Fort Vancouver Historic Structures Report

Construction details

a. Dimensions and footings. The Old Office scales out on the three versions of the Vavasour map of late 1845 as measuring thirty feet square. The 1846-47 inventory also gives the dimensions as thirty by thirty feet. [67]

These measurements cannot yet be confirmed by archeological findings, because during 1947-52 no traces were found of the footings of this structure despite "considerable testing " in its immediate vicinity. [68] The site has not yet been explored during the series of excavations being conducted during the early 1970s. Because of the rather remarkable unanimity of the historical sources, however, it is not likely that the footings, if eventually found, will reveal a structure which was other than about thirty feet square.

Although no footings have yet been found, it is possible to anticipate with some certainty that if they should be uncovered , there will be four on each wall, counting those at the ends in each case. Such a prediction is possible because the general design of the Old Office, as the structure is pictured in the Coode watercolor of 1846-47, clearly shows it to have been built in the Canadian style (Plates XI and XII, vol. I). Thus there almost surely was a footing at each ten-foot interval around the perimeter of the structure.

b. General construction. There are no known verbal descriptions of the Old Office, but fortunately it has a prominent place in the Coode watercolor. With the east and south sides of the building clearly pictured, it is possible to reach certain conclusions concerning its overall design.

First, the height of the eaves above the tops of the windows reveals the basic post-on-sill construction. Probably, however , this height was not actually as great as it appears to be in the Coode drawing. In that picture the walls of the Priests' House (second building from the right) are shown as rising the full height of a framed window above the tops of the windows. In actuality, however, the walls rose only about half a window height above the windows, as is proved by the 1860 photograph (building at extreme left in Plate XXVII, vol. I). If Coode's proportions were equally in error in his depiction of the Old Office, the walls were somewhat lower than he apparently shows them to have been. Very probably the proportions of the Old Office were much closer to those of the Fort Kamloops building sketched in Plate LVIII or of the office-like structure at York Factory shown at the extreme left in Plate LIX.

But the walls were sufficiently high to permit the usual garret above the ground floor. The Old Office was topped by a gable roof, the ridge of which ran north and south. If the Coode watercolor was reasonably accurate, the sills were at, or close to, the ground surface; or, if they were raised on blocks, the space between the sills and the ground was closed in with planks or timbers.

Walls. If the proportions of the Old Office were as surmised in the preceding section, the walls probably rose about ten or eleven feet above the sills to the tops of the plates. Of Canadian type construction, each wall undoubtedly contained three evenly-spaced bays. In such an old structure, the timbers probably were hand hewn. At the gable ends, the walls above the plates probably were formed of horizontal infill timbers.

There is no evidence that proves that the exterior of the Old Office was covered by weatherboards, but this probably was the case. It is known that the New Office, which succeeded the structure under discussion, was weatherboarded, and evidently that type of finish was traditional for important buildings such as chief factors' houses countinghouses, and sales shops. In all likelihood, the Old Office was finished on the outside much as was the small building at Fort Edmonton shown in Plate LX.

Roof. As the Coode watercolor clearly demonstrates, the Old Office had a gable roof, the ridge of which ran north and south. If the roof had been covered with boards, Coode's drawing probably would have shown some evidence of that fact. Therefore, it is likely, but not certain, that the roof was shingled. Incidentally, the shingles in the lower courses at Fort Vancouver do not seem to have been pointed as were those at many other posts.

Chimney. The Coode drawing shows a chimney rising above the ridge line of the Old Office, about midway between the north and south ends of the building. Whether this chimney was centered on the ridge line or situated a short distance west of it is not clear from the picture. The chimney is shown with a cap around its top, a fact that would appear to indicate brick rather than stone construction, although there can be no certainty on this point.

Doors. According to the Emmons ground plan of 1841, the Old Office had only one exterior door, and that was situated at the center of the west wall (Plate III, vol. I). Such an orientation could be expected of a structure built in that location during the period when the fort enclosure was about one hundred yards square. Although no picture of this door is known to exist, it is possible to speculate that it was of six-panel construction like those in the Bachelors' Quarters. It is also reasonable to assume, upon the basis of traditional Company construction, that there was a light or transom over the door.

