1

Identifying Histor ical Masonic

Temples in Michigan

Through Unique Architectural Stylization Despite Different Architectural Styles (1890-1930)

BY Br ian J. Shorkey PM

2

Abstract Before World War II and the technical innovations that allowed for mass produced houses and buildings, structures were built using architectural styles that reflected the popular fashions of their times. These included the Neoclassical, Romanesque, Gothic, and Italianate, which were popular at different times within the United States and carried over into Michigan. The Masonic Temples that were built during these times also display these same architectural styles. However, among historical structures in the State of Michigan, Masonic structures are unique. There is a series of architectural stylizations that are unique to Masonic structures in the State of Michigan. These stylizations appear consistently through a forty-year period from 1890 to 1930, regardless of the architectural style of the structure itself. This paper will demonstrate that several architectural stylizations, which in combination with each other are unique to Masonic structures, continuously appear, despite the changing architectural styles. These stylizations can be used as a diagnostic tool to identify historical Masonic Temples in the State of Michigan.

Introduction In 1764, a group of British military off icers in Detroit, all of whom were

Freemasons, were warranted by the Grand Lodge of New York to form a Masonic Lodge.

That Lodge was not just the first Lodge in the territory that would later become the state

of Michigan, but was the first American Lodge west of the Allegany Mountains 1. From

that small beginning, Freemasonry, or simply Masonry, continued to grow in the

Michigan territory, and later as the State of Michigan, as people continued to immigrate

into Michigan. Houses, courthouses, stores, and downtowns flourished throughout the

state during the 19th century, and people also built Masonic Temples.

Before World War II and the technical innovations that allowed for mass

produced houses and buildings, structures were built using architectural styles that

reflected the popular fashions of their times. These included the Neoclassical,

Romanesque, Gothic, and Italianate, which were popular at different times within the

United States and carried over into Michigan. The Masonic Temples that were built

during these times also display these same architectural styles. However, among

historical structures in the State of Michigan, Masonic structures are unique. There is a

series of architectural stylizations that are unique to Masonic structures in the State of

1 Information from the website of the Grand Lodge of Masons of the State of Michigan (www.gl-mi.org).

3

Michigan. These stylizations appear consistently through a forty-year period from 1890

to 1930, regardless of the architectural style of the structure itself.

This paper will demonstrate that several architectural stylizations, which in

combination with each other are unique to Masonic structures, continuously appear,

despite the changing architectural styles. These stylizations can be used as a diagnostic

tool to identify historical Masonic Temples in the State of Michigan.

Freemasonry: A Br ief Background

According to the Grand Lodge of Masons in the State of Michigan, Freemasonry,

or simply Masonry, is, “ . . . a preeminent organization for men of quality, regardless of

race, religion or creed, consistently delivering, by symbols, allegory and example, a

moral code founded on the highest standards of ethics, honesty and strength of character,

a fraternal organization committed to charity, true fellowship and brotherly love under

the Fatherhood of God; and a relevant organization dedicated to delighting, involving and

educating members and their families in the community, where the lodge is a vibrant,

respected and contributing part of community li fe.” 1According to a 2000 report from the

Michigan Grand Lodge off ices, Masonry in Michigan consists of 377 local Lodges with

approximately 58,000 members. Nationwide, Masonry and its appendent bodies, such as

the Shriners, the Scottish Rite, the Knights Templars, the Eastern Stars, and its youth

groups, donate approximately $2.4 milli on per day to charities throughout the United

States 2.

All of the local Lodges meet in a variety of different structures. Some of these

structures are historical and date from the turn of the 20th century; some have been built

very recently. Some of these structures are converted from other uses while some were

built by and for Masons. The whole collection of structures in Michigan, 318 in total,

can be divided into two groups: those that are historical in age and those that are not,

historical for this paper being defined as pre-1930.

