origem hotel

8/13/2019 Origem Hotel

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/origem-hotel 1/12

Why the Hotel?

Liberal Visions, Merchant Capital, Public Space,and the Creation of an American Institution

A. K. Sandoval-Strausz

Departmentf Histo•

TheUniversi{yf Chicago

The hotel has or two hundredyearsbeen a familiarplaceon the American

landscapend in the popular magination.Beginningn the 1790s, he hotel nits various ncarnations roliferated crosshe expanding ational erritory, tsincreasingubiquity reflected in innumerablenineteenth-century rawings,maps,city directories,nd photographs. ell beforemidcentury, otelscouldbe found in practically ny settlementof more than a few thousand nhabi-tants,and by 1930 the United Stateswashome to over 17,000hotelsemploy-ing nearly 300,000 people and producing $1 billion in revenue annually[Boorstin,1965,p. 145;Bureauof the Census,1931,pp. 24]. Meanwhile, hehotel'seasy ecognizability nd its varied and evocativemagery-as ravelers'haven and criminal hideout, wedding ocation and trystingground, ritzy cock-tail lounge and skid-row esidence-made t a frequent referent n literature,music, and visual art. Generations of observerssaw the hotel as an institution

which so perfectlyepitomizedAmerican ife that it surelyheld the key tounderstandinghe nationalcharacter. enryJames escribedhe hotel as con-stituting or vastnumbers f people he richest orm of existence n Americanlife, leadingone to see he hotel as itself that life; and Joan Didion, whomade the hotel settingan integralpart of her novels,wrote of an institutionthat was not merelya hotel but a social dea, one of the few extant clues oa certainkind of American ife [James, 906,p. 299; Koestenbaum, 997].

Academichistorians, owever, ntil quiterecentlydisplayed nly occasionalinterest in the hotel. Influential cultural and social histories have made note of

hotelsas symbolsor venues Leach,1993;Chauncey,1994],and a growing it-eratureon traveland tourismhas ouchedupon the hotel asan importantcon-comitant of human mobility [Brown, 1995; Spears,1995]. Treatmentof thehotel as a worthy historicalsubject n its own right, though, was for decades

the nearlyexclusive rovinceof antiquarians, ho produceda mountain of

decontextualizedand anecdotal books and articles which neither engagedongoing historical debatesnor addressedarger theoretical ssues.The onlyexceptionso this rule werebrief but highlysuggestivexcursions hich servedas the grounding or subsequent cholarlynquiry [King, 1957;Boorstin,1965;

BUSINESS/tNDECONOMICHISTORY, olumeTwenty-eight,o. 2, Winter 1999.Copyright 1999by the BusinessistoryConference.SSN 0894-6825



256 / A. tL SANDOVAL-STRAUSZ

Harris,1976].The past ewyears aveseen revived istoricalnterestn hotels,with full-lengtheffortsdevoted o their service s housingstock[Groth, 1994],

their importance o technologyBerger, 997],and their role in classormation[Brucken,1997].Thesemonographs re limited, however,by their thorough-goingfunctionalism, hich leads hem to define hotelsexclusively y one oranother particularuse to which they are put; moreover, he two most recenttreatmentselide the crucial first three decades f American hotel development.

The most fundamental uestion-Why he hotel?-remains ot only unan-swered, ut unaddressed.erhaps ecause otelsare everywheren the modernworld, their form and presence re takenfor granted ather han problematized.The existence f the hotel as a distinct nstitutional ype is not self-explanatory,

however;t needs o be accounted or, as does ts particularphysical nd socialcharacter.The now-standardorm of the hotel was the contingentproduct of

peoplewho lived n a particular ime, place,and culture:specifically,he citiesof the United Statesn the earlydecades f the republic.The hotel did not just

appear ully-formed-itwas he outcomeof a gradualprocess f developmentwhich wasby no meansa naturalor necessaryne; a proper accountof thisdevelopment ouldrequire ar more than a brief excursus.he purposeof thisarticle s to foregroundsuch an accountwith an explanationof why the menwho built or planned he first Americanhotelsdid so; and of how their and

their neighbors'valuesand imperativesshaped he characterof the emergentinstitution.The nation's irst hotelsappeared athersuddenly,with five separate

structures uilt or planned n five differentcitiesbetween1793and 1797.Thefact that a substantialnumber of Americanschose o invest heir money, efforts,

and hopes n a new and largelyuntestednstitutional orm reveals greatdealabouthow the riseof liberalcapitalism nd the contentious oliticalcultureofthe 1790s hapedhe built environment f the early epublic.

