 

were of frame construction with exterior chimneys 

located on each of the gabled ends. Therefore, the 

opportunity to interpret such a structure in its 

earliest configuration is significant. Additionally, the 

connection of the Allenbrook structure to the King 

family, founders of the City of Roswell, and its 

continued affiliation with the local mills make it 

culturally significant to the area. The modifications 

made to Allenbrook on the interior did not 

completely alter the original historic character of 

the building. However, removal of these features to 

interpret the original floor plan would necessarily 

require further materials research and, ultimately, 

the removal of the circa 1930s finishes that have 

achieved historic significance in their own right. 

Without a prescribed future use for the building, a 

loyal restoration of the interior to the pre- 132 period 

may preclude future options and result in an 

unnecessary loss of historic materials. For these 

reasons, restoring the exterior of the building to its 

pre- 1932 appearance, while preserving the interior 
74 Allenbrook HSR

of the building in its current condition is the 

recommended treatment. 

Allenbrook is a rare example of a brick Plantation 

Plain style, ante- bellum building, that exhibits circa 

1930s modifications reflective of then- modern 

residential tastes. The National Park Service has yet 

to determine a future use for this structure. 

Therefore, the recommended treatment of the 

exterior and surrounding grounds will be 

considered separately from that of the interior as 

the ultimate use may allow treatment of these areas 

to be independent of one another.

National Register of Historic Places

Although not currently listed in the National 

Register of Historic Places, Allenbrook has been 

recommended eligible. Located at the southern end 

of the Roswell Historic District, which was listed in 

the National Register of Historic Places in 1974, 

Allenbrook is within the boundaries of the local 

Historic District. The District was zoned as the 

Historic Roswell District in 1971. At that time, the 

District did not include Allenbrook, but it was 

expanded in 1988 to include Allenbrook as well as a 

number of other properties. As discussed in 

Roswell: A Pictorial History, the Historic Roswell 

District “contains sites of natural or aesthetic 

interest that continue to contribute to the historic 

character and development of the City, County, 

State or region.”114 However, the National Register 

listing of the Roswell Historic District was never 

formally updated to include the expanded portion, 

so Allenbrook, while in the local Historic District, is 

not listed in the National Register. Despite its lack of 

national recognition, its historic association with the 

Ivy Mill, the King family (the founders of the city of 

Roswell), and subsequent mill superintendents and 

employees makes it culturally significant.

Furthermore, the building is architecturally 

significant for its Plantation Plain style rendered in 

brick, and its historic modifications, which reflect 

its continued residential use. The expression of the 

Plantation Plain style in brick and stone is unique, as 

the style is typically rendered in frame construction 

in the Piedmont Region of Georgia. Furthermore, 

the construction method is the same as that of 

associated mill buildings in Roswell, which were 

brick structures with stone foundations. The 

Historic Resource Survey of Roswell completed in 

2001 by The Jaeger Company suggests that 

Allenbrook’s remote location and the numerous 

non- contributing resources located between it and 

the existing National Register of Historic Places 

district boundaries make inclusion in a proposed 

National Register district expansion unrealistic. 

However, the Survey does indicate that the building 

is historically and architecturally significant in its 

own right. Therefore, it is recommended that this 

building be listed in the National Register of 

Historic Places as an individual resource under 

Criteria A, B and C.

Exterior Restoration: Pre-1932

The work undertaken by the National Park Service 

between 1998 and 2002 has stabilized and 

rehabilitated many of the building’s systems and 

features. The following recommendations are 

provided to return the exterior of the building to its 

pre- 132 appearance. The available research 

indicates that this period not only respects the 

historic character of Allenbrook but also offers the 

greatest opportunity for significant historic 

interpretation of the resource. These exterior 

recommendations are in addition to the general 

recommendations made at the beginning of Part II 

of this report regarding safety, security, 

handicapped access, and so forth.