This group can be divided again, into those structures that were not originally

built for a Masonic Lodge and were later adapted to Masonic purposes and those that

1 www.gl-mi.org 2 www.gl-mi.org

4

were originally built for Masons. That second group, historical Masonic structures, can

then be divided one more time. One group of these structures was designed to have the

meeting quarters on the second or third floor of the structure while retail existed on the

ground level. This is a common arrangement in downtown areas. The other group

consists of those structures that were built as stand alone Masonic structures, i.e., a

structure that is built i ndependent of other purposes and unconnected to other structures.

These are the structures that this paper is concerned with.

This paper specifically looks at seven Masonic buildings around that state. All

demonstrate the use of the characteristic stylizations. These seven structures were chosen

for their geographic distribution and their Masonic significance. They were chosen from

a list of respondents that responded to the author’s request for information in the fall of

1999 via a mailed out survey. Surveys were sent to all 377 Lodges in the state of

Michigan. There was a 67% response rate. The seven structures surveyed in this paper

were chosen from those returned surveys.

Other Masonic structures from the same era, such as the one in Dearborn, do

display the same characteristic stylizations. These stylizations can also be seen on former

similarly aged Masonic structures that are now used for other purposes. An example of

this is the former Ypsilanti Masonic Temple that now houses a community theater.

Stylizations Defined

A distinction needs to be drawn here between the words “stylization” and “style”.

A style is the overall exterior design of a structure and is composed of certain defining

characteristics, i.e., it is architecturally definable. Style is akin to fashion. A stylization

is simply a component of the structure that makes it unique. As an example, one style of

structure is the Italianate. One of the stylizations that makes the Italianate a unique style

are the bracketed cornices under the roof overhang.1

What makes the Masonic stylizations described in this paper noteworthy is that

they are not characteristics of the structures’ styles, but are characteristics of the Masons

themselves. It is as though the Masons, in constructing their structures, have projected

1 McClellan, Marshall , April , 1999, Class Lecture

5

their influences outward and made them solid manifestations to be seen on their

structures.

There are five unique stylizations that the author has identified that appear

indiscriminately on the architectural styles. Individually, there is nothing unique about

these stylizations. However, in Masonic structures are they found in combination with

each other, which is not commonly seen in other types of structures. Those characteristic

stylizations are an east-west orientation, the rectangular appearance of the structure, the

use of large blocks along the base, the incorporation of columns and/or pilasters, and the

use of brick on the exterior. Four of the stylizations are found on six of the seven

structures. The fifth one, the use of brick on the exterior, is found on all seven.

Most of the stylization of Masonic structures is derived from various themes

found from the ritual work of the Masons themselves. By ritual work is meant the

lectures that are given to candidates as they are brought through the first three degrees

that are necessary for full membership in a Masonic Lodge in Michigan. These lectures

generally serve to tell the mythological history of the Masonic order and, more

importantly, to convey certain moral truths through the use of symbolism related to the

medieval stonemason guilds.

One of the most pervasive themes of the Masonic ritual is the building of King

Solomon’s Temple, a biblical story that is used as a metaphor to encourage members to

“build their own moral . . . edifice”. Masons have taken this theme to heart and have

incorporated elements of King Solomon’s Temple into the construction of their own

structures. These include the east-west orientation, as King Solomon’s Temple is

supposed to have been oriented east-west. The east-west orientation also alludes to the

placement of the off icers within the Lodge room, with the Worshipful Master in the East

of the Lodge, and to the rising and setting of the sun.

It is the author’s contention that King Solomon’s Temple also influenced the use

of large, rectangular blocks and bricks in the external wall construction. A newly

initiated brother is told, in regards to King Solomon’s temple, that it was constructed of

blocks that were squared, hewn, and numbers at the quarries where they were raised. It

therefore makes sense that, if a Masonic structure was going to be modeled after King

6

Solomon’s Temple, that bricks and blocks that give the appearance of quarried stone

should be used.