Defining the term hotel is necessarilyhe first task at hand.' While allwayfaring ultures avecreated heir own formsof institutionalizedospitali-ty, suchas the xenodochiumf the ancientMediterranean,he caravansarMfthe medieval slamic world, the Germanic GasthO•, nd the posadas f Spain

and Latin America, he hotel represented distinctivemode of public accom-modation,and the one which becamea globalstandardof sorts Pevsner, 976,p. 176;Groth, 1994,p. 38]. The hotel'suniquecharacterwasa function of itsphysical configuration and the social constructionof its interior space.Physically, otels were purpose-built,architecturally istinct structures om-bining privatequarters nd public rooms;socially,hey were reelyaccessible

to the nonmarginalizeditizenryand served s mportantdeliberative nd civicspaces hichwereconstitutivef a bourgeois ublicsphereHabermas, 962].

I Theword hotel ntered nglish sagen the 1760so refer o a superiorindof inn; he Frenchh6telwhencet camewas genericerm or a largepublicbuilding r nobleman'sesidenceO.E.D.,1989,p. 427].For he purposesf thisarticle, hotel s a heuristicevice hich onformsloselyo a specificvernacularrchitecturalormbut makes o claim o bright-line,ranshistoricaleterminacy.



WHY THE HOTEL? 257

The hotel as t developedn the United Statesdid havearchitectural recursorsin early modern Europe and particularly n late eighteenth-century ngland,

but these servedprincipally as extensions f the royal court, providing pri-vately-subscribedpacesor self-displayPevsner, 976,pp. 169-173;son, 1948,pp. 92-98]. Likewise,while a thriving public spherehad existed n American av-erns for at least a century before the creation of the hotel, the newer institu-

tion's imposingpresence n the urban scene-itsphysicalmass,splendidarchi-

tecture,elaborate nterior spaces, nd intenselypublic and mixed-gender ocia-bility-made it widelyand explicitly ecognized sa distinctcategory f publicspace by contemporary Americans and foreigners alike [Conroy, 1995;

Boorstin, 1965].

The cornerstone f the nation's irst hotel was aid on the Fourth of Julyof 1793 in a public ceremonywhich reportedlyattracted 1500 onlookers othe still-unbuiltFederalCity on the PotomacRiver.The plans or the UnionPublic Hotel delineateda building of three and a half stories,120 feet wideand 60 feet deep.The structurewasGeorgian,constructed f brick with stoneembellishment, nd incorporateda row of columns opped by a pediment.Internally, t would contain several ublic meetingrooms on the lower floors

and guest rooms on the upper stories. The whole, predicted onePhiladelphiaournalist, will form the most magnificentbuilding n America

[Atkins, 1981,pp. i-9]. The Union Public was a dramaticdeparture rom con-temporary American norms of public accommodation.The inns and tavernsof the day were humble establishments sually kept in convertedwoodendwelling-housesndistinguishablerom surroundinghabitations.The contrastis ably illustratedby the cost of the hotel, which at over $50,000 was ten times

greater han most public housesand four times more than even the nation's

finest nns [BostonRecords ommissioners,890;Wilson, 1892,pp. 150-151].The hotel was inancedby a nationally-advertised350,000 ottery,the grandprize of whichwas o be the completedhotel.The Union Publicwas or yearsrivaledonly by the two other significantbuildings n Washington: he WhiteHouse and the Capitol.

