Reconfiguring Montcalm Farm: A Prototype for Preserving Rural Architecture by Michael H. Marsh

F F

F F J F F F F F F F G F F F

F F F F N F N F F F F F L M F L N F N F G F

RECONFIGURING MONTCALM FARM A PROTOTYPE FOR A NEW CROSS-DISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO PRESERVING RURAL ARCHITECTURE

Michael H. Marsh

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree Master of Science in Historic Preservation

Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation Columbia University May, 2012

CULTIVATORS OF THE EARTH ARE THE MOST VALUABLE CITIZENS. THEY ARE THE MOST VIGOROUS, THE MOST INDEPENDANT, THE MOST VIRTUOUS, AND THEY ARE TIED TO THEIR COUNTRY AND WEDDED TO ITS LIBERTY AND INTERESTS BY THE MOST LASTING BANDS.(1) -THOMAS JEFFERSON, 1785

[CONCURRENT TO CONSTRUCTION OF MONTCALM’S LOG CABIN AND PIGSTY]

I THINK IT WILL ALWAYS BE DIFFICULT TO BUILD; IT SHOULD BE DIFFICULT... WHETHER WE ARE MAKING A TINY HOUSE IN THE WOODS OR A GREAT CITY. OUR GRADUAL UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE ARE NOT REAL COLONISTS, WITH OUR HOME ELSEWHERE. OUR HOME IS HERE, AND WHAT WE BUILD WILL BE ITS PARTS. IT IS WORTH THE EFFORT TO TRY TO BUILD WELL.(2) -W.G. CLARK, 1991

ARCHITECTURE IS NOT ONLY A BYPRODUCT OF PREDICTIONS, BUT ARCHITECTURE ITSELF IS A PREDICTION MACHINE. ITS INHERENT SLOWNESS NECESSITATES A FARMER’S ALMANAC-LIKE FORECASTING OF ITS SITE’S FUTURE: FUTURE WEATHER, FUTURE SOCIETY, FUTURE POLITICS, FUTURE ECONOMICS, AND FUTURE ECOLOGIES, TO NAME A FEW.(3) -MASON WHITE, 2010

(1) (2) (3)

In a letter to John Jay. Boyd, Julian P., L. H. Butterfield, Charles T. Cullen, et.al. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1950. White, Mason, and Maya Przybylski. Bracket [On Farming]. Barcelona: Actar, 2010. Clark, W.G. “Replacement,” Modulus 20 University of Virginia, 1991

TABLE OF CONTENTS

RECONFIGURING MONTCALM FARM A PROTOTYPE FOR A NEW CROSS-DISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO PRESERVING RURAL ARCHITECTURE

CHAPTER 1:

THE THESIS CONCEPT 1 1 2 3 3 4 6 6 7 7 7

CHAPTER 2:

PRESERVATION AND THE ASSAULT OF SUBURBANIZATION THE THESIS CONCEPT ‘THE MASKED BUILDER STRIKES AGAIN’ INTRODUCING MONTCALM FARM THE THREE DISTINCT THREATS THREAT #1: IMMENSE DEVELOPMENT PRESSURE THREAT #2: ‘DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT’ THREAT #3: ‘ROOTLESS GENERATIONS’ A STRATEGY FOR REESTABLISHING MONTCALM’S IDENTITY GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF THE SITE ANALYSIS AND INTERVENTION PROPOSAL THE STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS

AN ANALYSIS OF THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF MONTCALM FARM 9 11 12 13 15 19 21 25 31 34 36

CHAPTER 3:

| | | | | | | | | | |

SETTLERS AND FRONTIERSMEN IN 18th CENTURY LOUDOUN: 1722-1800 THE ESTABLISHMENT OF VIRGINIA’S EARLY TOWNS: 1730s MONTCALM’S EARLIEST DWELLINGS: 1780-1860 THE YARDLEY TAYLOR MAP OF 1853 ‘TAINTED BY THE SECESSION EPIDEMIC’: 1861-1865 THE ‘MILK TRAIN’ AND THE WASHINGTON & OLD DOMINION RAILROAD: 1874-1951 ATTRACTING ‘WASHINGTONIANS TIRED OF THE SUMMER HEAT AND FEARFUL EPIDEMICS’ THREE CENTURIES OF OWNERS, RESIDENTS, MANAGERS, SLAVES, LABORERS AND TENANTS EVOLVING FROM DAIRY TO EQUESTRIAN FENCING ‘IN’ VERSUS FENCING ‘OUT’ RESISTING OBSOLESCENCE

AN ANALYSIS OF THE EXISTING PHYSICAL CONDITIONS OF MONTCALM FARM 37 39 41 44 47 47 49 51 53 55 59

| | | | | | | | | | |

MONTCALM’S CONTEXT AT THE REGIONAL SCALE THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT OF MONTCALM FARM THREE DISTINCT LAND USE TYPOLOGIES TOPOGRAPHY AND SOLID/VOID RELATIONSHIPS VIEWING MONTCALM FROM ‘AN APPROPRIATE DISTANCE’ THE HISTORIC CORE AND ITS FOUR DISTINCT CLUSTERS COMPLEX 1: THE ‘TELESCOPING-HOUSE’ COMPLEX 2: THE DAIRY BARN COMPLEX COMPLEX 3: THE AUTONOMOUS RESIDENCES COMPLEX 4: THE LOWER BARN COMPLEX THE BANK BARN

CHAPTER 4:

AN ANALYSIS OF THE EXISTING PROGRAMS OF MONTCALM FARM 65 65 67 67 69 72 73 75

CHAPTER 5:

FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT FARM OPERATIONS INTRODUCING THE CURRENT PROGRAMS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EXISTING ‘USERS’ AND ‘USES’ EXISTING MECHANICAL USES EXISTING LANDSCAPE-HOSTED USES EXISTING LIVESTOCK USES EXISTING STRUCTURE-HOSTED USES THE PRESENT DISTRIBUTION OF PROGRAMS

THE INN AT MIDDLETON PLACE: A CASE STUDY 79 80 82 84 84 84 85 89 90 92 92 94

CHAPTER 6:

| | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | | | | |

A PRECEDENT FOR THE FUTURE OF MONTCALM FARM HISTORY OF MIDDLETON PLACE ‘...UNTIL THE DAY OF FINAL DOOM’ INSUFFICIENT LIQUIDITY CONCEIVING OF THE ‘INN AT MIDDLETON PLACE’ SITING THE MODERN ARCHITECTURE EMBODYING ‘LOSS’ THROUGH THE MODERN INTERVENTION AMBIGUITY OF LANDSCAPE AND ARCHITECTURE THE ‘RITUAL OF HABITATION’ A STRATEGY FOR DISTRIBUTING THE MODERN PROGRAMS ALTERNATIVES TO TABULA-RASA AND ‘MODERN JUXTAPOSITION’ THE PROCESSION FROM MODERN INN TO HISTORIC CORE

PROPOSING A NEW PROGRAM FOR MONTCALM FARM 97 | 97 | 99 | 100 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 108 | 109 | 109 |

THE CONSEQUENCES OF ‘PROGRAMMATIC TABULA-RASA’ FROM COMMODITY TO SUBSISTENCE: US AGRICULTURE IN THE 21ST CENTURY ‘SLOW FOOD’ AND THE ‘LOCAVORE’ MOVEMENTS ‘AGRI-TOURISM’ THE ‘HISTORIC HOTELS OF AMERICA’ PROGRAM HYBRIDIZING THE ‘HISTORIC HOTEL’ AND ‘AGRI-TOURISM’ EXPERIENCES RECONFIGURING THE REVENUE/EXPENSE FLOW DIAGRAM APPROPRIATING MONTCALM’S FIVE PRESENTLY UNTAPPED RESOURCES DETAILING THE NEW ‘RURAL RESORT’ PROGRAM AND RECONFIGURING THE EXISTING PROGRAMS THE RURAL RESORT AS A PROGRAMMATIC AND SPATIAL ‘BRIDGE’ ESTABLISHING DESIGN CRITERIA FOR EACH OF THE NEW AND RECONFIGURED SUB-PROGRAMS

CHAPTER 7:

THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN 130 133 134 135 136 137

CHAPTER 8:

| | | | | |

THE PROPOSED DISTRIBUTION OF PROGRAMS AT THE SCALE OF THE PROPERTY THE DAIRY BARN COMPLEX PROPOSAL THE TELESCOPING-HOUSE COMPLEX PROPOSAL THE LOWER BARN COMPLEX PROPOSAL THE WOODS-BASED LODGING PROPOSAL ‘SILO DIAGRAM’ EVALUATION OF THE CUMULATIVE SITE PLAN PROPOSAL

THE BUILDING INTERVENTION PROPOSAL 139 139 139 141 142 143 145 163 165

CONCLUSION

168

ENDNOTES

169

BIBLIOGRAPHY

176

| | | | | | | | |

THE FALLACY OF THE ‘SACRED ARTIFACT’ ‘SHEARING LAYERS OF CHANGE’ THE VARYING LIFE-CYCLES OF THE BANK BARN’S ASSEMBLY COMPONENTS NATURAL SELECTION AND ADAPTATION RECONFIGURING THE ‘RITUAL OF HABITATION’ UNDERSTANDING THE INTERVENTION PROPOSAL AS A SEQUENCE OF TEN ITERATIVE STEPS DISTRIBUTING SIX ‘RURAL RESORT’ SUB-PROGRAMS THROUGHOUT THE LOWER BARN COMPLEX DETAILING THE PROPOSED CURTAIN WALL AND CLAPBOARD RAINSCREEN COMPONENTS A MODERN COUNTERPOINT TO MORTISE AND TENON JOINERY

CHAPTER 1

THE THESIS CONCEPT THE NEED FOR A NEW CROSS-DISPLINARY APPROACH TO PRESERVING RURAL ARCHITECTURE

PRESERVATION AND THE ASSAULT OF SUBURBANIZATION In the fifty years since Jane Jacobs wrote The Death and Life of Great American Cities, the Historic Preservation movement in the United States has grown exponentially in both the political and cultural realms. Under its methodology practitioners are trained to assess all built fabric through a largely black-and-white analysis of significance and authenticity. Those structures that are determined to meet strict significance-based evaluation criteria are generally considered to be within the scope of the preservationist’s work and those which do not are considered to be outside of this scope.

insignificant, but rather evaluated through a gradient based analysis of its potential value, with a wide range of appropriate intervention corollaries. Surely some vestiges of the past will warrant traditional ‘white-glove’ conservation approaches, but perhaps others would be better served by the removal of their burden as ‘sacred artifact.’ For surely the patina-covered walls of long-enduring vernacular and rural structures do not forfeit their inherent value a priori upon entering into new dialogues with modern programs and interventions. THE THESIS CONCEPT

This lack of gradient proves immensely problematic however when considering the vast quantity of vernacular and rural fabric that resists such tidy categorization. Humble structures where ‘George Washington did not sleep’ must therefore fend for themselves. In urban contexts this situation resolves itself, as sufficient economic incentive exists for the rehabilitation of older structures. However, in rural areas, this condition inevitably leads to either the demolition of historic fabric to make way for suburban development or the slow deterioration of abandoned buildings lacking program or financial incentive. To a large extent preservationists quantify the success of their field by the rate to which the inventory of buildings under their stewardship is increased. Unfortunately very little responsibility or training is instilled in these professionals for what must follow the designation process - proposing economically viable new uses for this ever-expanding volume of fabric. Furthermore, the exceedingly difficult task of how to appropriately alter existing structures to accommodate these new programs is traditionally viewed as someone-else’s job to propose, and the preservationist’s job to critique.

At its core, this thesis is an acknowledgment that peri-urban development will always take the most expedient form – most often total architectural and programmatic erasure - unless an alternative approach is demonstrated to be both economically feasible and programmatically desirable by its potential users. The thesis will argue that in rare cases, the architectural vestiges and programmatic legacy of a given site may inherently hold sufficient historic, social, cultural and/or spatial value so as to be worthy of assimilation and reconfiguration, rather than total replacement. The thesis is explicitly concerned with the vast quantity of rural and vernacular fabric at the periphery of urban and suburban sprawl, which falls outside of the traditional classification of historic structures as defined by the Secretary of the Interior’s ‘Standards’ and is consequently ineligible for state or federal funding, and therefore must ‘adapt or die.’ Rather than viewing such conditions as unfortunate impediments to the preservation process, the thesis seeks to leverage those very forces which threaten these historic properties as a catalyst for layering a renewed vitality upon such sites.

Unless preservationists are content to be increasingly marginalized as unprecedented degrees of change sweep through the world’s built fabric, they must expand their notions of what historic fabric can and should be - neither simplistically venerated as ‘sacred artifact’ or discarded as

Exploring a primarily obsolete former dairy farm located in northern Virginia as a case study for such conditions, the thesis will argue for an alternative approach to peri-urban development, which negotiates between the two extremes of tabula-rasa razing and embalmed ‘ghost town.’

0.1: (FIRST OF TWO PREVIOUS SPREADS) THE ONCE INFINITE SCALE OF PRODUCTIVE AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE UNITED STATES... Photograph. zacharayaders.com. August 2010. Web. 28 Mar. 2012. <http://www.zacharyaders.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/sprawl.jpg>.

0.2: (SECOND OF TWO PREVIOUS SPREADS) ...IS BECOMING INCREASINGLY THREATENED BY THE RELENTLESS CREEP OF SUBURBAN SPRAWL ALONG METROPOLITAN COMMUTING CORRIDORS. Howcheng. Satellite Image of Crops Growing in Kansas, USA. 2006. Photograph. Wikipedia. 8 May 2006. Web. 28 Mar. 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Crops_Kansas_AST_20010624.jpg>..

FIGURE 1.1

FIGURE 1.2

Recognizing that the ‘dignity’ of farmland has always been rooted in its self-sufficiency and productive vitality, a modern program will be proposed for the 225 acre property, which will seek to achieve the following: (A) revitalize the site while maintaining continuity and interaction with its five existing programs and (B) introduce a new ‘economic engine’ capable of generating sufficient income to support the continued viability of the property.

will be to empower preservationists as creative participants in shaping the future of the built fabric, rather than merely critics of proposals by others. ‘THE MASKED BUILDER STRIKES AGAIN’

Based on a thorough analysis of the historic context and physical conditions of the farmstead, the existing programs will be assessed, reconfigured and redistributed throughout the four complexes of the ‘historic core’ and its surrounding agricultural and forestal landscape.

In 1964 Victor Gruen - an Austrian-born architect who had gained notoriety in the United States as a pioneer in the design of shopping malls - published an ominous cartoon (Figure 1.1) in his book The Heart of Our Cities: The Urban Crisis: Diagnosis and Cure with the caption “The Masked Builder Strikes Again.”(1.1) Five years previously he had warned in an issue of Life magazine:

The thesis will therefore serve as a prototype for a new collaborative approach to preserving rural architecture, representing the symbiotic intersection of Preservation, Architecture and Real Estate. The global goal of the thesis

“If the good life of the future is not to degenerate into a vast traffic jam and a strangled complex of cities, there is urgent need for immediate urban, regional, statewide and nationwide master planning. The growth of the cities will

1.1: THE DESTRUCTIVE FORCES OF ‘TABULA RASA’ SUBURBAN DEVELOPMENT UNDERSCORED IN A CARTOON BY VICTOR GRUEN, PUBLISHED WITH THE CAPTION: “THE MASKED BUILDER STRIKES AGAIN.” IN THE HIS 1964 BOOK: THE HEART OF OUR CITIES: THE URBAN CRISIS: DIAGNOSIS AND CURE.

1.2: NEW SUBURBAN HOUSING NEAR SHENYANG INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT. Steinmetz, George. New Suburban Housing Near Shenyang International Airport. 2007. Photograph. Shenyang, Liaoning, China. George Steinmetz, Photographer. Web. 4 May 2012. <http://www.georgesteinmetz.com>.

FIGURE 1.3

not be an evil if we make them again a pleasant place to stroll, eat, shop, sightsee, enjoy cultural amenities, and live. Only then will our leisure time be worth living. Otherwise, we will spend our precious hard-earned leisure within our own four walls, cut off from society by the foes we have created: murderous traffic, smog, disorder, blight and ugliness. We will be trapped in our suburban or city homes, all dressed up with no place to go.”(1.2) With the publication of ‘The Masked Builder Strikes Again’ cartoon it appeared that Gruen was growing increasingly concerned by the relentless creep of suburbanization across formerly productive agricultural and rural landscapes. In the years following World War II the suburban population in the United States had exploded as returning veterans wishing to settle down with their new families increasingly fled urban centers en masse. By 1950 more people lived in suburbs than anywhere else in America.(1.3) Today this suburban paradigm has gone global and China is paving cul-de-sacs over formerly productive agricultural land at a faster pace than the United States has ever witnessed (Figure 1.2). However, even with the dramatic downturn in the US economy over the past five years, the suburban trend marches on unimpeded in America. To what degree does this condition affect the aging and obsolescent structures found on the traditional American farmstead? A closer look at a specific property in one of the fastest growing counties in the nation will seek to address this question. INTRODUCING MONTCALM FARM At the foot of the Short Hill mountain range of Loudoun County, Virginia, the 225 acres of Montcalm Farm spill out of the steep topography into lush fields and dense hardwoods. A rare vestige of rural America’s capacity to

1.3: A CIRCA 2006 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE WEATHERED HAND-PAINTED SIGN AT THE WESTERN ENTRY TO MONTCALM FARM.

evolve, the property was first settled in 1780 by Quaker pioneers. Its first log structures were built from woods that were cleared for farming. Two decades later more durable structures were assembled from stones that were painstakingly pulled from the land by hand. When Loudoun’s dairy industry emerged in 1870 the farm adapted and quickly became one of the top milk-producing herds of the county, with 48 cows milked by hand.(1.4) In the 1970s when the once booming dairy industry ended abruptly with commercial dairy consolidation the property adapted once again and reinvented itself as an equestrian facility. However, for the first time in nearly 250 years Montcalm Farm stands today with its future uncertain as three unique conditions threaten its continued viability. THE THREE DISTINCT THREATS Montcalm Farm serves as an appropriate case study for evaluating the future viability of America’s increasingly threatened historic farmsteads precisely because of the precarious position in which it now finds itself. Like all historic properties, Montcalm continually faces a host of potentially destructive forces. The severity of threats facing Montcalm however, suggest that the future longevity or failure of the property may serve as a bellwether for the countless remaining farmsteads like it. The distinct threats facing Montcalm include immense development pressure; the risk of unintentional ‘demolition by neglect;’ and an ever-increasing number of stakeholders who lack a visceral connection to the property. A detailed investigation of each of these threats will underscore the urgency with which Montcalm must either reestablish its relevance in a modern world or concede eventual defeat to market forces.

THREAT #1: IMMENSE DEVELOPMENT PRESSURE One of the last farms in the county to resist suburban development Montcalm faces immense development pressure, the likes of which much of rural America never sees. Loudoun County was the single fastest growing county in the nation from 2000-2004 and with its 40 minute proximity to Washington, DC has remained the fourth fastest growing county in the nation for the past decade.(1.5) Figure 1.4 below indicates the percentage change in population from April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2009 for every county in the contiguous United States according to data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau. As indicated, the number of counties that witnessed growth exceeding 30% during this decade remains relatively few. By contrast, Loudoun County has witnessed over 77.6% growth. To put this dubious achievement into perspective relative to the rest of the United States, consider that of 3,140

counties, Loudoun County’s growth has out-paced 99.9% of the United States. The estimated population of Loudoun in 2000 was 169,599 with an average population density of 328 people residing upon each of the county’s 516 square miles. By 2009 this number had exploded to 301,171, with a population density of 584.1 people per square mile. This condition has become all the more severe within the immediate context of Montcalm Farm. Purcellville, Virginia - the nearest town to Montcalm - has grown from a population of 3,584 in 2000 to 7,727 in 2010 - a nearly 115% increase. Compared to the U.S. average of 9.1% growth, the severity of development pressure can be clearly established.(1.6) If Montcalm Farm is to remain a viable property in the near future it clearly must discover a mechanism for generating sufficient revenue to pay its property taxes and minimal maintenance and operation expenses it will clearly follow the path of its countless neighboring farms, eventually caving to this immense development pressure.

THREAT #1:

IMMENSE DEVELOPMENT PRESSURE LOUDOUN COUNTY WITH ITS 77.6% GROWTH HAS REMAINED THE FOURTH FASTEST GROWING COUNTY IN THE NATION FOR THE PAST DECADE

PERCENT CHANGE IN POPULATION FOR U.S. COUNTIES: APRIL 1, 2000 TO JULY 1, 2009

1.4: THREAT #1: IMMENSE DEVELOPMENT PRESSURE. A 2009 U.S. CENSUS MAP INDICATING PERCENTAGE OF CHANGE IN POPULATION FOR ALL COUNTIES IN THE 48 CONTIGUOUS STATES. LOUDOUN COUNTY WAS THE SINGLE FASTEST GROWING COUNTY IN THE NATION FROM 2000-2004 AND WITH ITS POSITION ALONG THE WASHINGTON, DC COMMUTING CORRIDOR, HAS REMAINED THE FOURTH FASTEST GROWING COUNTY IN

FIGURE 1.4

THE NATION FOR THE PAST DECADE. THE 2009 U.S. CENSUS RECORDED AN ESTIMATED POPULATION FOR THE COUNTY OF 301,171 IN JULY 1, 2009 VERSUS AN ESTIMATED POPULATION OF 169,599 ON APRIL 1, 2000 - AN INCREASE OF 131,572, OR 77.6 PERCENT VERSUS THE COUNTRY’S AVERAGE OF 9.1%. THIS FIGURE REPRESENTS AN AVERAGE POPULATION DENSITY OF 584.1 PEOPLE RESIDING UPON EACH OF THE COUNTY’S 516 SQUARE MILES.

THREAT #2:

DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT

THREAT #2: DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT The second threat presently facing Montcalm Farm is related to the natural forces of decay which continually wage assault upon the longevity of all its structures. With the ma jority of Montcalm’s thirteen historic buildings out of use, most of these rural buildings are in a state of continual deterioration. Lack of programming for these structures inevitably results in the continual deferment of necessary maintenance and the progressive marginalization of the importance of the structure to the overall operations of the property. On those occasions in which individual structures are rehabilitated, their subsequent vacancy immediately ‘resets’ the deterioration cycle. Despite its owners’ best intentions, it remains clear that without the introduction of a modern program or ‘economic engine’ these structures will face continual risk of ‘demolition by neglect.’ THREAT #3: ‘ROOTLESS GENERATIONS’ A brief history of the farm‘s ownership over the past hundred years (see Figure 1.7) demonstrates the third threat to the continued viability of this property.

In 1911 Edgar Henry Hirst purchased the 344 acre dairy farm.(1.7) In 1919 the farm was handed down intact to his daughter, Helen Hirst Marsh. In 1972 two brothers inherited the farm in equal shares but one wished to sell his half. A compromise was reached resulting in a nearly 1/3 reduction in the acreage of the property, with a difference in capital value raised by John Marsh who became the sole owner of the now 225 acre farm. Today the farm is held in a trust by John Marsh and his five children as equal shareholders, but following this precedent of ‘division among heirs’ if any of these stakeholders wished to sell each would theoretically be entitled to approximately 45 acres of capital value. With the next generation largely present, such a precedent would lead to a division of the farm into roughly thirteen parcels of 18 acre lots and with the following generation roughly 26 parcels of 9 acre lots. Clearly, a strategy of ‘division among heirs’ quickly becomes unfeasible with regards to preservation efforts. If such a precedent is permitted to continue, the detrimental consequences of suburban development will effectively be realized whether or not the property is sold.

FIGURE 1.6

1.5: (OPPOSITE PAGE) A PRESENT-DAY DETAIL PHOTOGRAPH OF SEVERE DETERIORATION AT THE NORTH-EAST CORNER OF THE DAIRY BARN. THIS CONDITION IS INDICATIVE OF THE SECOND THREAT TO THE CONTINUED VIABILITY OF MONTCALM’S HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL FABRIC: DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT.

1.6: A PRESENT-DAY PHOTOGRAPH OF SEVERE DETERIORATION ALONG THE WEST FACADE OF THE CIRCA 1780 PITSTY. THE STRUCTURE HAS REMAINED UNOCCUPIED FOR MUC OF THE LAST CENTURY AND EVEN WITH ITS STRUCTURALLY REDUNDANT NOTCHED LOG STRUCTURE IS FACING A SEVERE RISK OF DEMOLITION DUE TO LACK OF MODERN PROGRAM.

Today three generations of the property’s owners remain committed to seeing the farm preserved. However, all recognize a serious impediment to maintaining the relevance of the property for future generations of stakeholders. Despite their personal relationship to the property, as of yet no capacity exists for establishing visceral ‘roots’ on the property for future generations, either as permanent residence or as ‘weekend getaway.’ A STRATEGY FOR REESTABLISHING MONTCALM’S IDENTITY It is perhaps self-evident that any viable strategy for revitalizing this property must directly combat each of these specific threats. It therefore follows that this new proposal must: (1) be capable of generating sufficient revenue so as to resist the immense development pressure continually undermining the property; (2) be appropriately distributed throughout the thirteen structures of the historic core so as to impart a new raison d'être upon the aging structures warranting continual investment in their maintenance and rehabilitation; and (3) offer an ever-growing number of stakeholders the ability to visit the farm for varying lengths of time, while putting those spaces to active use while they are not in occupancy by the owners. Rather than continuing its present defensive stance against these threats, the thesis will seek to leverage the very forces that threaten Montcalm’s continued relevance mainly its close proximity to Washington, DC - to introduce a new economic engine to the property. The remainder of this thesis will therefore offer a comprehensive and feasible proposal for perpetuating Montcalm Farm’s legacy of continually adapting to accommodate contemporary uses and programs. The thesis acknowledges that the damage inflicted by suburban development - which generally defaults to a tabula-rasa strategy - goes beyond the mere loss of physical fabric. Montcalm’s longstanding agricultural, forestal, tenant, and equestrian programs remain important contributors to the farm’s identity, and the proposal will therefore conceive of the newly proposed use as a programmatic ‘bridge’ which directly engages each of these existing programs. GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF INTERVENTION PROPOSAL

THE

SITE

ANALYSIS

AND

In describing his ‘Inn at Middleton Place’ project - one of the case studies researched for the thesis - architect W.G.

Clark stated: “Every site contains three places: the physical place with its earth, sunlight and view; a cultural place, the locus of the traditions of human intervention; and a spiritual place, or that which we would call an evocative presence, which stirs our imaginations and sends us in search of images, memories and analogues. These three aspects of place roughly correspond to body, mind and spirit.” (1.8) These three interpretative notions of ‘body,’ ‘mind,’ and ‘spirit’ will serve as guiding principles throughout the site analysis and intervention strategies. The thesis will therefore seek to view Montcalm Farm as a rich and multilayered collection of rituals, routines, and memories rather than merely the physical vestiges of an obsolete era. THE STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS The thesis is structured into three parts, roughly corresponding to the three research phases undertaken. The ANALYSIS phase of the first half includes: an in-depth historical analysis of the property and its surrounding context (Chapter 2); a physical analysis of the property from the regional-scale to the scale of one specific structure (Chapter 3); and an analysis of the existing ‘uses’ and ‘users’ of the property, including an investigation of its present financial condition. (Chapter 4). The second part of the thesis (Chapter 5) briefly departs from the analysis of the farm to investigate a detailed CASE STUDY of a similar historic property: the Middleton Place rice plantation, located near Charleston, SC. This precedent will be mined for its successful introduction of a modern ‘economic engine’ to a dilapidated historic landscape and the strategy it deployed for inserting modern structures into a historic context. The final third of the thesis will address the PROPOSAL phase. This section is organized by: a proposition for a new ‘Rural Resort’ program including the development of 44 new and reconfigured subprograms each established with a set of specific design criteria (Chapter 6); a site plan proposal for distributing these programs throughout the historic core and its surrounding context in order to more actively engage with the property (Chapter 7); and finally a detailed proposal for architecturally intervening with the Lower Barn Complex in order to accommodate six specific programs (Chapter 8).

THREAT #3:

‘ROOTLESS’ GENERATIONS 1911

344

EACH

344

EACH

225

EACH

ACRES

OWNER

EHH

1919

ACRES

OWNER

HHM

1972

ACRES

DHM

OWNER

JDM

2012

EACH

ACRES

EMG

SMB

DBM

JCM

MHM

± 2040

ACRES

OWNERS

± 2070

1.7: THREAT #3: ‘ROOTLESS’ GENERATIONS. A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE FARM’S OWNERSHIP BY THE HIRST/MARSH FAMILY FOR THE PAST 100 YEARS ILLUSTRATES THE INEVITABLE CONSEQUENCE OF FOLLOWING A PRECEDENT OF DIVISION AMONG HIERS. UNLESS FUTURE GENERATIONS ARE PROVIDED WITH A MECHANISM FOR DEVELOPING A VISCERAL RELATIONSHIP TO THE PROPERTY, PRESERVING THE PROPERTY AS A

OWNERS

ACRES

OWNERS

WHOLISTIC ENTITY BECOMES EXCEEDINGLY DIFFICULT OVER TIME.

CHAPTER 2

AN ANALYSIS OF THE HISTORIC CONTEXT OF MONTCALM FARM RESTORING LOUDOUN’S LEGACY AS A RURAL ESCAPE FROM THE URBAN CONDITION

A NOTE REGARDING LOUDOUN’S HISTORICAL RESOURCES Unlike the ma jority of counties in Virginia who have suffered severe losses of historical records due to fire and wars, Loudoun County has been fortunate to maintain continuous historical records from its establishment in 1757 to present. In order to thoroughly research the historical context of Montcalm Farm and its surrounding region, original archives were consulted at the Thomas Balch Library of History and Genealogy and the Archives Division of the Loudoun County Clerk of the Circuit Court’s office, which has archived original Deeds of Transfer for Montcalm Farm from 1795 to present. Additionally, the published works of Loudoun’s numerous historians - most notably researcher and mapmaker Eugene Scheel - have shed considerable light on the priorities and values of Loudoun’s earliest residents. Wherever possible, historical newspapers, US Census reports, historical society bulletins, property tax records, genealogical resources, and US Slave Schedules have been consulted to shed further light on the many residents and stakeholders of Montcalm Farm throughout its 250 year existence. SETTLERS AND FRONTIERSMEN IN 18th CENTURY LOUDOUN: 1722 - 1800 The region surrounding Montcalm Farm has been known as the ‘Loudoun Valley’ for the past 150 years due to its 10 to 12 mile wide expanse of arable farmland situated between the 835 foot high Catoctin Mountain to the east and the 2,000 foot high Blue Ridge Mountains - a range of the Appalachians - to the west. Prior to 1722, the Loudoun Valley was home to tribes of the Sioux Indians - roaming hunters known in the 17th and 18th centuries as the Manahoac. Most of Loudoun County was a hardwood forest during this time, and the Manahoac learned they could attract deer, elk, and buffalo by setting fire to portions of this wooded land to foster the growth of new grasslands. In addition to

2.1: (OPPOSITE PAGE) AN 1893 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF LOUDOUN COUNTY CREATED BY THE U.S. COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY. THE AREA OF MONTCALM FARM IS INDICATED, ‘SPILLING’ OUT OF THE SHORT HILL MOUNTAIN TO ITS NORTH.

providing food, the dried skins of the game they hunted were used in fabricating Loudoun’s earliest nomadic structures. Unlike their agrarian Algonqian neighbors to the east of the valley, the Manahoac would spend months away on hunting expeditions before returning home to reunite with their families and enjoy brief moments of leisure. Although not their intention, their methodology of burning hardwoods to generate hunting fields would eventually result in the Loudoun Valley offering some of the most fertile agricultural land of Virginia.(2.1) With the support of the governors of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New York, Virginia’s Governor Alexander Spotswood, a Lieutenant-Colonel in the British Army, realized that “the development of the Virginia colony would be impossible without the pacification of the hostile Indian tribes”(2.2) and in 1722 successfully implemented the Treaty of Albany, which prohibited Iroquois and the Virginia tributary Indians from crossing the Potomac or the Blue Ridge. With the relative security resulting from this treaty, a new land speculation market emerged throughout the region between 1719 and 1745. Among those who would benefit most bountifully from this opportunity was Thomas, the sixth Lord Fairfax, who had inherited Lord Culpeper’s ‘Northern Neck,’ representing a significant portion of a 5 million acre land holding granted by King Charles II to Culpeper and six other noblemen in 1649.(2.3) Typical land grants made between early settlers and the agents of Lord Fairfax ranged between 400 to 700 acres. As Eugene Scheel explains: “In Virginia, you were considered a planter if you owned 400 or more acres, a farmer if you owned fewer than 400. The Quakers owned as many large parcels as non-Quakers, but the Friends had few, if any, slaves... These migrants - especially the Quakers, who had to rely heavily on family labor - sought prime soils. Their surveyors knew that where forests of oak, walnut, and poplar grew, future agricultural yields would be high.”(2.4) The wooded acreage of Montcalm provided such an indication. Having arrived in Loudoun seeking more affordable farmland than could be acquired in the counties

1893

surrounding Philadelphia, these large Quaker families often numbered between seven to nine members and adhered to the Society of Friends faith, founded in England in 1647 by George Fox. They were referred to as ‘Quakers’ by Anglicans, Catholics, and Presbyterians due to their unusual method of dancing while ‘caught up by the Holy Spirit.’ Loudoun‘s farmers at this time typically planted corn, wheat, oats, barley and tobacco. Early settlers generally practiced the old-field/new-field system of crop rotation in which, as Scheel describes: “A landowner would have his slaves or tenants clear, say fifty acres, and then plant crops until soils lost their nutrients. Then the men cleared the next fifty - the “new field” - and again broke ground. The fallow “old field” would grow up in scrub trees and bushes, and after a few years would regain its nutrients. The cycle would continue... [However] by the 1770s... the Quakers were sowing clover to replenish nitrogen, manure to fertilize, and were rotating crops on a yearly or bi-yearly schedule. Others adopted these procedures.”(2.5) When the tobacco price dropped below a penny per pound in the following decade, Virginia farmers found it unprofitable to grow the crop, which would prove to be a felicitous development, since the tobacco crop was steadily stripping the land of its nutrients. With the ongoing famines in Europe, the demand for Virginia’s abundant wheat and corn harvests showed no signs of subsiding and Loudoun soon saw its land values soaring to new highs of about $20 per acre.(2.6) By the end of the eighteenth century, Loudoun Valley’s reputation as a productive agrarian region had begun to firmly take hold. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF VIRGINIA’S EARLY TOWNS: THE 1730s As Penelope M. Osbourn described in the first volume of the 1958 “Bulletin of the Loudoun County Historical Society: ”During the Eighteenth Century, towns in Virginia were established according to an Act of the Assembly passed in 1680... “for cohabitation and the encouragement of trade and manufacture.” Such an objective at that early date reveals these first Virginians for what they were: men of great purpose and vision, who had enormous faith in the future. While the greater part of Virginia was still a wilderness, they were planning for the development of towns.”(2.7)

One such town under development in the eighteenth century was the Town of Leesburg, located nine miles east of Montcalm. Following the Treaty of Albany, Lord Fairfax granted 4,054 acres - including land that would soon become Leesburg - to Francis Awbrey in 1731. Awbrey later sold the land to Nicholas Minor who divided his 60 acres into 70 lots to form the basis of a town. Leesburg’s central location within the county caught the attention of the British Colonial Council, who ordered the establishment of a county court house for the emerging town in 1757. The following year the Virginia General Assembly founded the town of Leesburg, which has continuously served as the county seat. Today Leesburg serves as a connective gateway between Washington, DC and western Loudoun, and as a corollary has seen enormous suburban growth along this ‘commuting corridor.’ Awbrey continued to acquire large amounts of land from Lord Fairfax in the early 1730s, including 4,000 acres surrounding Kittoctin [sic] Creek in 1731, the year after his purchase of the tract containing Leesburg. Approximately 10% of the Kittoctin tract comprised what would soon become Montcalm Farm. MONTCALM‘S NEIGHBOR, THE KETOCTIN BAPTIST CHURCH: 1777-1854 Included in Awbrey’s Kittoctin Creek tract was a small parcel of 19 acres located merely 850 feet from the south-west corner of Montcalm’s original property line, where a Baptist church would soon be constructed. Today the south fork of the Catoctin Creek continues to serve as the northern property line of the Ketoctin Baptist Church. This brick church was constructed in 1854 and is believed to be the fourth meeting house to occupy its site - the first of which was likely a humble log structure constructed about 1756, according to a report by the National Register of Historic Places. The existing Greek Revival-style church is flanked to its north and west sides by a cemetery containing graves of soldiers from both the Revolutionary and Civil Wars - the earliest of which date from 1777 - just three years prior to the construction of Montcalm’s earliest structures, located just across Allder School Road.(2.8) The very close proximity of the Ketoctin Baptist Church to Montcalm suggests that its historical records might offer particular insight into the values of Montcalm’s residents, at least two of whom - Harrison Osburn and his wife Lydia Jane, who will be discussed in greater detail subsequently - appear to have been members of the congregation and are buried in the Ketoctin cemetery. According to the National Register report:

“Members of the Ketoctin Church were hard working farmers and tradesmen who possessed modest land holdings. Like other Baptists and dissenters, they were not pleased with the established church. Pastor Marks is listed as an ardent patriot and he “...actively espoused the Revolutionary cause... [and] was strongly opposed to all the efforts of the British government to levy any kind of taxes on the colonies...” So intense did the patriotic sentiment become under the fostering zeal of Marks that nearly every man of military age in that section enlisted in the Continental Army.”(2.9)

“Tenements of log and frame face north-south to catch summer breezes and north light - the best light for handwork and reading. Most houses measure at least 16 by 20 feet, prescribed by 1713 Virginia law, and have a stone end chimney. The typical domicile is one-and-one-half stories in height with two rooms and a loft. They will be constantly added to. The two-story brick or stone house does not arrive in any number until the 1790s. The style of all the aforementioned houses is termed vernacular - home grown without European architectural antecedents.”(2.12)

Many years later, in an “era when a President sat down at his desk and answered his mail by hand,”(2.10) Thomas Jefferson responded to a letter from the Ketoctin Baptist Association, who had written him to express gratitude for his Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom and his tenure as president. On October 18, 1808, Jefferson addressed a letter to Montcalm Farm’s immediate neighbor, replying:

It is interesting to note that Montcalm’s own circa 1780 ‘Log Cabin’ appears to closely adhere to these prescribed specifications. The four residential structures of the ‘Telescoping-House Complex’ - which will be discussed in greater detail in the Physical Analysis of Chapter 3 - are built contiguously along a precise east-west axis maximizing exposure to northern light for the interior of all four structures. Consistent with the typical dwellings of this region and vintage, each includes a generously-scaled stone end chimney, sufficient for heating the porous interiors in the cold Virginia winters. The Log Cabin measures 17’ by 14’ indicating that Montcalm‘s earliest settlers were either more frugal, or less affluent than the typical Loudoun settler that Scheel describes.

“Nothing has been spared on our part to preserve the peace of our country, during this distempered state of the world, and the difficulties which invol ve it are now at their ultimate term, and what will be their issue, time alone will disclose.”(2.11) As time would soon tell, the difficulties confronting the ‘peace of our country’ would soon become far more severe, and in many ways Loudoun County would find itself situated upon the frontlines of the ‘distempered state of the world.’ MONTCALM’S EARLIEST DWELLINGS: 1780-1860 Historical records in Loudoun often refer to the county’s early residential structures as ‘tenements.’ As Scheel explains:

The circa 1800 ‘Stone Kitchen’ measures 26’ by 18’, and - as its name suggests - was constructed of local stones hand-pulled from the surrounding fields in the process of making them suitable for farming. With the addition of the ‘Stone Kitchen,’ the family’s residential complex was nearly tripled to a cumulative area of 706 square feet as compared to the 240 square foot interior of the original log cabin. Around 1820, the next addition to Montcalm’s residential complex was constructed, now known as the ‘Main House.’‘

FIGURE 2.2

FIGURE 2.3

2.2: A CIRCA 1981 WEST FACING PHOTOGRAPH FOUR CONTIGUOUS STRUCTURES OF THE TELESCOPING-HOUSE COMPLEX WITH THE CIRCA 1780 LOG-CABIN IN THE FOREGROUND. Untitled, Montcalm Farm, Purcellville, VA. Personal photograph of owner John Marsh, circa 1981.

2.3: A CIRCA 1945 SOUTH-EAST FACING INSURANCE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE ‘MAIN HOUSE’ AND ‘BALLROOM’ ADDITION STRUCTURES OF THE TELESCOPING-HOUSE COMPLEX. Untitled, Montcalm Farm, Purcellville, VA. A.N. Adams & Son General Insurance.

This new three-bay structure was also constructed of local stone, which would be covered with stucco at an unknown later date. With two full storeys and a footprint of 35’ by 32’, the ‘Main House’ added 2,200 square feet of living space - resulting in a complex over four times the size of the previous iteration, and nearly 12 times the area of the original log cabin. About 40 years later the final addition to the ‘Telescoping House Complex’ was constructed - a three-bay, lumber-framed addition nearly matching the ‘Main House’ in volume and massing. However, in contrast to the previous dwellings, the ‘Ballroom’ addition marks a distinct departure from Montcalm‘s tradition of building only from materials local to its immediate context. In addition to the decorative embellishments of the paired scroll eaves brackets of its front porch and single-bay Victorian frame woodwork of its rear porch, the interior of the ‘Ballroom’ features a black marble mantel and an elaborate parlor stair with turned balusters and newel post and decorative scroll brackets. The ‘Ballroom’ function for which it is named further underscores the increased affluence and worldliness of its residents, standing in stark contrast to the frugality and simplicity demonstrated by the well-crafted but discreet original Log Cabin. THE YARDLEY TAYLOR MAP OF 1853 Between 1852 and 1853, a local surveyor by the name of Yardley Taylor drafted the first detailed map of any part of northern Virginia. The 36 inch by 51 inch linen-printed “Map of Loudoun County, Virginia, from Actual Surveys” (Figure 2.4) was offered for sale to Loudoun’s residents at a purchase price of $2 - twice the average daily wage of the time. Accompanying the map was a 28-page booklet titled “Memoir of Loudon [sic] County” which detailed the demographics, agriculture, geology and geography of the 525 square mile county.(2.13)

Montcalm Farm however is the additional information it provides as a result of the surveyor’s entrepreneurial spirit. According to several oral history interviews that local historian Eugene Scheel conducted with the oldest residents of the nearby town of Purcellville, Taylor requested $1 from each homeowner or resident of Loudoun in order to have their name included on the map. Further evidence of this ‘inclusion fee’ is demonstrated, as Scheel argues, by the comparatively thin distribution of houses shown in the eastern portion of the county, which due to its closer proximity to Washington, DC would likely have had far more residences than western Loudoun.(2.15) As seen in Figure 2.1 the acreage of Montcalm Farm is shown ‘spilling’ out of the steep Short Hill mountain to the north. J.M. Kilgour, the resident and owner of Montcalm at the time Taylor’s map was drafted apparently paid the $1 inclusion fee and is therefore indicated next to the dot indicating the location of the ‘Telescoping-House Complex’ the first three phases of which were extant. As will be discussed subsequently, Kilgour was one of several heirs to a considerable fortune amassed by his grandfather James McIlhany, who in addition to other land holdings acquired over 9,000 acres around Short Hill between 1775 and 1804. A significant portion of this land consisted of the Kittoctin Creek acreage, purchased directly from Francis Awbrey.(2.16) In addition to locating 77 water-powered mills throughout the county, Taylor gave the denomination for each house of worship. He identified churches as “Meeting Houses” due to his own Quaker faith. Just to the south-west of Montcalm, Taylor therefore identified the Ketoctin Baptist Church with the acronym ‘BMH’ (Baptist Meeting House). Loudoun County‘s bourgeoning agricultural identity is emphasized by carefully drawn stalks of wheat, grazing cattle, and corn stalks depicted along the perimeter of the map. Discussing the fertility of the Loudoun Valley’s soil in the “Memoir,” Taylor concluded:

In the “Memoir”, Taylor explained his motivation and method for creating the map, stating: “there being no Map of the County, from which materials could be used in constructing a new one, it was obviously necessary to make a survey of the whole county, before a correct map could be drawn. With these facts before him, the compiler determined to make a personal survey of all the leading roads in the county. Accordingly a viameter was attached to his buggy, and in this way with his surveyor‘s compass, he took the courses and distances of all the principal roads of the county, as well as of many of less note.”(2.14)

“In the valley between the Catoctin Mountain and the Blue Ridge the soil is formed by gneiss, clay slate, horneblende, and their combinations, interspersed with quartz... From an examination of these ingredients, and a comparison with the analysis of what are termed good grain growing soils, we might reasonably conclude that their decomposition would form a good soil. That such is the fact the census tables abundantly prove... In agricultural wealth, and in amount of taxation, this county stands foremost in the State, though its area is not above an average, while that of many others is larger.”(2.17)

What is most interesting about Taylor’s map as it relates to

In addition to agricultural yields, Taylor described the

1853 FIGURE 2.4

emerging livestock and dairy industries of Loudoun, stating: “From the census table, it will be perceived, that every acre of improved land produces, on an average, nearly 7 bushels of the various kinds of grain cultivated here; and every field of 32 acres, yields 220 bushels of grain, besides pasturing and producing fodder for 1 horse, 1 cow, 2 1/2 other cattle, 3 sheep and 4 hogs annually. There are, probably, at least 10,000 head of beef cattle bought, grazed and sold, every year in this county. The yield of butter per cow would seem to be

2.4: THE FIRST DETAILED MAP REPRESENTING ANY PART OF THE VIRGINIA PIEDMONT REGION WAS SURVEYED AND DRAWN BY YARDLEY TAYLOR 1852-1853. THE 36”X51” MAP DEPICTED LOUDOUN COUNTY AS DOCUMENTED “FROM ACTUAL SURVEYS.”. THE MAP AND AN ACCOMPANYING 28 PAGE BOOKLET DETAILING THE COUNTY’S GEOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND AGRICULTURE COULD BE PURCHASED FOR $2

about 70 pounds a year. This is under the average yield, in places where the dairy business is largely practised; and may be accounted for, by the farmers here, being largely engaged in grazing cattle for market, instead of turning their attention to the products of the dairy. They provide the best of pasture for their beef cattle, while the milk cows are viewed as if of but secondary importance.”(2.18) The success of Yardley Taylor’s map is indicative of the increased sense of identity and pride that Loudoun residents collectively felt just before dawn of the Civil War.