In regards to the columns and pilasters, since Masonry has chosen to model

themselves after the stonemason craft, Freemasons have incorporated elements of

stonemasonry into their ritual. Part of this includes a description of the classical Greek

pill ars, the Doric, the Ionic, and the Corinthian. A large amount of space is devoted in

the early lectures about the Greek pill ars, which helps to explain their incorporation into

Masonic design.

Richardsonian Romanesque

In Virginia and Lee McAlester’s book A Field Guide to American Houses, the

Richardsonian Romanesque, dated roughly from 1880-1900, is identified by, “Round-

topped arches occurring over windows, porch supports, or entrance; masonry walls,

usually with rough-faced, squared stonework; most have towers witch are normally round

with conical roofs; façade usually asymmetrical” 1. This is an almost perfect description

of the Bay City Masonic Temple (Figure 1).

The Bay City structure is the oldest structure surveyed in this paper. Located in

downtown Bay City, it was built i n 1895. It is a registered Michigan Historic Landmark.

Originally built as to house the Bay City Valley of the Scottish Rite, it now houses two

Masonic Lodges2.

This structure closely matches the McAlesters’ description of a Romanesque

design, although it is lacking the tower. Except for the circular window on the second

story over the door, the windows all i nclude rounded arches, including the half-circle

window directly over the entryway. The exterior is indeed made of masonry, including

the rough-faced and squared stonework. Finally, the façade is asymmetrical.

The distinctive columns are noticeable. However, instead of being built i nto the

walls to look as though they are holding up part of the structure as they are in the Neo-

Classical structures, they are incorporated into the entry way and look as though they are

supporting the arch over the door. The columns have been arranged in such a way as to

1 McAlester, Virginia & Lee, A Field Guide to American Houses, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1984 2 Tomkinson, Donald L., December 1999, Survey Response

7

give the optical ill usion that they line the stairs leading up to the doors, yet they do not,

and are actually attached to the walls on either side of the doors.

The other Masonic stylizations that appear on the Bay City Masonic Temple are

the east-west orientation and the rectangular appearance. While the rectangular

appearance of the structure is noticeable in the other structures in this paper, this feature

is unique in Bay City because of its architectural style. Because it is Romanesque, unlike

every other structure addressed in this paper, this structure is asymmetrical. There is an

appendage on the south side of the façade, which is clearly seen in Figure 1. The

appendage runs along the entire side of the structure. The base is composed of a series of

brick pill ars and arches that run along the south side of the structure and beside the

sidewalk.

There are also several unique features of this structure that are not found

elsewhere. Missing from this structure are the large blocks at the base, the only one of

the five unique Masonic stylizations to be missing. Those large blocks have been

replaced by basement windows, which, although present in some of the other structures,

are not as prominent as they are in Bay City.

Neoclassical

The McAlesters identify the Neoclassical as being in favor in the years 1895-

1950. They say it is identifiable by, “Façade dominated by full -height porch with roof

supported by classical columns; columns typically have Ionic or Corinthian capitals;

façade shows symmetrically balanced windows and center door” 1. There are four

structures in this paper that fit that description; although they all l ack the full -height

porch, which is more common in Neoclassical houses than in public structures, their

columns are full -height. The first one is located in Manistee.

The Manistee Masonic Temple (Figure 2) was built i n 1909 and is located in the

Manistee Downtown District, which has been designated as a Historical District by the

State of Michigan2.

1 McAlester 2 Picardat, Dale L., December 1999, Survey Response

8

All diagnostics are evident, although somewhat individualized. The columns are

clearly seen between the windows, but they are not any of the classical Greek pill ars.

This structure incorporates pilasters instead of the classical Greek pill ars. Large blocks

make up the base of the structure, as well as mark a division between the top two-thirds

and bottom one-third of the structure. The exterior is constructed of red brick. Although

somewhat obscured in the picture, a post and lintel construction supporting a Greek

pediment surround the front entrance door. There is adornment around the top of the

structure, giving it a more ornamental look than it would otherwise have, but this

structure still maintains the stout, strong look that is typical of the structures surveyed.