Even as t remainedunfinished, he hotel becameone of Washington's re-eminentcivic spaces. he large oomson the groundfloor wereregularlyusedfor public meetings.Notices in local newspapers ften named the hotel as agathering-place:n October 7, 1796, or example, esidentswere requestedomeet at the HOTEL...forhe purposeof draftinga petition to the Assembly fthe Stateof Maryland, o grant suchregulations s may tend to promote hepeaceand prosperity f the City of Washington Washingtonazette]. rticlesand advertisementsrom the 1790s onstantly sed he Union Publicasa pointof geographicaleference nd also ndicated he accretionof printers,publish-ers,andotherconcerns round he structureGazettef theUnited tates,3April1795;Washingtonazette,2 July 1796].A few years ater,the hotel housed henationalcapital's irst theaterperformancewhen 300 peoplepacked nto oneof the public rooms to see Columbus and Fortune'sFrolic [Arnebeck,1991].The building's ole as a placeof public deliberation ctually ranscend-



258 / A. K. SANDOVAL-STRAUSZ

ed its intended but never realized use as a hotel. The Union Public served for

some time as a post office, a function which was formalized in 1810 when the

federal governmentbought the structureand made it the national headquar-ters of the Postal Service [John, 1995, p. 65]. Moreover, after British forces

destroyed he Capitol in 1814, he United StatesCongresswas moved into sev-

eral of the hotel's arge public rooms, where it held sessionor more than a

year [Atkins,1981,pp. 9-12].The combinationof impressiverchitecture,argeassemblyooms,and, most importantly,a well-establishedatternof use as apublic forum, had made he nation's irst hotel buildinga partpar excellencefan emergentnational public sphere.

The Union Public was the first institution of its kind, begging he ques-

tion of where the idea of building such a structureoriginated.The hotel wasthe brainchild of SamuelBlodget,Jr., a New England merchant and financier

who conceived, rranged, nd executed he project after securinghimself hepost of supervisor f buildingsand improvements t Washington.Blodgethad

made a sizeable ortune in the East India trade and later been among the

foundersof the nation's irst capitalizednsurance orporation, nd his familyhad been involved n trade and transportation or at least two generations.

Blodget'sgrandfatherwas an innkeeperand a proprietor of the CharlesRiverBridge,his father establishedwo stagecoachines and a canal n Massachusetts

and New Hampshire, and Blodget himself promoted canal projects inPhiladelphiaand Washington SamuelBlodgetPapers]. he Blodgetswerekeen-ly awareof two key requirements f a domesticcommercialeconomy: acilities

for the efficient transportationof goodsand public accommodationsor thepeople who traveledwith those goods.Blodgetwasalso somethingof an archi-

tectural enthusiast.He had twice traveled to Europe and been stronglyimpressed y its architecture, articularly he elaborateGeorgianbuildingsofEngland'seighteenth-centuryrban renaissancejackson, 1931, pp. 301-302].This probably explainshis hiring of the Irish architectJamesHoban, who also

designedhe White House, o draft a plan for the hotel. Perhapsmost mpor-tantly,Blodgethad a very personal take n the futureof Washington: e owned500 acresof undeveloped and in the middle of the new city, making him one

of its largest eal estatespeculators;ndeed,a week after the city commission'sapprovalof the hotel project,he had increased is holdingsby purchasing n

estate n what would later becomeknown as Dupont Circle [Arkins,1981,p.3].

The architectural nd spatial orm of the Union PublicHotel wasemblem-atic of the commercially-orientedision of the merchantwho created t. In its

most basic unctionalsense,he hotel would provideaccommodationso trav-elersat a time when most travelwas trade-related;t was hus part of an inte-gratednational ransportation etworkwhich three generations f Blodgets adendeavoredo establish hrough their promotion of internal improvements.The hotel'spublic spaces lsoserved n economicpurpose,providingmeeting-places or a merchantclass ong accustomedo doing businessn public hous-

es (and particularlyBlodget's hosenbusiness f insurance-Lloyd'sf London



WHY THE HOTEL? 259

had, after all, originated n EdwardLloyd'scoffeehouse). he exaltedexternal

architecture f the structureserved he symbolicpurposeof glorifying he

activities ursuedwithin, and moreoverof inscribing pon the nationalcapi-tal's andscapehe importanceof commerce o the youngrepublic. n this con-nection, of course, the Union Public was also intended to have the more imme-