Windows. The Coode watercolor shows three ground-floor windows in both the east and south walls of the Old Office. It is logical to assume that the pattern was repeated on the other two walls, resulting in three windows in the north wall and two windows and the central door in the west wall. In other words, each wall bay probably contained a centered opening.

The watercolor also depicts the windows in the south wall as being smaller than those in the east wall. It will be noted, however, that this same difference is shown in the windows of the New Office (the structure immediately to the right of the Old Office in Plate XII, vol. I), but in this latter instance, at least, it is highly probable that all the windows were the same size.

It is impossible to tell from the Coode watercolor whether the windows in the Old Office were of the casement type or double-hung. Very probably, however, the ground-floor windows were of the casement variety. They may even have been relics of Astoria. There were no shutters.

The Coode sketch also reveals that there were two garret windows on the south side of the Old Office. Very probably this same pattern was repeated on the north side. The frames of these windows rested on the plates. They quite likely were twelve-pane or nine-pane, side hinged windows much like the garret window shown in Plate LIX.

Exterior finish. As has been mentioned, it is quite likely that the exterior of the Old Office was weatherboarded. In the Coode watercolor the building is pictured as being brown in color, a much darker brown than the warehouses. The window trim is also dark brown. In the colored reproduction of the picture that appeared in the autumn, 1970, issue of The Beaver, the trim seems to be darker than the walls, but in the original copy painting in the Company's archives the trim is scarcely distinguishable from the walls.

The question thus arises, was the Old Office so dark in color because it was painted or merely because it had been exposed to the elements for such a long time? Apparently there is no way to answer this question from the historical data available. [69]

If this writer were to make a guess, it would be that the weatherboards were stained with a thin coat of Spanish brown paint, while the door and the door and window trim were painted the same color but more heavily. The window sash would have been painted white. The total appearance would have been much like that of the office-like structure at Fort Edmonton shown in Plate LX.

c. Interior finish and arrangement. Aside from the fact that the Old Office contained one or more bedrooms in addition to the office proper and that there was a garret, nothing certain is known concerning the interior room arrangement. It has been seen throughout this study, however, that there were often general architectural patterns that were common to Hudson's Bay Company posts across the entire continent. That is not to say that exact designs were repeated, but there seems to have been a consensus as to what constituted a proper warehouse or a proper manager's residence. Thus an office at one depot might be expected to bear some resemblance to a countinghouse at another. Fortunately, comparative data are available concerning offices.

At Fort William on Thunder Bay, off Lake Superior, for instance, the "Counting House," which measured about forty by fifty feet, was divided in front into one large room, twenty-five by fifty feet, across the rear of which opened four equal-sized cubicles. One front corner of the large room had been partitioned off to form a sixth room. [70] The basic pattern revealed in this case appears to have been one large room for the office proper with a number of smaller offices or bedrooms immediately adjoining.

Confirmation of this assumption is found in the layout of the countinghouse at Upper Fort Garry during the 1840s or thereabouts. And as usual it is former Clerk Robert M. Ballantyne who provides the classic description of this typical Company office:

Everyone knows the general appearance of a counting room. There are one or two peculiar features about such apartments that are quite unmistakable and very characteristic; and the counting-room at Fort Garry, although many hundred miles distant from other specimens of its race, and, from the peculiar circumstances of its position, not therefore likely to bear them much re semblance, possessed one or two features of similarity, in the shape of two large desks and several very tall stools besides sundry ink-bottles, rulers, books, and sheets of blotting-paper. But there were other implements there, savouring strongly of the backwoods and savage life, which merit more particular notice.