(APPROXIMATELY TWICE THE AVERAGE DAILY WAGE OF THE TIME). TAYLOR’S MAP IDENTIFIED HUNDREDS OF PROPERTY OWNERS OR RESIDENTS WHO PAID A $1 SUBSCRIPTION FEE. THE MAIN HOUSE OF MONTCALM FARM IS INDICATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AT THAT TIME, J.M. KILGOUR, WHO PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN 1844. (MAP IMAGE FROM THE LOUDOUN OFFICE OF MAPPING)

‘TAINTED BY THE SECESSION EPIDEMIC:’ 1861-1865 Evidence of Loudoun County’s shifting political allegiances through history are revealed in the original plats of the nearby towns of Leesburg (10 miles east of Montcalm) and Middleburg (14 miles south). First established in 1758, Leesburg’s streets adopted names such as ‘Royal,’ ‘King,’ and ‘Cornwall,’ demonstrating a clear loyalty to England. Settled less than twenty years later in 1787, Middleburg by contrast adopted street names including ‘Liberty,’ ‘Washington,’ and ‘Independence.’ By 1861 the most severe schism in political allegiances that Virginia had yet seen was just around the corner. It was in this year that the town of ‘Union’ (10 miles south of Montcalm) “developed a sudden distaste for the word and changed it to Unison”(2.19) as Penelope Osbourn observed in the 1958 Bulletin of the Loudoun County Historical Society. On the eve of the Civil War, allegiances to either the Union or the Confederacy were being forged across the United States, but perhaps nowhere was the precision of this ‘battle line’ more finely drawn than in Loudoun County, Virginia - ‘where the South meets the North.’ As explained by John Divine et. al. of the Virginia Civil War Centennial Commission in the 1960s: “Due to the character of the early settlement [Loudoun] became a county divided in sentiment at the outbreak of the war. Planters of cavalier stock had pushed up from the Tidewater area of Virginia to establish large holdings in the southern part of the county; while the Germans and Quakers had come down from Pennsyl vania to take up small farms north and west of the Catoctin Mountains at the top of the county. Thus, at the time of secession, the eastern and southern sections were predominantly Southern in their views, while to the north and west the people were equally strong in their pro-Union sympathies.”(2.20)

Purcellville and both armies successively occupied Loudoun County. To prevent supplies from benefiting enemy forces, it was standard practice for both armies to confiscate or destroy the livestock, harvests or personal property of Loudoun’s farmers.(2.22) Writing from the Goose Creek Meeting House on October 30, 1862, a correspondence reporter for the New York Times identified only as “W.S” described Loudoun’s “canaan-like” agricultural abundance as compared to other parts of the country (Figure 2.5a), concluding: “Our army, therefore will be abundantly supplied during its stay.”(2.23) He also describes Loudoun’s demographics as of the 1850 US Census, which he lists as 15,066 free whites; 1,373 free colored; and 5,641 slaves. Published on the same page of the New York Times another reporter traveling with the Army of the Potomac - identified only as “J.” - described the area immediately surrounding Montcalm as (Figure 2.5b) “a most beautiful and romantis [sic] region. White farmhouses are seen on every hand, situated back some distance from the road, which winds through picturesque groves and over clear, sparkling brooks, which flow down from the mountain. On the right are seen the abrupt ”Short Hills”...” This description may specifically be referencing Montcalm’s main house, which is one of only a handful of white houses “situated back from the road... which flow down from the [Short Hill] mountain...” Underscoring the political tensions throughout the region, “J.” went on to explain (Figure 2.5c): “For the first few miles after leaving Berlin, the people are staunch Unionists; but on penetrating the country, the people are found to be tainted with the secession epidemic until reaching this vicinity, where, with the exception of Quakers, they are fairly rampant.” ...and still later (Figure 2.5d):

Among the Union sympathizers was the surveyor Yardley Taylor, who according to historian Eugene Scheel, “like most Quakers, was strongly opposed to slavery. A broadside in an 1857 poster... called him head of ”the Abolitionistclan [sic] in Loudoun County” and implied that he aided slaves in escaping to the north and Canada.”(2.21)

“Lovettsville, 2 1/2 miles from Berlin, is as thoroughly Union as any New-England village. The people manifesting the greatest joy at the entree of our troops. Among those who participated in the greeting to our soldiers was the venerable Mr. Johnson, over sixty years of age who had the courage to vote for Abraham Lincoln.”(2.24)

Prior to 1861 Loudoun had over 220,000 acres under cultivation with more valuable farmland than anywhere else in Virginia, but the next four years would prove devastating to its agricultural and dairy productivity. Skirmishes between Union and Confederate troops took place in the area surrounding the nearby town of

Fortunately for Loudoun farmers, the only ma jor battle of the Civil War fought in the vicinity was the Battle of Balls Bluff of 1861. As a result, economic activity returned to the region relatively quickly after the War’s end in 1865 as western Loudoun farmers enthusiastically returned to their wheat and dairy production.

2.5a: (NEXT PAGE) TRAVELLING WITH THE UNION POTOMAC ARMY AND WRITING FROM THE GOOSE CREEK MEETING HOUSE OF LOUDOUN COUNTY IN 1862, NEW YORK TIMES CIVIL WAR CORRESPONDENCE REPORTER “W.S.” DESCRIBED LOUDOUN’S “CANAAN-LIKE” AGRICULTURAL ABUNDENCE AS COMPARED TO OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTY. AFTER RECITING NUMEROUS STATISTICS RELATED TO LOUDOUN’S AGRICULTURAL

SUPREMACY HE CONCLUDES: “OUR ARMY, THEREFORE, WILL BE ABUNDENTLY SUPPLIED DURING ITS STAY.” “Our Potomac Army Correspondence” (1862, November 1). New York Times (1857-1922),p. 2. Retrieved April 5, 2012, from ProQuest Historical Newspapers New York Times (1851-2008) w/ Index (1851-1993).

FIGURE 2.5a

FIGURE 2.5b

FIGURE 2.5c

FIGURE 2.5d

2.5b: A REPORTER WITH THE INITIAL “J” DESCRIBED THE “MOST BEAUTIFUL AND ROMANTIC... WHITE FARMHOUSES... SITUATED BACK SOME DISTANCE FROM THE ROAD.” HIS REFERENCE TO THE “SHORT HILLS” INDICATES HE MAY HAVE BEEN SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBING MONTCALM’S MAIN HOUSE. 2.5c: HE LATER DESCRIBES THE AREA’S POLITICAL TENSIONS BY STATING THAT “WITH THE EXCEPTION OF QUAKERS” THE PEOPLE ARE “TAINTED BY

THE SECESSION EPIDEMIC” 2.5d: ...AND AGAIN LATER STATES: “MR. JOHNSON, OVER SIXTY YEARS OF AGE... HAD THE COURAGE TO VOTE FOR ABRAHAM LINCOLN.” “Our Potomac Army Correspondence” (1862, November 1). New York Times (1857-1922),p. 2. Retrieved April 5, 2012, from ProQuest Historical Newspapers New York Times (1851-2008) w/ Index (1851-1993).

TRANSPORTATION AND HOSPITALITY NETWORKS EMERGE Like most of rural America, Loudoun County made dramatic improvements to its transportation and infrastructure networks over the course of the twentieth century. The Valley’s “network of farmscape and woodland” as Scheel describes it, was bisected by the present-day State Route 7, which early deeds called the “great road” but was little more than a cow and horse path in 1795. In the nearby town of Purcellville, the first business of record opened in 1799 - a store and inn along the ‘great road.’ In 1804 a second ordinary was opened in Purcellville, indicating that semi-frequent travelers between Washington, DC to the east and Winchester, VA to the west were using the path and a modest market was emerging for short-term lodging. According to Scheel: “Guests of the Vickers and Taylors paid about 26 cents for breakfast or supper, and 36 cents for “Hot dinner with Cyder or Beer” or “One Gill [half pint] of rum made into punch.” The cheapest drink was...a shot of “Good whiskey”... about 5 cents. “Lodging in clean sheets,” cost 12 cents. “Pasturage twenty-four hours” cost two cents more. “Stableage and hay for twenty-four hours” set you back 28 cents.”(2.25) By 1841 travelers through Purcellville were arriving frequently enough to warrant Thomas J. Noland‘s establishment of a stage line service connecting Washington to Winchester via the town’s post office and store. “Stages left the capital Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays at 4am, and arrived at Winchester at 6pm. There were return trips the following days. The one-way fare was four dollars... Considering that the average daily wage was a dollar, only the wealthy could afford stages; the average man hitched rides with mail wagons.”(2.26) In 1958 Joseph V. Nichols recounted a childhood memory from the Thanksgiving holiday of 1878 in which he encountered the unusual spectacle of a ‘turkey drive’ on his family’s farm adjacent to Montcalm. The two men Nichols encountered had purchased a flock of over 600 turkeys from central West Virginia and were in the process of walking them north. The men explained that transporting the turkeys by foot “cost no more to get these birds to market... than it would to have them transported in wagons or sent on the railroads, and they arrived at their destination in much better condition when handled in this way.”(2.27) Recalling the encounter at the age of 80, Nichols suggested that the turkey drive he had witnessed was among the last of thousands of drives that had traveled through Loudoun throughout the 19th century, concluding:

2.6: IN 1926 THE VIRGINIA POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, DIVISION OF TOPOGRAPHY CREATED A MAP OF RURAL DELIVERY ROUTES FOR LOUDOUN COUNTY. MONTCALM FARM IS LOCATED AT THE JUNCTURE OF THE ROUND HILL ROUTE #1 (SIGNIFIED BY THE ‘R’ ANNOTATION) AND PURCELLVILLE ROUTE #1 (SIGNIFIED BY THE ‘PU’ ANNOTATION). (MAP IMAGE FROM THE LOUDOUN OFFICE OF MAPPING)

1926

FIGURE 2.6

“...such methods are now too slow for the modern world, and the leisurely methods of the past, with roadside conversations and the campfire stories have been crowded out of our lives by the mad rush and get-rich-quick spirit of our modern life. Personally, I look longingly back to the simple pleasures and unhurried life of the past.”(2.28) For more than half a century, the nearby town of Purcellville was known throughout the metropolitan Washington, DC area for its annual Bush Meeting ‘Revivals.’ The first gathering took place in 1876 in a wooded area just on the south side of the ‘great road’ As a rudimentary shelter for the “Temperance Picnic” stakes were driven into the ground and bushes were stacked upon them to provide shade. In 1878 to event was extended to a three-day duration with “plenty of good music, and plenty to eat for all.” Its organizers - The Good Templars of Loudoun County - endeavored to make the event a recurring “Grand Religious Temperance Demonstration.” Their ambitions would be realized and the ‘arbor’ was soon replaced with large tents. Admission was charged and the event was extended to a week in duration, with cottages made available on the grounds for lodging. Train excursions from Washington were offered to bring Washingtonians to the event, while others “rode or drove from points from hundreds of miles distant.”(2.29) An advertisement for the 1909 Bush Meeting offered: “ten days

1937 FIGURE 2.7

in the midst of nature’s choicest environments with an intellectual feast of music, art, and literature and a moral and spiritual atmosphere, pure and inspiring. Secure a tent, and try it - you’ll like it.”(2.30) By the Bush Meeting’s final year in 1931, a permanent ‘Tabernacle’ structure had been standing for five years with a seating capacity of 3,000 and notable speakers had included the evangelical minister Billy Sunday and William Jennings Bryan. Although the over fifty-year long legacy of the Bush Meetings offering a leisurely escape to city-weary Washingtonians, the Loudoun Valley had seen firsthand

2.7: THIS MAP OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY HIGHWAYS WAS FIRST CREATED IN 1932 AND REVISED IN 1937 BY THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, DIVISION OF SURVEYS AND PLANS. NOTE THAT CHURCHES AND SCHOOLS ARE INDICATED AS EITHER ‘WHITE’ OR ‘COLORED,’ INCLUDING THE ‘WHITES-ONLY’ CATOCTIN CHURCH LOCATED AT THE SOUTH-WEST CORNER OF THE FARM. (MAP IMAGE FROM THE

the economic benefits of catering to the emerging hospitality market. In 1926 the Virginia Post Office Department, Division of Topography created a map of rural delivery routes for Loudoun County. As Figure 2.6 demonstrates, these official roads had fully infiltrated what was a wilderness 200 years before. The 1937 ‘Map of Primary and Secondary Highways’ shown in Figure 2.7 indicates continued infrastructural upgrades. Lingering racial tensions from the Civil War era are evidenced by the map’s categorization of churches and schools by race affiliation.

LOUDOUN OFFICE OF MAPPING, BUT ORIGINAL IS LOCATED AT THE LOUDOUN COUNTY CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT ARCHIVES)

THE ‘MILK TRAIN’ AND THE WASHINGTON & OLD DOMINION RAILROAD: 1874-1951 Two years prior to the first Bush Meeting the most revolutionary transportation upgrade that the town of Purcellville had yet witnessed arrived at its doorstep. At Noon on March 31, 1874 the Washington and Ohio Railroad reached the newly constructed Purcellville ‘Depot’ to the cheers of a large crowd and the Philomont, Hamilton, and Leesburg Cornet Bands. The Mirror would later report of the event: “The running of the trains... has set the little village aglow with activity. The scene around the depot on Saturday reminded us of accounts we have read of towns and cities springing up, as it were, in a night.”(2.31) The vicinity surrounding Purcellville - including Montcalm Farm less than two miles north-west of the depot (Fig. 2.9) - was now directly connected to Washington, DC and further afield through its network of railroads. The precedent for Washington, DC’s westward stretching ‘commuting corridor’ had been established. With the arrival of the railroad, the center of Purcellville’s business district shifted from the area surrounding Purcell’s Store and Post Office, situated along the ‘great road’ to the area surrounding the train station to the north of town, which the Purcellville Preservation Association describes as a “bustling agri-business center.”(2.32) Adjacent to the depot a grain mill, a grain elevator, and a hardware store were constructed.

longer compete with “the vast farms of grain in the American Midwest - farms now cultivated by mechanized machinery ideally suited for flat lands.”(2.34) Loudoun’s farming therefore became more specialized in its dairy production. According to the 1880 US Agricultural Census, Loudoun produced more corn, butter, eggs, and wool than any other county in Virginia. It also raised sheep, cattle, horses, and milk cows in staggering numbers. As the Preservation Association describes: “On any morning at the turn of the century when milk was “king,” [the depot] would be crowded with farm wagons awaiting the “milk train”.”(2.35) The ‘milk train’ offered Loudoun’s dairy farmers the quickest and most economical method for getting their product to the Washington, DC market. Beginning at dawn the train picked up filled ‘milk cans’ (Fig. 2.8 and 2.10) and returned the empty cans in the evening. In 1903 the first ‘depot’ burned and was promptly replaced with the newly restored Purcellville Train Station (Fig. 2.8), which would remain the largest train station in Loudoun County. Much like the evidence of Loudoun’s race segregation demonstrated in Figure 2.7, the new train station included separate waiting areas for ‘whites’ and ‘coloreds.’(2.36)

But following the Civil War, Loudoun found that it could no

The intensity with which Virginia’s legislature sought to encourage farmers to specialize in dairy production in the early twentieth century can be understood by a booklet released by the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Immigration in 1915. In the propaganda-like pamphlet Ten Reasons Why a Dairy Farm in Virginia Pays Better than in Any Other State, opens with the argument: “Remarkable progress has been made in the last few years, and the State is rapidly developing into one of the foremost agricultural States of the Union. Among the many sources of revenue from the farm, the income from dairying has taken a

FIGURE 2.8

FIGURE 2.9

2.8: CIRCA 1923 PHOTO OF PURCELLVILLE RAILROAD STATION. NOTE THE MILK CONTAINER AWAITING THE ARRIVAL OF THE DAILY ‘MILK TRAIN’ INDICATED WITH THE ARROW, Courtesy of the Arlington Historical Society.

(APPROXIMATE LOCATION INDICATED). THE TRAIN DEPARTED PURCELLVILLE FOR ROSSLYN AT 6AM, NECESSITATING THE TWO MILE DAILY JOURNEY TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO THIS TIME. Gregg, Russell. Photograph. Purcellville, VA. Purcellville History. Paul McCray. Web. 31 Mar. 2012. <http://www.geocities.ws/purcellvillehistory/aerialphotos.htm>.

The reconfiguration of Purcellville’s economy with the advent of its railroad did not end at the town’s boundary, however, and as Scheel describes “It was the trains that made the town the market center of the Loudoun Valley and led to its latent incorporation in 1908.”(2.33)

2.9: CIRCA 1936 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH FROM THE WATERTOWER NEAR THE TRAIN STATION LOOKING WEST TOWARDS MONTCALM FARM

prominent place... Read these ten reasons for owning a Virginia farm... and say, is not life under these conditions as nearly ideal as one can hope for?”(2.37) Among the ten reasons, the pamphlet cited the state’s “unlimited and unexcelled markets” for the sale of dairy products. Arguing for the state’s ideal position within the context of the emerging US dairy market it argues: “In 1914, of twenty-nine cities located in all parts of the United States, the average price received for milk by the dairymen supplying the Richmond market was the highest, while Washington, D.C., came next. Five hundred dairies in the northern part of the State furnished a large portion of the milk sold in Washington... The market for creamery butter and cheese in Virginia, and the six States immediately south, is practically unlimited... Virginia’s geographical position and superior shipping facilities give her an ideal opportunity to supply this demand, or to dispose to great advantage of any surplus from her own farms and factories.”(2.38) The tenth reason for ‘why a dairy farm in Virginia pays better in Virginia’ was listed as ‘Expert Aid,’ with the pamphlet stating: “The Virginia Legislature has made special and liberal provision to foster and encourage the dairy industry of the State, and the Dairy and Food Division... is equipped to render valuable assistance to the dairymen of the State, also to aid dairymen in every possible way... without charge by anyone asking...” The pamphlet concludes with a bit of ‘southern charm’ stating: “If you have any doubts on the subject they can be easily solved by writing to Benj. L. Purcell, Dairy and Food Commissioner... Letters are a pleasure; correspondence is solicited. Virginia hospitality can be shown even through the mails.”(2.39)

likely attended the Farmer’s Institute lectures in Purcellville on January 17-18, 1906,(2.40) igniting his interest in dairy farming. Five years later he would acquire Montcalm Farm by public auction on April 27, 1911. Although it is unknown exactly when conversion to dairy production occurred on the property, according to butterfat statistics published monthly in The Blue Ridge Herald newspaper, Montcalm quickly became one of the top milk producing herds of the county, with 48 cows milked by hand.(2.41) ‘THE END OF THE RAIL’ In 1920 a cooperative marketing effort for dairy farmers throughout the region was established. The Maryland-Virginia Milk Producers’ Association sought to prevent competition from driving prices below a feasible level. They also lobbied for improved refrigeration in rail cars and a more regular rail schedule.(2.42) At this same time however Loudoun’s transportation infrastructure was undergoing significant upgrades, as previously discussed, and transportation of dairy products by road became more economical for Loudoun’s dairy farmers. As a corollary, increasing numbers of leisure-seekers from Washington, DC had acquired automobiles and the (now named) Washington & Old Dominion Railroad found that it could no longer turn a profit and suspended operation to Purcellville. The last passenger car on the railroad arrived at Purcellville Train Station on May 31, 1951 - a photograph of which is seen in Figure 2.11.

Montcalm Farm was no exception to this trend towards dairy specialization. Purcellville lumber merchant Edgar H. Hirst (who will be discussed in greater detail subsequently)

Today the easement associated with the W&OD has been converted to the Washington & Old Dominion Railroad Regional Park - a 45 mile long by 100’ wide park hosting a widely popular bike trail and bridle path, which culminates

FIGURE 2.10

FIGURE 2.11

2.10: THE W&OD MILK TRAIN, CIRCA 1920, Courtesy of the Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority

2.11: PHOTO OF THE LAST PASSENGER CAR ON THE W&OD RR - MAY 31, 1951, Courtesy of Robert Le Van and NVRPA.

at the Purcellville Train Station, delivering countless leisure-seeking Washingtonians to the ‘doorstep’ of Montcalm Farm, just two miles north west of the trail’s end point. This bourgeoning new market has resulted in the conversion of the adjacent Grain Mill into a successful restaurant and a revitalization of Purcellville’s economy. ATTRACTING ‘WASHINGTONIANS TIRED OF THE SUMMER HEAT AND FEARFUL EPIDEMICS’ With the 1874 arrival of the railroad, new economic opportunities became available within the Loudoun Valley’s previously undiversified economy. In addition to the success of the annual Bush Meeting events, as Scheel describes: “Plusses in the rural economy... for both town, village, and countryside, were vacationers coming out from Washington during the summer months. To escape the heat and threat of disease, families would take the railroad to Loudoun, and then

would be buggied to their boarding house. Working fathers would come out on weekends to join the family. This era lasted from about 1890 until 1920.”(2.43) Loudoun’s ‘Resort Era’ began in 1893, with its epicenter in the nearby town of Bluemont 8 miles west of Montcalm. As Henry G. Plaster describes: “Washington businessman Jules Demonet, helped by the cash outlay of William Lynn of Airmont built the Blue Ridge Inn at Bears Den Rocks, a classy Atlantic city miniature, guaranteed to attract Washingtonians tired of the summer heat and fearful epidemics.” (2.44) Following suit, a number of boarding houses and resorts around the Purcellville area began to open their doors to vacationing Washingtonians. In 1916 the W&OD Railroad released a marketing brochure (Fig. 2.13a-c) advertising excursions “to the Blue Ridge Mountains - an ideal trip to an ideal region. Two hours’ refreshing ride through a delightful country - for morning, afternoon and all-day trips - for excursionists, visitors and pleasure-seekers.”(2.45)

FIGURE 2.12

2.12: A CIRCA 1910 POSTCARD OF THE BLUE RIDGE INN. NEARBY BLUEMONT’S ‘RESORT ERA’ BEGAN IN 1893, WHEN: “WASHINGTON BUSINESSMAN JULES DEMONET, HELPED BY THE CASH OUTLAY OF WILLIAM LYNN OF AIRMONT BUILT THE BLUE RIDGE INN AT BEARS DEN ROCKS, A CLASSY ATLANTIC CITY MINIATURE, GUARANTEED TO ATTRACT WASHINGTONIANS TIRED OF THE SUMMER HEAT AND FEARFUL

EPIDEMICS.” - Henry G. Plaster, “Bluemont’s Historic E.E. Lake Store,” p.9 <http://www.bluemontva.org/media/pics/history/max/113%20-%20BlueRidg eInnpm1910%20-%201084.jpg>.

A LEGACY OF LEISURE Beginning with the return to the Loudoun Valley by the Sioux Indians after their months-long hunting excursions; continued with Purcellville’s earliest tavern and inn businesses and over fifty years of annual ‘Bush Meetings;’ continued further by

Loudoun’s establishment of summer resorts and boarding houses in the early twentieth century; and culminating with Purcellville’s present position at the end of the W&OD bicycle trail, clearly the area surrounding Montcalm Farm has maintained a long tradition of offering a leisurely alternative to the bustling urban condition of Washington, DC.

FIGURE 2.13a

FIGURE 2.13b

FIGURE 2.13c

2.13a-c: A CIRCA 1916 BOOKLET PUBLISHED BY THE WASHINGTON AND OLD DOMINION RAILWAY TO MARKET THEIR RAIL SERVICE TO TOWNS ALONG THE WESTERN PART OF THE RAILWAY. IN THE EARLY 1900s MANY CITY DWELLERS WOULD SEEK TO ESCAPE THE HUMIDITY AND FOUL AIR OF WASHINGTON, DC BY VACATIONING IN NEARBY WESTERN LOUDOUN. Courtesy of the Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority.

Purcellville History. Paul McCray. Web. 31 Mar. 2012. <http://www.geocities.ws/purcellvillehistory/wodrailroadresortbook.htm>.

GREGG’S OWNERSHIP.

MONTCALM THROUGHOUT

CECILIA McILHANY AND FRANCIS STRIBLING CONTINUE TO LIVE ON

NANCY McILHANY

FRANCIS AWBREY - A LAND SPECULATOR - PURCHASES LARGE TRACTS AROUND LOUDOUN COUNTY FROM THOMAS. MONTCALM WAS PART OF THE 4,000 ACRE (5,518 BY GIS) ACRE ‘KITTOCTIN CREEK’ GRANT OF 1731

ORPHANED AT AGE 4 WHEN FRANCIS DIED AND THEREFORE LIKELY LIVED AT “MONTCALM.”

B. FREDERICK CTY 1824; D. ? ____________________________

LIKELY LIVED IN ‘MAIN HOUSE’ OF MONTCALM FARM PRIOR TO ‘BALLROOM’ ADDITION

B. 1806; M. LEESBURG 1825 D. “MONTCALM” NOV 18, 1844 ____________________________

FRANCIS JAMES STRIBLING

B. “HOPEWELL” 1815, D. “MILTON HALL” 1840

B. 1822, D. “SUNNYSIDE” LOUDOUN 1862 M. 1842 DR. JAMES HEATON (B. “EXEDRA 1816)

CECILIA McILHANY STRIBLING

B. “ITHACA” 1820, D. IN INFANCY

ELIZABETH STRIBLING

B. “ITHACA” 1818, D. LOUDOUNVILLE, OH, 1857

ERASMUS M. STRIBLING

B. “HOPEWELL” 1817, D. WEST VIRGINIA 1889

DIED AT THE AGE OF 5 LIKELY AT MONTCALM FARM B. 1839, D. RICHMOND, VA 1862 DIED AS A RESULT OF A WOUND REC’D IN SEVEN DAYS’ FIGHT

ALEXANDER H. McILHANY

B. 1837, D. 1841

JAMES MORTIMER McILHANY

SARAH ANNE McILHANY

B. 1833, D. “MEADOW HILL” 1858

MARGARET McILHANY B. “MONTCALM” 1831; D. 1836 ____________________________

ORRA MOORE McILHANY

B. HILLSBORO 1828; M. HILLSBORO 1850 D. WASHINGTON, DC 1890 HUSBAND A METHODIST MINISTER

ONE SON + ONE DAUGHTER, BOTH BORN AT “MEADOW HILL” INDICATING THEIR LIKELY TYP. RESIDENCE

B. 1814; M. ALEXANDRIA 1850 D. SUMMIT POINT, WV 1901 ____________________________

ELIZABETH JOHNSON

DIED BEING THROWN FROM CARRIAGE. JUDGE OF 5th CIRCUIT COURT OF MD.

B. 1790; M. “ITHACA” 1818 D.1837 ____________________________

CHARLES J. KILGOUR

B. “MEADOW HILL” 1869; D. ? LIVED IN WASHINGTON, DC 1903

ANNE CECILIA KILGOUR

B. “MEADOW HILL” 1865; D. ? LIVED AT “THE WILLOWS” IN 1903

ALICE WILLIAMS KILGOUR

B. “MEADOW HILL” 1861; D. ? LIVED AT “THE WILLOWS” IN 1903

CHARLOTTE KILGOUR

HENRY JOURDAN KILGOUR

B. “MEADOW HILL” 1859; M. HILLSBORO 1883

MARY McILHANY

B. “MONTCALM” 1834; D. 1855 ____________________________

MARRIED HENRY BRADLEY (B. “CEDAR RIDGE” 1846)

ELSPETH KILGOUR

B. “MONTCALM” 1849; M. “MEADOW HILL” 1874; D. ____________________________ “CEDAR RIDGE” 1901

SHARES BOTH A NAME AND BLOOD WITH HER AUNT / MOTHER-IN-LAW

LOUISA McILHANY

B. LEESBURG 1826; M. “MONTCALM” 1843; D. ? ____________________________

TRAVELED FOR SEVEN YEARS ABROAD AND LIVED AT “THE WILLOWS” IN 1903

B. “MONTCALM” 1854; D. ? ____________________________

ROBERT W. KILGOUR

JAMES MARRIES 1st COUSIN AT “MONTCALM” & THEY RESIDE BOTH THERE AND AT “MEADOW HILL.”

B. “ITHACA” 1819; M. “MONTCALM” 1843; D. ? ____________________________

J. McILHANY KILGOUR

IT APPEARS McILHANEY SOLD MONTCALM IN ANTICIPATION OF RELOCATING AFTER HIS WIFE’S FORTHCOMING DEATH LESS THAN EIGHT MONTHS LATER

MONTCALM & MEADOW HILL

PRINCETON 1819, VA SENATE, LATER FARMER AT

B. “ITHACA” 1797; M.1 1825; M.2 1850 D.____________________________ HOUSTON, TX 1867

JAMES McILHANY (JR.)

JAMES McILHANEY, JR. SELLS MONTCALM FARM (323 1/2 ACRES) TO HIS NEPHEW / SON-IN-LAW JAMES McILHANY KILGOUR ON APRIL 1, 1844 FOR $17,792.00 ($55/ACRE)

LIVED IN WILLIAMS, ARIZONA IN 1903

JOHN M. KILGOUR

B. “MONTCALM” 1857; D. ? ____________________________

STUDIED LAW AT HARVARD BUT FOUGHT FOR CONFEDERATES IN CIVIL WAR.

JOHN M. KILGOUR

B. “ROSEMONT” 1822; M. WASHINGTON DC, 1847 D. ? ____________________________

TWO CHILDREN, OLDEST OF WHOM MARRIES HIS 1ST COUSIN, ALSO ‘LOUISA’

B. “ITHACA” 1799; M. “ITHACA” 1818 MD 1822 D. MONTGOMERY, ____________________________

LOUISA McILHANY

B. 1760; M. 1778; D. “ITHACA” 1837

OF QUAKER UPBRINGING. DESCRIBED AS “ELEGANT, TALL, QUEENLY, MASCULINE IN STRENGTH OF CHARACTER.” FOND OF HISTORY AND STAUNCHLY ANTI-SLAVERY. LATER RELEASED SLAVES OVER BORDER TO PENNSYLVANIA.

JOINED AMERICAN ARMY AT 25. AMASSED ENORMOUS LAND HOLDINGS INCLUDING 9K ACRES AROUND SHORT HILL, ENCOMPASSING THE ACREAGE OF MONTCALM. LEFT $50K IN PROPERTY TO EACH OF HIS CHILDREN BY WILL.

MARGARET HENDERSON

“MONTCALM” APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED, BUILT AND NAMED BY THE McILHANY’S BETWEEN 1775 AND 1822

MARGARET TRIBBEY-WILLIAMS ______________________________________________________________________________________

B. 1749; M. 1778; D. “ITHACA” 1804

JAMES McILHANY (SR.) ______________________________________________________________________________________

STRIBLING DIES AT MONTCALM IN 1828. AFTER SERVING AS A SENATOR FROM 18371841, JAMES McILHANEY, JR. BECOMES FARMER @ “MONTCALM” & “MEADOW HILL”

INHERITS GOOSE CREEK TRACT OF ESTATE. [‘MAIN HOUSE’ CONSTRUCTED]

B. “ITHACA” 1795; M. 1815 D.____________________________ “MONTCALM” 1822

MARGARET ANN STRIBLING

ELECTED TO VA LEGISLAT. AFTER 2ND MARRIAGE

B. “HOPEWELL” 1787; M.1 CECILIA 1815 M.2 REB. LITTLER 1823 D.____________________________ “MONTCALM” 1828

CECILIA McILHANY

AFTER CECILIA McILHANY’S DEATH FRANCIS STRIBLING CONTINUES TO RESIDE AT MONTCALM

FRANCIS STRIBLING

ANNE E. STRIBLING

LIKELY ALSO DIED AT MCF AS CECILIA DID IN 1822 AND FRANCIS DID IN 1828.

B. ?; M. 1823 D. 1826 ____________________________

REBECCA LITTLER

STRIBLING REMARRIES LITTLER A YEAR AFTER CECILIA’S DEATH. DAUGHTER IS ORPHANED BY AGE 4

THOMAS GREGG’S EXECUTORS SELL MONTCALM FARM (339 ACRES) BACK TO JAMES McILHANEY, JR. ON APRIL 4, 1829 FOR $9,166.50 ($27.04/ACRE)

B. “ITHACA” 1801, D. NEW FLORENCE, MO 1860

MORTIMER McILHANY

B. “ITHACA” 1787, D. “MILTON HALL” 1840

MARY McILHANY

B. “ITHACA” 1785, D. “MILTON HALL” 1808

JOHN McILHANY

B. “ITHACA” 1783, D. 1811

ELIZABETH McILHANY

B. “ITHACA” 1781, D. “LOCUS THICKET” 1821

ROSANNAH McILHANY

B. “ITHACA” 1779, D. “STONY POINT” 1842

FRANCIS AWBREY

______________________________________________________________________________________

B. WESTM., VA 1690; D. PRINCE WILLIAM 1740/1

UPON THE DEATH OF ‘LADY FAIRFAX’ IN 1719 HER SON THOMAS INHERITS A 5.28 MILLION ACRE TRACT KNOWN AS THE ‘NORTHERN NECK’ - ORIGINALLY GRANTED BY KING CHARLES II TO LORD CULPEPER - GOV. OF VIRGINIA

B.______________________________________________________________________________________ LEEDS CASTLE, KENT, ENGLAND 1693; D. VA. 1781

THOMAS, THE SIXTH LORD FAIRFAX

JAMES McILHANEY, SR. SELLS MONTCALM FARM (339 ACRES) TO STEPHEN GREGG, SR. NOVEMBER 7, 1795 FOR £762 15s (£2 5s /ACRE) BUT HIS DAUGHTER’S FAMILY CONTINUES TO LIVE ON THE PREMISES THROUGHOUT HIS OWNERSHIP UNTIL 1829.

DURING GREGG A OWNERSHIP OF MONTCALM ‘STONE KITCHEN’ IS BUILT

DIES 10 YEARS AFTER PURCHASE OF MONTCALM FROM JAMES McILHANY, SR.

THOMAS GREGG, SR. B.1769; D.+/-1829 ____________________________

STEPHEN GREGG, SR. B.1742; M.1768; D.? ____________________________

SUSANNAH PRYOR B.1735; M.1768; D.1805 ____________________________

THE McILHANY FAMILY

THE GREGG FAMILY

MONTCALM FARM’S OWNERS AND RESIDENTS FOR THREE CENTURIES: FROM 1719 TO 2012 1719

___________________________________________________________

B. LOUDOUN 1826; M. 1857; D. “MONTCALM” 1894

BURIED IN KETOCTIN CHURCH CEMETERY. [‘BALLROOM’ ADDITION BUILT JUST AFTER OSBURN’S PURCHASE, BUT NO CHILDREN]

__________________________________________________________

BURIED IN KETOCTIN CHURCH CEMETERY. WIDOWED 1894 BUT RESIDES AT MONTCALM AT LEAST UNTIL 1900 CENSUS.

CONSTANCE B. MARSH

B. POUGHKEEPSIE, NY 1966

ELLEN METCALF MARSH

B. POUGHKEEPSIE, NY 1961

JEAN HESTON MARSH

B. ARLINGTON, VA 1957

KENNETH DUNCAN MARSH

B. NYC 1954, D. RALEIGH, NC 1974

____________________________

AMHERST ‘50; RCA INST., ELECTRONICS ENG’R SOLD SHARE OF MONTCALM

____________________________

INDIVIDUAL WITH DIRECT RELATIONSHIP TO MONTCALM FARM PROPERTY (AS INDICATED)

RELATED TO OWNERSHIP OF MONTCALM FARM

RELATED TO RESIDENCE ON MONTCALM FARM

INDIVIDUAL FAMILIES

B. NYC, 1928; M. 1953

DAVID HESTON MARSH

2.14: A FLOW CHART ILLUSTRATING MONTCALM’S CONTINUALLY CHANGING OWNERSHIP, RESIDENTS, VALUE, SOURCES OF LABOR, CROPS, AND PERSONAL ACCOUNTS FOR THE PAST 250 YEARS.

MONTCALM

RUTH M. RUNGE

B. PATERSON, NJ 1931; M 1953

B. PURCELLVILLE, VA 1903 M. LEESBURG, VA 1926 D. ____________________________ LEESBURG, VA 1976 ORPHANED AT AGE 16; HOLLINS COLLEGE, 1925, FORDHAM LAW, 1945

B. BROOKLYN, NY, 1889; M. LEESBURG, VA 1926 D. FAIRFAX, VA 1972 ____________________________ PUBLIC UTILITY BUSINESS, BROOKLYN. MOVES FAMILY TO LOUDOUN AFTER 1945.

ADAM GASLOWITZ

B. 1959 M. ROCKVILLE, MD, 1985 EMORY ‘81, U. MICHIGAN

THOMAS BOLANDER

WASHINGTON & LEE ‘58. USAF JAPAN/KOREA. BROKER/“MONTCALM” MGR

____________________________

B. NYC, 1931; M.1 1958; M.2 1973

JOHN DUNCAN MARSH

MELISSA MARTIN

MALINDA McCULLOCH

B. NYC, 1977 M. BERMUDA, 2008 ST. JOHN’S ‘01, PRATT ’06

MICHAEL HIRST MARSH

B. WASHINGTON, DC, 1979 M. BERMUDA, 2008 UVA ‘97, COLUMBIA’12

WASHINGTON & LEE ‘58. USAF JAPAN/KOREA. BROKER/“MONTCALM” MGR

NANCY D. MARSH

B. CLEVELAND, OH 1940 M. 1973 D. PURCELLVILLE, VA 2004 ____________________________

MEGAN SPURLING

JOHN C. MARSH

B. WASHINGTON, DC, 1975 M. ST. MICHAELS, MD, 2001 UVA ‘97

B. CALIFORNIA 1971 M. ST. MICHAELS, MD, 2001

B. FAIRFAX, VA, 1963 M. “MONTCALM” 1998 WASH&LEE ‘86, VCU ’89

DAVID BOLTON MARSH

DBM MOVES TO FARM JULY 1, 2002

B. AUSTIN, TX, 1969 M. “MONTCALM” 1998 NYU, 1999

B. FAIRFAX, VA, 1962 M. LEESBURG, VA, 1986 SHEPHERD, R.N.

SUSAN GREGG MARSH

B. ANNAPOLIS, MD, 1960 M. LEESBURG, 1986 SHEPERD, LOYOLA MBA

ELIZABETH M. MARSH

B. WASHINGTON, DC, 1959 M. ROCKVILLE, MD, 1985 EMORY ‘81, HARVARD ’82

RMWC + UNC GRADUATE SCHOOL. ATTORNEY. DIVORCED 1966

____________________________

B. 1937; M. 1958;

ELIZABETH ANNE HILL

THE HIRST/MARSH FAMILY

JDM MOVES TO FARM 2007

MARRIED AT ST. JAMES CHURCH. ONE DAUGHTER

DAISY DECATUR BROWN B. 1872; M. LEESBURG, VA1894; D. 1920 ____________________________

HELEN HESTON HIRST

HHM NEVER RESIDES AT FARM BUT VISITS SUMMERS OF 1930s

LUMBER MERCHANT AND DIRECTOR PURCELLVILLE NATIONAL BANK.

B. 1856; M.1 ?; M.2 1894 D. PURCELLVILLE, VA1919 ____________________________

BY WILL MAY 31, 1919

EDGAR HESTON HIRST

EDWARD H. MARSH

OF WASHINGTON, DC

____________________________

B. ? M. ? D. ?

ANNE CASE

DAVID AND JOHN MARSH RECEIVE MONTCALM BY ‘DEED OF GIFT’ AUG. 22, 1972. 115 ACRES SOLD TO ELIZABETH BLES, JDM RETAINS 225.5 ACRES

COLUMBIA UNIV. SCHOOL OF NURSING; R.N.; HORSE RIDING INSTRUCTOR

GENEALOGICAL LINEAGE

LEGEND

BLES FAMILY

PURCHASES THE SOUTHERN 115 ACRES OF MONTCALM FARM FROM DAVID HESTON MARSH FOLLOWING THE 1972 DEED OF GIFT.

_______________________________________________________

B. ?;

ELIZABETH BLES

HIRST’S INTEREST IN FARMING WAS LIKELY IGNITED DURING THE JANUARY 17-18, 1906 FARMER’S INSTITUTE LECTURES IN P’VILLE MODERATED BY PROFS FROM VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTUTUTE.

HARRISON OSBURN’S EXECUTORS SELL MONTCALM FARM (NOW 344 ACRES BY ADJOINING THREE PARCELS) TO EDGAR H. HIRST BY PUBLIC AUCTION ON APRIL 27, 1911 FOR $17,853.60 ($51.90/ACRE)

B. 1837; M. 1857; D. “MONTCALM” 1909

HARRISON OSBURN

LYDIA JANE POTTS

BY WILL APR. 27, 1894

THE OSBURN FAMILY

JAMES McILHANEY KILGOUR SELLS MONTCALM FARM (325 ACRES) TO HARRISON OSBURN ON MARCH 22, 1858 FOR $19,534.50 ($60.10/ACRE)

THIS SALE MARKS THE FIRST TIME MONTCALM FARM WHOLLY DEPARTS FROM McILHANY FAMILY OWNERSHIP OR RESIDENCE SINCE THE CONSTRUCTION OF ITS CIRCA 1780 LOG CABIN

B. WOODLAND HILLS, CA, 2008

XAVIER MARSH

DANIEL HOLMES MARSH B. ZURICH, CH, 2004

SEAN MICHAEL MARSH B. RIDGEWOOD, NJ, 2002

B. LEESBURG, VA, 2004

INDRA CASE MARSH

JACKSON CLAY MARSH B. LEESBURG, VA, 2002

LEXINGTON SKYE MARSH B. NYC, 2001

MATTHEW EDWIN BOLANDER B. ANNAPOLIS, MD 1999

ABIGAIL HOPE BOLANDER B. ANNAPOLIS, MD, 1998

ALEXANDRA ELIZABETH BOLANDER B. ANNAPOLIS, MD, 1996; D. IN INFANCY

CHRISTINE ANN BOLANDER B. ANNAPOLIS, MD, 1990

JOSHUA ZACHERY GASLOWITZ B. ATLANTA, GA 1991

KATHARYN GASLOWITZ B. ATLANTA, GA, 1988

THREE CENTURIES OF MONTCALM FARM’S OWNERS, RESIDENTS, MANAGERS, SLAVES, LABORERS AND TENANTS As the comprehensive chart in Figure 2.14 on the previous spread demonstrates, a wide range of personalities have been integrally involved in the process of shaping Montcalm Farm. As will be discussed shortly, these men and women include British nobility, American Revolutionaries, Union and Confederate sympathizers, a Virginia Senator, an incestual couple and a lumber merchant turned farm owner. Cumulatively, the personal accounts and historic narratives of these individuals establish the richness of Montcalm Farm’s history, and it is hoped that the ingenuity that has been continually demonstrated in taming a wilderness into a productive agrarian landscape may serve as inspiration for a continuation of this legacy of adaptation and invention well into Montcalm’s fourth century. The process of understanding Montcalm’s succession of ownership began with thorough research of the property’s Deeds of Transfer from 1795 to present, the originals of which were consulted in the historical archives of the Loudoun County Clerk of the Circuit Court, located in Leesburg, VA. Portions of the eight most relevant documents associated with the sale or bequest of

Montcalm are shown in Figure 2.20, which collapses the essential data of these contracts (including names, dates, acreage, boundaries, and price paid) from each transaction alongside additional information relating to the residents of Montcalm assembled from US Census reports and US Slave Schedules from 1810 to 1930. The general migratory trend of the US population away from rural areas and towards cities and suburbs that has been previously discussed is clearly evidenced by the rapid decrease in both the number and constitution of Montcalm’s residents, which closely mimics the national data indicated in Figure 2.30, at the end of this chapter. The vitality and continuity that made Montcalm and the hundreds of farmsteads like it valuable in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries must be restored if the property is to continue to remain relevant and productive throughout the twenty-first century. While the deed research provided a cursory outline of Montcalm’s primary stakeholders throughout its evolution from feudal land grant to present-day equestrian operation, more comprehensive information was sought to understand the unique personalities and idiosyncrasies of Montcalm’s long succession of owners and residents.