■ The original porch, likely the hip- roofed 

porch, shown as a “ghost” on the front of the 

structure and illustrated in Barnett Bell’s 

watercolor of Allenbrook in 1932, should be 

reinstated. From the historic watercolor, it is 

known that the porch had a hipped, metal panel 

roof, likely standing seam, wood posts, a wood 

plank floor, wood stairs comprised of treads 

and stringers, four risers high from the ground 

level to the finished floor and brick foundation 

piers. It is important to note that care should be 

taken when interpreting the historic 

watercolors painted by Barnett Bell, as some 

artistic license may have been taken in the 

depiction of the building features.

■ Restoring this porch would require the 

removal of the brick walkway and stoop 

installed by the National Park Service and 

detailed archaeological investigation of the area 

to the south, east, and west of the building to 

determine the extent of the foundations of the 

114. Walsh, p. 173.
National Park Service 75

Part II: Treatment and Use

original porch and the accurate slope of the 

historic grade. This investigation must be 

conducted to a minimum of three feet below the 

existing ground surface due to the extensive 

ground- disturbing activities that the front yard 

of the house has experienced over the past 

seventy- five years. The ground to the south of 

Allenbrook has been re- graded to provide 

positive drainage away from the foundation and 

restoration of the historic grade may cause 

drainage issues. Study of this area will be 

required to assess the actual impact of 

restoration. If restoring the historic grade poses 

a negative effect on the drainage, it is 

recommended that the grade be returned to an 

approximation of its historic appearance while 

providing for the necessary features/

landscaping conditions to prevent damage to 

the house and surrounding area.

■ The existing front door should be removed 

and replaced by a board- and- batten door, as 

depicted in Barnett Bell’s watercolor. According 

to this illustration, the hardware appears to have 

consisted of metal strap hinges. 

■ Consideration should be given to restoring 

the windows to their appearance in the historic 

watercolors. In these illustrations, the sashes 

and sills are brown in color. It is unclear 

whether the paintings are depicting painted or 

unfinished wood sashes and sills. As mentioned 

above, artistic license may have been taken in 

these paintings, as is evident in the number of 

lights in each window. Barnett Bell has painted 

the windows to have only one fixed sash with 

six divided lights. 

■ The existing rear stoop, porch roof, and 

rear door should be removed and the original 

rear entrance to the building restored to its 

historic location. The current rear door 

opening should be closed with bricks and 

mortar matching the existing in color, size, and 

composition. Restoring the historic rear 

entrance will require removing the center 

window on the rear elevation at the first floor 

level and installing one board- and- batten door 

and wooden stairs at this location. As illustrated 

in the historic watercolor, the stairs were devoid 

of handrails and simply constructed of treads 

and stringers seven risers high from the ground 

level to the finished floor. In addition, the door 

hardware appears to have consisted of metal 

strap hinges. As with the front and side yards, 

archaeological investigation should be 

undertaken in the rear yard of the building to 

determine the accurate slope of the historic 

grade.

■ The brick and granite removed from the 

rear stoop should be retained. According to the 

Bells, brick (and, although they did not mention 

it, granite) was salvaged from the “the old mill” 

and used in the front and rear yards. It is 

reasonable that they used brick and granite 

from the same source when constructing the 

rear stoop. Though they did not define which 

old mill provided the brick, it is likely that they 

were obtained from the Ivy/Laurel Mill 

building ruins. These buildings were being 

dismantled by 1924. They were the closest 

available source of “mill” bricks for the Bells, 

and Bell could probably have obtained 

permission from his employer, Georgia Power, 

which owned the mill, to obtain them. A pile of 

bricks is also currently stacked in the basement 

of the house. It is unclear whether these bricks 

were salvaged from the site. However, these 

materials may be useful in the restoration of the 

exterior north wall.

■ Archaeological investigation should also be 

undertaken at the rear of the building to 

determine, if possible, the locations of 

outbuildings. It is probable that the earliest 

arrangement of this site included both an 

exterior kitchen and a privy. While not known 

to have been in existence at the time the Bell 

Family purchased the house, locating their 

remains, if existing, would aid in reconstructing 

the physical history of the site.