diate effect of raising he value of the surrounding and, therebymaking itsowners,Blodgetprominentamong hem, a tidy profit (notably, t was or thisapparentmpropriety hat Blodgetwasdismissedrom his federalob) [Jackson,1931,p. 303]. The nation's irst hotel, which had been advertised eavily nsuch eadingcommercial ewspaperss the Columbian entinel nd the Gazetteof theUnitedStates,may furthermorehaveservedas inspirationand model for

subsequent tructures, s hotel projectsweresoon undertakenelsewheren theUnited States.

In January of 1793, ten of New York City's leading merchants ormedthemselvesnto a committee o purchase he City Tavern, the finest publichouse n the city; and havingpaid the owner a consideration f œ6,000, hey

promptly demolished t. The motives of the New York Tontine Hotel &AssemblyRoomsAssociation, s the committeewas known, were made clearthat autumn, when its chairman announceda prize of twenty guineas or the

best design or a hotel to be built on the site of the old tavern [Stone,1872,

p. 320].The City Hotel, commencedn the openingmonthsof 1794,wasa redbrick building fronting 80 feet on Broadwayand extending 120 feet backtowardTemple Street o the west. t contained137 rooms-an extremely argenumberat a time when public housesmore commonlyhad betweensix andten-and stood five stories all, its main fa5ade eaturing orty-onewindows o

admit the morningsun [Evans,1952,pp. 382-384].By century's nd the hotelremainedone of the two most expensive rivately-ownedtructuresn NewYork City [Wilson, 1892,pp. 150-151].

The membersof the NYTHARA came from a wealthy,well-organized, nd

self-consciouslassof merchantsbound together hrough common economicactivities, ocialnetworks, nd political affiliations.All ten drew their personalincome from oceangoingrade, and half were scionsof the city's eadingmer-cantile clans. Most were members of the Chamber of Commerce, four were

directors of the Bank of the United States, and several sat on the boards of

other banks and insurance ompanies. hey were overwhelmingly ederalists,with several olding or havingrun for city, state,or federaloffice on the partyticket [N.Y. City Directory,1790-1794;Wilson, 1892,pp. 39, 75]. New York'smerchant elite identified strongly with the city, particularly insofar as they

could credit hemselvesor its improving ortunes: fter all, by century's nd,fully one-thirdof the overseasradeof the entireUnited States assedhroughNew York and was endedby their fleets,banks, xchanges,nd nsurance om-panies Burrowsand Wallace,1999, p. 334]. In a municipalitywhererepresen-tation had long beenapportionedon the basisof property ather han popu-lation, it wasby no meansa logicalstretch or its most prosperous usiness-men to assumehat they should ead n politicsaswell as trade.



260 A. K. SANDOVAL-STRAUSZ

New York'sFederalistmerchantprinceswerenot shyabout declaringheirfitness o govern,and while the party of Hamilton had entered he 1790swith

a political lock on the city, it was garneringa reputation or elitism and self-interest.The involvementof leading party men in rehabilitatingTories, main-

taining neutrality owardrepublicanFrance,and especiallyn precipitating hehugefinancialscandals f 1790-1792ed to the formationof a popularoppo-sition. Democratically-mindedraternalsocieties ursueda politics of explicitclassantagonism,warning that the city was threatenedby an overgrownmonied mportance nd the banefulgrowthof aristocratic eeds mongus;they also ook to the streetsn conscious mulationof the French acobins,holding regularparades f hundredsof radical epublicans. he Federalist lite

was appalled at such out-of-doorspopulism, complaining hat demagoguesalways ix their meetings at the hour of twelve in order to take in all the

Mechanics& Laborers--overhom they alonehave nfluenceand who in pub-lic meetings avea greatadvantage s they are not afraidof a black eyeor bro-ken head. The breakdown of social hierarchieswhich had begun in theRevolutionhad proceeded pace,and by the 1790s t was clear that even thecity's most eminent gentlemenno longer commanded he habitual deference

of the people [Burrowsand Wallace,1999, pp. 315-323].