FIGURE 2.15

2.15: VIRGINIA LAND-OFFICE MILITARY WARRANT FOR BOUNTY LANDS IN PRESENT-DAY KENTUCKY OR OHIO ISSUED TO JAMES McILHANY (Sr.) FOR HIS SERVICE IN THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR, Courtesy of the Records of the Executive Branch. Office of the Governor (Record Group 3). Virginia.

In this regard, the author was fortunate to have stumbled upon a comprehensive account of the McIlhany Family’s history, as excerpted from a book titled Some Virginia Families, written by H.M. McIlhany, Jr. in 1903, which will be discussed shortly. The land that comprises the 225 acres of present-day Montcalm Farm was originally part of a 5.28-million-acre tract known as the ‘Northern Neck,’ granted by King Charles II to Lord Culpeper, Governor of Virginia and six other supporters between 1649 and 1681. The ‘Neck’ included all land between the Potomac River to the north and the Rappahannock, Rapidan, and Conway rivers to the south. In 1719 Thomas the sixth Lord Fairfax inherited his mother, Lady Fairfax’s share of the ‘Northern Neck’ and, by way of his agents, began to parcel the land into large tracts for sale. (2.46) As previously discussed, Francis Awbrey - a land speculator - purchased large quantities of these tracts. In addition to the area surrounding present-day Leesburg, Awbrey purchased 4,000 acres (actually 5,518 according to GIS calculations) surrounding Short Hill mountain from Lord Fairfax in the ‘Kittoctin Creek’ grant of 1731. The account of the McIlhany family excerpted from Some Virginia Families begins with John McIlhany, a Scottish supporter of Charles Edward - the ”Young Pretender” - who was grandson of James II of England. Fifteen years after Francis Awbrey acquired the ‘Kittoctin Creek’ tract, the “Young Pretender” was defeated at Culloden Moor in 1746, forcing his many supporters, including John McIlhany and his fiancée Rosannah Stuart to flee Scotland. They married quickly and sailed for America, landing at Yorktown, Virginia. They would eventually settle in the region of Fairfax County that would soon separate to become Loudoun in 1757. A 1756 Fairfax deed describes McIlhany as a farmer and it appears that he acquired a large amount of property throughout the Loudoun vicinity, although this land would not yet include present-day Montcalm Farm. He would serve as High Sheriff of Loudoun by commission of Lord Botetourt in 1768.(2.47) In 1773 John McIlhany’s will was approved in court, listing his wife Rosannah; three sons: Thomas, James, and John; and three daughters: Rachael, Mary, and Hannah. His wife and second son James (born 1749) would serve as the executors of his will. Upon his death McIlhany’s oldest son Thomas would inherit his property in Botetourt County. James McIlhany on the other hand would reside in Loudoun for the rest of his life, vastly increasing the family’s wealth and property throughout the county.

Arguably more than any other figure in its history, James McIlhany emerges as the single most significant figure in the shaping of Montcalm Farm. Between his release from the American Army around the age of 28 and his death at the age of 55 McIlhany amassed enormous land holdings throughout Loudoun. In addition to 4,000 acres purchased as part of the ‘Goose Creek’ tract, he acquired over 9,000 acres surrounding Short Hill, including the 4,000 acre ‘Kittoctin Creek’ grant sold by Awbrey. Before selling Montcalm to Stephen Gregg, Sr. in 1795, McIlhany oversaw the construction of the ‘Log Cabin’ and the humble nature of this structure as compared to the typical dwellings specified by the 1713 Virginia law (discussed at the beginning of this chapter) is likely evidence of a tenant farmer handling Montcalm’s operations while the McIlhany family resided at their mansion near Hillsboro, which they called “Ithaca.” Although this mansion was lost due to a later fire, at least twenty-two family members remain buried on the grounds. James McIlhany, Sr. sat on the bench of County Justices along with James Monroe, and following in his father’s ‘footsteps’ later became High Sheriff of the county. On April 11, 1781 the Order Book reports that it was “ordered that James McIlhany, Gent., be paid Two Hundred Pounds of Tobacco according to Law for attending Court Eight Days as a Witness against the several non-conformists in his Disctric.”(2.48) [sic] The War Department records indicate that “James McIlhany served as 1st lieutenant and captain, in the 5th, known also as the 9th Virginia Regiment, commanded by Col. Josiah Parker, Revolutionary War.” As Figure 2.15 indicates, in addition to the vast land holdings he acquired by his own means, James McIlhany was also awarded bounty lands for his service in the Revolutionary War. Bounty lands were located in either present-day Kentucky or Ohio and therefore were often sold directly to land speculators. Although not personally seen by the author, the Some Virginia Families account references an additional 1834 warrant for 4,000 acres of bounty land issued to McIlhany‘s heirs, located: “in the Revolutionary Records in the State Land Office, Book 3, p.345”(2.49) This may account for the departure of all McIlhany family members from the Loudoun area prior to 1903. The parents of McIlhany’s wife, Margaret Tribbey-Williams had immigrated to America from Wales. They had originally been Quakers but had separated from the church “on account of the Revolutionary War, several of the brothers [having enlisted] in the Continental Army.”(2.50) Margaret was described as:

“...an elegant woman, tall and queenly looking, almost masculine in her strength of character and very pronounced in her religious views. She was remarkably intelligent and especially fond of history. It is related of her that she would often have some of her orphan grand-children roused at 4 o’clock in the morning to read Roman history to her. So advanced were her ideas that she became convinced very early that slavery was an evil, and accordingly freed all her slaves, sending them over the border to Pennsyl vania.”(2.51) While the legend of freeing her slaves may have occurred at some point late in her life, the 1810 US Census, conducted subsequent to the death of her husband James, lists Margaret living along with two males aged 10-15; two women aged 10-15; one woman aged 15-25; and two slaves. If true, the release of these slaves therefore must have occurred during the last third of her life. It appears that James had been an auspicious businessman and invested abundantly in the education of his nine children retaining “the best teachers available... employed at his home continuously.” Two of his three sons would complete their education at Princeton, including James McIlhany, Jr. who would reacquire Montcalm after a 34 year period of ownership by the Gregg family, who purchased the 339 acre Montcalm Farm from McIlhany, Sr. in 1795 for £762 15s (£2 5s/acre).(2.52) At the time of James McIlhany’s death in 1804, each of his children received property valued at $50,000. His personal property alone was appraised at $19,010. His obituary stated: “The early part of his life was devoted to the pursuits of husbandry, and [after the death of his father] to the protection and support of his mother and her orphan children. At the age of twenty-five he joined the American Army, and assisted in avenging his country’s wrongs. In the beginning his advantages of fortune and education were few, but nature had given him a mind of the first order, and formed in her finest mould, which afforded a wonderful instance of the power of native genius in rising to the highest degree of respectability when aided by unremitting perseverance and inflexible integrity. He lived as he died in peace with all his neighbors, beloved and respected by all who knew him.”(2.53)

the Greggs technically owned the farm throughout the early part of the nineteenth century, members of the McIlhany family continued to reside on the premises, overseeing the construction of the circa 1800 ‘Stone Kitchen’ and circa 1820 ‘Main House,’ which greatly added to the comfort of living on the property. After graduating with ‘third honors’ at Princeton in 1819, James McIlhany, Jr. studied law and served in the Virginia Senate, representing Loudoun and Fairfax counties from 1837 until 1841. In the Library of Virginia’s Geological Survey Records, an 1838 correspondence between Timothy Taylor, Jr. and William B. Rogers, of the University of Virginia can be found, which references James McIlhany, Jr. In the correspondence Taylor - a member of the House of Delegates from Loudoun County requests Rogers to conduct an analysis of a sample of limestone on behalf of McIlhany.(2.54) Whether this limestone analysis was related to Montcalm Farm is unknown, but following his tenure in the Senate, McIlhany would spend “the latter part of his life [as] a farmer, [living] at “Montcalm” and “Meadow Hill”(2.55) along with his first wife Margaret Henderson, and their seven children. Following the death of his sister Cecilia and her husband Francis six years later, James purchased the 339 acre Montcalm property from the executors of Thomas Gregg for $9,166.50 ($27.04/acre) in 1829,(2.56) which included the existing ‘Log Cabin,’ ‘Stone Kitchen’ and ‘Main House’ as well as the Pigsty and early barns surrounding it. During their residence on Montcalm, two of James and Margaret’s seven children would die before the age of five in the main house, including daughter Margaret in 1836 (Fig. 2.16) and son James Mortimer in 1841. James’ wife Margaret Henderson would also die in Montcalm’s main house in 1844 (Fig. 2.17) and was buried alongside her daughter in St. James Episcopal Cemetery in Leesburg.

Although Montcalm was owned by the Greggs from 1795 to 1829, Some Virginia Families indicates that McIlhany’s daughter Cecilia died at “Montcalm” in 1822. A year later her husband Francis Stribling remarried Rebecca Littler and had one daughter, Anne E. Stribling, before he too died at Montcalm in 1828. Therefore, it appears that although FIGURE 2.16

2.16: GRAVESTONE OF FOUR-YEAR-OLD MARGARET McILHANY, DAUGHTER OF MARGARET HENDERSON McILHANY AND JAMES McILHANY, JR. WHO DIED AT MONTCALM IN 1836. Frain, Betty. Margaret McIlhany Gravestone. 2010. Photograph. St. James Episcopal Cemetery, Leesburg, VA. Find A Grave. Web. 14 May 2012. <http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi? page=pv&GRid=9541912&PIpi=59136377>.

FIGURE 2.17

2.17: GRAVESTONE OF MARGARET HENDERSON McILHANY, WIFE OF JAMES McILHANY, JR., WHO DIED AT MONTCALM IN 1844. Mayflower Ancestor. Margaret Henderson McIlhany Gravestone. 2010. Photograph. St. James Episcopal Cemetery, Leesburg, VA. Find A Grave. Web. 14 May 2012. <http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/ fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=54445816>.

James McIlhany, Jr. and Margaret Henderson McIlhany’s eldest daughter Louisa had been born in Leesburg in 1826 prior to Francis Stribling’s death. At the age of 17 Louisa married her first-cousin, James McIlhany Kilgour, oldest son of her aunt Louisa McIlhany. No indication can be found of the degree to which this marriage was or was not considered taboo. However, in 1844 James McIlhany, Jr. sold the 323 1/2 acres of Montcalm Farm to his nephew / son-in-law for $16,792 ($55/acre)(2.57) - more than twice the price he had paid just fifteen years prior. It appears that McIlhany made this sale in anticipation of relocating after his wife’s forthcoming death, which occurred less than eight months later. He remarried Elizabeth Johnson in 1850, and the two of them lived at “Meadow Hill” with their new daughter and son for a time before relocating to Houston, Texas where he died in 1867.(2.58) James McIlhany Kilgour and Louisa had been residing in the main house of Montcalm for nine years by the time Yardley Taylor collected their $1 fee for being included in his 1853 survey map of Loudoun County. They had seven children, the first three of whom were born at Montcalm. The remaining four were born at “Meadow Hill” following Kilgour’s sale of the Montcalm to Harrison Osburn upon the eve of the Civil War. Kilgour’s brother John had studied law at Harvard, but would soon fight for the Confederate Army,(2.59) underscoring Loudoun’s precarious position straddling between Union and Confederate strongholds. The relocation of James Kilgour and Louisa McIlhany to “Meadow Hill” following this sale could either indicate that the relationship between James McIlhany, Jr. and Kilgour remained cordial or that McIlhany and Johnson had relocated to Texas by this time and once again sold their farm to Kilgour. When Harrison Osburn and his wife Lydia Jane Potts

acquired the 325 acres of Montcalm in 1858, they paid a price of $19,534.50 ($60.10/acre).(2.60) The ‘milk train’ would not arrive in Purcellville for another sixteen years, indicating they farmed for a relatively local market. It was about the time of this purchase that the final addition to the ‘Telescoping House Complex’ was constructed, the circa 1860 ‘Ballroom’ addition. Montcalm’s residential dwellings now totaled over 5,000 square feet - a spacious complex, made hauntingly vacant by their apparent inability to conceive. The Osburns were most likely members of the Ketoctin Baptist Church across the road from their new farm, since they are buried side-by-side in the Ketoctin cemetery. (Fig. 2.8 and 2.9) The Osburns had adjoined three contiguous parcels to increase Montcalm Farm’s acreage to 344 by the time Harrison died at Montcalm in 1894. After Lydia died at Montcalm 15 years later the property was offered for sale at public auction. With his interest in farming likely piqued after attending the Farmer’s Institute lectures in Purcellville on January 17-18, 1906,(2.61) Edgar Heston Hirst, a Purcellville lumber merchant, purchased Montcalm Farm for $17,853.60 ($51.90/acre)(2.62) on April 27, 1911. This represented a significant bargain, as James McIlhaney, Jr. had charged his own son-in-law significantly more 67 years prior. After Edgar’s death in 1919 and his wife Daisy Decatur Brown’s death in 1920, Montcalm was left to their daughter, Helen Heston Hirst, orphaned at age 16. The farm was managed for the following years by W.H. Cornell and his son Guy, who oversaw its evolution from traditional farming to dairy production. In 1972 Montcalm was transferred to Helen’s sons John and David Marsh,(2.63) and subsequently divided into a 115 acre southern tract that was sold to Elizabeth Bles, and the remaining 225.5 acres among three parcels, retained by John Marsh as sole owner.

FIGURE 2.18

FIGURE 2.19

2.18: GRAVESTONE OF PVT. HARRISON OSBURN, MEMBER OF 50th VIRGINIA INFANTRY, COMPANY L, WHO DIED AT MONTCALM IN 1894. Stars&Bars. Harrison Osburn Gravestone. 2010. Photograph. Ketoctin Baptist Church Cemetery, Purcellville, VA. Find A Grave. Web. 14 May 2012. <http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/ fg.cgi?page=pv&GRid=21575098&PIpi=7572892

2.19: GRAVESTONE OF L. JANE OSBURN, WIFE OF HARRISON OSBURN, WHO DIED AT MONTCALM IN 1909. Stars&Bars. L. Jane Osburn Gravestone. 2010. Photograph. Ketoctin Baptist Church Cemetery, Purcellville, VA. Find A Grave. Web. 14 May 2012. <http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=pv&GRid=21575109&PIpi= 7572895

1795

JAMES McILHANEY, SR. SELLS MONTCALM FARM (LISTED AS 339 ACRES) TO STEPHEN GREGG, SR. NOVEMBER 7, 1795 FOR £762 15s (£2 5s/ACRE)

1820 U.S. CENSUS

STEPHEN GREGG, SR., FOLLOWED BY HIS SON THOMAS GREGG, OWNED MONTCALM FARM FROM 1795 TO 1829, BUT MEMBERS OF THE McILHANY FAMILY (CECILIA McILHANY AND FRANCIS STRIBLING, ETC.) APPARENTLY CONTINUED TO LIVE ON THE PREMISES THROUGHOUT THEIR OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY. WE WILL THEREFORE ASSUME STEPHEN GREGG’S LISTING IN THE 1820 CENSUS (WHICH IDENTIFIES 9 RESIDENTS AND 3 SLAVES) REFERS TO ANOTHER OF HIS PROPERTIES. FRANCIS STRIBLING’S LISTING WOULD THEREFORE REPRESENT MONTCALM FARM. THE CENSUS IDENTIFIES 9 RESIDENTS AND 11 SLAVES ON THE PREMISES.

1829

THOMAS GREGG’S EXEC.S SELL MONTCALM FARM (LISTED AS 339 ACRES) TO JAMES McILHANEY, JR. APRIL 4, 1829 FOR $9,166.50 ($27.04/ACRE)

1830 U.S. CENSUS

THE APPARENTLY CORDIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE GREGG AND McILHANY FAMILY IS EXPLAINED SOMEWHAT BY THE 1830 CENSUS WHICH LISTS STEPHEN GREGG AND JAMES McILHANY AS NEAR NEIGHBORS JUST TWO YEARS AFTER THE RETURN OF MONTCALM TO McILHANY OWNERSHIP. McILHANY’S HOUSEHOLD CONSISTS OF TWO MALES AGE 30-40 (McILHANY AND ?), TWO FEMALES UNDER 5 (LOUISA AND ORRA), ONE FEMAILE 20-30 (HIS WIFE MARGARET), ONE FEMAILE 30-40 (?) AS WELL AS 10 SLAVES AND 1 FREED COLORED PERSON (AGED 55-100)

1844

JAMES McILHANEY, JR. SELLS MONTCALM FARM (LISTED AS 323.5 ACRES) TO J. McILHANY KILGOUR APRIL 1, 1844 FOR $17,792 ($55/ACRE)

1840 U.S. CENSUS

ALTHOUGH McILHANY SERVED AS A VIRGINIA SENATOR UNTIL 1941 HE IS LISTED IN THE ‘JONAH HOOD 2ND DISTRICT’ CENSUS WITH THE FOLLOWING SCHEDULE: FREE WHITES: 2-EA (M >2), 1-EA (M 40-60), 2-EA (F 5-10), 2-EA (F 10-15), 1-EA (F 15-20), 1-EA (F 30-40). FREE COLORED [5 TTL]: 1-EA (M 10-24), 1-EA (M 24-35), 1-EA (M 35-55), 1-EA (F >10), 1-EA (F 10-24). SLAVES [7 TTL]: 3-EA (M 10-24), 1-EA (M 36-55), 1-EA (M 55-100), 1-EA (F 10-24), 1-EA (F24-35). HE IS ALSO IDENTIFIED AS A ‘PENSIONER FOR REVOLUTIONARY SERVICE’ FOR WHICH HIS HIERS WOULD LATER CLAIM FOR U.S. BOUNTY LAND IN KENTUCKY [NB: INCLUDES BOTH ‘MONTCALM’ AND ‘MEADOW HILL’]

1858

J. McILHANY KILGOUR SELLS MONTCALM (NOW 325 ACRES) TO HARRISON OSBURN MARCH 22, 1848 FOR $19,534 ($60.10/ACRE)

1860 U.S. CENSUS

TWO YEARS AFTER ACQUIRING MONTCALM FROM JAMES M. KILGOUR AND MERELY FIVE YEARS BEFORE THE RATIFICATION OF THE 13TH AMENDMENT, MONTCALM IS NOW FARMED WITH THE LABOR OF FIVE SLAVES (AGED 8 - 33) BELONGING TO HARRISON OSBURN. THE PROPERTY IS VALUED AT $20,000 AND HIS PERSONAL ESTATE AT $3,500. THE CENSUS LISTS 1 ’SLAVE HOUSE.’

1894

HARRISON OSBURN LEAVES MONTCALM FARM BY WILL (ACREAGE NOT LISTED) TO WIFE LYDIA JANE OSBURN APRIL 27, 1894

1900 U.S. CENSUS

HARRISON OSBURN DIED 1894 SO CENSUS INDICATES LYDIA J. OSBURN, AGED 64 AS HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD AND FARMER AT MONTCALM. SHE HAS A FAMILY OF THREE WHITE BOARDERS RESIDING WITH HER OTIS L WILLIAMS (28), CLARA WILLIAMS (23) AND DAUGHTER JOSEPHINE WILLIAMS (7 MONTHS).

1911

HARRISON OSBURN’S EXECS. SELL MONTCALM FARM (NOW 344 ACRES) TO EDGAR HESTON HIRST APRIL 27, 1911 FOR $17,853.60 ($51.90/ACRE)

1910 U.S. CENSUS

1 YEAR PRIOR TO EDGAR HESTON HIRST PURCHASING MONTCALM THE CENSUS LISTS EDGAR, WIFE DAISY, 6 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER HELEN, AND AN 18 YEAR OLD SERVANT ELIZA FOWELER. THEY LIVE IN THE MT. GILEAD DISTRICT AND HE IS A SUCCESSFUL LUMBER MERCHANT. L. JANE OSBURN HAS DIED THE PREVIOUS YEAR. RESIDENTS OF MONTCALM ARE UNKNOWN.

1919

EDGAR H. HIRST LEAVES MONTCALM FARM BY WILL (ACREAGE NOT LISTED) TO DAUGHTER HELEN HIRST MAY 31, 1919

1920 U.S. CENSUS

1 YEAR AFTER YOUNG HELEN HIRST HAS INHERITED MONTCALM SHE IS NEITHER LISTED AS LIVING WITH HER MOTHER WHO DIES THE SAME YEAR, OR HER COUSINS, WHO EVENTUALLY CARE FOR HER. HENRY CORNELL IS LISTED AS THE OPERATOR OF A ‘GENERAL FARM’ IN THE MT. GILEAD DISTRICT AND HIS SON GUY IS AGED 5 MOs. RESIDENTS OF MONTCALM ARE UNKNOWN.

1972

HELEN HIRST MARSH DEEDS MONTCALM FARM TO SONS DAVID AND JOHN MARSH ON AUGUST 22, 1972 DAVID SELLS HIS 115 ACRE LOT TO ELIZABETH BLES AND JOHN RETAINS OWNERSHIP OF 225.5 ACRES

1930 U.S. CENSUS

DURING THE GREAT DEPRESSION HELEN HAS MARRIED EDWARD AND MOVED TO NYC. W. HENRY CORNELL IS LISTED AS A DAIRY FARMER RENTING IN THE JEFFERSON DISTRICT. RESIDING AT MONTCALM WITH HIM IS WIFE DAISY, TWO DAUGHTERS AND TWO SONS, MAURICE AGED 19 - A LABORER AND GUY H., AGED 10 - THE FUTURE MANAGER OF MONTCALM.

EVOLVING FROM DAIRY TO EQUESTRIAN

the market for dairy products.

A migration trend away from rural farmsteads and towards urban centers had been noted as early as the 1915 Ten Reasons brochure, which stated: “The twentieth century demands that a man shall find safe and profitable investment in his farm, together with comfort in his home, and ready access to the centres [sic] of population - without these advantages the trend to the cities is inevitable.”(2.64)

However, following the war commercial dairy consolidation resulted in the inability of Loudoun’s small, specialized dairy farms to compete with larger, state-of-the-art facilities. To meet the exploding market for suburban homes, the ‘great road’ connecting Washington, DC to the rural landscape westward now became the main axis for the emerging ‘commuting corridor.’

As the chart in Figure 2.30 establishes, this trend was indeed inevitable and by the years of World War II from 1941 to 1945 Loudoun County saw its income and farm production nearly double as the military expanded and new civilian jobs in Washington, DC resulted in a surge in

At an alarming rate the once productive agricultural landscapes of the Loudoun Valley became increasingly infiltrated by the cul-de-sacs of suburban developments, as illustrated in the map of impervious surfaces shown in Figure 3.1 of the physical analysis in Chapter 3.

FIGURE 2.21

2.20: (PREVIOUS TWO-PAGE SPREAD) PARTIAL SCANS OF EVERY DEED OF PROPERTY TRANSFER FOR MONTCALM FARM FROM 1795 TO PRESENT, INCLUDING DETAILS ON THE BUYER AND SELLER, THE TOTAL ACREAGE AT THE TIME OF SALE, AND THE PRICE PAID. DETAILED CENSUS ACCOUNTS FOR THE PROPERTY ARE ALSO INDICATED INCLUDING AGES, SEXES AND SOMETIMES NAMES OF OWNERS, MANAGERS, LABORERS AND SLAVES. ON

SOME CENSUS LISTINGS NUMBER OF ‘SLAVE DWELLINGS’ ARE ALSO INDICATED. 2.21: AN UNDATED PHOTOGRAPH OF HELEN HIRST MARSH VISITING WITH MR. W.H. CORNELL, MANAGER OF MONTCALM DURING MUCH OF HELEN HIRST MARSH’S STEWARDSHIP OF THE PROPERTY. Courtesy of John Marsh’s personal collection.

FIGURE 2.22

With its previous identity as a productive dairy farm no longer viable, Montcalm and its neighboring farms that had not been sold to developers were forced to adapt once again. W.H. Cornell - the manager of Montcalm Farm at the time of the 1930 US Census - had recognized a growing trend in the county towards equestrian enthusiasm and at an unknown date began raising Belgian Draft horses on the property as indicated by the hand-painted sign in Figure 2.22. After the sale of Montcalm’s remaining cattle herd in 1972 Montcalm’s ‘dairy barn’ and ‘calf barn’ - which will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4 - were converted to horse-stalls by a tenant of the main house who operated a horse training facility. Today the property leases its surrounding agricultural land to local farmers for a negligible annual fee in order to maintain eligibility in the county’s Land Use program, which reduces property taxes. FIGURE 2.23

2.22: AN UNDATED HAND-PAINTED SIGN ADVERTISING MONTCALM’S NEWLY RECONFIGURED EQUESTRIAN FACILITIES, MANAGED BY W.H. CORNELL DURING HELEN HIRST MARSH’S STEWARDSHIP OF THE PROPERTY. Courtesy of John Marsh’s personal collection. 2.23:

AN UNDATED PHOTOGRAPH OF EARLY EQUESTRIAN ACTIVITY ON

MONTCALM FARM. AFTER WORLD WAR II COMMERCIAL DAIRY CONSOLIDATION RESULTED IN MUCH OF LOUDOUN’S DAIRY INDUSTRY ENDING ABRUPTLY. BETWEEN 1949 AND 1978 THE NUMBER OF DAIRY FARMS IN LOUDOUN DROPPED FROM 406 TO 76. AS OF 2006 THAT NUMBER HAD DROPPED TO ONE. MONTCALM ADAPTED BY CONVERTING TO AN EQUESTRIAN FACILITY. Courtesy of John Marsh’s personal collection.

FIGURE 2.24

2.24: THE ONLY FENCE VISIBLE IN THIS CIRCA 1940s IMAGE OF THE JERSEY AND GUERNSEY CATTLE HERD OF MONTCALM FARM INDICATES THE ORIGINAL USE OF FENCES - TO KEEP LIVESTOCK ‘OUT’ OF RESIDENTIAL AREAS. "Out of the Attic: Quiet Day at Montcalm" Loudoun Times Mirror [Leesburg, VA] 15 Oct. 1987: A23. Archive Image cited from ‘Extension Service files.’

husbandry.”(2.68) An interesting inversion therefore occurred upon the traditional American farmstead as a result of the end of the open range in the early 1870s. As Eugene Scheel briefly describes in his book Loudoun Discovered: Communities, Corners and Crossroads, prior to this time livestock had traditionally been fenced ‘out’ rather than ‘in.’

FIGURE 2.25

FENCING ‘IN’ VERSUS FENCING ‘OUT’ “Before I built a wall I’d ask to know What I was walling in or walling out...” (2.65) -Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)

In October of 1850 a southern Virginia farmer, exclaimed in the agricultural journal Southern Planter “it is time for the farmers to make a decided stand; refuse to support at the polls men who will not faithfully, unflinchingly represent the interests of agriculture.”(2.66) The farmer was protesting the new Virginia law requiring the fencing of all cropland to prevent roaming livestock from damaging crops. While most Virginia planters recognized that this issue demanded a fencing solution, they instead wished to see the owners of livestock bear the cost of fencing ‘in’ their livestock. Virginia’s first fence law had been passed in 1631 and was decidedly vague. It stated that “Every man shall enclose his ground with sufficient fences uppon theire owne perill.”(2.67) [sic] The financial and labor burden of fencing therefore defaulted to the responsibility of the planters over that of the herdsmen. As Drew Addison Swanson would write in his article “Fighting over Fencing: Agricultural Reform and Antebellum Efforts to Close the Virginia Open Range:” “In a growing and changing region, efforts to close the open range appear to have been the outcome of an enlarging population, an increased focus on crop production over livestock raising, concerns about timber and soil resources, and a desire to create an efficient southern version of animal

Evidence of this condition can be seen by comparing the circa 1940s photograph (Fig. 2.24) of the grazing field at the foot of Montcalm’s ‘Telescoping-House Complex’ to a present-day photograph (Fig. 2.25) from the same location. With the introduction of fencing, pastures suddenly transitioned from ‘ground’ to ‘figure,’ and their previously limitless expanse was now calculated and delineated by a precise boundary. Clearly this shift has significant architectural implications and is representative of a larger condition emerging throughout rural landscapes of the twentieth century: the parcelization of agricultural land. The nature of fencing and boundaries will therefore be given careful consideration in both the Site Plan and Intervention Proposals of Chapters 7 and 8. NEO-GREAT GATSBY EDIFICES Scheel concludes in his Introduction Rediscovered, Volume 4 by arguing:

Loudoun

“...regardless of the ups and downs, the fine soils of the Loudoun Valley have always insured a high degree of prosperity. And eventually the fine soils so necessary for high crop yields would become... necessary for housing developments - the four- and five-bedroom perc sites for the neo-Great Gatsby edifices that have been proliferating in the last score of years... for some 30 years there has been a constant battle between farm families selling their inheritance, and persons desiring to keep that inheritance and call it their bequest to future generations.”(2.69) However, Scheel’s conclusion over-simplifies the problem at hand for Montcalm Farm and the thousands of remaining farms like it. As discussed in the introduction of this thesis, it is not enough for an ever-increasing number of stake-holders to maintain ownership of an agricultural property, for despite the best intentions of property owners, the threats facing an obsolete agrarian site are not fully resolved by simply preventing residential development. Instead viable alternative programs must be introduced, capable of funding continued operations.

2.25: PRESENT-DAY NORTH-FACING PHOTOGRAPH OF THE TELESCOPING HOUSE COMPLEX. NOTE THE USE OF BLACK PAINTED THREE RAIL FENCES TO KEEP HORSES ‘IN’ AS COMPARED TO FIG. 2.13 WHERE THE FENCE SURROUNDS THE RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX TO KEEP LIVESTOCK ‘OUT.’

FIGURE 2.26

FIGURE 2.27

FIGURE 2.28

2.26: UNDATED PHOTOGRAPH OF SIGN AT THE ENTRY TO MONTCALM FARM DURING GUY CORNELL’S TENURE AS MANAGER OF MONTCALM. 2.27: UNDATED PHOTOGRAPH OF THE NORTH-WEST CORNER OF THE UPPER DAIRY BARN COMPLEX SHOWING THE EXPOSED C.M.U. ONE-STOREY ADDITION AND THE LARGER SILOS. THIS CONSTRUCTION PROBABLY COINCIDED WITH THE C.M.U. CONSTRUCTION OF THE ‘CALF BARN’ CIRCA

1948. NOTE THE OVERSCALED FARMING EQUIPMENT. 2.28: A CLOSER DETAIL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SAME CORNER. NOTE: All images on this page courtesy of John Marsh’s personal collection.

THE DRAMATIC DECREASE IN U.S. FARM AND RURAL POPULATIONS FROM 1900-2000 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 1900 1910 FIGURE 2.29

1920

Over the past century the traditional American farmstead has undergone a dramatic transformation. Whereas in the 20th century the nation’s agricultural production was distributed throughout a large number of small, diversified farms, with more than half of the U.S. population residing in rural areas, agriculture in the 21st century is harvested by large, specialized farms with a small fraction of the work force. Today around 20% of the U.S. population resides in rural areas, due to the contemporary trend towards suburban development, as discussed in the introduction. Whereas agriculture represented 7.7% of America’s GDP in 1930, today it barely registers, at 0.7 percent.(2.70)

1930

The numerous owners, managers, laborers and farmhands employed on farms in 1900 represented 41% of the U.S. work force. By 2002 this number had decreased to merely 1.9% of America’s jobs. Replacing the horses and mules of 20th century agricultural labor, today more than 5 million tractors plow America’s farmland,(2.71) resulting in a ghost-town like setting surrounding the now obsolescent vestiges of the traditional American farmstead. Clearly, the vitality, scale and economy of rural landscapes over the past century have undergone significant change.

1970

RESISTING OBSOLESCENCE

But what should become of the decaying and obsolescent structures of those farmsteads which still remain? The sheer quantity of these rural structures will never warrant the same degree of interest in preservation that more ‘authentic’ historic structures have witnessed, nor should they. These structures were originally constructed and continually adapted to serve specific functions. With those original purposes now largely extraneous, it appears evident that the survival of these structures will depend entirely upon their ability to adapt once again. If they are unable to do so, their erasure will surely be a fait accompli.

2.29 SHEEP GRAZE IN A FIELD UNAWARE OF THEIR IMMINENT DISPLACEMENT TO MAKE WAY FOR THE SUBURBAN SPRAWL THAT WILL OCCUR AS A RESULT OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF WASHINGTON DULLES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, Allen, Howard Photograph. Dulles, VA. 15 April. 1970. <http://www.loudountimes.com/index.php/news/article/the_changing_face _of_agriculture/>

1940 1950 1960

1980 1990 2000

FARM-RESIDING PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION RURAL-RESIDING PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION

DATA FROM THE USDA, ELECTRONIC INFORMATION BULLETIN #3, JUNE 2005 BY CAROLYN DIMITRI, ANN EFFLAND, AND NEILSON CONKLIN

FIGURE 2.30

2.30 FARM-RESIDING AND RURAL-RESIDING PERCENTAGE OF U.S. POPULATION THROUGHOUT THE 20th CENTURY. Data from the USDA, Electronic Information Bulletin #3, June, 2005. BACKGROUND IMAGE IS A PRESENT-DAY DETAIL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE LARGER OF MONTCALM’S TWO SILOS, NOW SLOWLY DETERIORATING DUE TO THE INFILTRATION OF WATER AND LACK OF MAINTENANCE OR PROGRAM.

CHAPTER 3-A

AN ANALYSIS OF THE EXISTING PHYSICAL CONDITIONS OF MONTCALM FARM A SURVEY OF MONTCALM’S SURROUNDING CONTEXT AND THE 13 STRUCTURES OF THE ‘HISTORIC CORE’

MONTCALM’S CONTEXT AT THE REGIONAL SCALE As introduced in the opening chapter of this thesis, Montcalm Farm is situated just beyond the ever-expanding periphery of Washington, DC’s sprawling suburbs. The nation’s Capital is less than 50 miles east and for many decades the ‘metropolitan commuting corridor’ has increasingly infiltrated the Loudoun County countryside. This trend was most recently underscored by the 2005 construction of the 15 mile long Dulles Toll Road and Greenway - an eight-lane privatized toll road, which swiftly delivers exponentially-increasing numbers of commuters from their suburban homes in western Loudoun to their places of employment in and around Washington, DC. The steady ‘creep’ of suburbanization into Loudoun County was largely accelerated by the decision to construct Eero Saarinen’s Washington Dulles International Airport at the eastern boundary of the county. Beginning in 1958, under the administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower, condemnation letters were sent to 87 eastern Loudoun landowners. The US government paid an average of $500 per acre to amass a construction site of approximately 9,800 acres. To make way for the new airport, demolition was initiated for over 300 mostly rural buildings,(3.1) which some welcomed as a boon to Loudoun’s largely rural economy, and others protested as a devestating blow to the long-standing natural beauty and inherent charm of the county. As previously discussed, the resulting growth over the past fifty years has continued at a relentless pace, propelling Loudoun County into its present position as the fifth fastest growing county in the nation for the past decade. Of the 3,140 distinct counties in the United States 99.9% have seen nowhere near the growth of Loudoun County. The US Census of 2000 reported a population for the county of 169,599. As of July 1, 2009 that figure had exploded to 301,171, representing an average population density of 584 people residing on each of the county’s 516 square miles. Arguably the clearest depiction of the consequences of

this suburban sprawl as it relates to formerly rural landscapes can be seen in Figure 3.1. All impervious surfaces in the county are indicated with a grey shading. These surfaces represent building footprints, roads, driveways, parking lots, recreational courts, and the like. Given that Loudoun was traditionally a fertile agrarian landscape, celebrated for its “canaan-like” abundence, the alarming rate at which these impervious surfaces are infiltrating the county provides visual evidence of the area’s prevalent ‘tabula rasa’ approach to new development. The dark impervoius development zone just southeast of Montcalm Farm represents the nearby town of Purcellville. The 2000 US Census indicated the population of Purcellville to include 3.584 residents. By 2010 this number had exploded to 7,727 - nearly 115% growth as compared to Loudoun’s already record-setting growth of 77.8%.(3.2) This immense rate of population increase has been largely accommodated by the sale and residential development of nearly all of the former dairy farms surrounding Purcellville. These have inevitably resulted in bland reproductions of typical suburban typologies with no recognizable response to their unique historical or physical context. The elongated void to the north of Montcalm Farm represents the undevelopable ridge of the Short Hill Mountain range, which runs parallel to the Blue Ridge Mountains, demarking the western border of the county. As will subsequently be discussed, Montcalm Farm is situated at the base of these mountains, but by no means finds itself immune to the interests of residential developers, who continually express interest in acquiring the property for development. The county has long recognized the hazards of unrestrained growth and has diligently worked towards creating a range of conservation easement options and other incentives for preserving rural landscapes and open spaces, but the financial benefits of these programs generally pale in comparison to the market-rate real estate value of the properties. Additionally, many of these

MONTCALM FARM

FIG 3.2

WASHINGTON, D.C. APPROX. 20 MILES

DULLES AIRPORT

FIGURE 3.1

properties are owned by former farmers who have spent much of their lives sruggling to make a living from increasingly unprofitable farming operations. These property owners are understandably skeptical of any program that limit their property rights in perpetuity. Perhaps the county’s most beneficial program for the owners of such rural properties is the non-binding Land Use program which provides a much-needed reduction in

property tax to those qualifying properties which remain predominantly in either productive agricultural or forestal use. Montcalm takes advantage of both of these programs and is therefore able to justify leasing the bulk of its land to local farmers at well below market value in order to remain eligibile for this reduction of property taxes. However, while this limits the financial ‘bleeding’ of these properties, it fails to generate income.

3.1: THE RELENTLESS ‘CREEP’ OF SUBURBANIZATION TOWARD RURAL LAND IS EVIDENT IN THIS 2009 MAP OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACES IN LOUDOUN COUNTY. SHADED AREAS INDICATE BUILDING FOOTPRINTS, ROADS, DRIVEWAYS, PARKING LOTS, RECREATIONAL COURTS, ETC. Loudoun County, Virginia Department of Building and Development. Map Number: 2011-470, Mapped Date: October 2011

THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT OF MONTCALM FARM Figure 3.2 to the right represents a site plan of the area immediately surrounding Montcalm Farm covering an area of approximately one mile from east to west and one and a half miles from north to south. The keyed location of two detailed site plans are indicated, including Figure 3.3 which will feature the full scale of the property and Figure 3.6 which will detail the thirteen structures of the property’s ‘historic core.’ The three recognizable land use regions of Montcalm which will be discussed subsequently are clearly visible at this scale - each comprising about 1/3 of the property. They represent the forestal zone to the north and east, the productive agricultural zone to the north and west, and the ‘historic core’ to the south. The property is bordered to the west by the gravel-based state Route 716, known as Short Hill Road, and to the east by the state’s Route 690, known as Hillsboro Road. Both of these roads are maintained by Loudoun County. The large plot of land immediately south of the property was originally a part of Montcalm until the 1970s when it was sold in order to facilitate the departing ownership of the present owner‘s brother. A single residence was subsequently constructed at the highest peek of the property. Like the farm’s agricultural zone, the area surrounding this residence also participates in the county’s Land Use program, so the ground planes of both properties continually shifts vertically depending on the given phase of the harvest season. These crops alternate between soy, winter wheat, and feed corn. The residential area south of the former Montcalm acreage is largely characterized by traditional rural home typologies. As discussed in the historical analysis of Chapter 2, this entire region was likely originally a dense wooded forest. Many of these forestal zones remain intact and these long-extant homes are modestly scaled and thoughtfully sited amidst the surrounding wooded zone. As evidence of the immense growth throughout Loudoun County and the nearby Town of Purcellville, the newly constructed Mountain View Elementary School can be seen in the southeast corner of the site plan. The current enrollment of this school is approximately 550 students.(3.3)

current enrollment of 1,325 students represents Loudoun’s twelfth High School.(3.4) Perhaps the most dramatic aspect of Montcalm’s immediate context is the Short Hill Mountain range which extends from immediately north of the property. Montcalm literally ‘spills’ out from the steep topography of this 400’ high range, which runs parallel and about four miles east of the Blue Ridge Mountains. The Short Hill Mountain extends north from Montcalm for approximately three miles before descending into the Hillsboro Gap, though which the Catoctin Creek flows and the small 100 resident town of Hillsboro is situated. North of the Hillsboro Gap the ridge quickly rises once again to a height of approximately 600’ and extends for another 12 miles before dropping into the Potomac River. The National Park Service owns a portion of the Short Hill Mountain at this location in order to preserve downriver views for the historic Harpers Ferry National Historic Park,(3.5) 16 miles north of Montcalm. The Short Hill Mountain range as a whole, therefore geologically mimics the figure of an ‘exclamation mark.’ On aerial photographs of Virginia‘s ‘Piedmont’ region (such as that seen in Figure 6.6 of the Proposed Program chapter) this unique location makes Montcalm immediately recognizable. Just to the northwest of the property the Town of Purcellville’s water treatment plant is located. For several years the town has maintained an ongoing contract with Montcalm for emergency access its immense natural spring water reserves to supplement their own dwindling supply. Montcalm is positioned directly between this water treatment plant and the town itself and is therefore is at an an opportune location to facilitate the sale of this renewable resource. While the immediate context surrounding Montcalm Farm depicts little of the alarming suburban sprawl that is forever changing the formerly rural areas to the east, it is for precisely this reason that this thesis is being proposed. How might an alternative to the ‘tabula rasa’ strategy typical of suburban development be discovered that could return the property to modern relevance?

After the data for this map was collected, yet another school was constructed on a site just east of the elementary school, but still within the confines of the site plan area. The newly built Woodgrove High School, with a

The goal of the remainder of this chapter will therefore be to conduct a carefully survey the existing resources and qualities that make this rural agrarian site unique. It is hoped that such a survey will inform the development of a site-specific modern program capable of offering an alternative future to the property.

3.2: (OPPOSITE) SITE PLAN OF THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT OF MONTCALM FARM. THE PROPERTY ‘SPILLS’ OUT OF THE SOUTHERN END OF THE SHORT HILL MOUNTAIN RANGE, WHICH RUNS PARALLEL AND ABOUT FOUR MILES EAST OF THE BLUE RIDGE MOUNTAINS. A SMALL PORTION OF SHORT HILL ALONG THE POTOMAC RIVER IS OWNED BY THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, WHICH LIMITS DEVELOPMENT IN ORDER TO PRESERVE

DOWNRIVER VIEWS FOR HARPERS FERRY NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK. INDICATIVE OF THE AREA’S UNRELENTING GROWTH, NEWLY CONSTRUCTED MOUNTAIN VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (CURRENT ENROLLMENT: 550) CAN BE SEEN JUST SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY AND (ALTHOUGH NOT SHOWN IN THIS MAP) WOODGROVE HIGH SCHOOL (CURRENT ENROLLMENT: 1,325) HAS BEEN BUILT IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT.