■ Consideration should be given to 

interpreting the historic drive that extended 

from Atlanta Street past the house. The 1978 

survey of Allenbrook illustrates the 

configuration of this drive, and the 1940s 

photograph details its appearance. It was 

unpaved and lined with bricks set at a 45-

degree angle. While it is known that the front, 

rear, and side yards were re- graded and paved 

by the Bell family sometime after 1932, the 

vintage of the entire drive is currently 
76 Allenbrook HSR

unknown. The entrance to the drive still exists 

from Atlanta Street. It is possible that this 

feature pre- dated the Bells. An old roadbed is 

known to have run past Allenbrook. This may 

have been a roadway between Allenbrook and 

the Ivy Mill. Future archaeological investigation 

may shed more light on these landscape 

features. 

■ It is recommended that the National Park 

Service provide better access to this site for 

visitors. Currently, the entranceway is in 

disrepair, with deep ruts and missing pavement, 

and signage is inadequate. Handicapped access 

to the walkway is problematic. The vehicular 

entrance to this unit of the park should be regraded and graveled or paved with a permeable 

material that complements the surrounding 

natural, wooded environment. If not governed 

by City of Roswell guidelines for signage, the 

entrance sign should be made larger and easier 

to read. Handicapped parking spaces with 

smooth- surfaced access to the walkway should 

be provided. Consideration should be given to 

hard- surfacing the access path to the hiking 

trail that runs behind Allenbrook to allow 

handicapped visitors access to view the rear of 

the building.

■ If the building is not opened on the interior 

to visitors, exterior signage or wayside exhibits 

could explain the interior and interpret the 

entire history and use of this ante- bellum 

building. The signage should identify the period 

of restoration of the building as pre- 1932. 

Interior Preservation

To achieve a full interpretation of this building and 

its relationship to the history of Roswell, it should 

be made available to visitors on the inside as well as 

the outside. However, as the Park has yet to 

establish a future use for Allenbrook, the interior 

should, for the time being, remain closed. It is 

recommended that the interior be preserved in its 

current state to ensure that all remaining historic 

fabric is retained until a future use can be 

prescribed. This treatment provides for the 

continued maintenance of the building and the 

removal of only those features after the National 

Park Service purchased Allenbrook, that are not 

necessary to the stability and preservation of the 

building.
National Park Service 77

Anonymous. “Background History – Allenbrook,” 

unpublished research paper in the Chattahoochee 

River National Recreation Area Superintendent’s 

Office files, date unknown, no page numbers. Much 

of the research for this paper appears to have been 

conducted by interview in the 1980s.

Bell, Barnett A. “Allenbrook,” scrapbook relating to 

Allenbrook compiled by Barnett A. Bell and family. 

Contains two watercolors of the building as it 

appeared when the Bells purchased it, both signed by 

B. A. Bell, and several photographs of it after exterior 

renovations were complete. Located in the Roswell 

Historical Society Archives, Roswell, Georgia.

Braley, Chad O., Karen G. Wood, and T. Jeffrey Price. An 

Archeological and Historical Survey of a Fifteen Acre 

Tract in Roswell, Fulton County, Georgia. Athens, GA: 

Southeastern Archeological Services, Inc., 1992.

Brown, Lenard E. “Historic Resource Study: 

Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area and 

the Chattahoochee River Corridor,” Atlanta: 

Southeastern Regional Office, National Park Service, 

1980.

Census Records of the United States: Sixth through Tenth 

and Eleventh through Fourteenth, 1840, 1850, 1860, 

1870, 1880, 1900, 1910, and 1920, Population Schedules, 

Cobb County, Georgia, and Fifteenth, 1930 Population 

Schedules, Fulton County, Georgia. Reviewed online 

at http://www.ancestry.com. These are scanned 

images of the original census pages.