Finally, the building displays the east-west orientation.

The next structure is the Flint Masonic Temple (Figure 3). It was built i n 1911

and is also located in the local downtown area. It is a Michigan Historic Landmark and

plays a very active role in the community with its hall rentals and the restaurant that runs

out of its dining room during lunchtime 1.

The Flint Temple is more typical of what one finds in a Masonic structure, and it

too displays all five of the unique stylizations. The structure is oriented east-west. A

pediment is located over the door on the inside of the post and lintel construction that

surrounds the doorway. This typifies the “straight line” look of the entire structure. The

big block façade covers the entire bottom half of the structure. The top half incorporates

the use of Ionic columns. The structure is blocky, with thick walls. From the side, it

almost has the look of a fortress rather than a meeting place, especially with the small

windows on the southern side. Ionic columns are incorporated on the front wall , as well

as on the front half of the structure on the south and the north.

One interesting feature of this structure is the difference in the window styles

between the top and bottom halves of the structure, with the windows on the bottom

being formed into arches while the windows on the top are rectangular in shape. This

happens to match with the change in building material on the exterior walls. The more

ornate rounded windows are used on the bottom half of the structure where the large

1 Gordon, Bill y C., December 1999, Survey Response

9

blocks are incorporated. The less ornamental rectangular windows are used on the top

half where the building material is small brick.

The stylization of the Flint structure is almost exactly the same as what one finds

in Battle Creek (Figure 4). The Battle Creek Masonic Temple was built i n 1913 and is

located in downtown Battle Creek, which is a Michigan Historic District 1.

There is not as much of the big block façade here, but it is still evident along the

base, as well as at the base of the columns on the top two-thirds of the structure. Two

pilasters, forming a frame around the doorway, support a pediment. Fluted Ionic columns

dominate the top two-thirds of the front, which are more ornamental than the plain Ionic

columns found in Flint. It displays distinctive straight lines and sharp corners. As with

the Flint Temple, this structure is very solidly built and displays the same rectangular

appearance. However, with the added artistic touches it features, the Battle Creek

structure does not exhibit the same somewhat plain look that the Flint Masonic Temple

exhibits.

The last example of Neoclassical architecture is the Grand Rapids Masonic

Temple (Figure 5), which was built i n 1913 and is a very unique building. It was the first

structure built i n the State of Michigan that was designed to house all of the major

Masonic appendent bodies, which includes the Scottish Rite, the York Rite, and the

Shriners. Today, in addition to the Grand Lodge off ices, this structure houses the Valley

of Grand Rapids Scottish Rite, the Grand Rapids York Rite bodies, the Michigan

Masonic Library and Museum, and six different Masonic Lodges. In terms of Masonic

activity, the Grand Rapids structure is second only to Detroit’s in usage 2.

Almost all of the diagnostic features thus far discussed are evident in the Grand

Rapids structure. Immediately evident from the above photograph are the six ionic

columns, flanked on each side by two pilasters, adorning the top half of the structure.

The front door is surrounded by a post and lintel structure supporting a Greek pediment.

The base of the building is supported by the typical large blocks that have been evident in

the previous Neoclassical examples. The exterior of the structure is brick.

1 Welcher, Bruce, December 1999, Survey Response

2 Durham, Robert C., December 1999, Survey Response

10

Ornamentation adorns the top, but the blocky, stout look is still maintained. The only

diagnostic that is not evident is the east-west orientation. This is the only structure of the

seven surveyed for this paper where the building and the Lodge rooms orient north-south.