FIGURE 3.2

FIGURE 3.2a

FIGURE 3.2b

THREE DISTINCT LAND USE TYPOLOGIES As indicated in the site plan of Figure 3.3 to the right, Montcalm Farm can be understood through analyzing the property by its three distinct land use typologies. The ‘Historic Core’ area (Figure 3.2a) consists of the southern third of the property. It is largely characterized by its thirteen historic structures arranged in four distinct

3.2a - 3.2c: DETAILS OF MONTCALM’S THREE LAND USE TYPOLOGIES: THE HISTORIC AND EQUESTRIAN CORE; THE PRODUCTIVE AGRICULTURAL LAND; AND THE PRODUCTIVE FORESTAL LAND.

FIGURE 3.2c

clustered complexes. This region is also characterized by its hosting of virtually all of the equestrian activities for the property, including both structure-hosted facilities such as stables and landscape-hosted uses such as trails and pastures. The second land use type consists of the Productive Agricultural Land (Figure 3.2b) which comprises the

D-

ER Y

FIG 3.6

LAND USE KEY ‘HISTORIC CORE’ AND EQUESTRIAN PRODUCTIVE AGRICULTURAL LAND +

PRODUCTIVE FORESTAL LAND

10’ 100’ 0’ 50’

1000’ 500’

northwestern third of the property and qualifies for the county’s Land Use Program by leasing its acreage to local farmers for a neglible annual fee. Three crops are grown year round in rotation, including soy beans, winter wheat, and corn. The final land use type consists of the Productive Forestal Zone (Figure 3.2c). The southern half of this area is leased

FIGURE 3.3

to a local tree-nursery operation that grows a variety of landscape trees for transplant to other residential and commercial sites throughout Virginia. The northern portion of the Forestal zone consists of old-growth hardwoods in a dense forest. This area represents an interesting counterpoint to the open fields of the productive agricultural zone and will be investigated for its potential to more actively engage the rest of the property.

3.3: SITE PLAN OF MONTCALM FARM SHOWING THE ‘HISTORIC CORE’ AND SURROUNDING AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL LANDSCAPE.

FIGURE 3.4a SCALE: +/- 1” = 500’

FIGURE 3.4b SCALE: +/- 1” = 500’

FIGURE 3.4c SCALE: +/- 1” = 500’

FIGURE 3.4d SCALE: +/- 1” = 500’

FIGURE 3.4e SCALE: +/- 1” = 500’

FIG 3.4a

FIG 3.4b

FIG 3.4c

FIG 3.4d

FIG 3.4e

FIG 3.6

10’ 100’ 0’ 50’

1000’ 500’

TOPOGRAPHY AND SOLID/VOID RELATIONSHIPS Figures 3.4a-3.4e to the left reveal five distinct sections taken through Montcalm’s unique landscape. Each topography line in figure 3.5 represents approximately 4’ of altitude change. The landscape sections have been vertially exaggerated to more accurately depict the experience of the landscape. As will be discussed in

3.4a-3.4e: [OPPOSITE PAGE] LANDSCAPE SECTIONS SHOWING TOPOGRAPHIC GRADIENTS AND VARYING ‘SOLID AND VOID’ CONDITIONS THROUGH THE THREE LAND-USE TYPOLOGIES.

FIGURE 3.5

subsequent chapters, the relationship between the dense forestal zones on the property to the open planes of the productive agricultural fields will be carefully analyzed to clarify the unique conditions of the site. This analysis will demonstrate that the horizon lines of these ‘void’ conditions constantly fluctuate according to varying phases of the harvest cycle. The solid to void relationships are therefore always shifting.

3.5: KEY PLAN OF MONTCALM FARM INDICATING LOCATIONS OF TOPOGRAPHIC SECTIONS THROUGH LANDSCAPE.

NOTE: VERTICAL SCALE HAS BEEN EXAGGERATED TO EMPHASIZE TOPOGRAPHICAL CHANGE ACROSS LONG DISTANCES

DAIRY BARN COMPLEX LOWER BARN COMPLEX 13

10’

100’

0’ 50’

500’

8 2 6

5 43 1

TELESCOPEHOUSE COMPLEX

AUTONOMOUS RESIDENCES

FIG 3.6

VIEWING MONTCALM FROM ‘AN APPROPRIATE DISTANCE’

on the key plans.

Throughout both the analysis and proposal phases of the thesis it will be important to find an appropriate balance between the extremes of evaluating the property on a purely abstract basis, versus ‘seeing’ the property solely from the point of view of personal experience. An appropriate and comprehensive approach would instead demand a careful negotiation between the two approaches.

Along the left side of the diagram thumbnail photographs of each of the thirteen historic structures are indicated along with approximate dates of construction, although in many cases these remain speculative, as further research continues. The buildings are loosely numbered to correspond to their likely sequence of construction of the property and appropriate arranged into their respective complexes.

Therefore efforts will continually be made to consider each unique aspect of the property simultaneously as both an abstract contributor to the global conditions and operations at work, as well as a genuine and tactile physical object in its own right.

Each of the four complexes will be broadly introduced here, and explored in greater detail in the following pages. The physical analysis chapter will conclude with a more detailed analysis of the Lower Barn Complex’s Bank Barn, which will be the candidate for the proposed architectural and programmatic intervention in Chapter 8.

THE HISTORIC CORE AND ITS FOUR DISTINCT CLUSTERS COMPLEX 1: THE ‘TELESCOPING-HOUSE’ COMPLEX The analysis of the thirteen physical structures of Montcalm’s ‘Historic Core,’ began with the recognition that four distinct clustered arrangements appeared to be at work. To varying degrees these clustered complexes are informed by either common siting and orientation, common functions, common structural systems, or interrelated dates of construction. In addition to establishing a strategic process for undertaking the physical analysis of the historic core, the identification of these cluster-based complexes underscores the fact that no individual structure performs purely autonomously.

The ‘Telescoping House’ Complex is comprised of the four residential dwellings of the property. Each structure was built adjacent and subsequent to its preceeding neighbor. As the following detailed analysis will discuss, as a whole this complex is characterized as the ‘heart and mind’ of the historic farm operations. Some aspect of this traditional function should therefore be carefully considered as the distribution of the newly proposed program is undertaken. COMPLEX 2: THE DAIRY BARN COMPLEX

While the analysis will proceed using these four physical arrangements as its method for categorization, it is clear the surrounding landscape remains as integral to the performance of the complex as any single individual structure. Therefore, in the detailed analyses the relationship of the structures to their landscape will be addressed wherever possible.

The Dairy Barn Complex consists of four historic buildings, dating from as early as circa 1880. This complex is characterized by a wide range of building techniques and periods of construction, but share a common siting at the north of the ‘Historic Core.’ Along with several other barns throughout the property, this complex is notable for its application of red paint as a technique for establishing a common identity through visual coding.

UNDERSTANDING THE KEY PLAN AND ANNOTATIONS

COMPLEX 3: THE AUTONOMOUS RESIDENCES

The Key Plan in Figure 3.6 to the right will reappear throughout the remainder of the physical analysis chapter as a mechanism for understanding the relationship of the buildings being discussed to the other buildings of their complex; the three remaining complexes; as well as the surrounding landscape of Montcalm. Whenever possible, the approximate location of historic or present-day photographs of the various buildings will also be indicated

The two self-sufficient rental properties make up the Autonomous Residences complex. These are located at the periphery of the historic core and are each representative of the unique historical periods in which they were built. The dwellings serve as a precedent for the property in their ability to generate income for the property in a non-traditional capacity.

CIRCA

1800

11 9

CIRCA

1830 CIRCA

1780 CIRCA

1910 CIRCA

4 5

12 13

6 10’

10 9

1948

CIRCA

1900 CIRCA

1958

1900

1880

TELESCOPEHOUSE COMPLEX

8 LOWER BARN COMPLEX

CIRCA

1820

1850 LOWER BARN COMPLEX

1860

DAIRY BARN COMPLEX

CIRCA

AUTONOMOUS RESIDENCES

0’

AUTONOMOUS RESIDENCES

‘TELESCOPE-HOUSE’ COMPLEX

1780

100’ 50’

500’

FIGURE 3.6

COMPLEX 4: THE LOWER BARN COMPLEX The Lower Barn Complex represents some of the earliest barn structures on the property and an interesting array of structural strategies and responses to the specific demands of their respective original functions. The complex is characterized by its relatively central position among the three remaining complexes and the surrounding landscape. It is presently used for housing two boarded horses. A consolidation of equestrian operations to the Dairy Barn Complex could leave the Lower Barn Complex with enormous repurposing potential. As will be discussed in detail subsequently, this complex is particularly responsive to its immediate topographic context. DETAILED ANALYSES OF THE COMPLEXES The next portion of this chapter will seek to analyze each of the four clustered complexes more thoroughly so as to inform the subsequent site plan proposal for redistributing the new and reconfigured programs.

12 13

3.6: SITE PLAN OF THE ‘HISTORIC CORE’ OF MONTCALM FARM AND ITS FOUR CLUSTER-BASED COMPLEXES: THE LOWER BARN COMPLEX; THE DAIRY BARN COMPLEX; THE TELESCOPING-HOUSE COMPLEX; AND THE AUTONOMOUS RESIDENCES. APPROXIMATE DATES OF CONSTRUCTION ARE INDICATED FOR EACH OF THE THIRTEEN HISTORICAL STRUCTURES, BUT RESEARCH IS CONTINUING FOR MORE PRECISE DATING.

CHAPTER 3-B THE FOUR CLUSTERED COMPLEXES OF THE HISTORIC CORE

COMPLEX 1: THE TELESCOPING HOUSE COMPLEX

3.9

3.7

3.8

3.10

12 13

10’ 0’

100’ 50’

500’

THE TELESCOPING-HOUSE TYPOLOGY The Telescoping-House Complex is situated upon an elevated hill at the center of Montcalm’s ‘historic core.’ The complex consists of four distinct structures, which together represent a clear articulation of the traditional Quaker ‘Telescoping-House’ typology. The linear arrangement and sequential construction of the four structures embodies an evolving access to materials, an ever-increasing sophistication of construction techniques, and increasing prosperity for the property’s successive owners. Because consecutive structures were contiguously added to the complex rather than replacing previous dwellings, the families were able to increasingly add square footage to their homestead. This accommodated growing numbers of occupants as well as increasingly specialized domestic functions.

FIGURE 3.7

THE LOG CABIN [Building #1] Dating to the 1780s, the Log Cabin of Montcalm Farm manifests the frugality and industriousness of its earliest frontier settlers. The foundation of the cabin is built from local stones individually pulled from the surrounding landscape in tedious preparation of the land for farming. Similarly, the logs used in the cabin’s construction were cut from the property itself - all 225 acres of which was likely originally wooded.

FIGURE 3.8

The log cabin typology represents a relatively straightforward construction technique which treats the stacked and notched timber as both structure and skin, Between the spaced logs, chinking was installed to prevent air and water infiltration. This chinking has decayed at a faster rate than the massive logs, and has therefore been replaced numerous times. In the 1980s the collapsed log cabin underwent an extensive restoration, which won the property’s present steward, John Marsh, a preservation award by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. The inside of the log cabin is characterized by an large-scaled stone hearth to the east, which kept the FIGURE 3.9

3.7 PRESENT-DAY EAST-FACING INTERIOR VIEW OF THE RESTORED LOG CABIN OF CIRCA 1780. 3.8 PRESENT-DAY EAST-FACING INTERIOR VIEW OF THE ‘STONE KITCHEN’ OF CIRCA 1800.

3.9 CIRCA 1945(?) SOUTH-EAST FACING FIRE INSURANCE DOCUMENTATION PHOTOGRAPH OF MAIN ‘STONE HOUSE’ OF CIRCA 1820 AND THE WOOD-FRAMED ‘BALLROOM’ OF CIRCA 1860.

Quaker settlers warm during cold Virginia winters. An upper sleeping loft was facilitated by the addition of timber beams, where original handmade 18th century nails can still be found. THE STONE KITCHEN [Building #3] The circa 1800 ‘Stone Kitchen’ of the Telescoping-House Complex represents a shift from the notched log construction technique to a stone load-bearing perimeter. The structure has long been abandoned and is suffering from severe deterioration. Several joists below the wood-framed floor have apparently collapsed due to water infiltration, however the Stone Kitchen holds immense potential for restoration and repurposing. Like the Log Cabin, the first floor interior is characterized by a large-scaled hearth which is flanked on each side by a built-in storage closet and shelving. On the opposite west-facing wall a steep set of closet-housed wooden stairs lead to the upper floor. The Stone Kitchen is connected to the larger Stone House to the west by a long and narrow wood framed storage room, which can be entered from the south. Several openings in the roof

structure suggest that dormer windows brought additional natural light, but these have long since been removed. THE STONE HOUSE [Building #4] The circa 1820 ‘Stone House’ is a two-storey, three-bay stone residence. It is connected to the Ballroom Addition to the west through two sets of doors on each floor, as well as by means of a front porch with square posts and scroll eaves brackets. The original 2/2 double sashed windows are still present. The house originally had an unusual three-room plan with a central chimney on the west wall accommodating two corner fireplaces on each floor. THE BALLROOM ADDITION [Building #5] The circa 1860 ‘Ballroom Addition’ is a stucco-covered lumber-framed structure, which approximately matches the footprint of its stone counterpart. While the interior of the Stone House is characterized by relatively humble interior finishes, the ‘Ballroom Addition’ showcases an elaborate stair, a finely detailed black marble mantel and numerous exterior flourishes, indicative of the property owner’s increased prosperity and access to materials and goods not available locally.

FIGURE 3.10

3.10: PRESENT-DAY NORTH-FACING VIEW OF ALL FOUR STRUCTURES OF THE QUAKER ‘TELESCOPING’ HOUSE COMPLEX: THE LOG CABIN CIRCA 1780; THE ‘STONE KITCHEN’ CIRCA 1800; THE ‘STONE HOUSE’ CIRCA 1820; AND THE ‘BALLROOM’ CIRCA 1860.

3.13

3.11 3.12

CHAPTER 3-B THE FOUR CLUSTERED COMPLEXES OF THE HISTORIC CORE

10 9

COMPLEX 2: THE DAIRY BARN COMPLEX 12 13 3.14

10’ 0’

100’ 50’

500’

RED PAINT AS A UNIFYING CLOAK The ‘Dairy Barn Complex’ consists of four historic structures at the northernmost quadrant of the ‘historic core.’ The three barns of the Dairy Barn Complex are each constructed of a different building material representative of their dates of construction but are unified through the application of red paint, which essentially disguises their individual construction techniques. THE DAIRY BARN [Building #10] The original Dairy Barn was lost to a fire and subsequently replaced around 1910. As the arrow indicates in Figure 3.13 below, the southwest corner of the new concrete foundation was reconstructed upon the ruins of the original structure‘s stone foundation. The resulting poured concrete was later tooled to mimic the appearance of granite blocks.

FIGURE 3.11

As one compares the circa 1945 photograph in Figure 3.11 to the present day photograph in Figure 3.13 it becomes evident that the original silos were replaced at some point with a larger capacity version. Silo capacity was directly correlated to the number of cattle to be fed, generally for a duration of approximately 200 days. A table in Karl John Theodore Ekblaw’s 1914 book Farm Structures, indicates that 50 cows collectively ate 1 ton of sileage a day. At the peak of Montcalm’s dairy operation the barn supported 48 cows, demanding a tremendous amount of stored sileage. The ratio of diameter to height was carefully calculated to prevent structural collapse, and as Ekblaw argues, often “two silos of less diameter and height are often preferable to one large one.”(3.6)

FIGURE 3.12

Silos were highly standardized, and while it is difficult to tell how the earlier silos were constructed from the single historic photograph, the present 16’ diameter silos are of the concrete stave typology, constructed of precast concrete blocks with ridged grooves along each edge, which lock them in place so as to perform as a weather-sealed, structurally-continuous shell. A series of steel hoops encircle the tower and insure that the concrete FIGURE 3.13

3.11 CIRCA 1945(?) EAST-FACING FIRE INSURANCE DOCUMENTATION PHOTOGRAPH OF RECONSTRUCTED DAIRY BARN OF CIRCA 1910, WHICH WAS REBUILT AFTER A FIRE DESTROYED THE ORIGINAL DAIRY BARN. NOTE THE FIRST ITERATION OF THE SILOS WHICH WERE LATER REPLACED WITH LARGER VERSIONS SEPARATED BY A ONE-STOREY ADDITION (SEE FIG. 3.13) 3.12 CIRCA 1945(?) NORTH-EAST FACING FIRE INSURANCE PHOTOGRAPH OF

THE STONE ‘MILK HOUSE’ WHERE FRESH MILK WAS BOTTLED. 3.13 PRESENT-DAY EAST-FACING VIEW OF DAIRY BARN, WHICH WAS REBUILT IN 1910 TO REPLACE AN EARLIER VERSION DESTROYED BY FIRE. A PORTION OF THE ORIGINAL DAIRY BARN’S STONE FOUNDATION CAN BE SEEN IN THE LOWER RIGHT CORNER. NOTE THE ENLARGED SILOS AS COMPARED TO FIG. 3.11.

continuously performs compressively. The static pressures generated in a filled silo are exponentially larger at the bottom, demanding solid and durable construction. When the new silos were constructed, they were relocated about 10’ north of their original location to make way for a one-storey storage addition, also indicated in the photographs. In 1983 the Dairy Barn was converted from dairy stanchions into horse stables by a tenant who operated a horse-traiing facility on the property. THE MILK HOUSE [Building #9] The small one storey gable-ended stone Milk House is where fresh milk from the property’s 48 hand-milked cows was bottled prior to the daily morning delivery to the 6 a.m. ‘Milk Train’ at the Purcellville station. Like the Stone Kitchen and main Stone House of the Telescoping-House Complex, the structure was constructed in a random rubble pattern from local field stones pulled from the surrounding landscape. Since the circa 1945 insurance photograph in Figure 3.12 was taken the Milk House has lost its brick chimney and its two original doors. The eastern

portion of the structure houses the original boiler which, although now partially corroded, could be restored and refinished to serve a new purpose. Overall the intimate scale of the structure offers significant adaptive potential. THE CALF BARN [Building #11] The circa 1948 gambrel roofed Calf Barn is the most recent structure in the Dairy Barn Complex and is constructed from concrete masonry units. The interior of the calf barn was also converted to horse stables in the 1980s but represents a significantly darker space, with large doors on only the shorter east and west ends. A series of shed-like structures connect the Calf Barn back to the Dairy Barn forming an overall ‘L’ shaped arrangement. THE STORAGE BARN [Building #7] The circa 1880 Storage Barn likely represents the oldest structure in the Dairy Barn Complex. Like the Bank Barn and Corn Crib of the Lower Barn Complex, the Storage Barn is a bent-framed timber structure. In recent years two of its bents have cracked. The structure is therefore significantly racking and is at risk of imminent collapse.

FIGURE 3.14

3.14: PRESENT-DAY NORTH-WEST FACING PHOTO OF THE TWO LARGEST BUILDINGS OF THE DAIRY BARN COMPLEX: THE DAIRY BARN OF CIRCA 1910 (L) AND THE CMU CONSTRUCTED CALF BARN OF CIRCA 1948 (R).

CHAPTER 3-B THE FOUR CLUSTERED COMPLEXES OF THE HISTORIC CORE

COMPLEX 3: THE AUTONOMOUS RESIDENCES

3.16 3.15

12 13

3.18 10’ 0’

100’ 50’

500’

PERIPHERAL SITING OF THE AUTONOMOUS RESIDENCES As the ownership of Montcalm gradually shifted from farmers-in-residence to off-site ownership in the early 1900s, the recognition took hold that additional residences could be constructed on the various periphery plots of the ‘historic core.’ The two residential structures at the west end of the property each directly reflect the building technology and cultural priorities of the times in which they were constructed. As compared to the other three historic core complexes which are sited with particular attention to their surrounding topography, the Autonomous Residences are characterized by their placement along the main access road of the farm and appear to respond to a more standardized arrangement based on typical residential lot size and property setbacks.

FIGURE 3.15

In the future these Autonomous Residences might serve as a precedent for increasing farm revenue through the introduction of new, modern cottages available for rental. Great care should be taken however to ensure that the arrangement of future dwellings be highly site-specific, rather than defaulting to a surburban typology which fails to integrate with the existing structures of the historic core or its surrounding landscape. THE TENANT HOUSE [Building #12]

FIGURE 3.16

Although the date of construction for the Tenant House is unknown, it is estimated that this lumber-framed structure was built around 1900. Lumber merchant Edgar Heston Hirst purchased Montcalm in 1911(3.7) and the house may well have been constructed at this time using his professional connections and materials from his lumber store. It is also plausible that this house might have been constructed on the location of the former ‘slave house’(3.8) indicated in the 1860 census and slave schedule. The tenant house is characterized by the same purity and simplicity that informs many of the utilitarian structures of FIGURE 3.17

3.15 CIRCA 1975 SOUTH-FACING VIEW OF THE TENANT HOUSE AND ITS SURROUNDING AGRICULTURAL FIELDS. 3.16 CIRCA 1975 SOUTH-FACING VEW OF THE POSTWAR PRE-FABRICATED COTTAGE MANUFACTURED BY LESCO HOMES.

3.17 APRIL 1958 ADVERTISEMENT FOR LESCO HOMES’ ‘PRESIDENTS’ SERIES OF POST-WAR PRE-FABRICATED HOMES. THE SERIES INCLUDED “33 DESIGNS PACKAGE-PRICED FROM $4,000 TO $12,000 - ALL EASILY FINANCED.” THE COMPANY WAS HEADQUARTERED IN MARTINSVILLE, VA BUT OFFERED ITS HOMES THROUGHOUT VIRGINIA, NORTH AND SOUTH CAROLINA, KENTUCKY, D.C., MARYLAND, TENNESSEE AND WEST VIRGINIA.

the traditional American farmstead. The facades of the three-bay residence are treated with modest horizontal wood siding and the original 6/6 double-hung windows remain in place. A simple two-post porch protrudes from the otherwise flat south-facing front facade. This porch provides some degree of shade from the high-altitude sumer sun. In plan the structure forms a “T’ shape, with a rear volume protruding to the north. The interior of the house is characterized by a steep staircase just to the right of the house’s central axis. A small room is situated to the east of this stair and a living room and kitchen are situated front to back to the left of the stair. The second floor follows a similar bedroom arrangement.

April 1958 advertisement for the company’s “Line of the Presidents” catalog of prefabricated homes. This branding strategy embodies the patriotic fervor that characterized marketing in post-war America. The subsequent boom in government-backed home financing of this era made home-ownership a reality for millions of Americans. It is believed that the prefabricated cottage at Montcalm is one of the 33 ‘Line of the Presidents’ models, which ranged in price from $4,000 to $12,000.(3.9) While the cottage is just over 50 years old, it is included in the survey of ‘historic’ structures of Montcalm specifically for its embodiment of the property’s continual capacity to adapt to ever-changing social, economic and historical contexts. THE NEED FOR UPGRADES AND IMPROVEMENTS

THE ‘LESCO’ COTTAGE [Building #13] The circa 1958 single storey ‘Lesco’ cottage represents the youngest of the thirteen ‘historic’ structures of Montcalm Farm. This dwelling is a post-war prefabricated house purchased from and installed by the Lesco Homes company of Martinsville, Virginia. Figure 3.17 shows an

While both ‘Autonomous Residences’ are maintained as ongoing rental units and afforded standard levels of maintenance and upkeep, it is believed that both structures would benefit from extensive improvements, if funding became available.

FIGURE 3.18

3.18: CIRCA 1964 NORTH-FACING VIEW OF THE TENANT HOUSE WITH THE LOWER BARN AND THE DAIRY BARN COMPLEXES IN THE DISTANCE.

10 9

CHAPTER 3-B THE FOUR CLUSTERED COMPLEXES OF THE HISTORIC CORE

8 3.19

COMPLEX 4: THE LOWER BARN COMPLEX

3.20

3.21

12 13

10’ 0’

3.22

100’ 50’

500’

THE CURSE OF THE CONNECTING BARN? Perhaps one of the most interesting structures of the Lower Barn Complex is that structure which never seems to remain in place for very long. Figures 3.19, 3.20 and 3.21 to the right show a consecutive series of structures which have sought to connect the Bank Barn to the north with the Pigsty to the south. Largely due to the nearly 9’-0” change in elevation, iteration after iteration of this building type have inevitably failed and been replaced. The oddity of this condition is heightened by the persistence of the comparatively indelible neighboring structures. Figure 3.19 depicts the first known structure of this type, which was clearly built to last as indicated by its use of field stone in the construction of the foundation. Figure 3.20 shows a severely deteriorated version of a later iteration of the connecting barn which appears to be in the process of failure due to several cracked posts. Figure 3.21 shows the construction of the latest utilitarian iteration of this connecting barn, which has survived for approximately 25 years and remains in fair condition, but has arguably little in common with the historic structures of its immediate context.

CIRCA 1945 FIGURE 3.19

THE PIGSTY [Building #2] The circa 1780 ‘Pigsty’ coincides in both date and construction typology with the Log Cabin of the Telescoping-House Complex. However, unlike the Log Cabin, the Pigsty represents a peculiar hybrid, manifesting a stacked and notched log structure on the interior of its building perimeter, with an outside skin of vertical clapboard. An interior view of this condition can be seen in Figure 3.23b on the following spread. The Pigsty has suffered severe deterioration along its western facade, largely due to its unimpeded exposure to winds from the open fields to the west. The steep grade change to the north often results in flooding at the southeast corner of the Pigsty‘s rubble foundation, which has further exacerbated the extent of the damage to

CIRCA 1984 FIGURE 3.20

CIRCA 1985 FIGURE 3.21

3.19 CIRCA 1945(?) VIEW OF THE RUN-IN SHED ADJACENT TO THE BANK BARN. THE ARROW NOTES THE EXTENSION OF THE BANK BARN’S STONE FOUNDATION FOR THE ADJACENT STRUCTURE AND THE INTENTIONAL SLANTED SILL TO ACCOMMODATE THE CHANGE IN TOPOGRAPHY. 3.20 CIRCA 1984? VIEW OF THE SAME SHED AFTER DECADES OF DETERIORATION DUE TO ITS ILL-SUITED SITING.

3.21 CIRCA 1985? VIEW OF A REPLACEMENT RUN-IN SHED UNDER CONSTRUCTION. NOTE THE STONE FOUNDATION HAS BEEN DEMOLISHED AND REPLACED WITH A POST AND BEAM STRUCTURE WITH AN APPARENT BAY-BY-BAY APPROACH TO NEGOTIATING THE FOUNDATION’S SHIFTING TOPOGRAPHY.

the historic barn. The structure’s relatively small scale has left it without modern programming for the past century, so maintenance has been continually deferred. THE ‘BANK BARN’ [Building #8] The circa 1850 bent-framed Bank Barn will serve as the focus of the detailed design intervention proposal and will therefore be discussed in far greater detail for the remainder of this chapter. What is important to note regarding the Bank Barn’s relationship to the other structures (both former and extant) of the Lower Barn Complex, is the relative immensity of its size. The Bank Barn represents 2,400 square feet of enclosed floor space - an impressive figure considering that the ‘mezzanine’ loft of the barn only covers 1/3 of its footprint. Furthermore, the non-enclosed lower level represents additional area which could be utilized. More impressive than the structure’s enclosed area however, is its volume. The unique truss-like bent system employed in the Bank Barn represents the culmination of the American farmer’s continual goal to maximize the

storage potential of their barn structures with the most economical use of materials. This truss-like structure also facilitated easy reconfiguration of its interior walls. As the circles in Figures 3.19-3.21 indicate, the exterior skin of the Bank Barn has undergone a continual process of patching and slicing to accommodate new openings necessary for its evolving programs and functions. THE CORN CRIB [Building #6] The circa 1830 Corn Crib is located at the south east end of the Lower Barn Complex. The building is constructed from a series of six timber-framed bents covered with vertical clapboard siding. The barn is oriented roughly east to west and accommodates an open central aisle for the loading and unloading of deliver vehicles. The narrow enclosed volumes to the north and south are accessed by a series of hinged doors. This building typology was originally used to dry and store harvested corn, and the building is therefore elevated above grade with a series of five sets of stone foundation posts which facilitate air circulation through the wood-slatted floor.

CIRCA 1984 FIGURE 3.22

3.22: CIRCA 1985 NORTH-FACING VIEW OF ALL FOUR STRUCTURES OF THE LOWER BARN COMPLEX: THE PIGSTY OF CIRCA 1780; THE CORN CRIB OF CIRCA 1830; THE BANK BARN OF CIRCA 1850; AND ONE ITERATION OF THE RUN-IN SHED. EVOLVING ITERATIONS OF THIS STRUCTURE HAVE SOUGHT TO CONNECT THE BANK BARN TO THE PIGSTY BUT CONSISTENTLY FAIL DUE TO THE STEEP TOPOGRAPHICAL SHIFT ALONG THE LENGTH OF THE BARN.

As has been previously discussed, the circa 1780 Pigsty (Figure 3.23b) employed a traditional stacked and notched log structure mimicking the concurrent construction of the Log Cabin. However, unlike its domestic counterpart which required protection from air and water infiltration, the expensive chinking was not necessary for accommodating the function of housing livestock. The Quaker settlers also appear to have treated the structure’s foundation much less carefully, as much of the stone base has long since eroded.

FIGURE 3.23a

The vertical clapboard was most likely added at a later date to create a more unified look for the structures of the Lower Barn Complex in much the same way that ubiquitous red paint has been used throughout the historic core for unifying the aesthetic of the barn structures. Both the Corn Crib (Figure 3.23c) and Bank Barn (Figure 3.23a) structures employ a timber-framed bent structural system, but the later Bank Barn exhibits a truss-like articulation of these members enabling a much larger span without the need for intermediate shoring. In subsequent years however, lumber posts were added to these bents to guard against potential collapse.

FIGURE 3.23b

Both systems are indicative of a time when raw timber material was abundent and the labor associated with hand-hewing these members fell under the responsibility of the local settlers and farmers themselves, rather than being outsourced at great expense. These bents therefore represent tediously hand-crafted mortise-and-tenon joinery, insuring a long-lasting and durable structural system. Likewise, numerous utilitarian elements are carefully integrated into each system, including ladders and staircases for accessing the loft levels and appropriate pegged elements for storing frequently used tools.

The three historic buildings of the Lower Barn Complex each exhibit their own unique structural systems, which reveal clues pertaining to both their original function and their familiarity with the latest advances in building technology.

The primary function of the two barns was the storage of corn and hay, respectively. Therefore environmental conditioning was not a priority and air infiltration was in fact encouraged as it provided ventilation to assist in the drying of the inherently damp crops. For this reason the vertical clapboard skin was installed with intentional gapped spacing. While this performative skin was well suited to the primary use of the barn structures, it presents a fundamental conflict for any adaptive reuse proposal which would would seek to accommodate human occupancy. Montcalm’s location in northern Virginia results in cold winters and hot summers, demanding a performative building perimeter that carefully responds to these seasonal temperature swings. The intervention proposal for the Bank Barn must therefore carefully consider the performative detailing of the barn’s envelope.

3.23a PRESENT-DAY INTERIOR PHOTOGRAPH OF THE MORTISE AND TENON TIMBER-JOINED BENT STRUCTURAL SYSTEM OF THE BANK BARN.

3.23c PRESENT-DAY INTERIOR PHOTOGRAPH OF THE MORTISE AND TENON TIMBER-JOINED BENT STRUCTURAL SYSTEM OF THE CORN CRIB.

FIGURE 3.23c

THREE DISTINCT STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS

3.23b PRESENT-DAY INTERIOR PHOTOGRAPH OF THE LOG-CABIN-LIKE STRUCTURAL SYSTEM OF THE CIRCA 1780 PIGSTY.

NEGOTIATING BETWEEN VERTICAL LEVELS The axonometric diagram of the Lower Barn Complex seen in Figure 3.23d reveals the relationship of the three historic barn structures and the contemporary ‘Connecting Barn’ situated between the Bank Barn and Pigsty. As the diagram illustrates, the arrangement of the complex performs in a bracket-like capacity, enclosing the pasture within in a manner not unlike a courtyard. The open aisle design of the Corn Crib could perform as a logical entry point to the Lower Barn Complex from the Telescoping House Complex to the east. The diagram seeks to demonstrate the manner in which the various structures of the complex perform as a mechanism for negotiating between the vertical levels of each structure and the relatively steep 8’-10” change in grade along the length of the western perimeter. The intensity of the blue gradient conceptually represents these vertical shifts, with light-blue representing the lowest elevation, and dark-blue representing the highest elevation. In particular, the previously discussed ability of the Bank Barn to accommodate delivery vehicles at the upper level to the north and accommodate livestock on its lower level

to the south, is revealed. In addition the ‘mezzanine’ storage loft of the structure at the east end of the barn is indicated as the uppermost vertical level. While the Bank Barn’s western facade currently ends definitively, the diagram seeks to illustrate that the structural bent system was originally designed to be endlessly replicated, facilitating potential further westward expansion. This will be further explored in the building intervention proposal of Chapter 8. Branching off of this arrow, a south-pointing arrow conceptually depicts the southward slope of the site’s western edge. This condition offers the potential for siting a new modern architectural or landscape-related volume in such a way as to remain in dialogue with the historic complex, rather than overpowering it. The existing contemporary ‘Connecting Barn’ is utilitarian in nature and specific to its current function as rain protection for the equine residents of the complex. The proposed program and site plan phases of the thesis will examine a potential consolidation of all equestrian activity to the Dairy Barn Complex, which could facilitate a modern replacement of this structure in order to accommodate a new function and become a more integral component of the complex.

THE LOWER BARN COMPLEX

THE BANK BARN APPROXIMATE 8’-10” CHANGE IN GRADE

|BENT-FRAMED| CIRCA 1850 +/-2,400SQFT

THE CORN CRIB |BENT-FRAMED| CIRCA 1830 +/-1,200SQFT

THE RUN-IN SHED |LUMBER-FRAMED| CIRCA 1985 [MODERN REPLACEMENT]

THE PIGSTY |LOG-CABIN STRUCTURE W/ CLAPBOARD SKIN| CIRCA 1780 +/-450SQFT

3.23d: AXONOMETRIC DIAGRAM OF THE LOWER BARN COMPLEX’S PERFORMATIVE CAPACITY TO NEGOTIATE MULTIPLE VERTICAL LEVELS AND GROUND PLANES. THE CORN CRIB ON THE RIGHT SERVES AS AN ENTRY POINT TO THE LOWER BARN COMPLEX FROM THE ‘TELESCOPING-HOUSE’ COMPLEX. THE BANK BARN ITSELF IS ENTERED AT A RAISED LEVEL FROM THE NORTH AND ITS FOUNDATION OPENS TO THE LOWER LEVEL OF THE

FIGURE 3.23d

SOUTH. THE MEZZANINE OF THE STRUCTURE PROVIDES FURTHER STORAGE AREA AND THE TIMBER-FRAMED BENT STRUCTURAL SYSTEM FACILITATES A POTENTIAL CONTINUATION OF THE BARN’S VOLUMETRIC CAPACITY THROUGH ADDITIONAL BENTS INSTALLED TO PROGRESSIVELY WESTWARD.

CHAPTER 3-C

THE BANK BARN A SURVEY OF THE CIRCA 1800s BENT-FRAMED BANK BARN

FIG 3.27

SURVEYING THE BANK BARN Due to its direct relationship to the remaining three complexes of the ‘historic core’ and the surrounding landscape, the Lower Barn Complex was chosen as the ideal candidate for a more detailed investigation of its potential to accommodate the newly proposed program for Montcalm Farm, which will be introduced in Chapter 6. Of the three historic buildings in the complex, the Bank Barn was chosen as the structure with the greatest potential for exploring a detailed architectural manifestation of this new program.

FIG 3.26

Therefore an extensive survey of the Bank Barn was conducted over the winter of 2011-2012. Figures 3.24 - 3.27 are floor plans and building sections of the structure as it presently stands today. As depicted in Figures 3.24 and 3.25, the Bank Barn’s embedded siting in the landscape represents a significant aspect of its identity. 1’ 0’

25’

These massive bents enabled minimal interior obstructions. This structural system clearly predates modern notions of the ‘open-floor plan’ as explored in the International Style. In bent-framed American barns however, this articulation had less to do with establishing new architectural typology and more to do with maximizing interior storage and facilitating easy reconfiguration of interior spaces as the structure’s primary function evolved. The interior rooms shown in the eastern bay are therefore endlessly adaptable and their present configuration accommodates the functions of the latest use of the barn, namely storage rooms and a wood-working workshop.

FIG 3.26

1’ 0’

3.24 A PLAN OF THE UPPER LEVEL OF THE BANK BARN, ACCESSED FROM THE LARGE SLIDING DOORS ON THE NORTH. BY EMBEDDING THE STRUCTURE IN THE TOPOGRAPHY, THIS SITE PLACEMENT ALLOWED FOR HAY TO BE DELIVERED AT THE UPPER LEVEL AND DROPPED TO THE HORSES OF THE LOWER LEVEL THROUGH THE ELEVATED APERTURE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE BARN.

‘BANK’ LEVEL FLOOR PLAN FIGURE 3.24

10’ 5’

FIG 3.27

Figure 3.24 depicts a scaled plan of the main level of the Bank Barn. Of particular note is the massive sliding barn doors at the north facade, which accommodate large vehicle deliveries. The access stairs to the lower covered area of the structure are shown just to the left of the barn’s central aisle. The sections through the lumber posts along the western edge of this central bay indicate modern shoring of the large truss-like bents that would not have been present originally.

10’ 5’

25’

MEZZANINE LEVEL FLOOR PLAN FIGURE 3.25

3.25 A PLAN OF THE MEZZANINE OF THE BANK BARN, CUT THROUGH THE LARGE TRUSS-LIKE BENTS OF THE CENTRAL BAY. NOTE THE EASILY ADAPTIBLE OPEN-FLOOR PLAN FACILITATED BY THE LONG-SPANNING TIMBER BENT STRUCTURAL SYSTEM. THIS STRUCTURAL SYSTEM ALLOWED INTERIOR PARTITIONS TO BE EASILY RECONFIGURED AS THE BARN’S USE EVOLVED.

Figure 3.25 depicts the plan of the upper ‘mezzanine’ loft of the Bank Barn. This provided additional storage capacity for the voluminous hay. The straightforward division of the structure into four distinct bays east to west, and three distinct bays north to south appears as an almost diagrammatic abstraction in its simplicity.

indicating the purity of its gable-ended massing. Again the steep shift in topography of the barn’s siting shows the potential for the structure to negotiate between various vertical levels. While the northernmost portion of this lower level is presently occupied by a raised floor level preventing adequate ceiling height for circulation, the intervention proposal will investigate structurally underpinning the foundation to create a more usable and flexible lower level space.

By contrast with the widely-spaced timber bents, the rafters which support the standing-seam metal roof are composed of thin lumber elements which are tightly spaced for structural redundancy, to make up for their reduced capacity to individually support much load.

The sparcity of spanning timber joists underscores the immense capacity of each structural member to support extreme loads over long spans. The upper floors of the transverse section reveal the articulation of the truss-like bents flanking the central aisle. The mortise-and-tenon joinery of these diagonal cross bracing members allowed the original structure to fully span from north to south without the need for intermediate posts.

Although not indicated, the plan of the lower covered level of the Bank Barn takes the form of a ‘U’ shaped arrangement with the southern foundation wall omitted to facilitate access below the structure for livestock during foul weather and as protection from the summer sun. This had the effect of a broad poche of mass serving as both retaining wall and foundation. The southern ends of the east and west foundation walls were flared outwards to increase lateral stability in lieu of the south wall.

The original builders seemed to recognize the significant racking pressures that the broad facades of the Bank Barn would face due to wind pressures and responded by means of the careful integration of cross bracing at virtually every junction between timber members.

Figure 3.26 depicts a longitudinal section through the Bank Barn. In addition to emphasizing the four-bay arrangement of the interior, the large sliding doors can be seen as well as the secondary lumber framing used to secure the clapboard siding in place. The lower covered level of the structure is indicated alongside the section cuts through the massive timber floor joists which support the upper platform of the barn. The relative broadness of the foundation‘s sectional profile as compared to the upper building envelope is demonstrated.

Particularly compared to the other structures of the Lower Barn Complex which were designed and constructed to perform a specific and singular function, the Bank Barn is characterized by its inherent ‘optimism’ as demonstrated in its capacity to remain infinitely adaptable to previously unimagined new functions. The goal of the proposed program, site plan and building intervention propsals will therefore be to empower the structure with the dignity to continue to adapt to new uses and remain an integral contributor to the activities of Montcalm Farm.

Figure 3.27 depicts a transverse section through the barn

1’ 0’

10’ 5’

25’

FIG 3.25

FIG 3.24

LONGITUDINAL SECTION FIGURE 3.26

3.26: LONGITUDINAL SECTION THROUGH THE BANK BARN SHOWING LOWER LEVEL BETWEEN THE OVER-SCALED STONE FOUNDATION, LARGE-SCALE TIMBER FLOOR JOISTS, OPEN-FLOOR UPPER LEVEL OF THE BARN, AND MEZZANINE LEVEL AT THE EAST FOR ADDITIONAL STORAGE CAPACITY. 3.27: TRANSVERSE SECTION THROUGH THE CENTRAL BAY OF THE BANK

1’ 0’

10’ 5’

25’

TRANSVERSE SECTION FIGURE 3.27

BARN. TRUSS-LIKE TIMBER BENT STRUCTURAL SYSTEM ALLOWED FOR MINIMAL INTERIOR PARTITIONS AND COULD SUPPORT A SERIES OF PULLEYS FOR ELEVATING HAY AND OTHER STORAGE ITEMS TO THE MEZZANINE LEVEL. NOTE THE STRUCTURES TOPOGRAPHICALLY EMBEDDED SITING TO ALLOW FOR DELIVERY AT THE UPPER LEVEL FROM THE NORTH (THE DEFINING CHARACTERISTIC OF BANK BARNS).

The dramatic spilling of topography around the Bank Barn structure therefore demands that the rubble stone foundation serve hybrid functions as both a traditional foundation and as a retaining wall. As previously discussed, the southern perimeter of the foundation was omitted for access to the covered lower portion of the barn for horses. Through the use of massive timber beams and floor joists, the upper platform of the barn structure is supported by only a few timber posts and joists.

3.29

THE BANK BARN’S EMBEDDED SITING IN THE LANDSCAPE As evident in Figures 3.28, 3.29, and 3.30, the defining characteristic of the Bank Barn rests in its deliberate and strategic embedding within the ‘banked’ landscape. This unique site condition facilitates the arrival of delivery vehicles to the upper floor of the structure so that hay and feed can be delivered and stored with minimal mechanical labor. From this main level, hay could then be dropped to the covered lower level (Figure 3.30) as needed. As the key plan at the right indicates, the Bank Barn is therefore tilted off of the north/south axis - unlike the Telescoping House Complex - giving priority to ideal topographic conditions rather than a strong adherence to solar orientation. This is further underscored by the scarcity of apertures in the structure, as natural lighting was not of primary concern for the barn‘s function. Nevertheless, as we will see on the following spread, natural light does play a crucial role in one’s experience of the space.

3.28

3.30

12 13

10’ 0’

100’ 50’

500’

FIGURE 3.28

THE BANK BARN’S ASSEMBLY COMPONENTS The ‘exploded axonometric’ drawing in Figure 3.31 indicates eight distinct assembly components that are present in the Bank Barn. The approximate lifespan of each of these different elements is indicated. As will be discussed in greater detail through the building intervention proposal, the survival of the Bank Barn has always been contingent upon the continual maintenance and replacement of each of these components when their lifespan came to an end due to either natural failure or a catastrophic event. Recognizing that the Bank Barn - and indeed all structures - requires constant replacement and maintenance of its various components represents an essential aspect of evaluating their present condition and future potential.

FIGURE 3.29

Rather than treating the preservation proposal as a futile attempt to stave off the inevitable process of decay, what if the Bank Barn intervention sought to embrace and facilitate the process of continual replacement? FIGURE 3.30

3.28 PRESENT-DAY SOUTH-WEST FACING VIEW OF THE BANK BARN SHOWING THE SEVERE CHANGE IN GRADE FROM THE NORTH FACADE TO THE SOUTH FACADE, ENABLING EASE OF STORAGE DELIVERY TO THE UPPER LEVEL OF THE BARN FROM THE NORTH. 3.29 PRESENT-DAY NORTH FACADE OF THE BANK BARN SHOWING LARGE SLIDING BARN DOORS AND PARTIAL STANDING-SEAM ROOF REPLACEMENT

WITH MORE ECONOMICAL BUT LESS DURABLE SHINGLE ROOFING. 3.30 PRESENT-DAY SOUTH-FACADE OF THE BANK BARN SHOWING LOWER LEVEL HORSE SHELTER EMBEDDED IN THE TOPOGRAPHY AND SURROUNDED BY THE BARN’S STONE FOUNDATION WHICH ALSO SERVES AS A RETAINING WALL WITH FLAIRED SOUTHERN ENDS TO INCREASE LATERAL STABILITY.