Coleman, Richard G. “A Short History of the Roswell 

Manufacturing Company of Roswell, Georgia, Home 

of ‘Roswell Grey’,” unpublished paper in the 

Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area 

Superintendent’s Office files, 1982.

 DeVane, Ernest. Roswell – Historic Homes and 

Landmarks, A Collection of Drawings [with text by 

Clarece Martin]. Roswell, GA: The Roswell 

Historical Society, Inc., 1974.

Fulton County, Georgia, Gail D’Avino, preparer. 

Assessment of No Adverse Effect to Allenbrook, the 

Robertson House, the H. S. Weaver House, the Roswell 

Historic National Register District and Ivy/Laurel Mill 

(Site 9FU228). Atlanta: 1997.

Galloway, T. H., ed. Dear Old Roswell – Civil War Letters of 

the King Family of Roswell, Georgia, Macon, GA: 

Mercer University Press, 2003.

Gerry, Maynita. “Confederate House is a Pleasant Home,” 

Atlanta Journal Constitution, date unknown. Based 

on references in the article, it appears to have been 

written about 1953.

Hitt, Michael D. Charged With Treason: Ordeal of 400 mill 

workers during military operations in Roswell, 

Georgia, 1864- 1865, Monroe, NY: Library Research 

Associates, Inc., 1992.

Jaeger Company, The. “Roswell Historic Resources 

Survey,” unpublished report, 2001. Survey conducted 

for the City of Roswell.

“Meetings of the Stockholders of the Roswell 

Manufacturing Company, Roswell, Cobb County, 

Georgia, 1840- 1900,” unpublished, but bound, 

handwritten meeting minutes, Roswell 

Manufacturing Company Minutes Collection, 

DeKalb History Center Archives, DeKalb, County, 

GA.

Miri, Ali. Historic Structure Assessment Report – 

Allenbrook House. Atlanta: Historic Architecture 

Division, Southeast Region, National Park Service, 

1994.

Mohr, Merri Ann. “Allenbrook Restoration Awaits 

Funding,” newspaper clipping in the Roswell 

Historical Society files for Allenbrook, newspaper 

name unknown. Based upon the content of the 

article, it appears to have been written in 1983.

National Park Service. Historic American Buildings 

Survey/Historic American Engineering Record (HABS/

HAER). Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress Prints 

and Photographs Division, 1936. Reviewed online at: 

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/hhtml/hhome.html.

Richards, Alice. “Barnett A. Bells Preserve Charm of Circa 

1830 Home,” Atlanta Constitution, December 29, 1957.

“Rosters of Georgia Regiments for the Confederate States 

of America.” Available online at http://

Sources of 

Information
78 Allenbrook HSR

www.geocities.com/jshop24jhawkins. This website 

has links to rosters for both the Roswell Guard and 

the Roswell Battalion, with brief histories of each 

included.

Skinner, James L. III, ed. The Autobiography of Henry 

Merrell, Industrial Missionary to the South. Athens, 

GA: University of Georgia Press, 1991.

Walsh, Darlene M., ed. Roswell – A Pictorial History, 2nd

ed., (reprinted in 2000), Charlotte: Fine Books 

Publishing Company, 1994.

Wood, Karen. An Archeological Survey of the Presumed 

Location of the First Roswell Factory. Athens, GA: 

Southeastern Archeological Services, Inc., 1989.
As the nation’s principal conservation agency, the 

Department of the Interior has responsibility for most 

of our nationally owned public lands and natural 

resources. This includes fostering sound use of our 

land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, 

and biological diversity; preserving the environmental 

and cultural values of our national parks and 

historical places; and providing for the enjoyment of 

life through outdoor recreation. The department 

assesses our energy and mineral resources and works 

to ensure that their development is in the best 

interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship 

and citizen participation in their care. The 

department also has a major responsibility for 

American Indian reservation communities and for 

people who live in island territories under U.S. 

administration. 

NPS D- 74, December 2004

Chattahoochee National Recreation Area

Allenbrook HSR