The reason for the north-south orientation is simply a matter of convenience. In

conversation with Al Bryant, curator of the Michigan Masonic Library and Museum,

located on the ground floor of the Grand Rapids Temple, it was learned that financial

considerations prompted a remodeling in 1986. Prior to that year, the expenditure of the

various Masonic bodies was forcing the members to look at the possibilit y of leaving

their building. What they did instead of abandoning their building was move the Lodge

rooms to two smaller rooms on upper floors and redesign the former Lodge rooms into

off ice space. The rooms that are now the Lodge rooms were originally designed and built

as north-south facing rooms. Therefore, it was simply more convenient to reorient the

Lodges and symbolically refer to the north side of their rooms as east. Today, the off ice

space produces 70% of the necessary income for the upkeep of the building 1.

Two Special Cases: Detroit And Nashvill e

The previous structures are good examples of Masonic architecture. However,

none of them compare with the Detroit Masonic Temple. The Detroit Temple (Figure 6)

is a true gem of a building, the likes of which are not found anywhere else in the world.

Dedicated in 1926, the Detroit Temple is the largest Masonic Temple in the

world. To quote the Detroit Masonic Temple Association’s website, “Dedicated

November 25, 1926, this 1037 room, 14 story building is unique among Masonic

buildings because all of the various Masonic bodies are housed in the same structure.

There are some twelve milli on cubic feet of space, making it the largest and most

complex building of its kind in the world.” 2

The building is a Registered Historic Landmark and is located in the downtown

area. The middle section of the structure houses a 5,000-seat theatre. The stage of that

theatre is the second largest in the city of Detroit. The east end of the structure consists

1 Bryant, Al, July 2001, Interview 2 Detroit Masonic Temple Association website, www.gl-mi.org/lodges/detroit-mta

11

of the Moslem Temple Shrine, which houses the Moslem Temple Shriners. The tower on

the west end of the structure is called the ritual tower. This is due to the fact that the

Masonic ritual work is done there. The ritual tower contains seven Lodge rooms, as well

as the 1,600-seat Scottish Rite Cathedral theatre. The whole structure is 15 stories high

and contains 12 milli on square feet of space. 1

The McAlesters define the Gothic Revival’s identifying features as, “Steeply

pitched roof, usually with steep cross gables (roof normally side-gabled, less commonly

front-gabled or hipped; rarely flat with castellated parapet); gables commonly have

decorated vergeboards; wall surface extending into gable without break (eave or trim

normally lacking beneath gable); windows commonly extend into gables, frequently

having pointed-arch (Gothic) shape; one-story porch (either entry or full -width) usually

present, commonly supported by flattened Gothic arches” 2. Figure 6 shows most of the

Gothic Revival features that the McAlesters describe. The roof on top of the ritual tower

is steeply pitched, especially in comparison with the flat roofed Masonic building so far

examined. The vergeboards are more common to Gothic Revival residential structures,

and are absent from the Detroit Temple, but the walls extending up to the roof, the

windows extending into the gables, and the pointed arches are all evident. This makes

the Detroit Masonic Temple a Gothic Revival structure. It is the only Masonic structure

of this type that the author has seen.

Most of the diagnostics that are described in this paper are evident. The Detroit

Temple is oriented east-west and runs parallel to the east-west running Temple Avenue.

The exterior walls have all been constructed out of brick. The front exterior wall on

Temple Street shows the typical big block façade. Although the focus of this paper is on

the outside of the buildings, it is interesting to note that the use of the big blocks

continues within the structure. They found in the entrance lobby, in the theatre lobby,

and in the Scottish Rite theater, which also incorporates the Gothic arches that are found

on the exterior.

1 Johns, Edwin P., December 1999, Survey Response 2 McAlester

12

The ironic thing about the Detroit Masonic Temple is that, while most Masons in

the state of Michigan think of it as the epitome of Masonic structures, it is almost entirely

anomalous. As stated above, the unique stylizations of the large blocks, the brick

exterior, and the east-west building orientation are present. However, this structure is

lacking the stout appearance or the large columns. Although the east-west building

orientation is present, with the ritual tower in the west and the Shriners' section in the

east, the Detroit Temple is still unique because the main entrance door is not on the west

entrance. Instead, it is on the south side along Temple Avenue. Once inside, one enters

the lobby of the Scottish Rite Cathedral Theatre, which is oriented east-west, as is the

Cathedral Theatre itself. However, the Lodge rooms on the upper floors are oriented

north-south, only the second example of north-south oriented Lodge rooms of those

surveyed for this paper. These factors arguably make this supreme example of Masonic

architecture the most unique Masonic structure in the world.