STANDING-SEAM METAL ROOFING |± 50 YEAR LIFESPAN|

MORTISE AND TENON TIMBER BENTS

LUMBER-FRAMED ROOF RAFTERS |± 50 YEAR LIFESPAN|

|± 100 YEAR LIFESPAN|

CLAPBOARD WOOD EXTERIOR SKIN |± 30 YEAR LIFESPAN|

STONE FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALL |± 200 YEAR LIFESPAN|

LUMBER-FRAMED CLAPBOARD SUPPORT |± 70 YEAR LIFESPAN|

TIMBER POSTS AND FLOOR JOISTS

RED PAINTED SURFACE |± 3 YEAR LIFESPAN|

FIGURE 3.31

|± 80 YEAR LIFESPAN|

3.31: AN EXPLODED AXONOMETRIC DRAWING OF THE BENT-FRAMED PRIMARY STRUCTURE OF THE BANK BARN WITH ITS CLAPBOARD SIDING, SECONDARY CLAPBOARD SUPPORT, RAFTERS AND STANDING SEAM ROOF ‘EXPLODED’ AWAY FROM THE STRUCTURE. APPROXIMATE LIFESPAN DURATION OF EACH ELEMENT OF THE BARN IS INDICATED. INTERIOR PARTITION FRAMING AND SHORING HAS BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THE

DRAWING IN ORDER TO CLARIFY THE STUCTURAL AND SPATIAL CLARITY OF THE ORIGINAL DESIGN, BUT IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE OVER-SCALED BENTS ENABLE AN OPEN-FLOOR PLAN THAT FACILITATES MAXIMUM FLEXIBILITY FOR ADJUSTING INTERIOR PARTITIONS AS THE STRUCTURE’S PRIMARY USE EVOLVES.

X FIGURE 3.32a - 3.32x

3.32a - 3.32x: A SERIES OF WEST-FACING PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE INTERIOR OF THE BANK BARN TAKEN DURING A WINTER SUNRISE. NOTE THE TWO DISTINCT TYPES OF LIGHT AT PLAY: THE DIRECT SUNLIGHT - REGISTERING AS ATTENUATED BARS ACROSS THE FLOOR, AND THE AMBIENT LIGHT THROUGH THE WESTERN APERTURE - ESSENTIALLY DEMATERIALIZING THE WESTERN WALL. (Photographs taken by Michael H. Marsh)

THE BANK BARN AS A DEVICE FOR FILTERING LIGHT Figures 3.32a - 3.32x depict a series of consecutive interior views of the Bank Barn during a winter sunrise at a rate of approximately one image every five minutes. As can be seen in the photographs, the varying gaps of the clapboard skin result in a distinct quality of light throughout the interior of the barn. Two distinct lighting conditions appear to be in operation. First, the direct sunlight registers as attenuated rays, which can be tracked through space as the sun continues to shift in both altitude and azimuth. Secondly, the high contrast between the ambient light of the sky dome visible through the western aperture, and the much darker interior of the

barn has the effect of increasingly dematerializing the western wall. As the intervention proposal for the Bank Barn proceeds, the design criteria guiding the project will therefore seek to preserve the essence of this ephemeral play between time and natural light. It is hoped that in addition to realizing an appropriate architectural response to the newly proposed program for the Bank Barn, the structure will be equipped to maintain its function as a device for filtering light. Additionally, the potential for the existing clapboard skin to perform as an integral component of the building perimeter’s environmental conditioning strategy will be explored.

FIGURE 3.32

3.33: PRESENT-DAY WEST-FACING INTERIOR ‘FISHEYE’ VIEW OF THE BANK BARN TAKEN FROM THE UPPER MEZZANINE LEVEL. NOTE THE MORTISE-AND-TENON JOINERY OF THE TIMBER MEMBERS AND THE INTEGRAL LADDERS AND TRUSS-LIKE DESIGN OF THE CENTRAL BAY BENTS. THESE BARNS REPRESENT THE CULMINATION OF THE AMERICAN FARMER’S EFFORTS TO ENCLOSE MAXIMUM SPATIAL VOLUME WITH MINIMAL COST

AND MATERIALS. THE BENT-FRAMED STRUCTURAL SYSTEM ALSO WOULD HAVE MADE FURTHER WESTWARD EXPANSION EASILY ACHIEVABLE WITHOUT CAUSING ANY MAJOR ALTERATIONS TO THE EXISTING STRUCTRE. NOTE ALSO THE UNIQUE FILTRATION OF LIGHT THROUGH THE GAPS OF THE DETERIORATING CLAPBOARD SKIN.

CHAPTER 4

ANALYSIS OF THE EXISTING PROGRAMS OF MONTCALM FARM AN INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPERTY’S CURRENT USES, USERS, AND DISTRIBUTION OF PROGRAMS

FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT FARM OPERATIONS For several decades Montcalm Farm has teetered on insolvency, with its income barely covering the minimum maintenance expenses for the property’s rental structures and its annual property tax burden. (FIG.4.1) This financial condition has resulted in continual deferment of elective restoration work for nearly all of its non-income producing historic structures. When restoration or stabilization work has occurred over the past thirty years it has only been achieved through either private funding by the property’s present owner or through a barter arrangement with short-term tenants who upgraded the spaces for their own needs. These precedents have resulted in a deprioritization of rehabilitation efforts which are presently viewed as either ‘philanthropy’ or ‘pet-project’ rather than calculated investment in the assets of the property. To date such preservation projects have been isolated efforts, rather than strategic components of a

larger master-plan for reactivating the ‘historic core.’ Infrequent occupancy of the restored structures has therefore resulted in an acceleration of the deterioration cycle immediately following completion of restoration work. INTRODUCING THE CURRENT PROGRAMS In addition to the general management of the farm operations, four broadly defined program categories make up the farm’s present identity. These include rental of EQUESTRIAN stables and pastures to local horse-owners; outside-contracted farming of approximately 80 acres of productive AGRICULTURAL land, which is leased to local farmers for $1000/year in order to maintain eligibility for the county land-use program, which results in a significant reduction of property taxes; a self-renewing lease of approximately 45 acres of the property to an

REVENUE

EXPENSES

10%

CALF BARN: 06%

ACTIVE AGRICULTURAL LAND-USE QUALIFIES FOR REDUCED PROPERTY TAXES EQUAL TO APPROX. 10%

DAIRY BARN: 10%

10% 12%

LOWER BARNS: 08%

15%

STONE HOUSE: 14% 08% TENANT HOUSE: 14% 05%

PROPERTY TAXES

(OFFSET BY AGRICULT. LAND USE)

OPERATIONS

(EQUIPMENT, VEHICLES, ETC.)

INSURANCE / LEGAL (FIRE, PERSONAL INJURY, ETC.)

PROFIT

(REMAINS IN FARM ACCOUNT)

‘LESCO’ COTTAGE: 12%

MAINTENANCE 30%

TREE-NURSERY: 09%

TOWN WATER: 25%

OUTSIDE INVESTMENT: 02%

4.1: DIAGRAM ILLUSTRATING RELATIVE VALUES OF REVENUE AND EXPENSES FOR MONTCALM FARM DURING A TYPICAL FISCAL YEAR.

20%

(DAY LABORERS, PLOWING, ETC.)

UTILITIES

(ELECTRICITY, GAS, ETC.)

FIGURE 4.1

FIGURE 4.2

outside-contracted TREE-NURSERY operation (FIG.4.2); and residential rental of two periphery cottages as well as the stone portion of the telescoping-house complex to lease-based TENANTS. Additionally, the farm maintains an ongoing contract with the Town of Purcellville to provide access to additional water reserves beneath the farm, however this program has no significant impact on the daily operations of the property, and has therefore not been specifically addressed in the analysis. Each of these programs serve as important contributors to the solvency of the property as well as instilling continued relevance and identity to the 250 year-old farm. Each of these programs presently exists independently and therefore all fail to benefit from a network of shared

resources and support. In order to carefully assess the status of these existing programs, and to investigate potential optimization of farm operations, an in-depth analysis of the various ‘uses’ and ‘users’ of the property was conducted. Although such relationships might seem straightforward, in fact each of the farm’s present uses exhibits a specialized fingerprint-like identity, characterized by the unique networks generated among its specific users. A careful survey of how these various programs and their respective users presently inhabit the farm will serve as the basis for evaluating a possible redistribution of the proposed programs with the larger goal of reactivating the historic core.

4.2: PHOTOGRAPH OF A TYPICAL ‘HEAVY-DUTY MACHINERY’ USE: TREE SPADE EQUIPMENT USED BY THE TREE-NURSERY OPERATION FOR TRANSPLANTING FULL-GROWN TREES. "File:Dutchman 95 Tree Spade on Loader.jpg." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Dutchmanindustries, 15 Aug. 2006. Web. 19 Feb. 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dutchman_95_Tree_Spade_on_Loader.jpg>

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EXISTING ‘USERS’ AND ‘USES’

only livestock species on the premises. Finally, the STRUCTURE-HOSTED category relates to all current uses of the property that are dependent on environmentally-conditioned architectural volumes for their use. All uses of this category presently fall under either OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT or PRIVATE use subcategories.

The ‘User:Use Analysis’ of the existing farm operations began with broad categorization of property users into a ‘user-type category’ of either GUEST; OWNER; or ADMINISTRATION/STAFF, as can be seen in Fig. 4.3. Each of these categories were then further subdivided by their affiliations with each of the existing programs: OPERATIONS management; EQUESTRIAN; AGRICULTURAL; FORESTAL; or TENANT. A sixth subcategory of STORAGE was introduced to account for the significant quantity of storage currently placed in abandoned structures throughout the historic core.

EXISTING MECHANICAL USES All current MECHANICAL uses of the property fall under the subcategories of either ‘equipment’ or ‘vehicular.’ (FIG.4.3) include both EQUIPMENT-based uses human-scaled landscaping equipment and large-scaled, heavy-duty machinery. Landscaping equipment is regularly used by owners and laborers to maintain the grounds. Examples of this use category include lawn mowing equipment, electric or gas-powered handheld devices, etc. This equipment requires storage accommodation within the historic core to facilitate its frequent use. Landscaping equipment uses are largely characterized by the high-decibel noise associated with their operation.

USAGE SUBCOMPONENT: EQUIPM.

USAGE-TYPE CATEGORY:

PATHS

EQUEST.

FOOD

LIVESTOCK

OUTSIDE-CONTRACTED TREE-NURSERY CREWS

EXISTING PROGRAM KEY

NOT IN USE TENANT EQUESTRIAN AGRICULTURE FORESTAL OPERATIONS GENERAL STORAGE ACTIVITY-BASED

SEMI-PUBLIC

LEASE-BASED RESIDENCES

GENERAL STORAGE IN BARNS

‘BALLROOM’ EVENT SPACE MGMT

EQUESTRIAN

EQUESTRIAN OPERATIONS MANAGER

FORESTAL

OUTSIDE-CONTRACTED AGRICULTURAL CREWS

MAIL DELIVERY AND MISC. UTILITY + SERVICES REPS.

LANDSCAPING CREWS AND MISC. DAY LABORERS

AGRICULTURAL

OPERATIONS MGMT. OFFICE

HORSE STABLES

HORSE FEED & HAY STORAGE

HORSE PADDOCKS

PRODUCTIVE FORESTAL ZONE FIELDS

LANDSCAPE-HOSTED

ACCOUNTING MANAGER OF MONTCALM FARM

OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT

DIRECTOR OF MONTCALM FARM OPERATIONS

OWNERS USING EMPTY BARNS FOR MISC. STORAGE

ROADS

PRODUCTIVE ARABLE ZONE

OWNERS LIVING ON THE PROPERTY LONG-TERM

VEHICLES

MECHANICAL

RESIDENTS’ DRIVEWAYS

STORAGE

HISTORIC CORE DRIVEWAY

TENANT

FARM-USE VEHICLES

MGMT.

OWNERS VISITING THE PROPERTY SHORT-TERM

ADMINISTRATION + STAFF

EQUEST.

HORSE STABLE AND HORSE PADDOCK RENTERS

OWNERS

TENANT

LEASE-BASED TENANTS IN RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY

(FISHING, BOATING, HUNTING, ETC.)

INVITED DAY GUESTS

HEAVY-DUTY MACHINERY

EXISTING

DESCRIPTION OF SPECIFIC USE:

GUESTS MGMT.

LANDSCAPING EQUIPMENT

DESCRIPTION OF SPECIFIC USER:

USES

EXISTING

PROGRAM CATEGORY:

HORSE-RIDING TRAILS

USER-TYPE CATEGORY:

PERSONAL AUTOMOBILES

USERS

Likewise, each of the farm‘s current ‘uses’ were then categorized by the conditions with which they are sited upon the property. The MECHANICAL category reflected mobile equipment or vehicles, which the farm must accommodate in order to facilitate current operations and maintenance. The LANDSCAPE-HOSTED category encompassed the subcategories of ROADS, PATHS, and FIELDS - elements dependent solely on the landscape for their usage. The LIVESTOCK category included only a single subcategory of EQUESTRIAN, which is presently the

PRIVATE

STRUCTURE-HOSTED FIGURE 4.3

4.3: DIAGRAM OF EXISTING USERS OF THE ‘EQUIPMENT’ COMPONENT OF THE ‘MECHANICAL’ USE-CATEGORY

Sharing the equipment-based subcategory, heavy-duty machinery is frequently deployed on the property for agricultural and forestal operations. This machinery is characterized by its notable bulk (FIG.4.2) and a capacity for performing specialized tasks at many times the speed and efficiency of similar manual labor. The ma jority of this equipment is owned, maintained, and stored by the outside-contracted agriculture and tree-nursery operations, but because the farm acts as a host to both their operation and transportation to and from the property, this subcategory remains an important part of the use survey.

vehicle. Given the relatively sparse habitation of the property at present and the goal of reactivating the property with new vitality in the future, it is clear that an appropriate accommodation of personal automobiles will represent a crucial element of the site plan proposal. The disproportionately large surface area that parking of these vehicles demands must be considered carefully so as not to disrupt the overall visual and functional continuity of the landscape. Farm-use vehicles include all vehicles that are used exclusively for farm operations, generally owned by both owners and tenants in residence and well as the current operations managers. This use-type is generally driven throughout the landscape to deliver its users to any area of the site which requires their attention, and therefore is rarely confined to established roads or designated parking areas. Recognizing that this condition will only be amplified with a reconfiguration of the programs will likewise be an important consideration in the new site plan proposal.

As compared to other analyzed uses, the equipment use-category is relevant to only a select few users, including landscaping crews of the operations management, as well as the staff and crews of the agricultural and forestal programs. VEHICULAR-based uses (FIG.4.4) include the subcategories of ‘personal automobiles’ and ‘farm-use vehicles.’ As compared to all analyzed property uses, personal automobiles represent by far the most prevalent use on the farm, as virtually every user is in possession of such a

USAGE-TYPE CATEGORY:

EQUEST.

FOOD

LIVESTOCK

OUTSIDE-CONTRACTED TREE-NURSERY CREWS

EXISTING PROGRAM KEY

NOT IN USE TENANT EQUESTRIAN AGRICULTURE FORESTAL OPERATIONS GENERAL STORAGE ACTIVITY-BASED

SEMI-PUBLIC

LEASE-BASED RESIDENCES

GENERAL STORAGE IN BARNS

‘BALLROOM’ EVENT SPACE MGMT

EQUESTRIAN

EQUESTRIAN OPERATIONS MANAGER

FORESTAL

OUTSIDE-CONTRACTED AGRICULTURAL CREWS

MAIL DELIVERY AND MISC. UTILITY + SERVICES REPS.

LANDSCAPING CREWS AND MISC. DAY LABORERS

AGRICULTURAL

OPERATIONS MGMT. OFFICE

HORSE STABLES

HORSE FEED & HAY STORAGE

HORSE PADDOCKS

PRODUCTIVE FORESTAL ZONE FIELDS

LANDSCAPE-HOSTED

ACCOUNTING MANAGER OF MONTCALM FARM

OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT

DIRECTOR OF MONTCALM FARM OPERATIONS

OWNERS USING EMPTY BARNS FOR MISC. STORAGE

PATHS

PRODUCTIVE ARABLE ZONE

OWNERS LIVING ON THE PROPERTY LONG-TERM

ROADS

HORSE-RIDING TRAILS

OWNERS VISITING THE PROPERTY SHORT-TERM

VEHICLES

MECHANICAL

RESIDENTS’ DRIVEWAYS

STORAGE

HISTORIC CORE DRIVEWAY

TENANT

FARM-USE VEHICLES

MGMT.

HORSE STABLE AND HORSE PADDOCK RENTERS

ADMINISTRATION + STAFF

EQUEST.

LEASE-BASED TENANTS IN RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY

(FISHING, BOATING, HUNTING, ETC.)

INVITED DAY GUESTS

USAGE SUBCOMPONENT: EQUIPM.

OWNERS

TENANT

PERSONAL AUTOMOBILES

EXISTING

DESCRIPTION OF SPECIFIC USE:

GUESTS MGMT.

HEAVY-DUTY MACHINERY

DESCRIPTION OF SPECIFIC USER:

USES

EXISTING

PROGRAM CATEGORY:

LANDSCAPING EQUIPMENT

USERS

USER-TYPE CATEGORY:

The vehicular components of the ‘mechanical’ use category comprise the widest range of distinct users.

PRIVATE

STRUCTURE-HOSTED FIGURE 4.4

4.4: DIAGRAM OF EXISTING USERS OF THE ‘VEHICLES’ COMPONENT OF THE ‘MECHANICAL’ USE-CATEGORY

EXISTING LANDSCAPE-HOSTED USES

complex forks off of the main access road and therefore suffers from ambiguity as to whether it is public or private.

All current LANDSCAPE-HOSTED uses of the property fall under the subcategories of either ‘roads,’ ‘paths,’ or ‘fields.’

In a potential reconfiguration of the farm’s programs a careful consideration of road hierarchy should be demonstrated so as to reduce unnecessary damage of heavy-duty machinery to gravel-based roads and to improve the gradient between public and private delineation.

ROAD-based uses (FIG.4.5) presently include both the main historic core access road, which connects Hillsboro Road to the east and Short Hill Road to the west; and private driveways associated with the three residential rental properties. This use category is characterized by a clear morphology related to mechanical, rather than human or livestock-based circulation patterns. The main access road is predominantly gravel-based and hosts virtually all components from the MECHANICAL use category, necessitating near-constant repair. The relatively steep topographical shifts throughout the property as well as continual damage due to seasonal snow plowing and rainwater runoff further result in significant expenses associated with maintaining the access road.

PATH-based uses (FIG.4.6) presently include only horse-riding trails and these remain relatively informal throughout the property. These paths are characterized by equestrian circulation patterns, which have become embedded in the landscape through repetition of directional patterns by the heavy-footed species and directed by the property’s current equestrian renters and single day guests. To date no specific human-scaled hiking or walking paths are clearly discernible in the landscape although informal paths can be understood to essentially coincide with the boundary of the wood fences distributed throughout the property to enclose horse pastures. A proposed revitalization of the property would require a careful

USAGE SUBCOMPONENT: EQUIPM.

USAGE-TYPE CATEGORY:

PATHS

EQUEST.

FOOD

LIVESTOCK

OUTSIDE-CONTRACTED TREE-NURSERY CREWS

EXISTING PROGRAM KEY

NOT IN USE TENANT EQUESTRIAN AGRICULTURE FORESTAL OPERATIONS GENERAL STORAGE ACTIVITY-BASED

SEMI-PUBLIC

LEASE-BASED RESIDENCES

GENERAL STORAGE IN BARNS

‘BALLROOM’ EVENT SPACE MGMT

EQUESTRIAN

EQUESTRIAN OPERATIONS MANAGER

FORESTAL

OUTSIDE-CONTRACTED AGRICULTURAL CREWS

MAIL DELIVERY AND MISC. UTILITY + SERVICES REPS.

LANDSCAPING CREWS AND MISC. DAY LABORERS

AGRICULTURAL

OPERATIONS MGMT. OFFICE

HORSE STABLES

HORSE FEED & HAY STORAGE

HORSE PADDOCKS

PRODUCTIVE FORESTAL ZONE FIELDS

LANDSCAPE-HOSTED

ACCOUNTING MANAGER OF MONTCALM FARM

OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT

DIRECTOR OF MONTCALM FARM OPERATIONS

OWNERS USING EMPTY BARNS FOR MISC. STORAGE

ROADS

PRODUCTIVE ARABLE ZONE

OWNERS LIVING ON THE PROPERTY LONG-TERM

VEHICLES

MECHANICAL

RESIDENTS’ DRIVEWAYS

STORAGE

HISTORIC CORE DRIVEWAY

TENANT

FARM-USE VEHICLES

MGMT.

OWNERS VISITING THE PROPERTY SHORT-TERM

ADMINISTRATION + STAFF

EQUEST.

HORSE STABLE AND HORSE PADDOCK RENTERS

OWNERS

TENANT

LEASE-BASED TENANTS IN RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY

(FISHING, BOATING, HUNTING, ETC.)

INVITED DAY GUESTS

HEAVY-DUTY MACHINERY

EXISTING

DESCRIPTION OF SPECIFIC USE:

GUESTS MGMT.

LANDSCAPING EQUIPMENT

DESCRIPTION OF SPECIFIC USER:

USES

EXISTING

PROGRAM CATEGORY:

HORSE-RIDING TRAILS

USER-TYPE CATEGORY:

PERSONAL AUTOMOBILES

USERS

Tenant resident driveways represent the second use type within the ‘roads’ subcategory. These driveways are currently hosted on the historic core access road with varying degrees of successful delineation between ‘public’ and ‘private.’ The driveway of the telescoping-house

PRIVATE

STRUCTURE-HOSTED FIGURE 4.5

4.5: DIAGRAM OF EXISTING USERS OF THE ‘ROADS’ COMPONENT OF THE ‘LANDSCAPE-HOSTED’ USE-CATEGORY

careful consideration of walking paths. Both safety and insurance demands would likely require some degree of minimal lighting along these paths. Therefore a beneficial hybrid condition between fence, path and lighting necessities will be investigated in the proposed site plan phase of the thesis.

rotation. The productive arable zones of the property are characterized by a continually shifting horizon-surface as their varying crops continually cycle through the harvest cycle.

FIELD-based uses (FIG.4.7 & 4.8) presently include the subcategories of ‘productive arable zones,’ ‘productive forestal zones,’ and ‘horse paddocks.’

The productive forestal zones of the property can be subclassified by one of two areas: the relatively low-height tree-nursery zone, and the much taller hardwoods forest zone. The tree nursery portion of the property consists of approximately 45 acres of land leased to an outside-contracted operation, which grows shade, ornamental and evergreen trees. These trees are regularly transplanted throughout the state with the use of large ‘tree spade’ equipment as seen in Fig.4.2. The forestal zone consists of approximately 60 acres of the property with dense, old-growth hardwoods measuring hundreds of feet in height.

Approximately 80 acres of the property are currently in use as productive agricultural fields which are farmed by local farmers for a negligible annual fee which allows the property to maintain its eligibility in the county’s Land-Use Program significantly reducing the annual property tax burden. For many years the crops grown on these fields have included Soy, Feed Corn and Winter Wheat in

The horse paddock fields of the property are dispersed throughout the historic core and are always characterized by their staccato-rhythmed posts and high-contrast black paint finish. The surface areas of these enclosed fields are carefully calculated by the number of grazing horses the enclosed pastures can support, and are therefore continually subject to expansion and contraction.

Given that the ‘path’ subcategory of the ‘landscape-hosted’ use category addresses both human and animal-scaled circulation patterns it is evident that introducing additional species to the property would necessitate a similarly thorough analysis of the circulation patterns associated with the newly introduced livestock.

USAGE-TYPE CATEGORY:

EQUEST.

FOOD

LIVESTOCK

OUTSIDE-CONTRACTED TREE-NURSERY CREWS

EXISTING PROGRAM KEY

NOT IN USE TENANT EQUESTRIAN AGRICULTURE FORESTAL OPERATIONS GENERAL STORAGE ACTIVITY-BASED

SEMI-PUBLIC

LEASE-BASED RESIDENCES

GENERAL STORAGE IN BARNS

‘BALLROOM’ EVENT SPACE MGMT

EQUESTRIAN

EQUESTRIAN OPERATIONS MANAGER

FORESTAL

OUTSIDE-CONTRACTED AGRICULTURAL CREWS

MAIL DELIVERY AND MISC. UTILITY + SERVICES REPS.

LANDSCAPING CREWS AND MISC. DAY LABORERS

AGRICULTURAL

OPERATIONS MGMT. OFFICE

HORSE STABLES

HORSE FEED & HAY STORAGE

HORSE PADDOCKS

PRODUCTIVE FORESTAL ZONE FIELDS

LANDSCAPE-HOSTED

ACCOUNTING MANAGER OF MONTCALM FARM

OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT

DIRECTOR OF MONTCALM FARM OPERATIONS

OWNERS USING EMPTY BARNS FOR MISC. STORAGE

PATHS

PRODUCTIVE ARABLE ZONE

OWNERS LIVING ON THE PROPERTY LONG-TERM

ROADS

HORSE-RIDING TRAILS

OWNERS VISITING THE PROPERTY SHORT-TERM

VEHICLES

MECHANICAL

RESIDENTS’ DRIVEWAYS

STORAGE

HISTORIC CORE DRIVEWAY

TENANT

FARM-USE VEHICLES

MGMT.

HORSE STABLE AND HORSE PADDOCK RENTERS

ADMINISTRATION + STAFF

EQUEST.

LEASE-BASED TENANTS IN RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY

(FISHING, BOATING, HUNTING, ETC.)

INVITED DAY GUESTS

USAGE SUBCOMPONENT: EQUIPM.

OWNERS

TENANT

PERSONAL AUTOMOBILES

EXISTING

DESCRIPTION OF SPECIFIC USE:

GUESTS MGMT.

HEAVY-DUTY MACHINERY

DESCRIPTION OF SPECIFIC USER:

USES

EXISTING

PROGRAM CATEGORY:

LANDSCAPING EQUIPMENT

USERS

USER-TYPE CATEGORY:

PRIVATE

STRUCTURE-HOSTED FIGURE 4.6

4.6: DIAGRAM OF EXISTING USERS OF THE ‘PATHS’ COMPONENT OF THE ‘LANDSCAPE-HOSTED’ USE-CATEGORY

USAGE SUBCOMPONENT: EQUIPM.

USAGE-TYPE CATEGORY:

PATHS

EQUEST.

FOOD

LIVESTOCK

OUTSIDE-CONTRACTED TREE-NURSERY CREWS

EXISTING PROGRAM KEY

NOT IN USE TENANT EQUESTRIAN AGRICULTURE FORESTAL OPERATIONS GENERAL STORAGE ACTIVITY-BASED

SEMI-PUBLIC

LEASE-BASED RESIDENCES

GENERAL STORAGE IN BARNS

‘BALLROOM’ EVENT SPACE MGMT

EQUESTRIAN

EQUESTRIAN OPERATIONS MANAGER

FORESTAL

OUTSIDE-CONTRACTED AGRICULTURAL CREWS

MAIL DELIVERY AND MISC. UTILITY + SERVICES REPS.

LANDSCAPING CREWS AND MISC. DAY LABORERS

AGRICULTURAL

OPERATIONS MGMT. OFFICE

HORSE STABLES

HORSE FEED & HAY STORAGE

HORSE PADDOCKS

PRODUCTIVE FORESTAL ZONE FIELDS

LANDSCAPE-HOSTED

ACCOUNTING MANAGER OF MONTCALM FARM

OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT

DIRECTOR OF MONTCALM FARM OPERATIONS

OWNERS USING EMPTY BARNS FOR MISC. STORAGE

ROADS

PRODUCTIVE ARABLE ZONE

OWNERS LIVING ON THE PROPERTY LONG-TERM

VEHICLES

MECHANICAL

RESIDENTS’ DRIVEWAYS

STORAGE

HISTORIC CORE DRIVEWAY

TENANT

FARM-USE VEHICLES

MGMT.

OWNERS VISITING THE PROPERTY SHORT-TERM

ADMINISTRATION + STAFF

EQUEST.

HORSE STABLE AND HORSE PADDOCK RENTERS

OWNERS

TENANT

LEASE-BASED TENANTS IN RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY

(FISHING, BOATING, HUNTING, ETC.)

INVITED DAY GUESTS

HEAVY-DUTY MACHINERY

EXISTING

DESCRIPTION OF SPECIFIC USE:

GUESTS MGMT.

LANDSCAPING EQUIPMENT

DESCRIPTION OF SPECIFIC USER:

USES

EXISTING

PROGRAM CATEGORY:

HORSE-RIDING TRAILS

USER-TYPE CATEGORY:

PERSONAL AUTOMOBILES

USERS

FIGURE 4.7

PRIVATE

STRUCTURE-HOSTED FIGURE 4.8

4.7: PHOTOGRAPH OF A TYPICAL ‘FIELD’ COMPONENT OF THE ‘LANDSCAPE-HOSTED’ USE-CATEGORY. APPROXIMATELY 80 ACRES OF THE PROPERTY IS LEASED TO LOCAL FARMER’S FOR A NEGLIGIBLE FEE IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN ELIGIBILITY IN THE COUNTY’S LAND-USE PROGRAM. TYPICAL CROPS INCLUDE FEED CORN, SOY AND WINTER WHEAT. PHOTOGRAPH BY AUTHOR.

4.8: DIAGRAM OF EXISTING USERS OF THE ‘FIELDS’ COMPONENT OF THE ‘LANDSCAPE-HOSTED’ USE-CATEGORY

EXISTING LIVESTOCK USES

allow horses to open the sashes for fresh air. The more contemporary corrugated steel calf barn is relatively dark and damp by comparison, with large apertures only present on the two extreme ends of the barn.

Although Montcalm Farm has historically hosted a wide variety of livestock species, presently only horses can be found on the property. The EQUESTRIAN use component (FIG.4.9) is therefore the only subdivision of the LIVESTOCK use category. These uses include both ‘horse stables,’ and ‘feed and hay storage.’ Although the ‘livestock’ use category is hosted within architectural volumes, these structures are not environmentally-conditioned and therefore remain distinct from the subsequent ‘structure-hosted’ category.

Feed and hay storage uses are currently distributed throughout several barns of the property. Horses receive sustenance by either grazing in pastures, or by consuming grain or bailed hay. These varying feed options demand vastly different storage volume requirements. As has been previously discussed, the surface area of pastures is precisely calculated based on the quantity of horses that will graze on the land. While grain can be stored in sealed bins relatively compactly, hay requires tremendous volume for its storage, which can be clearly understood by the evolution of the barn typology to increasingly accommodate greater volumes with minimal surface area. The previously mentioned dairy and calf barns accommodate storage of grain and some hay. Traditionally the upper level and silos of the dairy barn would have been used to store feed, but for decades these zones have been abandoned. The bank barn of the ’Lower Barn Complex’ continues to serve as storage for both baled hay and grain for the two horses which inhabit the lower pastures.

Horse stable uses currently dominate the distribution of programs throughout the historic core. This condition is largely the result of a tenant of the property in the 1980s, who converted the former dairy and calf barns into equestrian facilities with a total of fourteen horse stables. Over the past thirty years these stables have varyingly been rented in their entirety by single tenant horse-trainers, leased out to local horse-owners on a stall-by-stall basis, and frequently left unoccupied. The quality of light and air in the two barns varies greatly. The dairy barn building is equipped with dozens of windows many of which have been adapted with an upper pivot to

USAGE-TYPE CATEGORY:

EQUEST.

FOOD

LIVESTOCK

OUTSIDE-CONTRACTED TREE-NURSERY CREWS

EXISTING PROGRAM KEY

NOT IN USE TENANT EQUESTRIAN AGRICULTURE FORESTAL OPERATIONS GENERAL STORAGE ACTIVITY-BASED

SEMI-PUBLIC

LEASE-BASED RESIDENCES

GENERAL STORAGE IN BARNS

‘BALLROOM’ EVENT SPACE MGMT

EQUESTRIAN

EQUESTRIAN OPERATIONS MANAGER

FORESTAL

OUTSIDE-CONTRACTED AGRICULTURAL CREWS

MAIL DELIVERY AND MISC. UTILITY + SERVICES REPS.

LANDSCAPING CREWS AND MISC. DAY LABORERS

AGRICULTURAL

OPERATIONS MGMT. OFFICE

HORSE STABLES

HORSE FEED & HAY STORAGE

HORSE PADDOCKS

PRODUCTIVE FORESTAL ZONE FIELDS

LANDSCAPE-HOSTED

ACCOUNTING MANAGER OF MONTCALM FARM

OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT

DIRECTOR OF MONTCALM FARM OPERATIONS

OWNERS USING EMPTY BARNS FOR MISC. STORAGE

PATHS

PRODUCTIVE ARABLE ZONE

OWNERS LIVING ON THE PROPERTY LONG-TERM

ROADS

HORSE-RIDING TRAILS

OWNERS VISITING THE PROPERTY SHORT-TERM

VEHICLES

MECHANICAL

RESIDENTS’ DRIVEWAYS

STORAGE

HISTORIC CORE DRIVEWAY

TENANT

FARM-USE VEHICLES

MGMT.

HORSE STABLE AND HORSE PADDOCK RENTERS

ADMINISTRATION + STAFF

EQUEST.

LEASE-BASED TENANTS IN RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY

(FISHING, BOATING, HUNTING, ETC.)

INVITED DAY GUESTS

USAGE SUBCOMPONENT: EQUIPM.

OWNERS

TENANT

PERSONAL AUTOMOBILES

EXISTING

DESCRIPTION OF SPECIFIC USE:

GUESTS MGMT.

HEAVY-DUTY MACHINERY

DESCRIPTION OF SPECIFIC USER:

USES

EXISTING

PROGRAM CATEGORY:

LANDSCAPING EQUIPMENT

USERS

USER-TYPE CATEGORY:

PRIVATE

STRUCTURE-HOSTED FIGURE 4.9

4.9: DIAGRAM OF EXISTING USERS OF THE ‘EQUESTRIAN’ COMPONENT OF THE ‘LIVESTOCK’ USE-CATEGORY

EXISTING STRUCTURE-HOSTED USES

The ‘Ballroom’ event space is located beneath the operations management office and remains in use by the property owners, albeit infrequently. The entire first floor of this structure underwent a significant and impressive restoration in the 1980s but is in need of regular use and maintenance if it is remain a viable space.

All current STRUCTURE-HOSTED uses of the property fall under the subcategories of either ‘operations management’ or ‘private.’ OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT uses (FIG.4.10) presently include the operations management office and the ‘Ballroom’ event space as well as miscellaneous storage of personal items throughout the abandoned buildings of the historic core.

As previously discussed, many of the abandoned structures throughout the historic core are currently being used for haphazard storage of various personal items belonging to owners. The proposal for reconfiguring programs throughout the historic core must account for sufficient storage directly associated with the operations of each individual program, but it is presupposed that general storage of non-farm related material will not be of primary importance in the master-plan.

USAGE SUBCOMPONENT: EQUIPM.

USAGE-TYPE CATEGORY:

PRIVATE uses (FIG.4.12) presently include the three residential rental units on the property. These include the stone portion of the telescoping-house complex, previously described; a 1,750 square foot wood-framed house that historically housed farm laborers (FIG.4.11) and presently occupied by owners; and a mid 1950’s, postwar ‘Lesco’ brand prefabricated cottage with an attached horse pasture and run-in barn. Only the cottage itself remains in active use.

PATHS

EQUEST.

FOOD

LIVESTOCK

OUTSIDE-CONTRACTED TREE-NURSERY CREWS

EXISTING PROGRAM KEY

NOT IN USE TENANT EQUESTRIAN AGRICULTURE FORESTAL OPERATIONS GENERAL STORAGE ACTIVITY-BASED

SEMI-PUBLIC

LEASE-BASED RESIDENCES

GENERAL STORAGE IN BARNS

‘BALLROOM’ EVENT SPACE MGMT

EQUESTRIAN

EQUESTRIAN OPERATIONS MANAGER

FORESTAL

OUTSIDE-CONTRACTED AGRICULTURAL CREWS

MAIL DELIVERY AND MISC. UTILITY + SERVICES REPS.

LANDSCAPING CREWS AND MISC. DAY LABORERS

AGRICULTURAL

OPERATIONS MGMT. OFFICE

HORSE STABLES

HORSE FEED & HAY STORAGE

HORSE PADDOCKS

PRODUCTIVE FORESTAL ZONE FIELDS

LANDSCAPE-HOSTED

ACCOUNTING MANAGER OF MONTCALM FARM

OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT

DIRECTOR OF MONTCALM FARM OPERATIONS

OWNERS USING EMPTY BARNS FOR MISC. STORAGE

ROADS

PRODUCTIVE ARABLE ZONE

OWNERS LIVING ON THE PROPERTY LONG-TERM

VEHICLES

MECHANICAL

RESIDENTS’ DRIVEWAYS

STORAGE

HISTORIC CORE DRIVEWAY

TENANT

FARM-USE VEHICLES

MGMT.

OWNERS VISITING THE PROPERTY SHORT-TERM

ADMINISTRATION + STAFF

EQUEST.

HORSE STABLE AND HORSE PADDOCK RENTERS

OWNERS

TENANT

LEASE-BASED TENANTS IN RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY

(FISHING, BOATING, HUNTING, ETC.)

INVITED DAY GUESTS

HEAVY-DUTY MACHINERY

EXISTING

DESCRIPTION OF SPECIFIC USE:

GUESTS MGMT.

LANDSCAPING EQUIPMENT

DESCRIPTION OF SPECIFIC USER:

USES

EXISTING

PROGRAM CATEGORY:

HORSE-RIDING TRAILS

USER-TYPE CATEGORY:

PERSONAL AUTOMOBILES

USERS

The operations management office is located on the upper floor of the circa 1860 lumber-framed portion of the telescoping-house complex. Although this portion of the house was originally built as a contiguous addition to the adjacent circa 1820 stone portion of the complex, for several decades the two halves have been sealed off from one another so as to be leased separately. With the exception of a renovated bathroom in the upstairs portion of this structure, the management office has remained out of use for many years due to the increasingly dangerous uneven settlement of its foundation and a general lack of vitality throughout the historic core.

PRIVATE

STRUCTURE-HOSTED FIGURE 4.10

4.10: DIAGRAM OF EXISTING USERS OF THE ‘OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT’ COMPONENT OF THE ‘STRUCTURE-HOSTED’ USE-CATEGORY

FIGURE 4.11

USAGE-TYPE CATEGORY:

EQUEST.

FOOD

LIVESTOCK

OUTSIDE-CONTRACTED TREE-NURSERY CREWS

EXISTING PROGRAM KEY

LEASE-BASED RESIDENCES

GENERAL STORAGE IN BARNS

‘BALLROOM’ EVENT SPACE MGMT

EQUESTRIAN

EQUESTRIAN OPERATIONS MANAGER

FORESTAL

OUTSIDE-CONTRACTED AGRICULTURAL CREWS

MAIL DELIVERY AND MISC. UTILITY + SERVICES REPS.

LANDSCAPING CREWS AND MISC. DAY LABORERS

AGRICULTURAL

OPERATIONS MGMT. OFFICE

HORSE STABLES

HORSE FEED & HAY STORAGE

HORSE PADDOCKS

PRODUCTIVE FORESTAL ZONE FIELDS

LANDSCAPE-HOSTED

ACCOUNTING MANAGER OF MONTCALM FARM

OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT

DIRECTOR OF MONTCALM FARM OPERATIONS

OWNERS USING EMPTY BARNS FOR MISC. STORAGE

PATHS

PRODUCTIVE ARABLE ZONE

OWNERS LIVING ON THE PROPERTY LONG-TERM

ROADS

HORSE-RIDING TRAILS

OWNERS VISITING THE PROPERTY SHORT-TERM

VEHICLES

MECHANICAL

RESIDENTS’ DRIVEWAYS

STORAGE

HISTORIC CORE DRIVEWAY

TENANT

FARM-USE VEHICLES

MGMT.

HORSE STABLE AND HORSE PADDOCK RENTERS

ADMINISTRATION + STAFF

EQUEST.

LEASE-BASED TENANTS IN RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY

(FISHING, BOATING, HUNTING, ETC.)

INVITED DAY GUESTS

USAGE SUBCOMPONENT: EQUIPM.

OWNERS

TENANT

PERSONAL AUTOMOBILES

EXISTING

DESCRIPTION OF SPECIFIC USE:

GUESTS MGMT.

HEAVY-DUTY MACHINERY

DESCRIPTION OF SPECIFIC USER:

USES

EXISTING

PROGRAM CATEGORY:

LANDSCAPING EQUIPMENT

USERS

USER-TYPE CATEGORY:

NOT IN USE TENANT EQUESTRIAN AGRICULTURE FORESTAL OPERATIONS GENERAL STORAGE ACTIVITY-BASED

SEMI-PUBLIC

PRIVATE

STRUCTURE-HOSTED FIGURE 4.12

4.11: PHOTOGRAPH OF TENANT HOUSE CIRCA 1945, AN EXAMPLE OF THE ‘PRIVATE’ COMPONENT OF THE ‘STRUCTURE-HOSTED’ USE-CATEGORY. (Untitled. circa 1945. Photograph. Owner's Private Collection, Montcalm Farm, Purcellville, VA. By A.N. Adams & Son General Insurance - 11 Miller Bldg. Purcellville, VA)

4.12: DIAGRAM OF EXISTING USERS OF THE ‘PRIVATE LODGING’ COMPONENT OF THE ‘STRUCTURE-HOSTED’ USE-CATEGORY

The results of this survey can be seen in Fig.4.14. All current users of each structure are diagrammatically ‘plugged-in’ to the individual buildings they inhabit and the volume of that user-type’s occupancy is illustrated by the number of appropriately colored ‘cubes’ present in the abstract massing, with each ‘cube’ representing 100 square feet of interior volume. A number of important conditions emerge as one considers the results of this survey. The first of these observations is the overwhelming quantity of square footage throughout the historic core that is presently not in use. This lack of program becomes even more remarkable when one considers that this diagram fails to capture frequency of associated uses. Therefore, even those structures which appear to remain in active use, may in fact only be used infrequently. For example, the 1860 addition of the telescoping-house complex (building #5) indicates that 1,550 of its 2,250 available square feet are in use by owners and guests of the farm, but in actuality this is only accurate for approximately one or two weeks out of any given year.

The diagram further reveals that arguably two of the most important components of the farm’s present identity AGRICULTURAL and FORESTAL programs - have virtually no physical presence within the historic core. One would be hard-pressed to argue that the overall vitality of the property would be improved if such programs had a more commanding presence in the historic core, as both programs are predominantly characterized by their constant operation of large-scale, heavy-duty equipment. However, perhaps a different strategy could be explored that might enable a stronger dialogue between these various, and in many cases opposing programs. Rather than seeing the historic core as the only viable host to potential new users of the property, one could imagine that a new program could be distributed throughout the entire 225 acre farm, following a sort of colonization model reminiscent of early settlers. Such a new program would therefore serve as a connective tissue - unifying the historic core with its surrounding productive agricultural and forestal zones and congealing these opposing programs into a single, cohesive identity.

LOWER BARN COMPLEX

DAIRY BARN COMPLEX

Secondly, the failure of virtually all of the historic buildings to successfully serve as an ‘incubator’ by hosting overlapping users from various programs is evident. When multiple programs do register within the same structure, they are most often merely storage and utility uses associated with their respective programs. The overwhelming lack of vitality throughout the historic core can be seen as a direct result of the inability of these structures to successfully host random encounters among various users. Moreover, the scarcity of occupants related to the existing programs result in disproportionately low density usage for the property, regardless of its distribution of program.