The construction f the City Hotel was part of a collective esponse y

patrician New Yorkerswho mobilized their wealth to remakethe urban land-scapeby creatingan elegant,exclusive ocialspacewhich permittedboth sep-aration from the urban riffraff and easyaccesso their placesof work aroundWall Street.The merchantswho controlledmunicipalgovernmentn the late1780shad alreadybeautified owerBroadway, nd the City Hotel markeda fur-ther extension f the avenue's pulent character. he natureof the projectwasby no means ost on plebeian New Yorkersand their radical spokesmen, ne

of whom characterizedhe grand opening celebrationat the hotel as having

been attended particularlyby thosewho are attached o the ancientColonysystemof servility and adulation [New brk Journal, 25 February 1797]. The

Journal was perhaps ustified in its cynicism,since during the 1790smany of

the city'swealthiestamilieshad built hugemansions longBroadway.ndeed,this had not been the first time that the city's merchantelite had deployedgrand architecture o establishorder in New York. Only two yearsbefore the

start of constructionon the City Hotel, a group of five leading merchants,including two of the hotel's backers, ormed a committee n the aftermath of

the securities candal nd panic of 1792 [Stone,1872,pp. 318-319]. his com-

mittee constructedhe expensive nd impressive ontineCoffee House on WallStreet o imposedisciplineupon the chaoticstock radingof the day by mov-ing brokersoff the streetand into the re-established ew York Stock Exchange

inside he building. ustas this structurewas ntended o restore espectabilityand order to the city'smuch-malignedinancialmarkets, he City Hotel repre-sentedan effort to entrench he preeminence f the wealthyand powerfulonthe streetsof New York City.



WHY THE HOTEL? 261

Neither the motives of the hotel's creators nor the outcome of their efforts,

however,wasquite so simple.The Tontine Coffee House and the City Hotel

were alsokey elementsn a largereffort to prepareNew York City for a neweconomicage. The wealthy entrepreneurs f the Tontine associations ereengagedn a collective ndeavoro updatea commercialnfrastructurenher-ited from the recentmercantilistpast by creatingsuccessornstitutionsmoreappropriate o a rapidly-developingapitalistsystemof free trade and travel.The buildings'mposing rchitecture eanwhile ervedo celebrateheirvisionof a commercial uture for the still agrarian epublic.The City Hotel did rep-resentan elite effort at socialcontrol, though whether t actuallyserved hat

purpose s highly questionable. he political strengthand public presence f

New York'sradicalrepublicans ontinued o increase, ugmented ver thecourseof the 1790sby an influx of politicized migr6s,especially lacks romthe West Indies and FrenchJacobins, oined later by EnglishLevellers ndUnited rishmen.Notices n contemporaryewspaperseveal hat members frepublicanassociationsike the DemocraticSociety, he PatrioticRepublicanSawyers, nd the CaledonianSociety ncreasingly eld their public meetingsjust down Broadway rom the City Hotel in tavernswhich had themselves

begun to be referred o as hotels Quinn Hotel Collection, Folders1794-1800].Notwithstanding lite efforts o establish bulwarkagainst he canaille,

Broadway emained he city'spreeminent ocusof egalitarianpolitics.The first generation f hotels n the United States lso ncluded hreestruc-

tures that were planned, proposed,or designedbut which ultimately wentunbuilt. Their storiesneverthelessavemuch to sayabout the imperatives ndinspirationbehind he creationof a remarkably urableAmerican nstitution.The planningof Newport, Rhode sland's irst hotel suggestsow local mer-chants conceivedof the project as a way to extend the town's commercialprosperity n a new economicenvironmentwhile simultaneously quatingtheir businessnterestswith the generalwelfareof the community.Thanks tothe residual ffectof its royalprivileges ithin the colonialeconomy,Newportwas n 1790 still the seventh argestseaport n the United States; ut the dis-ruption of commerce ccasioned y the RevolutionaryWar and the destruc-tive force of recent stormshad left its trading links weakenedand its water-front a shambles Bayles,1891, p. 514]. In January 1795, the Rhode IslandGeneralAssemblygranted ncorporation o thirty-six Newport merchants-practically he town's entire mercantile eadership-andauthorized them toconducta lottery to raise$25,000 for rebuilding he Wharf in Newport, com-

