Electrical Power and Corporate Identity: PECO’s Delaware Generating Station


At the dawn of the 20th century, the Philadelphia Electric Company (PECO) embarked on an ambitious—and treacherous—plan to expand a market for their most intangible and misunderstood product, electricity. Although many Americans avidly followed the innovations in the electricity production and transmission fields in the late 19th century–the so-called power wars pitting Thomas Edison’s General Electric Company against George Westinghouse’s Westinghouse Electrical Manufacturing Company–most Americans had only the faintest idea as to what electricity was. As Thomas Hughes has pointed out, Americans conceptualized the science of electrical power transmission with the metaphors of water power: thus “flow” and “current.” But urban America had even less understanding as to the applications and advantages of electricity. Some municipalities had began replacing gas lamps with incandescent bulbs and thanks to Frank Sprague’s invention streetcars had jettisoned the horse and were employing electricity. But in the early part of the 20th century, only the very wealthy and progressive entertained ideas of wiring a house for electric light. And industry relied mainly on their on-site powerplants to provide steam generation to run direct shaft and belt-drive pulleys.




As the uses of electricity became increasingly defined in the early 20th century, PECO sought to simultaneously expand its electricity output in the region while marketing a variety of new uses for electricity. The Company had consolidated its control of the electrical industry, purchasing smaller local generators which supplied electricity for small markets such as street lighting. According to Nicholas Wainwright’s History of the Philadelphia Electric Company, 1881-1961, after bringing National Electric into their fold, the company purchased the Kensington Electric Company in 1901 and the Delaware County Electric Company in 1918. The Delaware County Electric Company had just completed construction of an inspiring generating station at Chester. With its towering redbrick Georgian facade with its white columns bathed in incandescent light, the structure reflected the new design philosophy that utilitarian structures join the pantheon of great civic buildings: government centers, railroad terminals, and courthouses.





Another prominent feature of the Chester station was its blazing incandescent sign proclaiming “Electricity is Cheap in Chester.” While this sign’s use of incandescent light not only emphasized electricity’s low cost, another sign appearing on a substation tied greater industrial use of electricity to regional prosperity. Located on the Crosby St. substation in Chester, the sign was the brainchild of a saavy PECO regional vice president, Albert R. Granger. “…With sales of electrical merchandise in sustained and rather satisfying volume,” Granger wrote in his memoir of service with the company, “the thought occurred to some of us that we should have an electric sign, with an appropriate slogan, on our new Crosby Street substation.” After a public contest, the motto “What Chester Makes, Makes Chester,” was emblazoned in lights in 1926. Mrs. Marin D. Garvey, originator of the motto, received two appropriate prizes a washing machine (worth $160) and a “modern vacuum cleaner,” according to Granger.




Beginning the late 1910s and accelerating in the 1920s, PECO began a dedicated campaign to increase the average electrical demand of middle-class homes. It widely advertised its home wiring “installment plan” where homeowners and even renters could engage PECO to wire parts of their home. As John R. Stilgoe writes in his Metropolitan Corridor, other electrical companies encouraged “housewives to consume more electricity in daytime hours” by distributing “nearly free clothes irons on hot summer days, when women sweltered next to the coal stoves warming oldfashioned cast-iron flatirons.” In spurring this greater demand, PECO soon saw the need for a host of new generating stations located close to Philadelphia’s booming industrial and teeming residential districts.




On land formerly occupied by the Neafie and Levy shipyard in Kensington PECO intended to construct a much needed station that would supply the region by November 1918. The Company tapped its longtime corporate architect, John T. Windrim, whose work with both PECO and the Bell Telephone Company established him as a skilled translator of corporate identity into structure. In the same vein as the Chester Generating Station, Windrim’s Beux-Arts neoclassical station, completed in 1920, seeks to emphasize the great civic importance of power generation; yet the structure also strains to suggest absolute permanence. Considering that average Americans and industrialists still considered electricity faddish, Windrim’s station stands as a type of eternal contract with the legions of would-be electricity users—his design whispers: “We will be there but will you?”




That the building’s chaste Beaux-Arts exterior and detailwork is cast in concrete reflects the sometimes conflicting forces: corporate image (often associated with sober rationality) and economy of construction which constantly buffeted the industrial architect. While some designers thought detail fussy and rejected “historicist” elements instead preferring a “machine” transparency where the internal workings of the place are immediately observable from the exterior, others like Windrim sought to tap into the great tradition of the inspirational publicness of important buildings. Devotees of the Beaux-Arts, City Beautiful movement maintained that buildings should reveal a sense of rank, that they self-consciously bespeak their importance to their city and their nation. Undergirding this concept is, of course, the unalloyed benevolence of the industrial corporation. Yet PECO was not profligate in its dissemination of a corporate image and as a corporation beholden to its stockholders. The company found itself in dire straits in 1918 and thus all of Windrim’s details are cast in concrete. Yet even concrete was the new medium of economy, efficiency, and scientific control.