12 13

Not surprisingly, those buildings with the smallest percentage of user occupancy are generally the same which face the most severe deterioration and in some

10’ 0’

10 11 7

8 2 6

5 4

TELESCOPEHOUSE COMPLEX

In order to thoroughly understand the relationship between the six existing programs of Montcalm Farm [OPERATIONS; EQUESTRIAN; AGRICULTURAL; FORESTAL; TENANT; AND STORAGE] it is essential to account for how these programs are distributed amidst the thirteen historic structures of the farm’s core. Therefore, following the same cluster-based categorization identified in the physical analysis portion of the thesis, an inventory was conducted to account for the current square footage-based usage of each of the thirteen structures.

cases, imminent collapse. The circa 1780 pigsty (building #2) is by far the oldest barn on the property, coinciding in age with the log-cabin of the telescoping-house complex, however its lack of program for the past 100 years and severely eroded foundation leave it little chance of surviving much longer, unless a new relevance can be introduced, which values the structure as a strategic asset within the Lower Barn Complex.

AUTONOMOUS RESIDENCES

THE PRESENT DISTRIBUTION OF PROGRAMS

100’ 50’

500’

FIGURE 4.13

4.13: KEY PLAN OF THE HISTORIC CORE WITH CLUSTER-BASED COMPLEXES IDENTIFIED

= 100 SQ.FT.

‘TELESCOPE-HOUSE’ COMPLEX

SQ.FT.

1200 SQ.FT.

SQ.FT.

450

8500

2700 SQ.FT.

OUTSIDE-CONTRACTED AGRICULTURAL CREWS

OUTSIDE-CONTRACTED TREE-NURSERY CREWS

1750 SQ.FT.

1000

SQ.FT.

MAIL DELIVERY AND MISC. UTILITY + SERVICES REPS.

4.14: DIAGRAM ABSTRACTING CURRENT SQUARE-FOOTAGES ASSOCIATED WITH USAGE OF HISTORIC CORE STRUCTURES BY DISTINCT ‘USER-TYPES.’ ONE ‘CUBE’ IS EQUAL TO 100 SQUARE FEET. STRUCTURES ARE SORTED BY THEIR RESPECTIVE COMPLEX WITHIN THE HISTORIC CORE.

EQUESTRIAN OPERATIONS MANAGER

EQUEST.

AUTONOMOUS RESIDENCES

SQ.FT.

LANDSCAPING CREWS AND MISC. DAY LABORERS

FORESTAL

1100

ACCOUNTING MANAGER OF MONTCALM FARM

TREE-NURSERY CREWS USE SEPARATE FACILITIES OUTSIDE HISTORIC CORE

600

SQ.FT.

DIRECTOR OF MONTCALM FARM OPERATIONS

AGRIC.

DAIRY BARN COMPLEX

SQ.FT.

OWNERS USING EMPTY BARNS FOR MISC. STORAGE

AGRICULTURAL CREWS USE SEPARATE FACILITIES LOCATED OFF THE PROPERTY

LOWER BARN COMPLEX

ADMINISTRATION + STAFF

SQ.FT.

OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT

2400

STORAGE

THE HISTORIC CORE

OWNERS LIVING ON THE PROPERTY LONG-TERM

TENANT

SQ.FT.

OWNERS VISITING THE PROPERTY SHORT-TERM

OWNERS

2250

HORSE STABLE AND HORSE PADDOCK RENTERS

MGMT.

2250

LEASE-BASED TENANTS IN RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY

EQUEST.

TENANT

SQ.FT.

(FISHING, BOATING, HUNTING, ETC.)

= 50

SQ.FT.

1000

INVITED DAY GUESTS

GUESTS

SQ.FT.

MGMT.

400

NOT IN USE FIGURE 4.14

Any successful master-plan for revitalizing Montcalm Farm must first establish a nimble system for continually evaluating the degree to which its iterative proposals successfully engage the thirteen structures of the historic core. To this end, the ‘Silo Diagram’ (FIG.4.16) was conceived as a ‘dashboard’ visualization for continually measuring the relative usage of these structures. This system is employed in Fig.4.16 to serve as a ‘baseline’ evaluation of the existing condition, but will be adapted to remain a valuable tool-set in the master-plan portion of the thesis. The ‘silo diagram’ facilitates not only an evaluation of how the reconfigured programs might be distributed throughout the historic core, but will additionally offer a method for determining an appropriate volume of modern architectural fabric within each complex, so as to maintain a dynamic balance between historic fabric and modern intervention. As Fig.4.16 illustrates, the four complexes of the historic core presently account for over 25,000 square feet of potential useful and engaging space, barely half of which is presently in active use. As discussed in the opening chapter of this thesis, lack of programming for such structures inevitably results in continual deferment of crucial maintenance as well as progressive marginalization of the structure’s importance. To a large extent, ‘emptiness’ in each silo can be understood as a representation of increased risk of ‘demolition by neglect’ and failure to effectively participate in the vitality of the historic core. This is not to argue that every structure must host a modern program, for surely places of contemplation are as beneficial to the vitality of the historic core as places of activity. Rather, no structure should be disregarded as a bystander in the daily interaction between users and uses within each of the four complexes.

12 13

10’ 0’

10 11

8 2 6

5 4

TELESCOPEHOUSE COMPLEX

AUTONOMOUS RESIDENCES

LOWER BARN COMPLEX

DAIRY BARN COMPLEX

The goal of the ‘Proposed Program’ and ‘Proposed Site Plan’ portions of the thesis will therefore be to develop a modern program for the property which will layer upon its historic uses and serve as an economic engine capable of funding continued restoration efforts and accommodating owners and visitors alike in their enjoyment and appreciation of the property and its valuable historic assets.

100’ 50’

500’

FIGURE 4.15

4.15: KEY PLAN OF THE HISTORIC CORE WITH CLUSTER-BASED COMPLEXES IDENTIFIED

AUTONOMOUS RESIDENCES DAIRY BARN COMPLEX

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

PROGRAM LEGEND AGRICULTURAL 10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

FORESTAL EQUESTRIAN

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

TENANT RENTAL FARM MANAGEMENT

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

STORAGE NOT IN USE

FIGURE 4.17

6100 SQFT

2750 SQFT 2750 SQFT

12800 SQFT

TELESCOPELOWER BARN HOUSE COMPLEX COMPLEX

10%

100% OCCUPANCY

DAIRY BARN COMPLEX 48% OCCUPANCY

3800 SQFT 5900 SQFT

1600 4050 SQFT

AUTONOMOUS RESIDENCES

LOWER BARN COMPLEX 40% OCCUPANCY

‘TELESCOPE-HOUSE’ COMPLEX 64% OCCUPANCY

WOODS COMPLEX

[NOT YET EXTANT]

FIGURE 4.16

4.16: ‘SILO-DIAGRAM’ INDICATING CURRENT PROGRAM OCCUPANCY OF THE HISTORIC CORE, SORTED BY CLUSTERED COMPLEXES.

4.17: DIAGRAM INDICATING PERCENTAGE OF AVAILABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR EACH HISTORIC CORE COMPLEX ALLOCATED TO VARIOUS CURRENT PROGRAMS.

CHAPTER 5

THE INN AT MIDDLETON PLACE A CASE STUDY FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF A MODERN PROGRAM TO A HISTORIC PROPERTY

A PRECEDENT FOR THE FUTURE OF MONTCALM FARM In order to establish a context for investigating future programmatic potentials for Montcalm Farm, considerable research was undertaken to evaluate the varying degree of success to which similar historic properties have introduced new or reconfigured existing programs in order to achieve financial self-sufficiency. One such property investigated proved to be a particularly relevant counterpoint to Montcalm. Located about 20 miles upriver from Charleston, South Carolina, a former rice plantation known as Middleton Place was once home to two of America’s ‘Founding Fathers:’ Henry Middleton, a president of the First Continental Congress, and his son Arthur Middleton, who was signing the Declaration of Independence concurrently

to the construction of Montcalm Farm’s log cabin and pigsty structures. As illustrated in the analysis of Figures 5.25-5.28 at the end of this chapter, Montcalm Farm and Middleton Place share much in common. The heart of the Middleton Place plantation is approximately 226.5 acres – a mere acre larger than Montcalm. Both properties host similar topography and combine densely wooded acreage with lush open fields. Both properties are situated less than an hour’s drive from a metropolitan center – although Charleston’s population of 120,000 represents merely 20% of Washington DC’s 600,000 residents.(5.1) The ‘South Flanker’ - Middleton Place’s earliest surviving structure - was constructed in 1755, merely 25 years before the earliest structures of Montcalm. Both properties have been forced to evolve as their previous identities - rice farming for Middleton and

FIGURE 5.1

FIGURE 5.2

5.1: An 1863 facade proposal for expanding and redesigning the Middleton Place residential complex, conceived by then owner Williams Middleton. This proposal would have expanded the then existing central house from five bays to seven... Image courtesy of the Middleton Place Foundation Archives and found in: Duell, Charles, Barbara Doyle, et.al. Middleton Place: A Phoenix Still Rising. [Charleston, S.C.]: Middleton Place Foundation, 2011

5.2: ...On February 22, 1865 however, a detachment of 56th New York Volunteers torched Middleton Place causing great damage. 20 years later in 1886 an earthquake left only the ‘South Flanker’ standing, as indicated in the altered version above. The Flemish gable ends were however incorporated when the ‘south flanker’ was restored in 1869-70. Original image digitally altered by Michael H. Marsh.

dairy farming for Montcalm - have become obsolescent in modern times. Subsequently introduced equestrian programs have brought a modest income to both properties, enabling them to remain financially solvent. Today the surviving structures of Middleton Place and its world-renowned formal gardens have been meticulously restored, but this was not always the case. A careful analysis of how a long succession of Middleton Place heirs – including Charles Duell, its present owner – have stewarded the restoration of this property from ruin to landmark might therefore serve as an appropriate case study for how Montcalm Farm might achieve similar success. THE EARLY HISTORY OF MIDDLETON PLACE The now vanished central manor house of Middleton Place was built in 1705 and 1706 by John Williams, a wealthy Charleston land owner and Justice of the Peace. The three storey, five bay brick structure was theatrically sited upon a 30 foot bluff in perfect alignment with a mile-long stretch of the Ashley River. When his daughter married Henry Middleton, an influential political leader in 1741, her dowry included the Middleton Place plantation. Influenced by the geometric engineering of Descartes,(5.2) Henry immediately

set to work expanding this alignment to establish a main axis for the plan for his formal gardens to the north and as a mechanism for creating a Versailles-like procession of vistas, aligning the entry gate and approach, to the west of the main house, and the parterre, promenade between the ‘Butterfly Lakes’ and the seemingly infinite stretch of the Ashley River to the east. By 1755 the growing Middleton family increasingly found itself a host to a steady stream of dignitaries. Henry therefore began construction on a pair of two storey, seven bay structures sited directly to the north and south of the manor house. The ‘North Flanker’ housed a conservatory and library that would eventually include over 10,000 volumes. The solely surviving ‘South Flanker’ (visible in Figure 5.3 below) housed the plantation’s offices and gentlemen’s guest quarters so that the family’s privacy would be preserved while visitors were present.(5.3) With the completion of the north and south ‘flankers’ and the ever-increasing grandeur of Middleton’s formal gardens, Middleton Place began resemble to its visitors ancient English county seats. As Charles Duell writes in Middleton Place: A Phoenix Still Rising, Middleton likely “wished to show his English cousins that people in the American colonies could live as elegantly as those in the mother country.”(5.4)

FIGURE 5.3

5.3: A present-day aerial view of the Middleton Place historic grounds. In the evenings the step-down terraces of the parterre are underscored by the long shadows from the setting sun directly to the west The ‘South Flanker’ is present at the lower right corner, but the location of the original manor house is only discernible by the rubble of its ruined foundation. Photo source:

Duell, Charles, Barbara Doyle, et.al. Middleton Place: A Phoenix Still Rising. [Charleston, S.C.]: Middleton Place Foundation, 2011

MIDDLETON PLACE THROUGH SUCCESSIVE GENERATIONS By the end of his life Henry Middleton had emerged as one of the largest landowners in South Carolina with more than 50,000 acres and approximately 800 slaves. After the death of his wife Mary in 1761 he returned to his earlier home ‘The Oaks’ where he lived the last 23 years of his life. Upon his death in 1784, Middleton Place was left to his oldest son Arthur. Arthur Middleton (2nd generation) studied law in England and traveled extensively throughout Europe where he developed and refined his taste in classical music, literature, and art. In 1763 he returned to Charleston and swiftly married Mary Izard, who lived at the Cedar Grove plantation across the Ashley River from Middleton Place. Arthur became a leader of the American Party in South Carolina and in 1776 was elected to succeed his father in the Continental Congress, which would quickly lead to his participation in signing the Declaration of Independence. Although they were frequently on opposite sides of lively debates, John Adams would later write of Arthur Middleton: “We parted... without a spark of malice on either side, for he was an honest and generous fellow, with all his zeal in the cause.”(5.5) Active in defense of Charleston during the Revolution and ruthless in his approach to dealing with British Loyalists, Arthur was sent as a prisoner of war under house arrest to St. Augustine, Florida after Charleston’s fall to the British in 1780. Although released in Philadelphia the following year, he would soon suffer a premature death on January 1, 1787 at the age of 45.

FIGURE 5.4

Middleton Place subsequently passed to Arthur’s eldest son, also by the name of Henry (3rd generation) who was born in London in 1770. Following his father and grandfather into politics, Henry served in both houses of the South Carolina state legislature and for one term as Governor. In 1819 Henry hosted President James Monroe at Middleton Place during his presidential tour of the South. He would serve three years in Congress before Monroe appointed him as America’s Minister of Plenipotentiary to Russia where he served throughout the 1820s. Upon Henry’s death in 1846, Middleton Place passed to one of his younger sons, Williams Middleton (4th generation). In December 1860 Williams played a pivotal role in dissolving the same Union his great-grandfather and grandfather had helped create, by signing South Carolina’s Ordinance of Secession. His involvement with the Confederacy would not stop there however, as Williams invested heavily in Confederate war bonds and provided both physical and material support for the defense of Charleston.

FIGURE 5.5 STRUCTURES OR LANDSCAPE DEMOLISHED DURING/POST CIVIL WAR ORIGINAL STRUCTURES THAT REMAIN IN PLACE TODAY

5.4: A map of the Middleton Place plantation grounds prior to its torching by a detachment of the 56th New York Volunteers in 1865. Image courtesy of the Middleton Place Foundation Archives and found in: Duell, Charles, Barbara Doyle, et.al. Middleton Place: A Phoenix Still Rising. [Charleston, S.C.]: Middleton Place Foundation, 2011

5.5: A diagram indicating those structures or landscape features presesnt prior to the Civil War that would be destroyed or altered after the Civil War. Diagram by Michael Marsh and layered upon the previously cited map.

“...UNTIL THE DAY OF FINAL DOOM” In 1840 Richard Yeadon, editor of the Charleston Daily Courier would describe the grandeur of Middleton Place by writing: “we meet with evidence of the taste, wealth and magnificence of colonial times. The mansion... is constructed of common native brick, although finished off in some parts with more polished material, doubtless of English manufacture... Although... considerably more than a century old, it is as substantial and durable as ever, and will probably endure, like the venerable oaks... until the day of final doom.”(5.6)

FIGURE 5.6

As Charles Duell observes in A Phoenix Still Rising: “Yeadon could scarcely have known how ironically prophetic his words would be.”(5.7) As indicated in Figures 5.4-5.7 which show original and diagrammed site plans of Middleton Place before and after the Civil War, Middleton Place would soon pay a steep price for Williams Middleton’s steadfast support of the Confederacy. Just as Williams Middleton was drafting a grand proposal for expanding the Middleton Place complex (shown in Figure 5.1) with the expectation that his investment in Confederate bonds would pay off handsomely, Union troops were steadily making their way towards South Carolina. On February 21, 1865 a detachment of the 56th New York Volunteers took possession of Middleton Place. After spending the night in the manor house and its two flankers the troops set fire to all three structures and the contents within. Although the core of the south flanker would survive relatively intact, the manor house and north flanker would be left in a state of sublime ruin, as the photographs in Figures 5.12 and 5.13 reveal. Unfortunately this would not be the last of the destructive forces and even greater damage to Middleton Place would soon follow. Just over twenty years after the fire, the ‘Great 1886 Earthquake’ struck the Charleston area and felled the ruins of the manor house and north flanker into two distinct heaps of rubble. With minimal revenue from phosphate mining operations in the nearby woods and extensive financial assistance from his sister Eliza Middleton Fisher of Philadelphia, Williams began the tedious task of restoring the south flanker and the surrounding formal gardens and terraced landscape. The manor house and north flanker would never be rebuilt, leaving a striking absence, perceived all the more by the site’s strong axial arrangement.

FIGURE 5.7 NEW STRUCTURES OR LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTED SINCE 1925 STRUCTURES OR LANDSCAPE DEMOLISHED DURING/POST CIVIL WAR

5.6: A map indicating the evolution of Middleton Place since 1925. Image courtesy of the Middleton Place Foundation Archives and found in: Duell, Charles, Barbara Doyle, et.al. Middleton Place: A Phoenix Still Rising. [Charleston, S.C.]: Middleton Place Foundation, 2011

Middleton Place was not an isolated occurrence, and of the 32 plantations that once lined the Ashley River, only the nearby ‘Drayton Hall’ plantation would survive to the 20th Century fully intact.(5.8)

survived the Civil War and 1886 earthquake (in white fill); those structures which have been constructed since 1925 (in blue hatch); and the original structures which were demolished (dashed). Diagram by Michael Marsh and layered upon the previously cited map.

5.7: A diagram indicating original structures or landscape features that

FIGURE 5.8

FIGURE 5.9

FIGURE 5.10

5.8: An aerial view of the primary building of Clark and Menefeeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Inn at Middleton Place, which uses the woods as a natural device for buffering the historic area from the modern architecture. Aerial View of the Inn. Photograph. Charleston, SC. Middleton Place. Web. 29 Apr. 2012. <http://theinnatmiddletonplace.com/photo-gallery-a.html>. 5.9: An aerial view of the historic core of Middleton Place.

Duell, Charles, Barbara Doyle, et.al. Middleton Place: A Phoenix Still Rising. [Charleston, S.C.]: Middleton Place Foundation, 2011 5.10: A Site Plan of the full Middleton Place complex including the historic core, the modern inn, and the equestrian activity zone. Guide map underlay courtesy of Guest Services at the Inn at Middleton Place.

THE RESTORATION EFFORTS BEGIN After over sixty years of neglect, the effort to restore Middleton Place began in 1925 under the stewardship of J.J. Pringle Smith who inherited the plantation in 1916. Upon the death of his father Henry Augustus Middleton Smith in 1924 Smith gained access to sufficient funding to begin the extensive work in earnest. J.J. and his wife Heningham would live the rest of their lives in the restored South Flanker while reestablishing the gardens and auxiliary structures. Taking advantage of inexpensive and abundant labor during the Great Depression they expanded the outbuildings of the property to create a headquarters sufficient for farming operations and a new guest house, which would be completed by 1937.(5.9) These new structures (as indicated on the left side of Figure 5.7) would serve as an early precedent for carving out zones within the adjacent wooded area of the property to accommodate new architectural fabric on a distinct axial arrangement to that of the original residential complex. Seizing the woods as a natural buffer between new and old provided a strategy for modernizing the site without detracting from the essence of the historic plantation. Today these newer structures house the Plantation Stableyards and the Middleton Place Restaurant. In 1941 the Garden Club of America conferred the Bulkley Medal upon the Middleton Place gardens - its highest award - for “200 years of enduring beauty”(5.10) describing them as the oldest and “most interesting and important in America.” By the late 1960s the Smith’s had willed Middleton Place to their grandson Charles Duell. On the Tricentennial of the founding of Charleston during the 1970s the Plantation Stableyards were opened to the public, initiating a program of outreach to tourists and Charlestonians alike. Duell and his family continued to live in the South Flanker and in 1972 Middleton Place was designated a National Historic Landmark.

educational trust that would ensure that the house, gardens and stableyard would remain open to the public in perpetuity.(5.11) After obtaining funding grants, the South Flanker was opened for public visitation on February 22, 1975 - 110 years to the day after the three structures of Middleton Place’s residential complex had been torched by the Union army. Under the stewardship of the Middleton Place Foundation, the property has continued to undergo extensive infrastructural improvements while facilitating ongoing research efforts and further developing its curatorial work of interpreting the historic significance of the site for its countless and varied visitors. CONCEIVING OF THE ‘INN AT MIDDLETON PLACE’ By the 1980s the Duell family granted the Foundation all the acres associated with the National Historic Landmark portion of the site. In recognition that operating the site solely as a historic property would continually present funding impediments, Duell conceived of a guest house catering to ‘regulars’ who attended seasonal events on the grounds. Hoping to attract a share of Charleston‘s corporate retreat market, he imagined such a program might also accommodate a conference center. Introducing this new program to the property, Duell hoped, might generate sustainable revenue to support ongoing restoration efforts for the property into the distant future. Duell believed the most challenging obstacle to realizing such a strategy was Middleton Place’s remote location from downtown Charleston. His chosen architect, W.G. Clark however, argued that this separation from the city might be leveraged and the Inn at Middleton Place could market itself as a ‘rural retreat’ - offering a slow-paced alternative to its bustling city-based competitors. SITING THE MODERN ARCHITECTURE

INSUFFICIENT LIQUIDITY Duell began to fear that the expense associated with his personal commitment to continuing a 250-year long legacy of family stewardship might end with his generation if he were to suffer an untimely death. Much like Montcalm Farm, Duell acknowledged that the property maintained insufficient liquidity and revenue to cover IRS estate taxes, which would likely result in its forced sale under such an unfortunate circumstance. Therefore in 1974 Duell established the Middleton Place Foundation, a 501(c)(3)

After exploring three unique parcels of land for the siting of the modern Inn, Duell and Clark agreed on a nine-acre wooded bluff about a quarter mile east of the historic core and just beyond the boundary of the landmarked portion of the site. This selection represented a continuation of the strategy first deployed in the Plantation Stableyards, leveraging the wooded acreage of the site as a natural buffer between the new and old architectural fabric. The initial program called for a single ‘L’ shaped structure housing 25 private rooms alongside a communal lodge and

FIGURE 5.11

FIGURE 5.12

registration area. The modern inn was to be built upon the foundation of the shallow phosphate mine that had supported Williams Middleton’s modest income in the years following the Civil War, as Robert Behre describes “essentially covering up an old scar.”(5.12) The steep change in grade left by this mining operation provided a felicitous condition whereby the bottom storey of the modern structure‘s bulk could be minimized from the visitors’ approach to the south, while its full three-storey monumentality remains exposed to views of the Ashley river to the north.

Inn is approached along a curving drive; the first views are oblique, and no conventional front facade greets guests.”(5.14)

A COUNTERPOINT TO THE HISTORIC GROUNDS Although modern architecture has never been widely accepted in the Charleston region, Clark and Menefee agreed early in the design process to avoid defaulting to “a Colonial Williamsburg number” believing it would “mock the power of the plantation ruin itself.”(5.13) Therefore, rather than create a pseudo-historic hotel, the architects opted for a strategy of ‘modern juxtaposition.’ As Daralice Boles describes in her May 1986 cover story in Progressive Architecture:

Because virtually all ‘bed and breakfast’ establishments in the Charleston area have capitalized on their Colonial roots, the management of the Inn at Middleton Place has found it necessary over the past 25 years to disclose prior to guests’ arrival that it offers “a 20th-Century counterpoint” to the historic grounds.(5.15) EMBODYING ‘LOSS’ THROUGH THE MODERN INTERVENTION A comparison of a photograph of the manor house’s ruins after the fire of 1865 (Figure 5.11) and a present-day photograph of one of the exterior stairway perforations through the stucco-covered ‘L’ component of the modern Inn (Figure 5.13) reveals a careful mimicry of solid and void proportions. Although Clark and Menefee avoided stylistic relationships between the new and the old it is apparent that they nevertheless sought to capture ‘ghosts’ of the felled historic structures within their modern architecture.

“Middleton Place is an American Versailles, with formal parterres and pools; [while] Middleton Inn pursues a picturesque site plan, with minimal intervention in the landscape, down to dirt roads. The 18th-Century gardens are axial, organized along a center line that extends from the entrance gate through the manor house’s original great hall, down the symmetrical lawn with its paired butterfly pools, and straight out the middle of the Ashley River. Middleton

A material ‘coding’ appears to further evoke a sense of the charred interior finishes of the torched residential complex. Indeed W.G. Clark has often described the Inn at Middleton Place as “a future ruin”(5.16) and the combination of the masonry service core component with the wood-clad bedroom components appears to reemphasize the temporal nature of the architecture. The introduction of fig vines along the surface of the facade further establishes an ambiguity between the architecture and the landscape.

5.11: The burned out ruins of the main house of the Middleton Place complex shown here finally collapsed as a result of the 1886 earthquake twenty years later. The modern inn by Clark and Menefee appears to carefully mimic the proportions of these ruins, as can be seen by comparing Figures 5.11 and 5.13. Duell, Charles, Barbara Doyle, et.al. Middleton Place: A Phoenix Still Rising. [Charleston, S.C.]: Middleton Place Foundation, 2011

5.12: Only the ‘South Flanker’ (seen on the left) survived the 1886 earthquake. Duell, Charles, Barbara Doyle, et.al. Middleton Place: A Phoenix Still Rising. [Charleston, S.C.]: Middleton Place Foundation, 2011 5.13: (OPPOSITE PAGE) A ‘fisheye’ photograph of the exterior stairway cut through the ‘L’ shaped masonry bar of the Inn. Marsh, Michael H. Procession from Modern Inn to Historic Core. 2012. Photographs. Charleston, SC.

FIGURE 5.13

NORTH FACADE FIGURE 5.15b FIG 5.14b

F 5. IG 16 FIG 5.14a

SOUTH FACADE FIGURE 5.15a 10’

0’ 5’

25’ 15’

50’

FIGURE 5.15

5.14a: South facade of the primary ‘L’ shaped hotel complex. Rendering generated by Michael H. Marsh 5.15: Site Plan of the primary complex of the ‘L’ shaped hotel complex Jensen, Richard. Clark and Menefee. New York, NY: Princeton Architectural, 2000.

5.14b: North facade of the primary ‘L’ shaped hotel complex. Rendering generated by Michael H. Marsh

BOUNDARY RATHER THAN OBJECT Clark and Menefee describe the attenuated nature of the primary building’s site along the embankment of the uppermost terrace as a reinforcement of the structures condition “as boundary rather than object.” Daralice Boles eloquently describes this enigmatic condition in her Progressive Architecture article titled “A Place Apart:” “The Charleston green... has a wonderful recessive effect in the Middleton woods, blending far better than pure black. [The] buildings disappear from a distance, dissolving into dark wood frames and reflected tree trunks. The contrast of stuccoed walls and wooden cabinets is intentional but the color and character will change with time as ivy [NB: this was later changed to fig vines] grows up and over the weathered masonry armature, producing a massive “hedge” through which is glimpsed the river and protected marshlands beyond... The wooden cabinets rest not on grass but on white concrete pads; copper cornices act as a “reveal” between building and sky. In its own way, the Inn preserves as tight a balance with nature as did the plantation’s manor house. The style is dramatically different, but the underlying tension is the same.”(5.17) As shown in the north and south facade renderings in Figures 5.14a and 5.14b to the left, the mass of the embedded structure is perforated by a staccato rhythm of

alternating dark-painted entry recesses exterior stairways to the lower terrace.

and

voided

The careful articulation of the facade as a device for filtering and framing views of the Ashley River does not end at the scale of the building however, and the individual rooms also facilitate infinite combinations of views through guests’ customization of the interior wooden shutters just inside the floor-to-ceiling glazing. John Morris Dixon accurately describes these shutters as “an adjustable privacy and light-control membrane.”(5.18) EVERY ROOM A CORNER VIEW The basic diagram of the hotel design is a series of paired and stacked units divided by a central masonry pier that houses the flues of all six fireplaces of the module. The ‘wooden cabinets’ components that surround the bedroom spaces project from the sandwiched masonry walls, which house the bathrooms and entry vestibules. The two remaining walls are articulated with a cage-like grid of floor to ceiling windows, which flood the interior with light and views of the Ashley. Although relatively densely compressed, each room therefore feels like its own private cabin. The processional sequences through the promenade-like exterior stairways further underscore this sense of privacy from the other units.

FIGURE 5.16

5.16: A 1986 photograph showing 15 of the Inn’s primary building’s 25 original rooms as seen from the riverside facade. The bulk of this monumental three-storey presence is minimized from the guests’ first approach by its embedded siting within the upper terrace, which disguises the modern structure as a two-storey structure. Clark and Menefee wished for the inn to essentially disappear into the forestal site through the use of ‘Charleston

Green’ paint and the reflections of trees in its floor to ceiling glazing. This ambiguity between landscape and architecture is further heightened by the later planted fig vines across the stuccoed facade. Jensen, Richard. Clark and Menefee. New York, NY: Princeton Architectural, 2000.

DARK-PAINTED WOOD CLADDING SERVES AS A MATERIAL CODING SYSTEM FOR ‘REMEMBERING’ THE BURNED HISTORIC STRUCTURES OF THE PLANTATION

STUCCO OVER MASONRY PIERS ADJACENT ROOMS IN A GIVEN CLUSTER ARE SEPERATED BY MASONRY PIERS WHICH HOUSE THE FIREPLACES AND FLUES

ORGANIC GROWTH ALONG WALLS FIG VINES FOSTER AN AMBIGUITY BETWEEN THE ARCHITECTURE AND ITS SURROUNDING LANDSCAPE

BUTTRESS-LIKE STAIRS ARE CAST CONCRETE AND APPEAR TO EXTEND FROM THE STUCCOED CENTRAL PIERS.

INTERIOR SHUTTERS TO PROVIDE PRIVACY FOR FLOOR TO CEILING GLAZING

AMBIGUITY OF LANDSCAPE AND ARCHITECTURE Figure 5.17 depicts a perspectival section through one of the ceremonial exterior stairways of the Inn at Middleton Place from the upper terrace to the lower terrace. The degree to which the embedded siting of the structure facilitates a reduction in the overall mass of the Inn is particularly evident as one compares the towering presence of the two-storey structure to the scale of a guest.

FIGURE 5.17

imagery, which further underscores a sense of the inn as a “future ruin.” Over the past twenty five years, the fig vines introduced to the stucco surface of the service volume have increasingly transformed the structure into the “massive hedge.” As Harmon argues: “In contrast to the turbulent history of its site, Clark and Menefee’s inn has a quiet languor and equilibrium as relaxed as the Spanish moss draped across

The two contrasting components of the Inn’s design can be clearly distinguished both through material and a precise use of reveals at all edges between the masonry service core and the ‘wooden cabinet’ volumes. Clark and Menefee’s design masterfully articulates a physical tension wherever these two components meet - often using slit-like glazing to blur the edge conditions with natural light. The stairs to the third floor project from the central masonry piers as indicated in the key plan of Figure 5.18. The articulation of this buttress-like stair conjures gothic

FIG 5.18

FIGURE 5.18 5.17: A sectional perspective through the exterior stairways to the lower terrace. Rendering generated by Michael H. Marsh 5.18: Key Plan indicating location of the perspectival section indicated above. Drawing by Michael H. Marsh

THE ‘RITUAL OF HABITATION’

‘L’ SHAPED STUCCO/MASONRY CORE

GUESTS OF THE INN CONDUCT A RITUAL OF INHABITING THE ROOMS THROUGH THE UNFOLDING OF THE SHUTTERS AND THE BUILDING OF FIRE IN THE PRIVATE HEARTHS

HOUSES THE ENTRY VESIBULES AND BATH PROGRAMS. THE PROPORTIONS OF THE EXTERIOR OPENINGS MIMIC THE ‘GHOSTS’ OF THE NOW FELLED RUINS OF THE HISTORIC CORE

HYBRID ROOMS / RETAINING WALL TWO OFFSET TERRACES ARE NEGOTIATED BY THE ‘L’ SHAPED CORE OF THE MODERN HOTEL, WHICH DOUBLES AS A RETAINING WALL.

WOOD-CLADDED BEDROOMS DETERIORATE AT A FASTER RATE THAN THE MASONRY BATH AND ENTRY CORES, EFFECTIVELY CREATING A ‘RUIN IN THE MAKING’

the trees. Clark wrote that all building should be atonement for the disturbance of the land.”(5.19) ‘THE RITUAL OF HABITATION’ The perspectival section in Figure 5.19 is taken through the interior of the room stack looking towards the central hearth pier. Interior furnishings at the inn are minimal fostering a meditative experience for the visitor. Upon entering the room, a guest the Inn at Middleton Place finds himself suddenly ‘commissioned’ to perform a ‘ritual’ of claiming the space through three distinct processes. Upon approaching the room, a slit-like picture window beside the front door is left with its shutter open, signifying that the room is vacant. An aligned window at the opposite end of the room provides a view directly through the room to the Ashley River beyond (see Figure 5.21). Much like a ‘do not disturb’ sign, the visitor instinctively closes this shutter for privacy and to broadcast the room’s occupancy.

FIGURE 5.19

Secondly, upon entering the bedroom area the wooden shutter system is found closed, blocking natural light from entering the space. As the guest begins to open these shutters he discovers an infinite number of combinations for framing his views to the surrounding context. Lastly the ceremonial act of starting a private fire completes the ‘ritual of habitation’ leaving the guest free to contemplate the peaceful surroundings of his short-term domain.

FIG 5.20

FIGURE 5.20 5.19: A sectional perspective through the interior rooms showing the hearths and interior shutters.. Rendering generated by Michael H. Marsh 5.20: Key Plan indicating location of the perspectival section indicated above. Drawing by Michael H. Marsh

FIGURE 5.21

THE SCALE OF THE UNITS Figure 5.21 depicts a plan of two typical side-by-side rooms at the Inn at Middleton Place. The axial treatment of the bath and entry vestibule programs sandwiched between the masonry walls of the service component can be seen at the lower half of the plan with the masonry dividing pier and cast concrete stair cutting through this volume perpendicularly. As previously discussed Clark and Menefee carefully consider every edge condition in the design and consistently erode these boundaries through a surreal articulation of natural light (see for example the shadow

5.21: Plan of two typical upper units of the Inn at Middleton Place. The central masonry pier houses the fireplaces and provides a private boundary between the two units and then extends outward to act as a buttress-like shared stairways to entrys. Jensen, Richard. Clark and Menefee. New York, NY: Princeton Architectural, 2000.

recess to the right of Figure 5.22). Nowhere is this condition more dramatically executed than in the exceptionally thin beveled sidelight of the bathroom vanity sink, which becomes visible only once the bath door slides to its closed position. While maintaining total privacy, a thin slit of sunlight is allowed to cast against the mirror, bathing the surface in sunlight. A multipurpose wooden bench runs the length of the masonry pier housing the hearthstone and serving as a hybrid seat, luggage rack and storage nook. A built in closet and refrigerator is housed adjacent to the front door in the entry vestibule, completing the Khan-like articulation of servant versus served spaces.

A STRATEGY FOR DISTRIBUTING THE MODERN PROGRAMS Figure 5.22 depicts a perspectival plan through the primary structure of the Inn at Middleton Place. Here the close proximity of the rooms to one another is particularly evident. Clearly the voided exterior stairways between the pairs of stacked rooms greatly increase the privacy and exposure to natural light and ventilation of each unit as compared to traditional hotel complexes, but the Clark and Menefee structure occupies merely 3% of its surroundings with a footprint of only 1/4 acre upon its 9 acre site. This represents a relatively dense condition, even by city standards. Given the similar physical, financial, historical and contextual conditions that Montcalm Farm and Middleton Place share, the viability of introducing a modern resort program to Montcalm will be explored in the following chapter. However, in contrast to a ‘white-glove’ reverence for the historic fabric of Middleton Place as ‘sacred artifacts,’ the longstanding history of the American farmstead to continually adapt itself to new uses both physically and programmatically will be considered as a precedent for engaging with the historic fabric more directly.

Where new programs might be carved out of the wooded acreage of Montcalm, a distribution strategy will seek to evaluate the degree to which these structures might be thinly dispersed throughout the landscape. In contrast to Clark and Menefee’s ‘hotel in the woods’ approach to the ‘inn’ program, this strategy will prioritize the privacy surrounding these new programs and allow for the new architecture to more intricate weave itself into the surrounding landscape. ALTERNATIVES TO ‘TABULA RASA’ & ‘MODERN JUXTAPOSITION’ Clark and Menefee establish a clear alternative to tabula rasa development but do so purely through a strategy of ‘modern juxtaposition.’ While the goal of establishing a clear distinction between historic and modern fabric is appropriate, perhaps there are other ways to achieve such a distinction without defaulting to the use of contrasting materials and building techniques. The interventions for Montcalm Farm will therefore seek to intervene with the existing fabric in a modern capacity by adapting the same ‘kit-of-parts’ that has traditionally been used to alter the structures of the American farmstead.

FIGURE 5.22

5.22: A perspectival plan of the upper units of the Inn at Middleton Place showing the ‘L’ shaped arrangements hybrid function as a retaining wall. A series of exterior stairways to the lower terraces are situated between the various room stacks. Rendering generated by Michael H. Marsh

X FIGURE 5.23a - 5.23x

5.23a-5.23x: Marsh, Michael H. Procession from Modern Inn to Historic Core. 2012. Photographs. Charleston, SC.

THE PROCESSION FROM MODERN INN TO HISTORIC CORE Figures 5.23a through 5.23x reveal the procession that a guest of the Inn at Middleton Place makes as he or she journeys along the crushed gravel path through the woods from the main Lodge of the Inn to the historic core. Figure 5.24 maps this path upon the site plan of the entire property.

The first historic structure that a guest encounters is the Rice Mill, which is approached from an oblique angle. This structure marks a portal out of the wooded zone to the open terraces, which step down from the Middleton Place residential complex. As the guest proceeds along the periphery of the ‘butterfly lakes’ in full exposure to the sun he is reminded of the relentless conditions that countless slaves endured as they toiled in the flooded rice fields.

This picturesque siting of the modern inn clearly contrasts with the uncompromisingly axial arrangement and geometric order of the historic structures and grounds of Middleton Place. Although the pathway through the woods follows a primarily linear sequence along the Ashley River, the seemingly haphazard siting of the later inn structures and the dynamic quality of light and shadow fostered by the wooded canopy results in an overall sense of ‘meandering’ - as the first half of these pictures depict.

Upon encountering the massive Middleton Oak tree the path turns sharply south, inviting the visitor up the stepped terraces to the formal gardens - the geometric center of which is demarcated by a cast iron sundial, which appropriately serves as the culmination of the journey from the mysterious and untamed woods to the geometrically ordered English gardens - where, as Frank Harmon describes “for centuries the land... has been pushed and scraped.”(5.20)

FIGURE 5.24

5.24: A diagram indicating the procession from the woods-based modern hotel complex of the Inn at Middleton Place to the historic grounds of the Middleton Place plantation. The blue arrow indicates the journey that is depicted in the 24 images of the previous page. Guide map underlay courtesy of Guest Services at the Inn at Middleton Place.

5.25: (Following Spread) Diagram of Middleton Place Woods and Structures 5.26: (Following Spread) Scaled Satellite Image of Middleton Place Grounds (Courtesy of Google Earth) 5.27: (Following Spread) Scaled Satellite Image of Montcalm Farm (Courtesy of Google Earth) 5.28: (Following Spread) Diagram of Montcalm Farm Woods and Structures

100’ 0’

1000’

500’

5000’ 2500’

DIAGRAM KEY PROPERTY BOUNDARY WOODED ACREAGE EXISTING STRUCTURES FIGURE 5.25 100’ 0’

1000’

5000’

500’

2500’

FIGURE 5.26

MIDDLETON PLACE, CHARLESTON, SC MIDDLETON PLACE TOTAL ACREAGE:

226.5 ACRES

225 225.5 25 ACRES

PERCENTAGE FOREST:

129 ACRES OF 226.5 TOTAL ACRES: 57%

72 2 ACRES OF 225.5 TOTAL ACRES: 32%

DISTANCE FROM METROPOLITAN CENTER:

19.5 MILES / 27 MINUTES FROM CHARLESTON, SC

49 9 MILES / 60 MINUTES FROM WAS AS SHINGTO HING N, DC

NUMBER OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES:

12 THROUGHOUT MIDDLETON PLACE GROUNDS

13 THROUGHOU TH H T THE ‘HISTORIC CO ORE’

DATE OF EARLIEST SURVIVING STRUCTURE:

‘SOUTH FLANKER’ - CIRCA 1755

LOG CA ABIN BI AND AN N PIG GSTY T - CIRCA 178 80 80

PRIMARY LEISURE ACTIVITY:

EQUESTRIAN ACTIVITIES

EQU Q ES STRIAN ACTIVITIES S

NUMBER OF ROOMS AVAILABLE/PROPOSED:

ORIGINALLY 25 ROOMS CONCEIVED, NOW 55

14 WO WOO OO ODSD BASED ED D CAB ABINS ABINS NS + 4 HIST TORIC CORE UNITS

100’ 0’

1000’ 500’

5000’ 2500’

FIGURE 5.27

100’ 0’

1000’

500’

5000’ 2500’

DIAGRAM KEY PROPERTY BOUNDARY WOODED ACREAGE EXISTING STRUCTURES

MONTCALM FARM, PURCELLVILLE, VA

FIGURE 5.28

MIDDLETON PLACE

MONTCALM FARM

TOTAL ACREAGE:

226.5 ACRES

225.5 ACRES

PERCENTAGE FOREST:

129 ACRES OF 226.5 TOTAL AC CRES S: 57% 5

72 ACRES OF 225.5 TOTAL ACRES: 32%

DISTANCE FROM METROPOLITAN CENTER:

19.5 MILES / 27 MINUTES FRO ROM MC CHAR RLES L TON TO , SC

49 MILES / 60 MINUTES FROM WASHINGTON, DC

NUMBER OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES:

12 THROUGHOUT MIDDLETON PLACE E GRO GROUND UND NDS S

13 THROUGHOUT THE ‘HISTORIC CORE’

DATE OF EARLIEST SURVIVING STRUCTURE:

‘SOUTH FLANKER’ - CIRCA 1755

LOG CABIN AND PIGSTY - CIRCA 1780

PRIMARY LEISURE ACTIVITY:

EQUESTRIAN ACTIVITIES

NUMBER OF ROOMS AVAILABLE/PROPOSED:

ORIGINALLY 25 ROOMS CONC N EIVED, NOW NOW 55 NO

14 WOODS-BASED CABINS + 4 HISTORIC CORE UNITS [TO BE PROPOSED]

CHAPTER 6

PROPOSING A NEW PROGRAM FOR MONTCALM FARM RECONFIGURING THE EXISTING PROGRAMS OF THE SITE TO DEVELOP A NEW IDENTITY & ECONOMIC ENGINE

THE CONSEQUENCES OF PROGRAMMATIC ‘TABULA RASA’ While ‘adaptive reuse’ remains a powerful tool in negotiating an appropriate compromise between ‘embalmed’ preservation and total demolition, it is important to note that far more is at stake for any given site than merely its physical fabric. While American farmsteads exhibit centuries of evolution and adaptation in the physical vestiges of their historic structures, the programmatic and cultural continuity that such sites have embodied for hundreds of years remain equally significant.

Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals. The highly controversial book - which would be named one of the ten best books of 2006 by the New York Times and would win Pollan the James Beard Award(6.2) – was a scathing critique of modern agribusiness, which one farmer interviewed referred to as ‘the military-industrial

The embedded rituals and routines of an agrarian site are perhaps at even greater risk of ‘programmatic tabula rasa’ as a consequence of modern reprograming than the structures themselves are at risk of physical destruction. For many eastern cultures what is held sacred is the tradition of the construction itself, and therefore temples and other sacred structures are frequently demolished intentionally so as to be reconstructed in place as a manifestation of the community’s cultural heritage. The cultural and community bonds reinforced by traditional ‘barn raising’ ceremonies in the United States share much in common with these traditions – and in many cases the process of replacing a deteriorating structure with a modern version is a celebrated act of optimism for the farm’s continued viability.(6.1) As the opening quote of this thesis argues, the “inherent slowness” of the American farmstead might offer valuable insight to the process of inventing a modern program. If the value-system established for reinventing the farm’s identity were to place equal emphasis on the programmatic legacy of the site and its physical fabric, a careful consideration of American agriculture in the 21st century might serve as the basis for the invention of such a program. FROM COMMODITY TO SUBSISTENCE: U.S. AGRICULTURE IN THE 21st CENTURY In 2006 Michael Pollan, a professor of Journalism at UC Berkeley wrote a ground-breaking book titled: The

6.1: COVER OF MICHAEL POLLAN’S IN DEFENSE OF FOOD: AN EATER’S MANIFESTO. Pollan, Michael. In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto. New York: Penguin, 2009.