monly called he Long-Wharf, nd for buildinga Hotel in the saidTown. Themerchants ledged hat once they had revived he port, they would use theprofits from the wharf and hotel to fund public schools n Newport [•lcts,1795].Having securedhe necessaryermissionrom the legislature,hey pub-licized the lottery with broadsides nd in Newport's eadingcommercialnews-paper; they held the drawing, collected he proceeds,and distributed heprizes he followingMay. The hotel, however,wasby all accounts uilt onlymany years ater, f at all [New?ortMercuty,5 September 795and 5 May 1796;



262 / A. K. SANDOVAL-STRAUSZ

Meeting Minutes of the Proprietorsof Long Wharf, 1800-1863].The mer-chantsof Newport apparentlyconsidered oth the wharf and the hotel vitalto the town'swelfare,not only as a matter of linked commercial nfrastructure,

but also in terms of the common good. The inclusion of both the wharf and

hotel in the sameapplicationsuggestshat the merchants elieved or at leastthought the state legislature ould be convinced) hat both structureswerenecessaryor the promotionof trade: he wharf to facilitate he movementofgoods, he hotel to accommodatehe peoplewho supervisedt. Meanwhile,the deliberate inkageof thesecommercialstructureswith the public benefitsof education was emblematic of the merchants'vision of a postcolonial

Newport. They imagineda community hat would devote ts resourceso the

pursuit of trade,which in turn would provide he materialbasis or an inte-gratedand harmonioussocialorder supporting he twin virtues of entrepre-neurial activity and informed civic participation.

CharlesBulfinch and BenjaminLatrobe, he two most important American

architects f the earlynationalperiod,both devoted heir efforts o hotel proj-ects early in their careers.Bulfinch's 1796 proposal for a hotel for Boston

inscribedcity merchants' rade and cultural inks with Europe and manifesteda view of the centralityof commerce o the nation's uture. Bulfinch was the

grandsonof CharlesApthorp, a merchantwho made his fortune in transat-

lantic commerceand who in the 1750swas reputed o be the wealthiestmanin Boston. t was n Apthorp's architecturalibrary that the young Bulfinchfirst encounterededitions of Palladio and Vitruvius, and the family's wealth

paid for a two-year our of England, France,and Italy which confirmed hiscareer imsand provided he aestheticnspiration or his designsKirker,1969,pp. 1-3]. In the yearsafter his return, Bulfinch undertook a number of proj-ects, ncluding a hotel; its sole remaining race is a notice in the Columbian

Centinel,he Bostonmercantilenewspaper hich threeyearsearlierhad carriedadvertisementsor Blodget's otel lottery. t read simply: A subscriptions fill-

ing for buildinga largeand elegantPublic HOTEL,or the accommodation fstrangers,rom a plan lately presented y CHARLESULFINCH,sq. Its cost isestimatedat œ21,000 ivided into 200 shares [14 eptember].Bulfinch'spro-

jectedbudget for the hotel was an enormoussum to spendon any structure,especially public house. ndeed, t far exceededhe initial cost estimateorthe MassachusettstateHouse,Bulfinch'snext project, or which the state eg-islature nitially allocatedonly œ8,000 Kirker,1969,pp. 101-108].Simplyput,in termsof the built landscape,he structurewhich representedommerce ndtravelwas o be much largerand finer than the one which represented emoc-

racy.Bulfinch'svision of a hotel for the city of Boston,much like Blodget'sfor Washington, ictated hat it would be one of the most magnificent uild-ings in the city and a fitting and explicitly public forum for greeting mpor-tant visitors o the community.At the same ime it would be a massive hysi-