The Detroit Masonic Temple is an example of what the resources of several

groups and several people over a wide geographical area can accomplish. However, most

of the time, the Masons of an area constructed a building without that kind of f inancial

clout available for the construction of the Detroit Temple and found themselves having to

construct a plainer structure. The last structure to be looked at in this is an example of

how a Masonic Temple was put together in an area that was not as far reaching,

geographically or financially.

The Nashvill e Masonic structure (Figure 7) was built i n 1928, which is the most

recent structure in this paper. It is located in downtown Nashvill e and is active in the

Nashvill e community by being open to various church groups and being available for hall

rental 1.

It displays a somewhat minimalist approach to design that is more typical of what

is found in small town Temples. Despite that, this structure is still i dentifiable as a

Masonic Temple. All five of the unique Masonic stylizations are identifiable in this

structure. One can delineate the straight lines and sharp corners, and the rectangular look

of the structure. The east-west orientation has been incorporated into this structure’s

1 Felzke, Gerald L., December 1999, Survey Response

13

construction. Post and lintel stylization exists around the doorway, and serves to divide

the bottom half of the structure from the top half. The pilasters and beams are merely

protrusions from the front of the structure, but the columns are alluded to just the same.

The exterior is made up of brick, and the large blocks, although not really prominent, do

exist and serve to form a foundation to the whole structure.

Conclusion

What this paper has shown is that Masonic structures are an identifiable class of

structures in the State of Michigan from the time period of 1890 to 1930. If, after

examining a structure, the majority of the five unique stylizations are found, it can be

reasonably assumed that one is looking at a Masonic structure. Those five unique

stylizations are an east-west orientation, the use of brick on the exterior, the stout, almost

fortress-like, appearance of the structure, the use of large blocks along the base, and the

incorporation of columns or pilasters. Structures displaying these stylizations are

identifiable as Masonic and this is independent of the style of the structure, for this paper

has demonstrated that these stylizations are found on Romanesque, Neoclassical, and

Gothic structures. It is the author’s belief that he has developed a diagnostic for

determining historic Masonic structures in the State of Michigan.

FIGURE 1

Bay City Masonic Temple, c. 1895, Author’s Collection

14

FIGURE 2

Manistee Masonic Temple, c. 1909, Author ’s Collection

FIGURE 3

Flint Masonic Temple, c. 1911, Author ’s Collection

15

FIGURE 4

Batt le Creek Masonic Temple, c. 1913, Author ’s Collection

FIGURE 5

Grand Rapids Masonic Temple, c. 1913, Author ’s Collection

16

FIGURE 6

Detroit Masonic Temple, c. 1926, Detroit Masonic Temple Association (www.gl.mi.org/lodges/detroit-

mta/index1.html)

FIGURE 7

Nashvill e Masonic Temple, c. 1928, Author ’s Collection

17

References

McAlester, Virginia & Lee, A Field Guide to American Houses, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1984. Grand Lodge of the State of Michigan, available from http://www.gl-mi.org; Internet. Detroit Masonic Temple Association, available from http://www.gl-mi.org/lodges/detroit-mta; Internet. McClellan, Marshall , April , 1999, Class Lecture. Tomkinson, Donald L., December 1999, Survey Response. Picardat, Dale L., December 1999, Survey Response. Gordon, Bill y C., December 1999, Survey Response.

Welcher, Bruce, December 1999, Survey Response. Durham, Robert C., December 1999, Survey Response. Johns, Edwin P., December 1999, Survey Response. Felzke, Gerald L., December 1999, Survey Response. Bryant, Al, July 2001, Personal interview by the author.