FIGURE 6.1

FIGURE 6.2

complex.’ Pollan’s comprehensive book stressed the unintended consequences of federal regulations over the past hundred years, which have stripped away the pride and dignity associated with farming and reduced American agriculture to the subsidized over-production of U.S. #2 industrial corn – the very same crop presently grown on Montcalm Farm. Due to the vast national surplus of this crop, modern industry has invented a wide range of unnatural uses for the energy source, such as substituting the low-grade corn as feed for traditionally grass-fed livestock; the processing of ethanol; and the production of a wide range of chemically processed, low-nutrition products including high-fructose corn syrup and the like. Pollan’s book reported that as of 2005 the $2.50 cost of growing a bushel of corn resulted in a total payment to a farmer of merely $1.45.(6.3) Federal subsidy payments

therefore “account for nearly half of the income of the average Iowa corn farmer, and represent roughly a quarter of the $19 billion US taxpayers spend each year on agricultural subsidies.”(6.4) Given that agribusiness in the United States has degenerated into a net deficit operation, it is therefore no surprise that farm after farm in Loudoun County has gone the way of the residential subdivision. If productive agricultural land is no longer financially viable, then the immense development pressures discussed in the opening chapter of this thesis inevitably step forward to offer a lucrative alternative to property owners. The vast quantity of this rural and vernacular fabric falls outside of the tidy categorization of the Secretary of the Interior’s ‘Standards for the treatment of Historic Properties’ and conservation

6.2: ADVERTISEMENT FOR THE 2008 DOCUMENTARY “FOOD, INC.” "Food, Inc. News." News, Lifestyle, and Social Action on TakePart. Web. 26 Mar. 2012. <http://www.takepart.com/foodinc>.

easement options therefore pale in comparison to the land’s potential real estate values. Surely the would-be-preservationist has never encountered a ‘harder sell’ in arguing for the potential historic, social, or cultural value of preserving rural, agrarian fabric. The survival of the traditional farmstead in Loudoun County therefore depends largely upon its ability to fend for itself. As the Revenue/Expense Flow Diagram of current Montcalm Farm operations in Chapter 4 clearly indicates, Montcalm’s ability to financially fend for itself remains highly questionable. MONTCALM FARM AT A CROSSROADS Is there no other alternative? Must Montcalm Farm eventually either surrender to ‘the masked builder’ or accept the terms of a Disneyland-esque multiplex theater towering behind the propped up façades of its once dignified barns? Either extreme would forever sever the property’s long-standing programmatic continuity. This thesis will argue that Montcalm’s 250-year-long legacy of adaptation and reinvention need not end here. The goal of the remainder of this thesis will therefore be to offer an alternative strategy capable of leveraging the very forces that threaten the viability of Montcalm in order to introduce a new economic engine to the property. Any viable modern program must be sufficiently profitable so as to fund management operations, as well as continued restoration efforts. Furthermore, the program must offer an ever-growing number of stakeholders and guests the ability to visit the property for varying lengths of time. In short, the proposal must directly respond to each of the three specific threats outlined in the opening chapter of the thesis: development pressure, demolition by neglect, and the present inability of the property to host ever-increasing numbers of stakeholders as they establish a visceral relationship with the property. ‘SLOW FOOD’ AND THE ‘LOCAVORE’ MOVEMENTS In 1986, protesting the opening of the first McDonald’s restaurant in Rome, a man named Carlo Petrini founded a local movement called ‘Slow Food,’ which dedicated itself to the protection of agricultural diversity and the promotion of traditional foods. Petrini argued for replacing the world’s growing ‘fast food’ mentality with a return to sustainable foods and the promotion of small food-based local businesses rather than standing-by as agricultural products became increasingly globalized. In 2007 Petrini was chosen as one of Time magazine’s ‘Heroes of the

Year’(6.5) for his work in founding the University of Gastronomic Sciences located in Bra, Italy, which sought to bridge the gap between agriculture and gastronomy. In 2008 over 50,000 people attended the inaugural Slow Food Nation gathering in San Francisco, the largest organized celebration of American food in history. As of 2011 the ‘Slow Food’ movement has gained over 250,000 supports with over 225 chapters across the world.(6.6) In 2007 the New Oxford American Dictionary announced its annual Word of the Year to be ‘LOCAVORE.’(6.7) The term was coined in 2005 by a group of women in San Francisco who proposed that local residents ought to strive to only eat food that is produced or grown within a 100 mile radius of their homes. The benefits of such an ethos, they argued, lay not only in the environmentally sustainable reduction of fuel usage associated with shipping food, but also in more nutritious and better tasting ingredients. Perhaps the clearest manifestation of the ‘locavore’ and ‘slow food’ movements has been realized in the undisputed ‘hero’ of Pollan’s book: Polyface Farm. Located in Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley, about 130 miles south of Montcalm, the self-described “farm of many faces” is a 100 acre “family owned, multi-generational, pasture based, beyond organic, Among the many products local-market farm.”(6.8) produced on the property are beef, pork, poultry, eggs, rabbits and forestry products. Business is booming at Polyface Farm, no doubt due in large part to the property’s feature in Pollan’s best-selling book. Likewise, Alice Waters, founder of Chez Panisse in Berkeley, CA, has gained considerable celebrity through her culinary philosophy maintaining that “cooking should be based on the finest and freshest seasonal ingredients that are produced sustainably and locally.”(6.9) Her restaurant – which famously only accepts reservations a full year in advance – has helped to create an entire network of local farmers and ranchers who share her dedication to sustainable agriculture. In recent years countless other books and documentaries – Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal; Super Size Me; Food, Inc., [Fig.6.2] etc. - have emerged to ever-increasing popular acclaim. Although the claims of such documentaries are often controversial and disputed, the fact remains that Americans en masse are beginning to demand a more thorough understanding of the origins of the food that they eat. Clearly a new market is developing with a loyal following that in many cases could be described as borderline fanatic in their passion for local, sustainable food.

Could this ever-growing demand facilitate a reimagining of Montcalm’s identity that maintains the continuity of its traditional use as productive and arable land? If so, how might Montcalm establish its own niche-market as an alternative to what many other farms are already doing successfully? ‘AGRI-TOURISM’ Relatively recently, this burgeoning new market of ‘informed eaters’ has led to the establishment of a new hybrid agriculture and tourism industry often referred to as ‘Agri-tourism.’ In ever-increasing numbers, entrepreneurial local farmers are opening the doors of their operations to the curious public and in so doing securing much needed additional sources of revenue. Particularly over the past four years of economic recession in the United States, Agri-tourism has emerged as one of the fastest growing segments of the travel industry.(6.10) Worldwide, Agri-destinations are marketing themselves as a viable alternative to entertainment, education and dining experiences (Fig. 6.3). Typically these operations are initially assisted by state-funded agencies tasked with helping struggling farmers adapt to the new economy.(6.11) The resulting guidance is often predicated on keeping start-up costs low and gradually phasing the new program into existing agricultural operations. While this approach results in less up-front financial risk, the extent of their potential revenue is often greatly diminished by a piecemeal approach to tapping the new market. Only rarely do such operations offer anything to the public beyond low-revenue generating single-day activities. The quality of the visitor’s experience often defaults to the quaint and juvenile characterized by hay-rides, custom embroidered ‘overalls’ and the like. By contrast, the similarly contemporary Eco-tourism industry has embraced sophistication and modernity in designing their visitor experience. The predominant aesthetic of Eco-tourism destinations worldwide appears to have sought influence in the high-end hospitality and luxury resort industries, and their endless revenue potential is directly correlated to their chosen business model precedents. THE ‘HISTORIC HOTELS OF AMERICA’ PROGRAM In 1989, the National Trust for Historic Preservation founded the ‘Historic Hotels of America’ program (Fig. 6.4)

6.3: LOGO OF THE HISTORIC HOTELS OF AMERICA PROGRAM, A SUBSIDIARY OF THE NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION.

FIGURE 6.3

FIGURE 6.4

with 32 charter members.(6.12) The program marked a significant new direction for the preservation movement by instilling in eligible properties the confidence to implement their historic significance as a tool for succeeding in the marketplace, rather than safeguarding them as fragile artifacts in need of federal, state or private protection and subsidy. For the first time the National Trust seemed to be in the business of empowering historic properties rather than merely sheltering them. The program describes its purpose as identifying “quality hotels that have faithfully maintained their historic integrity, architecture and ambiance” and seeks to promote its member hotels “to those who prefer historic settings for their leisure and business travel.”(6.13) Today the program has over 235 hotels throughout the United States including the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. Most of these hotels are independently owned and operated, but over 30

6.4: MAP OF AGRI-TOURISM DESTINATIONS IN NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, A PROVINCE OF THE PHILIPPINES. "Office of the Provincial Agriculturist: Agri-Tourism." Office of the Provincial Agriculturist:. Web. 26 Mar. 2012. <http://opa.negros-occ.gov.ph/programs/agri-tourism/>.

100

worldwide hospitality brands are also represented.(6.14) Among the membership critieria for nomination into this prestigious program is eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places or “being recognized as historically significant,” and a minimum of 50 years of age. While it remains ambiguous if the property must have historically operated as a hotel, several adaptive-reuse properties accepted to the program appear to indicate that the program maintains some flexibility in their criteria. The program operates a successful user-interactive website that enables potential guests to choose a historic hotel or resort by either destination, themed experience, or historical period. Not surprisingly the marketplace has responded enthusiastically to this hands-on opportunity to intimately experience historic properties first-hand. The member properties within the Historic Hotels of America program generally cater to a high-end clientele and offer many of the amenities of similar resort and luxury hotel options, generally at a premium to their newly built competitors. Participation in the program therefore often represents a lucrative business model, and sufficient and sustainable funding is secured for continued maintenance and business operations. HYBRIDIZING THE ‘HISTORIC HOTEL’ AND ‘AGRI-TOURISM’ EXPERIENCE As discussed in Chapter 5, the Inn at Middleton Place has successfully converted a once obsolete and deteriorating historic property into a highly successful resort destination through the introduction of crisply modern hotel complexes distributed throughout the wooded acreage of the property. Could a similar strategy also offer a return to profitability for Montcalm? The two properties have much in common. The earliest structures of each property date back to the 1700s and both have remained continuously productive agricultural landscapes for the past 250 years. Both properties are within an hour drive of a ma jor metropolitan center, both are of similar acreage and landscape typology, and both have a long-standing history of equestrian activities. Originally the Inn at Middleton Place was conceived as a means of capturing a wider range of revenue sources from visitors to Middleton Place‘s historic grounds (lodging, dining, etc.). In recent years however the Inn appears to have emerged as a self-sufficient entity, and while many of its guests do use the modern hotel as a home-base for

FOOTNOTE: H

101

visiting the Middleton Place historic grounds or the city of Charleston further afield, many more appear to be content with the activities and slow-paced leisure directly associated with the Inn. Nevertheless, the compelling juxtaposition between historic ruins and modern architecture provides much of what is special about the Inn at Middleton Place experience. If the dialogue between geometrically organized classical gardens and organically-sited modern dwellings is what charcterizes Middleton Place, then what specific qualities could characterize a uniquely suited resort experience at Montcalm? It is perhaps self-evident that, in contrast to aristrocatic Middleton Place, Montcalm’s significance lies in its predominant legacy as a working farmstead, continuously farmed by a succession of hardworking and industrious settlers, slaves, laborers, and farmers. As has been discussed in the physical analysis of Chapter 3, its thirteen historic structures are largely characterized by the economical and functionalist purity of their design and construction. The materials from which these varying structures are built generally represent byproducts from the process of clearing the land for farming: logs, timber, and stone. But does a market exist for public interest in historic rural or vernacular architecture that offers clues as to ‘how the other half lived?’ A careful consideration of the two house museums that compete for the patronage of New York City‘s tourists suggests that it most certainly does. The Merchant’s House Museum built in 1832 in the East Village epitomizes the lifestyle of a wealthy merchant family in New York for over a century. By contrast the Tenement Museum at 97 Orchard Street, built in 1863, offers visitors a glimpse into the often dismal living conditions of over 7000 immigrants for a period of seventy five years. According to their executive directors, the Merchant House Museum sells about 12,000 tickets per year for a total revenue of approximately $100,000 annually.(6.15) By contrast, the Tenement Museum sells about 175,000 tickets per year for a total of approximately $3,500,000 per year(6.16) - 35 times the revenue. If this is evidence of a larger trend, it would appear that the public’s interest in visiting historic properties is not preconditioned upon the original property owners’ social class or financial status. The proposed new and reconfigured program for Montcalm Farm could therefore represent an intersection between the agri-tourism experience, the historic hotel, and a growing public fascination with the ‘slow food’ lifestyle. Rather than defaulting to pre-established

aesthetics and visitor experiences associated with these existing industries, a careful investigation might reveal opportunities to create an engaging dialogue and tension between the simple, slow-paced life of the farmstead, and the comfortable, luxurious experience of the modern resort. Such a strategy would facilitate a continuity between the four existing programs of the site: AGRICULTURE, FORESTAL, TENANT, and EQUESTRIAN; along with the introduction of a new ‘RURAL RESORT’ program serving as a binding agent to engage each of the existing programs into a network of cohesive identity and offering a mechanism for reactivating the historic core.

SOURCES OF REVENUE FROM NEW AND RECONFIGURED PROGRAMS

RECONFIGURING THE REVENUE/EXPENSE FLOW DIAGRAM Figure 6.5 re-imagines the revenue/expense flow diagram discussed in Chapter 4 with the introduction of the new ‘Rural Resort‘ program. While a detailed proposal for all aspects of the resort program will be discussed subsequently, this diagram introduces the four basic subcategories of the Resort program, namely: LODGING, ACTIVITIES, DINING, and EVENTS, alongside the revenue sources from the existing programs of AGRICULTURAL, FORESTAL, EQUESTRIAN, AND TENANT, previously represented in the Chapter 4 diagram. Like the pervious diagram, the line-weight of each category’s arrow remains proportionate to the percentage value of that item. The ASSOCIATED PROPERTY AND OPERATION EXPENSES

RESORT STAFF PAYROLL, CABIN MAINTENANCE, ETC.

05%

‘SLOW-FOOD’ PROGRAMS STAFF PAYROLL, ETC.

05%

EQUESTRIAN STAFF PAYROLL, EQUIPMENT, ETC.

‘SLOW-FOOD’ COOKING CLASSES REVENUE

03%

10%

TENANT RESIDENCES MAINTENANCE, ETC.

INCOME FROM BAR AND WINE ROOM

04%

INCOME FROM CATERING AND RESTAURANT

06%

08%

FIRE, PERSONAL INJURY, INSURANCE, ETC.

REVENUE FROM SPECIAL EVENTS (WEDDINGS, ETC)

10%

05%

ACCOUNTING, LEGAL, PERMIT FEES, ETC.

07%

GEN’L LANDSCAPING, DAY LABORERS, PLOWING, ETC.

05%

ELECTRICITY, GAS, CABLE, PHONE, TRASH, ETC.

10%

FUNDING FOR CONTINUED RESTORATION

ACTIVITIES

MONTCALM

YEARLY INCOME FROM LEASE-BASED RENTALS

15%

REVENUE FROM WATER SUPPLY TO TOWN

05%

NET PROFIT FROM ALL FIVE FARM PROGRAMS

PROFIT

LEASES

MGMT.

20%

RESTORATION

TENANT

REVENUE FROM EQUEST. ACTIVITY PARTICIPANTS

UTILITIES

NURSERY

05%

LANDSCAPE

EVENTS

FOREST. EQUEST.

REVENUE FROM TREENURSERY LAND LEASE

REINVESTMENTS

02%

OUTGOING EXPENSES

REVENUE FROM NATURAL SPRING POOL AND SPA

LEGAL

10%

DINING

‘RURAL RESORT’

15%

REVENUE FROM HISTORIC CORE RESORT LODGING

OPERATION EXPENSES

15%

REVENUE FROM WOODSSITED RESORT LODGING

05%

TAXES

BUSINESS INCOME TAXES

ACTIVITIES

15%

LODGING

PROPERTY TAXES (REDUCED BY LAND-USE)

CONTRACT

AGRIC.

10%

AG. LAND-USE QUALIFIES FOR REDUCED PROP. TAX

FIGURE 6.5

6.5 HYPOTHETICAL DIAGRAM OF REVENUE AND EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED ‘RURAL RESORT’ PROGRAM AND THE RECONFIGURED EXISTING PROGRAMS OF THE SITE. NOTE THE DIVERSIFIED REVENUE STREAMS AND THE INTRODUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATE 15% RE-INVESTMENT EXPENSE CATEGORY TO SELF-SUFFICIENTLY FUND CONTINUED RESTORATION EFFORTS THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY.

102

diagram therefore visually ‘discloses’ the magnitude of each specific item relative to the total. Using cursory values for this hypothetical scenario, the diagram imagines approximately 50% of the farm’s future revenue could be generated out of the four subcategories of the resort program. Additionally, the steady stream of visitors associated with the resort program would enable a successful reconfiguration of the equestrian program with the goal of hosting ongoing horse-based activities capable of generating an additional 20% of property revenue. Many of the existing farm expenses remain in place, with the addition of three new expenses categories related to the newly proposed program: RESORT staff payroll, the ‘SLOW FOOD’ program payroll, and the reconfigured EQUESTRIAN staff payroll - at a total cost of 25% of the outgoing expenses. By overlapping facility management operations across all five programs, significant savings can be achieved as compared to distinct facility management associated with each program. Clearly, management of the various business operations will frequently overlap between programs, so the distribution of this aspect of the program will be given special consideration in the site plan proposal so as to facilitate collaboration between operations. A new subcategory of expenses has been introduced to the diagram in the form of the REINVESTMENT category, which includes a 10% allocation of annual revenue towards the financing of ongoing restoration efforts, and a 5% annual net profit, also capable of being reinvested in the property. The goal of this reconfigured revenue/expense diagram is to establish a proper value system that appropriately recognizes the necessity of adequate and sustainable funding to support continued restoration efforts. In addition, the diagram concept seeks to diversify the property‘s revenue streams so as to buffer the overall farm operations to the greatest extent possible from a shortcoming in any single category. As the subsequent detailed development of the program will clarify, each of the traditional amenities offered by a high-end resort destination will be carefully reconsidered so as to offer a unique site-specific reconfiguration of that particular amenity as it might be experienced in the context of Montcalm’s historic, physical, and programmatic legacy. APPROPRIATING MONTCALM’S UNTAPPED RESOURCES A careful survey of Montcalm’s specific and presently untapped resources was conducted in order to inform the

FOOTNOTE: H

103

development of the detailed program. The successful development of a new resort prototype representing a hybrid of the ‘historic hotel,’ the ‘agri-destination’ and the ‘slow food’ movement would demand an equally specific relationship to its immediate context. The goal of this investigation is therefore to uncover qualities and resources inherent to the property capable of influencing typical resort amenities in a highly site-specific manner so as to create a resort experience appropriately-suited to the place. RESOURCE #1: PROXIMITY (WITH CURSORY MARKET ANALYSIS) Ironically, one of Montcalm’s most valuable resources coincides with its most immediate threat, namely its close proximity to Washington, DC and position along the metropolitan commuting corridor. However, this proximity to a ma jor metropolitan center represents tremendous opportunity for the property. At a distance of less than an hour’s drive from the center of D.C., the property falls just beyond the boundary of suburban sprawl and the county has long been recognized as a highly-desirable weekend escape from the stress and fast-pace of city life. The county’s tourism council argues that the region offers its visitors: “an escape to the pastoral landscape... DC’s Wine Country, and [the visitor] can enjoy a perfectly preserved glimpse into a simpler time. From sporting and trailblazing along the tumbling hills of horse country, to tasting and romancing in quaint towns and storied villages, this spirited destination in Northern Virginia - just 25 miles from Washington, DC - offers a breath of fresh air, with an exquisite sense of taste.”(6.17) The entire county is steeped in Civil War history. Confederate Colonel John Singleton Mosby, known as “the Gray Ghost” and his ‘special forces’ ranger outfit were assigned to the Loudoun region; and the Battle of Ball’s Bluff occurred along the banks of Loudoun’s Potomac River. Among countless other historic sites from the Civil War is nearby Morven Park, the carefully restored former home of Thomas Swann, Jr., one of Baltimore’s former mayors, which served as a camp for the 17th Mississippi Regiment following Ball’s Bluff. With the 150th anniversary of the Civil War, Loudoun has positioned itself as an attractive destination for history buffs throughout the region. Several qualities of the nearest town to Montcalm Farm Purcellville, Virginia - lend particular credibility to the resort concept. The Purcellville train station, discussed in Chapter 2, now represents the culmination of the immensely

popular W&OD Bicycle Trail - an adaptative reuse of the original Washington & Old Dominion railway line, which brings a steady stream of bicycle enthusiasts from Washington DC directly to ‘the doorstep’ of Montcalm Farm. The 45 mile bicycle ride from Washington makes the trail’s end-point in Purcellville a perfect overnight destination for city-dwellers escaping the city for a weekend excursion. In 1998 Patrick Henry College was incorporated in Purcellville and over the past decade has expanded to more than five times its original size with a current enrollment of around 500 students. The small private college shows indications of continuing to exponentially increase its enrollment in the near future. Amazingly, the school’s website advises visiting families of enrolled and prospective students that “the closest hotels to Purcellville are located in Leesburg, a fifteen minute drive from the

campus.”(6.18) While a wide range of restaurants, shops, and entertainment options have been established throughout Purcellville to respond to this growing market, as of yet no overnight lodging options have yet been established, leaving a potentially lucrative market untapped. As discussed in Chapter 4, Montcalm ‘spills’ out from the Short Hill Mountain range, adjacent to the nearby Blue Ridge mountains, which have long hosted a wide range of popular outdoor activities including Bear‘s Den - an access point to the 2,200 mile long Appalachian Trail. Historic Harper’s Ferry, WV is less than 20 miles away with impressive views of the Potomac and Shenandoah rivers. Other areas of the Piedmont region of Virginia have been quick to recognize the immense business potential of catering to the high-end resort and dining market. The Boar’s Head Inn in Charlottesville was purchased by the

MONTCALM FARM

IVE

WASHINGTON D.C.

FIGURE 6.6

6.6: ONE OF MONTCALM’S MOST VALUABLE UNTAPPED RESOURCES IRONICALLY COINCIDES WITH ITS GREATEST THREAT - ITS CLOSE PROXIMITY TO WASHINGTON, D.C. BUT COULD THE VERY FORCES THAT THREATEN THE CONTINUED VIABILITY OF THE AGRARIAN PROPERTY BE SEIZED AS A CATALYST FOR A NEW ECONOMIC ‘ENGINE’ IN THE FORM OF THE ‘RURAL RESORT?’ Photograph. Google Earth. Web. 2 Apriil 2012.

104

University of Virginia Foundation in 1988. The new owners relocated an abandoned gristmill dating from 1834 that had been burned by Generals Grant and Custer on their march through Charlottesville during the Civil War.(6.19) After a nearly $20 million renovation and upgrade the 175 room, 573 acre resort property has become immensely successful and profitable. For the past twenty years the Boar’s Head has won the prestigious AAA Four Diamond Award.(6.20) It would be easy to assume that the success of such an operation is entirely dependent upon immediate proximity to a ma jor urban center, but the story of the Inn at Little Washington suggests otherwise. Located in an exceedingly remote, rural setting approximately 60 miles south-west of Montcalm, The Inn at Little Washington was created by chef Patrick O’Connell and was the first Inn in history to receive the AAA Five Diamond Award for both its dining and accommodation offerings.(6.21) Founded in a garage in the tiny town of Washington, Virginia in 1978, the Inn has emphasized quality over quantity in its management of the property over the past thirty five years, which today consists of only 17 guest rooms distributed throughout the 150 person town. What is most noteworthy about the Inn at Little Washington however is that, against all odds, its unique dining and lodging experience has made the surrounding town a tourist destination, rather than the obverse condition. The intimate resort has become so popular among Washington elite, that numerous helicopter routes have opened up to swiftly deliver diplomats and high-end clientele from the Capital to the Inn.(6.22) RESOURCE #2: EXISTING BUILDING STOCK As investigated in the physical analysis of Chapter 3, the thirteen historic structures of Montcalm’s ‘Historic Core’ represent an immensely valuable resource to the property. Largely as a result of the dedication and passion for the property exhibited by its long succession of stewards most notably its current owner, these thirteen buildings have remained largely intact, though many are in need of extensive restoration. If funding for this restoration is secured and the four clustered arrangements of the historic core can be reprogrammed to encourage continued use and vitality, these structures could lend exceptional value to the visitor’s experience and interaction with the ‘Rural Resort.’ As discussed previously in this chapter, such a resort would stand apart from similar Agri-tourism operations by being predominantly characterized by the juxtaposition between

6.7: THE STONE ‘MILK HOUSE’ WHERE FRESH MILK WAS BOTTLED, ONE EXAMPLE OF THE FARM’S MOST VALUABLE RESOURCE - ITS ARCHITECTURAL FABRIC. THE PROGRAM ARGUES THAT VACANT STRUCTURES LIKE THIS COULD BE REPURPOSED THROUGH THE INSERTION OF A MODERN INTERIOR INTERVENTION IN DIALOGUE WITH THE HISTORIC FABRIC.

105

FIGURE 6.7

the worn and weathered shells and structure of the historic buildings and the crisp and modern inserted interventions of the modern spaces, as will be detailed in the site plan and building-scale proposals. Such a juxtaposition offers the opportunity for the historic fabric to be evaluated within a new context. In combination with the visitor’s experience of the land itself, interaction with these buildings would form the basis of the guest’s visceral relationship to the property. RESOURCE #3: LOCAL EQUESTRIAN ENTHUSIASM According to the Office of Rural Economic Development, Loudoun County is home to Virginia’s largest equine population, with over 20,000 horses at a total value of nearly $210 million.(6.23) This represents a diverse horse population including show horses, draft horses, steeplechase horses, fox hunters and polo ponys. In the 1960s the Kennedys would famously escape the confines of Washington DC on weekends to ride amidst Loudoun County’s rolling pastures. Olympic riders live and train in Loudoun alongside numerous Derby winning horses. The nearby Middleburg Training Center stables over 200 race horses and the Morven Park grounds less than ten miles away is home to the world renown Equine Medical Center, which is widely considered to be one of the finest horse hospitals in the United States.(6.24) Equestrian activities take place in Loudoun County year round, and include the steeplechase racing circuit in the spring and fall, year-round horse shows and trail riding, as well as spring and fall farm and stableyard tours.

Local economists have long recognized the crucial benefit of the equestrian industry to Loudoun’s largely rural economy. Care and associated costs for a single horse demand thousands of dollars in goods and services, which avid equestrian enthusiasts typically purchase from local merchants and vendors, including bridle shops, vets, boarding facilities, etc. By converting the ‘Dairy Barn Complex’ into horse stalls in the 1980s, Montcalm Farm swiftly adapted and embraced its new equestrian identity following Loudoun’s abrupt commercial dairy consolidation. However, for the past forty years the property has merely leased its paddocks and stable-converted barns to professional horse trainers or horse owners, and has therefore failed to significantly tap into the potentially lucrative equestrian market by bringing its equestrian operations in-house. A revitalization of the ‘Historic Core’ through the introduction

of the new ‘Rural Resort’ program could provide an opportunity for the property to reconfigure its equestrian facilities in order to provide a new revenue stream for the property. In contrast to the ma jority of equestrian operations throughout the county, the newly proposed program imagines that this operation would target guests with limited previous experience with horses, thereby tapping a largely under utilized market of entry-level visitors. Such a program could work in correlation with overnight guests as one of the resort amenities, or as a stand-alone activity for day-guests coming to the property specifically for the equestrian program. As has been seen in the analysis of the Inn at Middleton Place in Chapter 5, the addition of an extensive equestrian program could work in a mutually beneficial arrangement with the resort property, while continuing the important programmatic legacy of the farm’s equestrian past.

FIGURE 6.8

6.8: AN UNDATED PHOTOGRAPH OF MONTCALM’S EARLY EQUESTRIAN ACTIVITY. LOUDOUN COUNTY’S WIDESPREAD HORSE ENTHUSIASM WILL BE SEIZED AS AN INDEPENDENT SUB-PROGRAM OF THE RURAL RESORT, TAPPING AN ADDITIONAL MARKET AUDIENCE FOR THE PROPERTY’S REVENUE.

106

RESOURCE #4: THE PICTURESQUE AND THE SUBLIME An ambiguous tension presents itself when the question of ‘what to preserve’ is posed. No small part of what makes the time-worn structures of Montcalm unique rests in the sublimely ruinous state with which they stoically sit upon the landscape. America’s agrarian roots are deeply embedded within our collective psyche. This connection to the traditional farmstead partially emerges from the imagery we associate with the origins of our nation and the mystique surrounding our earliest conceptions of the ‘founding fathers,’ but it seems that a deeper, more primal connection to the pastoral landscape precedes this purely cognitive understanding. Independent of varied and personal past experiences, the visitor to the traditional farmstead generally discovers a collective sense of comfort and familiarity within the juxtaposition of decaying barns set against a fresh and

limitless landscape of crops ready for harvest. This sublimely picturesque quality stands in stark contrast to the caricature of farming to which most agri-tourism business have unfortunately defaulted. Arguably Montcalm’s most intangible asset could therefore lie in its opportunity to imagine a highly site-specific visitor experience, rooted in our primal relationship to productive land. What if the ‘Rural Resort’ sought to establish a new way of inhabiting the landscape that would reinforce the complex physical, social, and historical arrangement of its structures and landscape, rather than defaulting to over-simplified stereotype-based imagery of the American farmstead? If the guiding principals established for designing this novel guest experience were to prioritize the viewer’s understanding of the sublime and ephemeral qualities of the site over the curatorial history, how might this value

FIGURE 6.9

6.9: A PRESENT-DAY SOUTH-FACING PHOTOGRAPH OF MONTCALM’S AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPE WITH THE PICTURESQUE DAIRY BARN COMPLEX VISIBLE IN THE DISTANCE. THE PROPOSED PROGRAM ARGUES FOR SEIZING THE FARM’S LEGACY AS FERTILE AND PRODUCTIVE LAND AS AN UNTAPPED RESOURCE FOR OFFERING A UNIQUE ‘RURAL RESORT’ EXPERIENCE FOR URBAN DWELLERS SEEKING RESPITE FROM CITY LIFE.

107

system influence the articulation and distribution of the new program throughout the thirteen existing structures of the ‘historic core’ and its surrounding landscape? The site plan and building-scale proposals will seek to embed this novel user experience in their realization.

could be explored throughout the property - each with its own associated tax benefits and subsidized financing options,(6.26) but for the purposes of this thesis, only geothermal heating and cooling will be explored in any detail.

RESOURCE #5: NATURAL SPRING RESERVES AND GEOTHERMAL POTENTIAL

DETAILING THE NEW ‘RURAL RESORT’ PROGRAM AND RECONFIGURING THE EXISTING PROGRAMS

As the section on the Historic Hotels of America program discussed, high-end resort properties have generally found it necessary to offer similar amenities to their more contemporary counterparts in order to compete in the marketplace. How could Montcalm customize these typical amenities in a way that remained site-specific?

Based on this cursory survey of Montcalm’s inherent and presently untapped assets and resources, a detailed articulation of the new ‘RURAL RESORT’ subprograms and the reconfigured FORESTAL, AGRICULTURAL, EQUESTRIAN, and TENANT programs has been developed. Chapter 4’s critical analysis of the existing distribution of Montcalm activity made evident that the failure of these four programs to integrate with one another has resulted in an overall lack of vitality throughout the property’s historic core. As an unforunate correlation, the thirteen structures continue to face the risk of ‘demolition by neglect.’

Over the past several decades tremendous progress has been made in the engineering of sustainable alternatives to traditionally fossil-fuel bases utlities and services. Given Montcalm’s abundence of surrounding acreage and the significant infrastructural upgrades that introducing the new and reconfigured programs would demand, the opportunity for including geothermal heating and cooling systems throughout the property appears to be particularly feasible. Additionally, as discussed in Chapter 4, Montcalm sits upon an enormous reservoir of natural spring water, and presently supplies the Town of Purcellville with this water on a contract-basis.(6.25) In combination, these two presently untapped resources could set the stage for an innovative reconfiguration of the typical pool and spa complex found at high-end luxury resorts.

As discussed at the beginning of this chapter, the value-system for developing a modern identity for Montcalm presupposed that the programmatic continuity of the site remained equally significant to the property as the physical structures themselves. Therefore each of the farm’s current programs was appropriately valued as

Therefore, among the wide variety of activities that the ‘Rural Resort’ program would offer to its guests, a state-of-the-art natural spring pool and spa complex could be imagined. Rather than being characterized by a wasteful and indulgent use of the resource, this complex would emphasize its sustainability in so doing gain recognition and publicity in its own right. A sophisticated attention to developing such a novel geothermal system could potentially revolutionize the ‘spa’ experience offered at traditional resorts. The use of geothermal heating and cooling would further provide unique architectural cues as to how this complex could be spatially, architecturally, and conceptually embedded within the pastoral landscape - not unlike the design of the Lower Barn Complex’s Bank Barn. Clearly a whole host of other sustainable energy sources FIGURE 6.10

6.10: THE NATURAL SPRING POOL COMPLEX AND RURAL RESORT STRUCTURES WILL BE PASSIVELY HEATED AND COOLED WITH AN EXTENSIVE GEOTHERMAL SYSTEM. <http://billsheating.com/images/geothermal.jpg>

108

worthy of rentention, but no program was deemed too sacred so as to be immune to potential reconfiguration. The existing FORESTAL, AGRICULTURAL, EQUESTRIAN and TENANT programs were therefore reconsidered from the ground up with the preconditions that each must fulfill two requirements: first, it must be a contributing member to the financial or social performance of the overall operations, and secondly, that each must dynamically engage the new resort program in some capacity. THE RURAL RESORT AS A PROGRAMMATIC AND SPATIAL ‘BRIDGE’ Figure 6.11 to the right represents the entirety of the proposed new and reconfigured programs for Montcalm Farm. Each specific use is indicated as a component of one of the six master program categories: RURAL RESORT, TENANT, FORESTAL, AGRICULTURAL, EQUESTRIAN, or OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT. Each of these master programs is subcategorized into its various peformative functions. The RURAL RESORT for example has been subcategorized into the functional types of Lodging, Activities, Dining, Resort Management and Events. Each of these functional categories has been further subdivided into the specific uses associated with that respective function. Each specific ‘use’ has then been color-coded as an indication of its appropriate master program. However, one will note that many uses are indicated as hybrids of two or more master programs. This condition is visually signified by both the hybrid color-coding and the ‘plugging in’ of these interrelated programs. The Rural Resort is therefore conceived to strategically perform as a programmatic ‘bridge’ unifying otherwise unrelated features of autonomous programs. A unique ‘program code’ has also been assigned to each of the 44 distinct programmatic uses, so as to visually clarify the distribution of these programs throughout the property during the site planning phase. Using a similar approach, the global strategy for the site plan proposal will therefore be to generate a ‘spatial bridging’ within the existing and new volumes where these hybrid programs occur. This connective tissue will therefore serve as a mechanism for bringing together individual users of the various programs. Clearly the overall property would not benefit from all aspects of all programs overlapping both spatially and temporally. Therefore, both conceptually and in the specific site plan proposal the privacy and autonomous nature of certain uses will be respected and maintained.

109

The tenant programs and the outside-contracted agricultural and forestal operations for example will rarely be interefered with by the new and reconfigured programs, except where mutually adventageous (e.g. their coordination with property management). For the remainder of this chapter the subcategorized functions and uses of each of the six master programs will be discussed in further detail. In addition a system of cursory design criteria will be developed to guide the detailed architectural proposals of the site plan and building intervention phases. THE RURAL RESORT: LODGING On the following spread, Figure 6.12 indicates the four uses of the Lodging function of the RURAL RESORT master program. Using a similar format to the diagrams of the existing program analysis of Chapter 4, the proposed users of each of these four specific ‘uses’ are indicated, generating a unique finger-print like identification of their specific user networks. The Lodging aspect of the Rural Resort program represents perhaps the single most signficant opportunity to influence the visitor’s overall experience of the property. Regardless of the location, theme or quality of the resort or hotel experience - a common processional routine always occurs, typically beginning with the user’s arrival at the property’s Reception and Registration [RL:4]. This moment typically represents the visitor’s (often jarring) awareness that he or she is the latest of countless customers before, and will be replaced with another immediately upon departure. But this stands in stark contrast to the experience of the traditional farmhouse, which represented the only place on a working farm characterized by warmth and hospitality rather than labor and commodity. Carefully reconsidering the function and sequence of the traditional reception will therefore be a crucial part of crafting the visitor’s experience. Ultimately, resorts represent an escape from our daily routines - the opportunity to slip into someone else’s life for a short period of time. It is our arrival in the private room, bungalow, or cottage that represents the beginning of that escape. Two distinct lodging options are imagined for the Rural Resort. The first, Lodging in Historic Core Complexes [RL:2] represents the visitor’s most direct juxtaposition between historic fabric and the modern resort program.

NURSERY WOODS

FORESTAL

TREE NURSERY STAFF AND DIRECTOR OFFICE

FN:1

ON-SITE EQUIPMENT STORAGE / WORKSHOP

FN:2

MONITORING OF OLDGROWTH HARDWOODS

n/a

PROPOSED

PROGRAMS RL:1 LODGING IN WOODSBASED COMPLEX

CORE COMPLEXES

CONTRACT

RL:3 CLUSTERED

AGRICULTURE EQUIPMENT STORAGE

AC:2

RL:4

RESORT RECEPTION AND REGISTRATION

CHICKEN COOP PARTICIPATION

AL:1

RA:1

‘LOCAVORE’ + ‘SLOW FOOD’

‘CHEF’S GARDEN’ PARTICIPATION

AL:2

RA:2

COOKING CLASS FACILITIES

RA:3

‘THE LODGE’ COMMUNITY GATHERING

RA:4

NATURAL SPRING POOL FACILITIES

HORSE STABLES AND ES:1 ASSOCIATED FACILITIES

ES:2

DAY ACTIVITIES RA:5 GENERAL (HIKING, FISHING, BOATING, ETC.)

LANDSCAPE

EQUESTRIAN

n/a HORSE-RIDING TRAILS

EL:1

PASTURES AND PADDOCKS

EL:2

LEARNING CENTER

EQUESTRIAN-RELATED ACTIVITIES

RD:1 WINE CELLAR RD:2 WINE ROOM

EM:1

EQUESTRIAN FACILITIES AND STAGING AREA

EM:2

DINING

MGMT.

EQUESTRIAN DIRECTOR AND STAFF OFFICES

RD:3 RESTAURANT

THE ‘RURAL RESORT’

EQUESTRIAN LEARNING CENTER

EXTERIOR HEARTHS

ACTIVITIES

STRUCTURE

AC:1

RD:4 KITCHEN RESTAURANT GREETING

RD:5 AND RESERVATION AREA

HOUSEKEEPING AND LAUNDRY FACILITIES

OR:2

HOUSEKEEPING AND PORTER VEHICLES

OR:3

LANDSCAPING

FACILITIES MANAGEMENT OFFICE

OL:1

RE:1 LARGE-SCALE

EQUIPMENT STORAGE AND WORKSHOP

OL:2

RE:2

AGRICULTURAL

COORDINATION WITH AGRICULTURAL MGMT

OA:1

MANAGEMENT OF THE ‘LOCAVORE’ PROGRAM

OA:2

RESORT MGMT

OR:1

RESORT MGMT

RESORT DIRECTOR AND STAFF OFFICES

EVENT STAGING AND STORAGE AREAS

EVENTS

EVENT SPACES

RURAL RESORT AS A PROGRAMMATIC AND SPATIAL ‘BRIDGE’ UNIFYING DISPARATE PROGRAMS AND STRUCTURES INTO A COHESIVE IDENTITY

‘LOCAVORE’

AGRICULTURAL

CONTRACT AGRICULTURE DIRECTOR/STAFF OFFICE

LODGING

RL:2 LODGING IN HISTORIC

LEASE MANAGEMENT AND SUPERINTENDENT

OT:2

FORESTAL

COORDINATION WITH TREE-NURSERY MGMT.

OF:1

LANDSCAPING / MGMT OF WOODS-COMPLEXES

OF:2

TENANT

OT:1

LEASES

TENANT

OPERATIONS

LEGEND PRIVATE RESIDENCES

RESORT EQUESTRIAN AGRICULTURE FORESTAL

MONTCALM MGMT

OM:1

PUBLIC RESTROOMS

OM:2

PARKING LOT

OM:3

EQUESTRIAN PROGRAM AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM FORESTAL PROGRAM

TENANT

TENANT LEASE PROGRAM

MONTCALM

MONTCALM OPERATIONS

HYBRID

MONTCALM DIRECTOR AND STAFF OFFICES

RESORT PROGRAM

HYBRID PROGRAMS (BY COLOR)

6.11: DIAGRAM OF THE PROPOSED RURAL RESORT SUB-PROGRAMS AND THE RECONFIGURED FORESTAL, AGRICULTURAL, EQUESTRIAN AND TENANT PROGRAMS. THE RESORT PROGRAMS PROVIDE A SPATIAL AND PROGRAMMATIC ‘BRIDGE,’ UNIFYING THE ACTIVITIES AND IDENTITY OF THE PROPERTY INTO A COHESIVE WHOLE.

110

NURSERY WOODS

FORESTAL

TREE NURSERY STAFF AND DIRECTOR OFFICE

FN:1

ON-SITE EQUIPMENT STORAGE / WORKSHOP

FN:2

MONITORING OF OLDGROWTH HARDWOODS

n/a

PROPOSED

PROGRAMS BASED COMPLEX

RESORT RECEPTION AND REGISTRATION

CHICKEN COOP PARTICIPATION

AL:1

RA:1

‘LOCAVORE’ + ‘SLOW FOOD’

‘CHEF’S GARDEN’ PARTICIPATION

AL:2

RA:2

COOKING CLASS FACILITIES

RA:3

‘THE LODGE’ COMMUNITY GATHERING

RA:4

NATURAL SPRING POOL FACILITIES

MGMT.

OWNERS LIVING ON THE PROPERTY LONG-TERM

EQUESTRIAN-RELATED ACTIVITIES

RD:1 WINE CELLAR

DIRECTOR AND STAFF OF MONTCALM MANAGEMENT LANDSCAPING, LABORERS AND FACILITIES STAFF

RD:2 WINE ROOM

EM:2

MAIL DELIVERY AND MISC. UTILITY + SERVICES REPS. OUTSIDE-CONTRACTED AGRICULTURAL CREW

RD:4 KITCHEN

OUTSIDE-CONTRACTED TREE NURSERY CREW

HOUSEKEEPING AND LAUNDRY FACILITIES

OR:2

HOUSEKEEPING AND PORTER VEHICLES

OR:3

RE:1 LARGE-SCALE

EQUIPMENT STORAGE AND WORKSHOP

OL:2

RE:2

AGRICULTURAL

COORDINATION WITH AGRICULTURAL MGMT

OA:1

MANAGEMENT OF THE ‘LOCAVORE’ PROGRAM

OA:2

EVENT STAGING AND STORAGE AREAS

HOSPITALITY, CLEANING AND REGISTRATION STAFF ‘LOCAVORE’ + ‘SLOW FOOD’ DIRECTOR AND STAFF KITCHEN, BARTENDING AND DINING STAFF

OT:1

LEASE MANAGEMENT AND SUPERINTENDENT

OT:2

TENANT

PRIVATE RESIDENCES

LEGEND

FORESTAL

OF:1 RESORT

OF:2

EVENTS

CONFERENCE AND EVENTS COORDINATOR AND STAFF

LEASES

TENANT LANDSCAPING / MGMT OF WOODS-COMPLEXES

EVENT SPACES

DIRECTOR AND STAFF OF RESORT MANAGEMENT

RESORT

OL:1

HORSE RIDING EDUCATORS AND INSTRUCTORS

EVENTS

LANDSCAPING

OPERATIONS

FACILITIES MANAGEMENT OFFICE

COORDINATION WITH TREE-NURSERY MGMT.

DIRECTOR AND STAFF OF EQUESTRIAN PROGRAMS

EQUESTRIAN

OR:1

RESORT MGMT

RESORT DIRECTOR AND STAFF OFFICES

FOREST

RESTAURANT GREETING

RD:5 AND RESERVATION AREA

ADMINISTRATION + STAFF

EQUESTRIAN FACILITIES AND STAGING AREA

RD:3 RESTAURANT

AGRIC.