cal monument o the importanceof commerce o the city of Boston.A hotel wasamong he first architectural rojectswhichBenjaminLatrobe

undertookafter emigrating rom England. n late 1797 he turned his attention



WHY THE HOTEL? 263

to designing grandpublic building or the Virginiastatecapitalat Richmond.Latrobeconceived single,architecturallyntegrated tructurewhich comprised

three distinct elements: theater, assembly ooms, and a hotel. The theateroccupiedhe centerof the building,with the hoteland assemblyooms n pavil-ions on either side.The hotel's nterior was elaborately ubdivided o include a

wide varietyof functionallydistinctspaces. he ground loor includeda sub-stantial oyer,a granddining hall, public parlors,sittingrooms,a coffee-room,and a bar.Upper floorshoused he guest ooms,aswell aswaiting ooms,sub-sidiary obbies, nd arge ront roomswhich, he plans ndicated, ouldbe hiredout for privateevents Latrobe,1797;Hamlin, 1955,pp. 117-120]. he largesizeand exalted architecture f the structurewere powerful expressionsf the

tremendousmportance f a site n whichso many ypesof publicspacewerecombinedand concentrated;his was not to be simply anotherpublic house,but rather he leadingpublic place n Richmond.As such t includeda numberof spaces hich characterized thrivingpublic sphere. he hotel'scoffee-roomand bar reproducedwo of the most characteristiceliberative paces f eigh-teenth-century nglo-American rban life, the coffeehouse nd the tavern. talso uxtaposedhem in sucha way as o suggesthe interconnectednessf thetwo primary usesof such spaces s Latrobehad known them in London andVirginia: or politicaldiscussionnd for the exchange f importantcommercial

intelligenceand other news. Latrobe sharedwith the other creatorsof theAmericanhotel a commitment o internal mprovements, s revealedby overtwo decades f activityendorsing nd constructing anals, ridges, nd water-ways,most notably n collaborationwith Albert Gallatin, he republic's eadingtransportation isionary Hamlin, 1955,pp. 55-68].The hotel projectcan thusbe understood s part of Latrobe's onceptionof the proper organization flocal and nationalspace n a growingcountry.

The first hotelswereartifacts f commercialepublicanism, hybridsocialtheory which servedas the enteringwedgeof liberal capitalismn American

culture. n the two decades fter the end of the RevolutionaryWar, the con-viction that the republic could only be preserved y a virtuous and self-suffi-cient citizenrywas ncreasingly hallenged y proponentsof a modified ideol-ogy which feared solationand backwardnessore than the contagionof OldWorld corruption.Commercial epublicanismhus turned away rom the anti-commercial nd evenautarkicprescriptionsf the Revolution,nstead ookingto trade,especially ith Europe, o provide he Americanpopulacewith prof-it incentiveswhich would compel hem to labor [McCoy, 1989,pp. 76-104].The imperatives hich animated he first hotel-builders erepart and parcelofthis tensionbetween epublicanism nd liberalism,wherein ies at leasta pre-liminaryanswero the fundamental uestion-Why he hotel?-posedn thisarticle.The merchantoriginsand entrepreneurialursuits f its creators ug-gest hat the hotel was first and foremostpart of a largervision of Americandevelopmentwhich saw an interconnected ystemof public improvements,transportation nnovations,and accommodationshat would bind the United

States ogetherand integrate hem into the internationaleconomy.The grand



264 A. K. SANDOVAL-STRAUSZ

architectureof the first hotel designs,meanwhile,made the new institutions

imposingmonuments o this vision of the future. In this sense, hesehotels

representedhe merchantelite'seffort to valorize he pursuitof trade throughthe deliberate crafting of the built environment-a particularly effectiveapproachat a time when largepartsof the nation'scitiesstill lay in ruins fromthe British occupationand when the merchantclasshad unrivaledaccessothe capital needed o build on a grand scale.Yet this vision was not without

internal conflicts between republicanismand liberalism which manifested

themselvesn behavior nd architecture.he creationof the hotel asa placeofpublic resortand a new architecture f liberalized rade was also markedbyolder republican raditionsof privilegeand hierarchy-whether n the form of