For all its imputed importance, the Delaware Generating Station, which went online October 21, 1920, was—and is—a machine. Its consumption of coal (325 tons every hour moved by clamshell hoists), its belching smoke, the whir of its turbines, and the antiseptic cleanliness of its generator rooms not only made it one of the era’s most sophisticated structures, but made its image nearly synonymous with social progress. Windrim did not need to expend much to inculcate respect for the civic importance of the Delaware Station, for the building which turned gritty coal into light, heat, and savings of labor was certainly held in mystical reverence by its unknowing observers.


“Palazzos of Power: Generating Stations of the Philadelphia Electric Company, 1902-1926”

2.3.08 — As a postscript to this entry, I can’t neglect mentioning architectural historian Aaron Wunsch’s take on why Philadelphia’s Electric’s tidewater generating stations displayed a grandeur that Wunsch believes was unequaled in the country. At the Athenaeum of Philadelphia last week, Wunsch and photographer Joseph Elliot discussed the interiors, exteriors, symbolism and radical publicness of power generation in the early 20th century. Wunsch’s helpful addition came with his treatment of PECO’s construction program as a response to public revulsion at utility companies’ attempts to rate gouge customers. Pilloried by Morris L. Cooke, the ardent disciple of scientific management and Director of Public Works who urged municipal takeover of private utilities, PECO needed an instant makeover. Wunsch argues that engineers and architects worked in concert to create a cohesive classical aesthetic above the dirty fray of corrupt contentedness, a kind of architecture of irreprehensibility. Interpreting this ambitious architectural program as a kind of corporate response to a technocratic search for order is a welcome addition to the conversation about these buildings.




13 thoughts on “Electrical Power and Corporate Identity: PECO’s Delaware Generating Station

  1. I have often marveled at the scale of this building and its precarious perch on the bank of the Delaware. I’ve also always thought that it would make for the great site of a museum along the lines of London’s Tate Modern.

    Oh well… it will probably just get torn down whenever PECO decides it is useless.

  2. Windrim, thy name is great throughout our city. Good job, Mr. Ruin, another well-researched piece. Just wondering, though, how folks living during this time equated “belching smoke” with “social progress?” Possibly industrial might, but is this the same thing? Seems like an odd analogy…

  3. Excellent question my ocre-hued friend. Pre-EPA really no one had a problem with belching smoke; I would go so far as to say that smokey factories connoted economic health. Yet people rarely had to deal with smoke by the 1930s:

    “Very tall stacks created efficient drafts and elevated smoke and noxious fumes far over city streets. Unlike the stubby chimneys of industrial-zone factories…the jutting red brick power station chimneys, like the great steel funels of Atlantic liners, advertise the white-hot efficiency of the works inside the superstructure.” Stilgoe, Metropolitan Corridor, 122

    Electrical light that came from such strange smoke-belching structures meant, paradoxically, greater productivity AND savings of labor. It meant more mobility (trolley) and safer streets (goodbye gaslight); it meant that more got done for an industrialist and more time with the kids for a mother. Radio, too. I’d say that people roughly equated one with the other.

  4. Good comeback, but Cornplanter asks–would you say that since the Kinzua Dam was “pre-EPA,” it was also equated with progress? William Blake’s “Dark, satanic mills” also, I believe, predates the creation of the EPA. Just a thought, Mr. Radio II.

  5. By “pre-EPA” I meant that only for a finite time did Americans consider smoking factories to suggest a sort of consistent capitalist social advancment: more goods, more amenities, more jobs, etc.

    That smoking powerplants and silt clogged dams (providing electricity) meant “progress” does not deny they were environmentally deleterious. It’s an issue of image and collective meaning — and these are ever shifting.

    As for Blake’s mills, he’s asking for a reassessment of priorities in a lucre-mad England not an air particulate test. Unlike the mill hands of Manchester who had the fruits of their labor wrenched from them and considered the textile mill a brutal place, the powerplant seems to provide something useful for everyone. Zap.

  6. Also worth mention is the Richmond Generating Station in Philadelphia. It was completed in 1924 and is at least equal to Delaware in its beauty. The main turbine hall was designed after the Roman baths and its vaulted ceiling of concrete and glass is simply breath-takeing.

  7. hiving lived in NE Philly all my life( up to age 21) and worked at several facilities along the waterfront( including Richmond station). I love to read about these places . While working at Richmond Station, I made a number of pencil sketches(now lost), of several places e.g., the turbine hall. and some of the huge fans( whichit was my job to tend to). some of my sketches were quite comparable with photos I’ve seen, but were made in a greater number of places

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s