The room itself was small, and lighted by two little windows, which opened into the courtyard. The entire apartment was made of wood. The floor was of unpainted fir boards. The walls were of the same material, painted blue from the floor upwards to about three feet, where the blue was unceremoniously stopped short by a stripe of bright red, above which the somewhat fanciful decorator had laid on a coat of pale yellow; and the ceiling, by way of variety, was of a deep ochre. As the occupants of Red River office were, however, addicted to the use of tobacco and tallow candles, the original colour of the ceiling had vanished entirely, and that of the walls had considerably changed:

There were three doors in the room (besides the door of entrance), each opening into another apartment, where the three clerks were wont to court the favour of Morpheus after the labours of the day. No carpets graced the floors of any of these rooms, and with the exception of the paint aforementioned, no ornament whatever broke the pleasing uniformity of the scene. This was compensated, however, to some extent by several scarlet sashes, bright-coloured shot-belts, and gay portions of winter costume peculiar to the country, which depended from sundry nails in the bedroom walls; and as the three doors always stood open, these objects, together with one or two fowling-pieces and canoe-paddles, formed quite a brilliant and highly suggestive back ground to the otherwise sombre picture. A large open fireplace stood in one corner of the room, devoid of a grate, and so constructed that large logs of wood might be piled up on end to any extent. And really the fires made in this manner, and in this individual fireplace were exquisite beyond description. . . . The billets are usually piled up on end, so that the flames rise and twine round them with a fierce intensity that causes them to crack and sputter cheerfully, sending innumerable sparks of fire into the room, and throwing out a rich glow of brilliant light that warms a man even to look at it, and renders candles quite unnecessary. [71]

Upon the basis of these precedents, one may venture a hypothesis that the Old Office at Fort Vancouver was laid out as follows: The one outside door, in the west wall, gave entrance to the office proper, a room about fifteen by thirty feet that occupied the entire west half of the ground floor. Three doors in the east wall of this room opened into three cubicles, each about ten by fifteen feet, ranged side by side. Also on this east wall, perhaps somewhat north of center, was a fireplace. Somewhere in the office proper a stairway led to the garret, which probably could be closed off by a trapdoor. Very likely the garret was used for the storage of the voluminous old post and district records.

Although the room arrangement must remain a matter of speculation, there does exist a certain amount of firm historical information concerning the interior finish. The Company's inventory of 1846-47 does not list the Old Office among the structures that were "lined & ceiled," but W. H. Gray, describing the fort buildings as he first saw them in 1836, said that the floors were mostly rough boards, except for those in "the office and the governor's house, which were planed." [72] It is highly improbable that a structure graced by the rare planed floors would not have been lined and ceiled. Another witness, J. W. Nesmith, who arrived in 1843, later testified that he thought the office was ceiled. [73] Thus there is every reason for believing that the Old Office was included among the "dwelling houses and some other buildings" that Thomas Lowe later swore were "ceiled with tongued and grooved dressed boards." [74]

In fact, it is quite likely that the office proper, at least, was finished in the same style as was the Big House, with vertical fir siding, chair rail, and perhaps very small, square moldings at floor and ceiling. The bedrooms may have lacked the trim.

There is no firm evidence that the interior was painted. It has been seen, however, that office interiors so treated were not unknown at the Company's posts. J. W. Nesmith said of McLoughlin's house and the office: "They, I think, were ceiled and painted." [75] Un fortunately he did not indicate whether the paint was on the inside or outside, and it is possible that he had the New Office in mind when making this statement.

Heating arrangements. On October 30, 1845, Clerk Thomas Lowe noted in his journal: "Had a fire in the Office to day, for the first time this year." [76] This entry confirms what the chimney, already described, makes evident--that the Old Office was heated either by a stove or a fireplace--but it does not say which.

As will be observed from the data presented in the next main division of this chapter, the office inventories for 1844 and 1845 (the furnishings of the office seem not to have been listed separately in 1846 and 1847) make no mention of stoves, though they do include "1 pair fire Tongs." No stove appears in the inventories of articles in use in the office until 1848, and that list, of course, pertained to the New Office, an entirely different structure.

It seems fairly clear, therefore, that the Old Office was heated by a fireplace. Because of the structure's early date, the fireplace could very well have been built of rough local stones of random size. In such case the exterior probably would have been plastered. Such a fireplace undoubtedly would have looked much more like those depicted in Plates XLIII and XLIV than the more elaborate one illustrated in Plate LXI. Of course, if the chimney was of brick the fireplace could have been also, in which case there may have been a simple mantel.