SamuelBlodget's cheme o make speculative rofits an emolumentof his gov-ernment office, the NYTHARA's opposition to egalitarianism n the citystreets, r the Newport merchants' fforts to make public enlightenment on-tingent upon their successful ursuit of trade. Indeed, these ensionswere also

expressedn the way the hotel builderschampioneda forward-lookingiberal

vision by deploying he architecturaldioms of classical ntiquity.This ideo-logical dissonanceoreshadowed truggles ver equality,citizenship,and civilrightswhich for well overa century o comewould characterize oth Americanlife and hotel space.For the hotel, like the Americannation itself,wasat once

a product of an ascendant iberalismand a contested errain on which theimplicationsand limits of that liberalismhad yet to be determined.

References

Arnebeck,B., Through Fiery Trial (Lanham, 1991).

Arkins, I., Blodget's Hotel, Federal City 1793-1836, at Massachusetts istoricalSociety.

Bayles, L, Historyof NewportCounty New York, 1891).

Berger,M. W., The Modern Hotel in America, 1829-1929 Ph.D. diss.,CaseWestern,1997).

Boorstin,D., The,4mericans:heNationalExperienceNew York, 1965).

BostonRecordsCommissioners, heUnitedStates irectTaxof 1798 Boston,1890).

Brown, D., InventingNew England Washington, 995).

Brucken,C. E., ConsumingLuxury:Hotels and the Riseof Middle-Class ublicSpace,1825-1860 Ph.D. diss.,GeorgeWashingtonUniversity,1997).

Burrows,E.G., and M. Wallace,GothamNew York, 1999).

Chauncey,G., GayNew ]$rk (New York, 1994).

Conroy, D. W., In PublicHousesChapel Hill, 1995).

Evans, M. tL, Knickerbocker Hotels and Restaurants, 1800-1850, Naw-•rk Historical

Society _uarter[y6 (1952).

Groth, P., Living Downtown: heHistoryof Residentialotelsn theUnitedStatesBerkeley,1994).

Habermas,J., TheStructural?ans•rmationof thePublicSphereDarmstadt, 1962, trans.Cambridge,1989).

Hamlin, T., BenjaminHenryLatrobeNew York, 1955).



WHY THE HOTEL? 265

Harris, N., Living With Lobbies, TheNew Republi•8 May 1976.

Ison, W., TheGeorgian uildings f Bath London, 1948).

Jackson, ., Encyclopediaf PhiladelphiaHarrisburg,1931).James,H., The,almericanceneNew York, 1907).

John, tL J., SpreadingheNews Cambridge,1995).

King, D. E., The First-ClassHotel and the Age of the Common Man, JournalofSouthern istory23 (1957).

Kirker, H., The,alrchitecturef Charles ulfinch Cambridge, 1969).

Koestenbaum,W., The Pink Hotel, LondonReviewof Books, April 1997.

Latrobe,B., •lrchitectural rawingsbra Theatre nd HotelBuilding Richmond, 1797).

Leach,W., Land of DesireNew York, 1993).

McCoy, D. tL, TheElusive epublicNew York, 1980).Pevsner,N., ?/History of Building •pes Princeton, 1976).

Spears, ., 100 •ars on theRoad New Haven, 1995).

Stone,W. L., Historyof New YorkCity (New York, 1872).

Wilson, J. G., TheMemorialHistoryof theCity of New York New York, 1897).

U.S. Bureauof the Census,Censusf Hotels Washington,1931).

•lctsof theRhodeslandGeneral•lssemb•yProvidence, 795).

SamuelBlodgetPapers,Massachusetts istorical Society.Columbian Centind.

Gazette f the UnitedStates.

Meetingsof the Proprietorsof Long Wharf, 1800-1863,Newport HistoricalSociety.

New York City Directories,New-YorkHistorical Society.

New York ournal,

NewportMercury.

Ox•rd English ictionary, olumeVII (Oxford, 1989).

Quinn Hotel Collection, New-YorkHistorical Society

Washington azette.

origem hotel

Documents