Rockland: A House Becomes a Home, a Center Heals

Rockland Mansion, the present home of the Psychoanalytic Center of Philadelphia and an exceptional example of a Federal style villa, was constructed in 1810 as a summer home for a wealthy Philadelphia merchant. In 1870, it passed to the City of Philadelphia for inclusion in Fairmount Park.

Rockland was used as a residence for city employees and as a headquarters for various organizations. Because it never experienced significant renovation, many of its original architectural features remained intact. However, it gradually fell into disuse and, vacant and decaying, was spotted by the Housing Committee of the Psychoanalytic Center, the newly constituted descendant of the Philadelphia Psychoanalytic Society and Institute and The Philadelphia Association for Psychoanalysis. The committee, after extensive search, had not located a suitable property, when they learned of a program to preserve the historically significant houses in the park, including Rockland, by leasing them for $1 to organizations that would restore and adapt them for use as permanent headquarters. They had the vision to see its potential, and became excited when it became feasible for the center to accumulate the funds necessary to restore the building.

Immediately, plans for Rockland became the focus of intense controversy, as old schisms that had been skillfully negotiated during the three-year reunification process gave way to new ones. Everything from the location, the cost, the building's appearance and size, and issues of security were hotly debated, and it looked as if the reunification itself was in jeopardy as the membership divided bitterly into a 60:40 split.

As anxiety rose on both sides, the officers and the majority pushed for and won final approval, again by 60:40. This fateful decision, while ultimately vindicating the vision of its proponents, created a crisis of morale in the short term, as the large minority felt they were not being heard, and as some expressed their displeasure destructively, both directly and indirectly.

The dissension gradually abated as all could see the beauty and utility of the building, now furnished beautifully through purchases and donations of period furniture, and as we settled in with a series of galas. Learning from the divisive process has enabled us to heal and to move on.

The major lesson we learned was the importance of achieving consensus. This enabled us to reconsider another controversial issue, that of university affiliation, so potentially divisive that it had been shelved for two years. An extensive process of discussion, conducted with transparency and the participation of all interested members, allowed the plans to be developed so that all of the potential problems were addressed and accommodated for in the plan, which then won overwhelming approval. This experience is now widely regarded in Philadelphia as a template for dealing with future controversies.