EM:1

DINING

MGMT.

EQUESTRIAN DIRECTOR AND STAFF OFFICES

OPERATIONS

EL:2

OWNERS VISITING THE PROPERTY SHORT-TERM

RESORT

LANDSCAPE

EQUESTRIAN

n/a

PASTURES AND PADDOCKS

LEASE-BASED TENANTS IN RESIDENCE

DAY ACTIVITIES RA:5 GENERAL (HIKING, FISHING, BOATING, ETC.)

ES:2

EL:1

SINGLE-NIGHT OR MULTINIGHT RESORT GUESTS

LEARNING CENTER

RESORT

HORSE STABLES AND ES:1 ASSOCIATED FACILITIES

EVENT-SPECIFIC OR SINGLE DAY GUESTS

OWNERS

RL:4

GUESTS

AC:2

EXTERIOR HEARTHS

ACTIVITIES

STRUCTURE

AGRICULTURE EQUIPMENT STORAGE

TENANT

‘LOCAVORE’

RL:3 CLUSTERED

RESORT

CONTRACT

AGRICULTURAL

AC:1

LODGING

CORE COMPLEXES

CONTRACT AGRICULTURE DIRECTOR/STAFF OFFICE

HORSE-RIDING TRAILS

USERS

RL:1 LODGING IN WOODSRL:2 LODGING IN HISTORIC

EQUESTRIAN LEARNING CENTER

PROPOSED

EQUESTRIAN AGRICULTURE FORESTAL

RESORT PROGRAM EQUESTRIAN PROGRAM AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM FORESTAL PROGRAM

MONTCALM MGMT

MONTCALM DIRECTOR AND STAFF OFFICES

OM:1

TENANT

TENANT LEASE PROGRAM

PUBLIC RESTROOMS

OM:2

MONTCALM

MONTCALM OPERATIONS

PARKING LOT

OM:3

HYBRID

HYBRID PROGRAMS (BY COLOR)

FIGURE 6.12

111

A few strategically chosen, formerly abandoned structures within the historic core of the property would be chosen as candidates for the insertion of modern pre-fabricated volumes slipped within their historic shells. Figure 6.13 below represents such an intervention designed by Stuttgart-based firm FNP Architekten for a 235 year old pigsty - precisely the same age as Montcalm’s own circa-1780 pigsty. In addition to offering a cost-controlled and efficient means of environmentally-conditioning these spaces, this strategy would result in establishing an architectural juxtaposition that directly mirrors the programmatic tension of founding a high-end luxury resort on the grounds of a working farmstead. Such a lodging strategy would further lend itself to goal of establishing long-standing visceral connections with the property for the guests of the resort. Where other contemporary resort properties rely on branding strategies, invented ‘themed rooms’ and the like, the ‘Rural Resort’ would offer guests the opportunity to reserve one of several unique lodging options genuinely sited ‘in’ the abandoned ruins of traditionally productive farmstead structures (e.g. the Milk House cabin, the ‘Silo’ cabin, etc.).

careful distribution of modern ‘bungalow’ cabins throughout the eighty acres of the Montcalm woods. Fundamental to the distribution of these cabins is a series of Clustered Exterior Hearths [RL:3] which unify the otherwise autonomous cabins into smaller communal complexes of two to four dwellings, drawing spatial and conceptual inspiration from the four distinct complex clusters of the historic core. Each of these exterior hearths would act as a modern counterpart to the bonfires found at campsites - and adopt the primal role of the hearth as the ceremonial center of the clustered community. As will be more carefully investigated in the site-plan phase of the thesis, the siting of each cabin would emerge through an analysis of the location and species of the surrounding trees, carefully charting the continually ebbing and flowing zones of privacy generated by their foliage through multiple seasons.

The second lodging option represents the bulk of the proposed resort’s lodging options. The Lodging in the Woods-Based Complexes [RL:1] category imagines the

Unlike the historic core dwellings which essentially disguise themselves behind the cloak of the historic facades, the woods-based bungalow cabins would stand in stark contrast to their individual wooded sites. Whereas the historic core dwellings rely on ‘historic branding’ for their design and marketing, the woods-based complexes would each adopt design inspiration from their immediate contexts. For example, the northern-most complex would

FIGURE 6.13

FIGURE 6.14

6.12: DIAGRAM OF POTENTIAL USERS OF THE LODGING SUBPROGRAMS OF THE NEWLY PROPOSED ‘RURAL RESORT’ PROGRAM FOR MONTCALM FARM. 6.13: FNP ARCHITEKTEN ADAPTED THIS 235 YEAR OLD PIGSTY INTO AN ART GALLERY SPACE THROUGH THE INSERTION OF A PRE-FABRICATED INTERIOR VOLUME CAPABLE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CONDITIONING THE SPACE. Pig Sty House. Photograph. WebUrbanist.com. By FNP Architekten. 13 July 2008.

Web. 1 Apr. 2012. <http://weburbanist.com/2008/07/13/7-more-examplesrecycled-urban-architecture/>. 6.14: GLENN MURCUTT’S SIMPSON-LEE RESIDENCE - A MODERN BUNGALOW SET IN A FORESTAL LANDSCAPE. Photograph. New York Times. By Richard Powers. 20 May 2007. Web. 1 Apr. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/magazine/20murcutt-t.html?_r=1>

112

NURSERY WOODS

FORESTAL

TREE NURSERY STAFF AND DIRECTOR OFFICE

FN:1

ON-SITE EQUIPMENT STORAGE / WORKSHOP

FN:2

MONITORING OF OLDGROWTH HARDWOODS

n/a

PROPOSED

PROGRAMS BASED COMPLEX

RESORT RECEPTION AND REGISTRATION

CHICKEN COOP PARTICIPATION

AL:1

RA:1

‘LOCAVORE’ + ‘SLOW FOOD’

‘CHEF’S GARDEN’ PARTICIPATION

AL:2

RA:2

COOKING CLASS FACILITIES

RA:3

‘THE LODGE’ COMMUNITY GATHERING

RA:4

NATURAL SPRING POOL FACILITIES

MGMT.

OWNERS LIVING ON THE PROPERTY LONG-TERM

EQUESTRIAN-RELATED ACTIVITIES

RD:1 WINE CELLAR

DIRECTOR AND STAFF OF MONTCALM MANAGEMENT LANDSCAPING, LABORERS AND FACILITIES STAFF

RD:2 WINE ROOM

EM:2

MAIL DELIVERY AND MISC. UTILITY + SERVICES REPS. OUTSIDE-CONTRACTED AGRICULTURAL CREW

RD:4 KITCHEN

OUTSIDE-CONTRACTED TREE NURSERY CREW

HOUSEKEEPING AND LAUNDRY FACILITIES

OR:2

HOUSEKEEPING AND PORTER VEHICLES

OR:3

RE:1 LARGE-SCALE

EQUIPMENT STORAGE AND WORKSHOP

OL:2

RE:2

AGRICULTURAL

COORDINATION WITH AGRICULTURAL MGMT

OA:1

MANAGEMENT OF THE ‘LOCAVORE’ PROGRAM

OA:2

EVENT STAGING AND STORAGE AREAS

HOSPITALITY, CLEANING AND REGISTRATION STAFF ‘LOCAVORE’ + ‘SLOW FOOD’ DIRECTOR AND STAFF KITCHEN, BARTENDING AND DINING STAFF

OT:1

LEASE MANAGEMENT AND SUPERINTENDENT

OT:2

TENANT

PRIVATE RESIDENCES

LEGEND

FORESTAL

OF:1 RESORT

OF:2

EVENTS

CONFERENCE AND EVENTS COORDINATOR AND STAFF

LEASES

TENANT LANDSCAPING / MGMT OF WOODS-COMPLEXES

EVENT SPACES

DIRECTOR AND STAFF OF RESORT MANAGEMENT

RESORT

OL:1

HORSE RIDING EDUCATORS AND INSTRUCTORS

EVENTS

LANDSCAPING

OPERATIONS

FACILITIES MANAGEMENT OFFICE

COORDINATION WITH TREE-NURSERY MGMT.

DIRECTOR AND STAFF OF EQUESTRIAN PROGRAMS

EQUESTRIAN

OR:1

RESORT MGMT

RESORT DIRECTOR AND STAFF OFFICES

FOREST

RESTAURANT GREETING

RD:5 AND RESERVATION AREA

ADMINISTRATION + STAFF

EQUESTRIAN FACILITIES AND STAGING AREA

RD:3 RESTAURANT

AGRIC.

EM:1

DINING

MGMT.

EQUESTRIAN DIRECTOR AND STAFF OFFICES

OPERATIONS

EL:2

OWNERS VISITING THE PROPERTY SHORT-TERM

RESORT

LANDSCAPE

EQUESTRIAN

n/a

PASTURES AND PADDOCKS

LEASE-BASED TENANTS IN RESIDENCE

DAY ACTIVITIES RA:5 GENERAL (HIKING, FISHING, BOATING, ETC.)

ES:2

EL:1

SINGLE-NIGHT OR MULTINIGHT RESORT GUESTS

LEARNING CENTER

RESORT

HORSE STABLES AND ES:1 ASSOCIATED FACILITIES

EVENT-SPECIFIC OR SINGLE DAY GUESTS

OWNERS

RL:4

GUESTS

AC:2

EXTERIOR HEARTHS

ACTIVITIES

STRUCTURE

AGRICULTURE EQUIPMENT STORAGE

TENANT

‘LOCAVORE’

RL:3 CLUSTERED

RESORT

CONTRACT

AGRICULTURAL

AC:1

LODGING

CORE COMPLEXES

CONTRACT AGRICULTURE DIRECTOR/STAFF OFFICE

HORSE-RIDING TRAILS

USERS

RL:1 LODGING IN WOODSRL:2 LODGING IN HISTORIC

EQUESTRIAN LEARNING CENTER

PROPOSED

EQUESTRIAN AGRICULTURE FORESTAL

RESORT PROGRAM EQUESTRIAN PROGRAM AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM FORESTAL PROGRAM

MONTCALM MGMT

MONTCALM DIRECTOR AND STAFF OFFICES

OM:1

TENANT

TENANT LEASE PROGRAM

PUBLIC RESTROOMS

OM:2

MONTCALM

MONTCALM OPERATIONS

PARKING LOT

OM:3

HYBRID

HYBRID PROGRAMS (BY COLOR)

FIGURE 6.15

113

be sited upon some of the steepest topography on the property and would therefore be informed by the existing stone retaining wall - both in materiality and in relationship to the landscape, whereas the woods-based complex near the natural creek would adopt the the stilt-like quality of the attenuated trees of its immediate context.

the extensive Natural Spring Pool and Spa Facilities [RA:4] which has been previously discussed as a sustainble alternative to the typical ‘spa’ experience making use of the property‘s vast water reserves and geothermal heat sources. A noteworthy case study of a similar program set within a lush pastoral landscape not unlike Montcalm can be seen in Figure 6.17, which represents an exterior view of Peter Zumthor’s Therme Vals in Switzerland.

THE RURAL RESORT: ACTIVITIES The activities imagined for the ‘Rural Resort’ represent a wide range of unique, site-specific reinventions of traditional resort programs and amenities, some of which have previously been discussed. These activities fall into roughly three sub-program categories including Resort-Only activities, Resort-Agriculture hybrid activities, and Resort-Equestrian hybrid activities. As can be seen in Figure 6.15 to the left, these various activities result in participation by a wide range of various ‘user types’ and the category therefore serves as a tremendous opportunity to realize the global goal of deploying the ‘Rural Resort’ program as a programmatic and spatial ‘bridge’ to unify various programs. The Resort-Only activities consist of General Day Activities [RA:5] , including hiking, fishing, and boating, all of which have a long-standing history on the property. Additionally, two new resort-only programs have been introduced. The first is ‘The Lodge’ [RA:3] program, which is imagined as an adaptation of the ‘community living room’ function found at typical resort and hotel properties - a place for community gathering, awaiting guests, gathering information related to other activities, etc. The second is

FIGURE 6.16

6.15: DIAGRAM OF POTENTIAL USERS OF THE ACTIVITIES SUBPROGRAMS OF THE NEWLY PROPOSED ‘RURAL RESORT’ PROGRAM FOR MONTCALM. 6.16: THE ‘SLOW FOOD’ AND ‘LOCAVORE’ MOVEMENTS HAVE GAINED TREMENDOUS MOMENTUM OVER THE PAST DECADE, GREATLY ASSISTED BY MICHAEL POLLAN‘S BEST SELLING BOOK THE OMNIVORE’S DILEMMA. The Slow Food Movement. Photograph. BeGreen.BOTW.org. By Jessica Anderson.

The two Resort-Agriculture hybrid programs include the ‘Locavore’ and ‘Slow Food’ Learning Center [RA:1] imagined as an adaptable conference room / classroom equipped with a variety of resources for learning about the origins of food - and the ‘Slow Food’ Cooking Class Facilities [RA:2], which offers guests of the ‘rural resort’ the opportunity to work directly with local chefs to prepare meals entirely of locally grown and raised ingredients. Although the specifications of this space would coincide with the resort’s kitchen, separate facilities are imagined for the cooking classes. Both of these programs directly ‘bridge’ the ‘Rural Resort’ program to the new ‘Locavore’ subcategory of the reconfigured Agricultural program. As Figure 6.15 illustrates, these two programs are closely correlated to the two hybrid programs of the Agricultural master program: The Chicken Coop [AL:1] and The Chef’s Garden [AL:2], however these two programs will be subsequently discussed in the Agricultural category. Likewise, the Equestrian program is reconfigured to be a self-suffient operation onto itself and therefore the Resort-Equestrian hybrid programs, shown in the diagram as the Equestrian-Related Activities [n/a] will be discussed in the section detailing the Equestrian program category.

FIGURE 6.17

1 February 2012. Web. 1 Apr. 2012. <http://begreen.botw.org/2012/02/the-slow-food-movement/>. 6.17: AN EXTERIOR VIEW OF PETER ZUMTHOR’S THERME VALS IN SWITZERLAND SHOWS THE POOL AND SPA’S SITING WITHIN AN AGRARIAN LANDSCAPE. Photograph. AL3XAG.Blogspot.com 22 April 2011. Web. 1 Apr. 2012. <http://al3xag.blogspot.com/2011/04/vacation.html>

114

NURSERY WOODS

FORESTAL

TREE NURSERY STAFF AND DIRECTOR OFFICE

FN:1

ON-SITE EQUIPMENT STORAGE / WORKSHOP

FN:2

MONITORING OF OLDGROWTH HARDWOODS

n/a

PROPOSED

PROGRAMS BASED COMPLEX

RESORT RECEPTION AND REGISTRATION

CHICKEN COOP PARTICIPATION

AL:1

RA:1

‘LOCAVORE’ + ‘SLOW FOOD’

‘CHEF’S GARDEN’ PARTICIPATION

AL:2

RA:2

COOKING CLASS FACILITIES

RA:3

‘THE LODGE’ COMMUNITY GATHERING

RA:4

NATURAL SPRING POOL FACILITIES

MGMT.

OWNERS LIVING ON THE PROPERTY LONG-TERM

EQUESTRIAN-RELATED ACTIVITIES

RD:1 WINE CELLAR

DIRECTOR AND STAFF OF MONTCALM MANAGEMENT LANDSCAPING, LABORERS AND FACILITIES STAFF

RD:2 WINE ROOM

EM:2

MAIL DELIVERY AND MISC. UTILITY + SERVICES REPS. OUTSIDE-CONTRACTED AGRICULTURAL CREW

RD:4 KITCHEN

OUTSIDE-CONTRACTED TREE NURSERY CREW

HOUSEKEEPING AND LAUNDRY FACILITIES

OR:2

HOUSEKEEPING AND PORTER VEHICLES

OR:3

RE:1 LARGE-SCALE

EQUIPMENT STORAGE AND WORKSHOP

OL:2

RE:2

AGRICULTURAL

COORDINATION WITH AGRICULTURAL MGMT

OA:1

MANAGEMENT OF THE ‘LOCAVORE’ PROGRAM

OA:2

EVENT STAGING AND STORAGE AREAS

HOSPITALITY, CLEANING AND REGISTRATION STAFF ‘LOCAVORE’ + ‘SLOW FOOD’ DIRECTOR AND STAFF KITCHEN, BARTENDING AND DINING STAFF

OT:1

LEASE MANAGEMENT AND SUPERINTENDENT

OT:2

TENANT

PRIVATE RESIDENCES

LEGEND

FORESTAL

OF:1 RESORT

OF:2

EVENTS

CONFERENCE AND EVENTS COORDINATOR AND STAFF

LEASES

TENANT LANDSCAPING / MGMT OF WOODS-COMPLEXES

EVENT SPACES

DIRECTOR AND STAFF OF RESORT MANAGEMENT

RESORT

OL:1

HORSE RIDING EDUCATORS AND INSTRUCTORS

EVENTS

LANDSCAPING

OPERATIONS

FACILITIES MANAGEMENT OFFICE

COORDINATION WITH TREE-NURSERY MGMT.

DIRECTOR AND STAFF OF EQUESTRIAN PROGRAMS

EQUESTRIAN

OR:1

RESORT MGMT

RESORT DIRECTOR AND STAFF OFFICES

FOREST

RESTAURANT GREETING

RD:5 AND RESERVATION AREA

ADMINISTRATION + STAFF

EQUESTRIAN FACILITIES AND STAGING AREA

RD:3 RESTAURANT

AGRIC.

EM:1

DINING

MGMT.

EQUESTRIAN DIRECTOR AND STAFF OFFICES

OPERATIONS

EL:2

OWNERS VISITING THE PROPERTY SHORT-TERM

RESORT

LANDSCAPE

EQUESTRIAN

n/a

PASTURES AND PADDOCKS

LEASE-BASED TENANTS IN RESIDENCE

DAY ACTIVITIES RA:5 GENERAL (HIKING, FISHING, BOATING, ETC.)

ES:2

EL:1

SINGLE-NIGHT OR MULTINIGHT RESORT GUESTS

LEARNING CENTER

RESORT

HORSE STABLES AND ES:1 ASSOCIATED FACILITIES

EVENT-SPECIFIC OR SINGLE DAY GUESTS

OWNERS

RL:4

GUESTS

AC:2

EXTERIOR HEARTHS

ACTIVITIES

STRUCTURE

AGRICULTURE EQUIPMENT STORAGE

TENANT

‘LOCAVORE’

RL:3 CLUSTERED

RESORT

CONTRACT

AGRICULTURAL

AC:1

LODGING

CORE COMPLEXES

CONTRACT AGRICULTURE DIRECTOR/STAFF OFFICE

HORSE-RIDING TRAILS

USERS

RL:1 LODGING IN WOODSRL:2 LODGING IN HISTORIC

EQUESTRIAN LEARNING CENTER

PROPOSED

EQUESTRIAN AGRICULTURE FORESTAL

RESORT PROGRAM EQUESTRIAN PROGRAM AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM FORESTAL PROGRAM

MONTCALM MGMT

MONTCALM DIRECTOR AND STAFF OFFICES

OM:1

TENANT

TENANT LEASE PROGRAM

PUBLIC RESTROOMS

OM:2

MONTCALM

MONTCALM OPERATIONS

PARKING LOT

OM:3

HYBRID

HYBRID PROGRAMS (BY COLOR)

FIGURE 6.18

115

THE RURAL RESORT: DINING In addition to the ‘outreach’ role filled by the hybrid Resort-Agriculture ‘Locavore’ and ‘Slow Food’ activities, the Dining function of the Rural Resort program represents a significant opportunity to broadcast the newly proposed identity of the property to the public at large. Marketing itself as the preiminent hub for both Loudoun County’s bourgeoning ‘wine country’(6.27) and the local sustainable agriculture movement, the various dining programs of the rural resort offer the potential to collaborate with local farmers and wine makers in the showcasing of their products as well as featuring Montcalm-grown ingredients. By distributing the lodging functions of the resort throughout the property, the main Telescoping-House Complex is left programmatically availabe to once again serve as the ‘heart’ of the property through a thoughtful distribution of the dining subprograms. This would allow many of the traditional roles of the farmhouse to remain intact while still allowing resort guests the privacy facilitated by generously distributing the lodgings throughout the grounds. As discussed in the physical analysis of Chapter 4, the main house is presently suffering from the severe deterioration of its foundation. The extensive structural work required of shoring up the main stone house portion could easily coincide with structural underpinning and an upgrade of the foundation, with potential for hosting a converted Wine Cellar [RD:1] beneath.

with the introduction of a modern Kitchen [RD:4] program. In keeping with the ‘Locavore’ ethos, its position between the log cabin Wine Room and the stone house Restaurant facilitates the ‘display’ of the cooking process to guests. The dining functions of the resort program must accommodate both the dining staff and the resort guests throughout the Telescoping-House Complex. The hybrid programs of the Chicken Coop and Chef’s Garden, which will soon be discussed, would therefore provide locally harvested ingredients for use in the daily menu options prepared by the kitchen staff. The dining program is imagined as an intersection between the sustainable farming approach of Polyface Farms and the successful integration of locally harvested ingredients as found in Alice Water’s Chez Panisse restaurant. ‘Locavore’ enthusiasts will represent a significant target-market of the rural resort and so the guest’s dining experience will serve as a fundamental contributor to the ‘rural resort’ program. As Figure 6.18 indicates, the users associated with the various aspects of the dining program represent a wide range of the property’s proposed guests, owners administration. It is imagined that most of the programs that are physically headquartered on the Montcalm

The restored circa 1780 log cabin is presently equipped with a large-scaled stone fireplace as shown in Figure 3.7 in the physical analysis chapter. Its intimate scale and view across the pond to the east suggest its great potential for being repurposed as the resort’s Wine Room [RD:2]. The ‘Ballroom’ on the first floor of the 1860 lumber-framed addition of the Telescoping-House Complex was traditionally the place of elaborate celebrations during the farm’s most prosporous times. In combination with a restoration of the main stone house the resort’s Restaurant [RD:3] and Restaurant Greeting and Reservation Area [RD:5] could be sited throughout the first floor of the historic home. The adjacent ‘Stone Kitchen’ of the Telescoping-House Complex is also in serious need of extensive repairs. Although abandoned and deteriorating for many decades, the ‘Rural Resort’ proposal imagines a programmatic restoration of the the Stone Kitchen to its traditional use, FIGURE 6.19

6.18: (OPPOSITE PAGE) DIAGRAM OF POTENTIAL USERS OF THE DINING SUBPROGRAMS OF THE NEWLY PROPOSED ‘RURAL RESORT’ PROGRAM FOR MONTCALM FARM.

WILL THEREFORE INTEGRATE LOCAL WINES AND LOCAL PRODUCE AND FOOD INTO ITS DAILY MENU OFFERINGS. Wine Trail. Map. LoudounWine.com. By Loudoun Wine Growers Association. Web. 1 Apr. 2012. <http://www.loudounwine.com/WineTrail/>.

6.19: MONTCALM FARM IS SITUATED ALONG THE CENTRAL AXIS OF LOUDOUN COUNTY’S BOURGEONING ‘WINE COUNTRY.’ THE RURAL RESORT

116

NURSERY WOODS

FORESTAL

TREE NURSERY STAFF AND DIRECTOR OFFICE

FN:1

ON-SITE EQUIPMENT STORAGE / WORKSHOP

FN:2

MONITORING OF OLDGROWTH HARDWOODS

n/a

PROPOSED

PROGRAMS BASED COMPLEX

RESORT RECEPTION AND REGISTRATION

CHICKEN COOP PARTICIPATION

AL:1

RA:1

‘LOCAVORE’ + ‘SLOW FOOD’

‘CHEF’S GARDEN’ PARTICIPATION

AL:2

RA:2

COOKING CLASS FACILITIES

RA:3

‘THE LODGE’ COMMUNITY GATHERING

RA:4

NATURAL SPRING POOL FACILITIES

OWNERS LIVING ON THE PROPERTY LONG-TERM

DIRECTOR AND STAFF OF MONTCALM MANAGEMENT LANDSCAPING, LABORERS AND FACILITIES STAFF

RD:2 WINE ROOM

EM:2

MAIL DELIVERY AND MISC. UTILITY + SERVICES REPS. OUTSIDE-CONTRACTED AGRICULTURAL CREW

RD:4 KITCHEN

OUTSIDE-CONTRACTED TREE NURSERY CREW

HOUSEKEEPING AND LAUNDRY FACILITIES

OR:2

HOUSEKEEPING AND PORTER VEHICLES

OR:3

RE:1 LARGE-SCALE

EQUIPMENT STORAGE AND WORKSHOP

OL:2

RE:2

AGRICULTURAL

COORDINATION WITH AGRICULTURAL MGMT

OA:1

MANAGEMENT OF THE ‘LOCAVORE’ PROGRAM

OA:2

EVENT STAGING AND STORAGE AREAS

HOSPITALITY, CLEANING AND REGISTRATION STAFF ‘LOCAVORE’ + ‘SLOW FOOD’ DIRECTOR AND STAFF KITCHEN, BARTENDING AND DINING STAFF

OT:1

LEASE MANAGEMENT AND SUPERINTENDENT

OT:2

TENANT

PRIVATE RESIDENCES

LEGEND

FORESTAL

OF:1 RESORT

OF:2

EVENTS

CONFERENCE AND EVENTS COORDINATOR AND STAFF

LEASES

TENANT LANDSCAPING / MGMT OF WOODS-COMPLEXES

EVENT SPACES

DIRECTOR AND STAFF OF RESORT MANAGEMENT

RESORT

OL:1

HORSE RIDING EDUCATORS AND INSTRUCTORS

EVENTS

LANDSCAPING

OPERATIONS

FACILITIES MANAGEMENT OFFICE

COORDINATION WITH TREE-NURSERY MGMT.

DIRECTOR AND STAFF OF EQUESTRIAN PROGRAMS

EQUESTRIAN

OR:1

RESORT MGMT

RESORT DIRECTOR AND STAFF OFFICES

FOREST

RESTAURANT GREETING

RD:5 AND RESERVATION AREA

ADMINISTRATION + STAFF

EQUESTRIAN FACILITIES AND STAGING AREA

RD:3 RESTAURANT

AGRIC.

EM:1

DINING

MGMT.

EQUESTRIAN DIRECTOR AND STAFF OFFICES

OPERATIONS

RD:1 WINE CELLAR

OWNERS VISITING THE PROPERTY SHORT-TERM

MGMT.

EL:2

EQUESTRIAN-RELATED ACTIVITIES

RESORT

LANDSCAPE

EQUESTRIAN

n/a

PASTURES AND PADDOCKS

LEASE-BASED TENANTS IN RESIDENCE

DAY ACTIVITIES RA:5 GENERAL (HIKING, FISHING, BOATING, ETC.)

ES:2

EL:1

SINGLE-NIGHT OR MULTINIGHT RESORT GUESTS

LEARNING CENTER

RESORT

HORSE STABLES AND ES:1 ASSOCIATED FACILITIES

EVENT-SPECIFIC OR SINGLE DAY GUESTS

OWNERS

RL:4

GUESTS

AC:2

EXTERIOR HEARTHS

ACTIVITIES

STRUCTURE

AGRICULTURE EQUIPMENT STORAGE

TENANT

‘LOCAVORE’

RL:3 CLUSTERED

RESORT

CONTRACT

AGRICULTURAL

AC:1

LODGING

CORE COMPLEXES

CONTRACT AGRICULTURE DIRECTOR/STAFF OFFICE

HORSE-RIDING TRAILS

USERS

RL:1 LODGING IN WOODSRL:2 LODGING IN HISTORIC

EQUESTRIAN LEARNING CENTER

PROPOSED

EQUESTRIAN AGRICULTURE FORESTAL

RESORT PROGRAM EQUESTRIAN PROGRAM AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM FORESTAL PROGRAM

MONTCALM MGMT

MONTCALM DIRECTOR AND STAFF OFFICES

OM:1

TENANT

TENANT LEASE PROGRAM

PUBLIC RESTROOMS

OM:2

MONTCALM

MONTCALM OPERATIONS

PARKING LOT

OM:3

HYBRID

HYBRID PROGRAMS (BY COLOR)

FIGURE 6.20

117

property are likely to use at least one aspect of the dining program.

the more fitting considering that such structures were originally designed and executed to maximize the potential reconfigurations of their open floor plans, in order to adapt to a variety of future uses.

THE RURAL RESORT: EVENTS On numerous occassions over the past thirty years Montcalm has served as a wedding venue for visitors who recognized the inherent beauty and picturesque qualities of the property for many of the same reasons discussed in the ‘Resource #4’ section of this chapter. Traditionally these events have been managed by outside-contracted event coordinators and the furniture, equipment, restrooms, tents, etc. required for hosting the event have been rented and delivered to the site at great expense. As is often the case with event planning for outdoor venues, these clients have had very little in the way of ‘back up plans’ if the weather ‘failed to cooperate.’ A cursory analysis of contemporary resort and event venues indicates that the capacity to accommodate large-scale events represents a tremendous revenue source for these properties.(6.28) In the interest of diversifying Montcalm’s revenue streams so as to buffer against a shortfall in any one particular category, it is clear that the ‘Rural Resort’ should take advantage of this potentially lucrative market. One of the many untapped opportunities that the large-scaled barn structures of Montcalm offer is the capacity for hosting these large-scale events indoors in a highly unique and memorable setting. In contrast to the latest conference space additions to the Inn at Middleton Place resort, Montcalm has the potential to thoughtfully integrate these large-scale spaces amidst several of the spacious bent-framed barn structures. This is perhaps all

The first subprogram of the Events function of the Rural Resort therefore represents the Large-Scale Event Spaces [RE:1] themselves. As shown in Figure 6.21 below, several of Montcalm’s existing structures could accomodate large numbers of event guests in a spacious setting. The Events function of the newly proposed program also recognizes the need for extensive Event Staging and Storage Areas [RE:2], which represent all of the supporting structures associated with housing event-related equipment and furniture while not in active use. Like the EQUESTRIAN program which will be discussed subsequently, the Events function offers the opportunity to collaborate directly with the Lodging function of the Rural Resort. It is highly likely that many large-scale event organizers would reserve the entire property including the sixteen proposed guest cabins. Additionally, individual guests of these large-scale events would be exposed to the Rural Resort grounds as a potential vactaion destination, resulting in a passive ‘branding’ strategy for the property, which would reduce reliance on traditional marketing strategies. In addition to serving as a wedding and conference venue, it is imagined that the ‘Locavore’ and ‘Slow Food’ Learning Center could also host large-scale annual events on the grounds, similar to the ‘Slow Food Nation’ gathering in San Francisco.(6.29)

FIGURE 6.21

FIGURE 6.22

6.20: (OPPOSITE PAGE) DIAGRAM OF POTENTIAL USERS OF THE EVENTS SUBPROGRAMS OF THE NEWLY PROPOSED ‘RURAL RESORT’ PROGRAM FOR MONTCALM FARM.

<http://pinterest.com/rescuedforyou/i-heart-barns/>. 6.22: OFERING PICTURESQUE SETTINGS, RURAL FARMS ARE A HIGHLY SOUGHT AFTER VENUE FOR WEDDING EVENTS THROUGHOUT LOUDOUN COUNTY. Photograph. BobUpdegrove.com. By Bob Updegrove. Web. 1 Apr. 2012. <http://www.bobupdegrove.com/Miscellaneous/Portfolio-Images>.

6.21: AN OLD BENT-FRAMED BARN REPURPOSED AS A DISTINCTIVE WEDDING VENUE. Barn Wedding. Photograph. Pinterest.com. Web. 1 Apr. 2012.

118

NURSERY WOODS

FORESTAL

TREE NURSERY STAFF AND DIRECTOR OFFICE

FN:1

ON-SITE EQUIPMENT STORAGE / WORKSHOP

FN:2

MONITORING OF OLDGROWTH HARDWOODS

n/a

PROPOSED

PROGRAMS BASED COMPLEX

RESORT RECEPTION AND REGISTRATION

CHICKEN COOP PARTICIPATION

AL:1

RA:1

‘LOCAVORE’ + ‘SLOW FOOD’

‘CHEF’S GARDEN’ PARTICIPATION

AL:2

RA:2

COOKING CLASS FACILITIES

RA:3

‘THE LODGE’ COMMUNITY GATHERING

RA:4

NATURAL SPRING POOL FACILITIES

MGMT.

OWNERS LIVING ON THE PROPERTY LONG-TERM

EQUESTRIAN-RELATED ACTIVITIES

RD:1 WINE CELLAR

DIRECTOR AND STAFF OF MONTCALM MANAGEMENT LANDSCAPING, LABORERS AND FACILITIES STAFF

RD:2 WINE ROOM

EM:2

MAIL DELIVERY AND MISC. UTILITY + SERVICES REPS. OUTSIDE-CONTRACTED AGRICULTURAL CREW

RD:4 KITCHEN

OUTSIDE-CONTRACTED TREE NURSERY CREW

HOUSEKEEPING AND LAUNDRY FACILITIES

OR:2

HOUSEKEEPING AND PORTER VEHICLES

OR:3

RE:1 LARGE-SCALE

EQUIPMENT STORAGE AND WORKSHOP

OL:2

RE:2

AGRICULTURAL

COORDINATION WITH AGRICULTURAL MGMT

OA:1

MANAGEMENT OF THE ‘LOCAVORE’ PROGRAM

OA:2

EVENT STAGING AND STORAGE AREAS

HOSPITALITY, CLEANING AND REGISTRATION STAFF ‘LOCAVORE’ + ‘SLOW FOOD’ DIRECTOR AND STAFF KITCHEN, BARTENDING AND DINING STAFF

OT:1

LEASE MANAGEMENT AND SUPERINTENDENT

OT:2

TENANT

PRIVATE RESIDENCES

LEGEND

FORESTAL

OF:1 RESORT

OF:2

EVENTS

CONFERENCE AND EVENTS COORDINATOR AND STAFF

LEASES

TENANT LANDSCAPING / MGMT OF WOODS-COMPLEXES

EVENT SPACES

DIRECTOR AND STAFF OF RESORT MANAGEMENT

RESORT

OL:1

HORSE RIDING EDUCATORS AND INSTRUCTORS

EVENTS

LANDSCAPING

OPERATIONS

FACILITIES MANAGEMENT OFFICE

COORDINATION WITH TREE-NURSERY MGMT.

DIRECTOR AND STAFF OF EQUESTRIAN PROGRAMS

EQUESTRIAN

OR:1

RESORT MGMT

RESORT DIRECTOR AND STAFF OFFICES

FOREST

RESTAURANT GREETING

RD:5 AND RESERVATION AREA

ADMINISTRATION + STAFF

EQUESTRIAN FACILITIES AND STAGING AREA

RD:3 RESTAURANT

AGRIC.

EM:1

DINING

MGMT.

EQUESTRIAN DIRECTOR AND STAFF OFFICES

OPERATIONS

EL:2

OWNERS VISITING THE PROPERTY SHORT-TERM

RESORT

LANDSCAPE

EQUESTRIAN

n/a

PASTURES AND PADDOCKS

LEASE-BASED TENANTS IN RESIDENCE

DAY ACTIVITIES RA:5 GENERAL (HIKING, FISHING, BOATING, ETC.)

ES:2

EL:1

SINGLE-NIGHT OR MULTINIGHT RESORT GUESTS

LEARNING CENTER

RESORT

HORSE STABLES AND ES:1 ASSOCIATED FACILITIES

EVENT-SPECIFIC OR SINGLE DAY GUESTS

OWNERS

RL:4

GUESTS

AC:2

EXTERIOR HEARTHS

ACTIVITIES

STRUCTURE

AGRICULTURE EQUIPMENT STORAGE

TENANT

‘LOCAVORE’

RL:3 CLUSTERED

RESORT

CONTRACT

AGRICULTURAL

AC:1

LODGING

CORE COMPLEXES

CONTRACT AGRICULTURE DIRECTOR/STAFF OFFICE

HORSE-RIDING TRAILS

USERS

RL:1 LODGING IN WOODSRL:2 LODGING IN HISTORIC

EQUESTRIAN LEARNING CENTER

PROPOSED

EQUESTRIAN AGRICULTURE FORESTAL

RESORT PROGRAM EQUESTRIAN PROGRAM AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM FORESTAL PROGRAM

MONTCALM MGMT

MONTCALM DIRECTOR AND STAFF OFFICES

OM:1

TENANT

TENANT LEASE PROGRAM

PUBLIC RESTROOMS

OM:2

MONTCALM

MONTCALM OPERATIONS

PARKING LOT

OM:3

HYBRID

HYBRID PROGRAMS (BY COLOR)

FIGURE 6.23

119

THE EXISTING TENANT PROGRAM As previously discussed, the annual Lease-Based Private Residences [OT:1] represent one of the existing programs of the site whose present autonomous nature appropriately respects the privacy of the tenants and therefore is not in need of dramatic reconfiguring. It is however worth noting that these two tenant rental properties serve as a precedent for the proposed concept of introducing various short-term rental dwellings throughout the 225 acres of the farm. In the same way that Chapter 4 discussed the unique construction typologies that their respective dates of construction represent (i.e. the lumber-framed tenant house of circa 1900 versus the post-war prefabricated Lesco cottage of circa 1958) the modern dwellings proposed will manifest their own contemporary date of construction in the modern detailing of their design, tectonics, and relationship to site. Regardless of the duration of these leases (i.e. annual versus short-term) it is hoped that all of these properties

might serve an important role in continually revitalizing the property with visitors and guests who appreciate a unique alternative to urban density, suburban sprawl, or contemporary ostentation. Although no significant reconfiguration is proposed for the management of the tenant program, the reconfigured program for the property as a whole would provide two significant benefits from which the lease-based tenant residences would benefit. First, the proposed facilities management program being shared across all five programs of Montcalm would represent more immediate attention and maintenance for the tenant properties as well as continual maintenance of their landscaping and road infrastructures. Secondly, as has been previously discussed, the reconfiguration of the Revenue/Expense Flow Diagram would introduce a ‘Reinvestment’ category to the property’s financial management, which would facilitate much-needed funds for the continual restoration and maintenance of the two existing tenant houses.

FIGURE 6.24

6.23: (OPPOSITE PAGE) DIAGRAM OF POTENTIAL USERS OF THE RECONFIGURED TENANT PROGRAM FOR MONTCALM FARM. 6.24: AN UNDATED FIRE INSURANCE PHOTGRAPH OF THE TENANT HOUSE. Photograph from John Marsh’s personal collection.

120

NURSERY WOODS

USERS

FORESTAL

PROPOSED

TREE NURSERY STAFF AND DIRECTOR OFFICE

FN:1

ON-SITE EQUIPMENT STORAGE / WORKSHOP

FN:2

MONITORING OF OLDGROWTH HARDWOODS

n/a

PROPOSED

PROGRAMS RL:1 LODGING IN WOODSBASED COMPLEX

LODGING

RL:2 LODGING IN HISTORIC CORE COMPLEXES

RL:4

RESORT RECEPTION AND REGISTRATION

CHICKEN COOP PARTICIPATION

AL:1

RA:1

‘LOCAVORE’ + ‘SLOW FOOD’

‘CHEF’S GARDEN’ PARTICIPATION

AL:2

RA:2

COOKING CLASS FACILITIES

RA:3

‘THE LODGE’ COMMUNITY GATHERING

RA:4

NATURAL SPRING POOL FACILITIES

HORSE STABLES AND ES:1 ASSOCIATED FACILITIES EQUESTRIAN LEARNING CENTER

DAY ACTIVITIES RA:5 GENERAL (HIKING, FISHING, BOATING, ETC.)

ES:2

EL:1

PASTURES AND PADDOCKS

EL:2

EQUESTRIAN-RELATED ACTIVITIES

RESORT

HORSE-RIDING TRAILS

LEARNING CENTER

RD:1 WINE CELLAR

EQUESTRIAN DIRECTOR AND STAFF OFFICES

EM:1

EQUESTRIAN FACILITIES AND STAGING AREA

EM:2

RD:3 RESTAURANT RD:4 KITCHEN RESTAURANT GREETING

RD:5 AND RESERVATION AREA

HORSE RIDING EDUCATORS AND INSTRUCTORS DIRECTOR AND STAFF OF RESORT MANAGEMENT

OR:2

HOUSEKEEPING AND PORTER VEHICLES

OR:3

OL:1

RE:1 LARGE-SCALE

EQUIPMENT STORAGE AND WORKSHOP

OL:2

RE:2

COORDINATION WITH AGRICULTURAL MGMT

OA:1

MANAGEMENT OF THE ‘LOCAVORE’ PROGRAM

OA:2

LANDSCAPING / MGMT OF WOODS-COMPLEXES

PRIVATE RESIDENCES

OT:1

LEASE MANAGEMENT AND SUPERINTENDENT

OT:2

EVENT STAGING AND STORAGE AREAS

LEGEND

OF:1 RESORT

OF:2

TENANT

FORESTAL

COORDINATION WITH TREE-NURSERY MGMT.

EVENT SPACES

LEASES

TENANT

OPERATIONS

EVENTS

FACILITIES MANAGEMENT OFFICE

EVENTS

KITCHEN, BARTENDING AND DINING STAFF

HOUSEKEEPING AND LAUNDRY FACILITIES

AGRICULTURAL

‘LOCAVORE’ + ‘SLOW FOOD’ DIRECTOR AND STAFF

OR:1

LANDSCAPING

RESORT

HOSPITALITY, CLEANING AND REGISTRATION STAFF

RESORT DIRECTOR AND STAFF OFFICES

RESORT MGMT

EQUESTRIAN

DIRECTOR AND STAFF OF EQUESTRIAN PROGRAMS

CONFERENCE AND EVENTS COORDINATOR AND STAFF

AC:2

EXTERIOR HEARTHS

DINING

FOREST

OUTSIDE-CONTRACTED TREE NURSERY CREW

AGRICULTURE EQUIPMENT STORAGE

ACTIVITIES

AGRIC.

ADMINISTRATION + STAFF

OUTSIDE-CONTRACTED AGRICULTURAL CREW

RL:3 CLUSTERED

RD:2 WINE ROOM MGMT.

MAIL DELIVERY AND MISC. UTILITY + SERVICES REPS.

AC:1

n/a LANDSCAPE

OPERATIONS

LANDSCAPING, LABORERS AND FACILITIES STAFF

EQUESTRIAN

DIRECTOR AND STAFF OF MONTCALM MANAGEMENT

STRUCTURE

MGMT.

OWNERS LIVING ON THE PROPERTY LONG-TERM

‘LOCAVORE’

OWNERS VISITING THE PROPERTY SHORT-TERM

CONTRACT

RESORT

OWNERS

LEASE-BASED TENANTS IN RESIDENCE

AGRICULTURAL

SINGLE-NIGHT OR MULTINIGHT RESORT GUESTS

TENANT

GUESTS

RESORT

EVENT-SPECIFIC OR SINGLE DAY GUESTS

CONTRACT AGRICULTURE DIRECTOR/STAFF OFFICE

EQUESTRIAN AGRICULTURE FORESTAL

RESORT PROGRAM EQUESTRIAN PROGRAM AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM FORESTAL PROGRAM

MONTCALM MGMT

MONTCALM DIRECTOR AND STAFF OFFICES

OM:1

TENANT

TENANT LEASE PROGRAM

PUBLIC RESTROOMS

OM:2

MONTCALM

MONTCALM OPERATIONS

PARKING LOT

OM:3

HYBRID

HYBRID PROGRAMS (BY COLOR)

FIGURE 6.25

121

THE RECONFIGURED FORESTAL PROGRAM The 80 wooded acres of Montcalm Farm represent a largely untapped resource and few owners or guests have traditionally occupied the forestal zone. The proposed new and reconfigured programs will therefore seek to directly engage this unique landscape typology. Similar to the Tenant program, the existing outside-contracted tree nursery operation, which operates just south of the taller old-growth wooded area is largely autonomous and should remain so. In conjunction with the Agricultural program, the Forestal program already provides a much-needed reduction of property taxes due to Montclam’s resulting eligibility in the county’s Forestal Land Use program.(6.30) Both the Tree Nursery Staff and Director’s Office [FN:1] and the On-Site Equipment Storage and Workshop [FN:2] facilities are already present on Montcalm, located in the heart of the tree nursery zone. The tree-nursery operation maintains its own access road and stores its massive mechanical equipment within its own facilities which are

predominantly embedded within the foliage of the surrounding trees. While subtle steps should be considered to further buffer these largely industrial volumes from the historic core and surrounding productive landscape, the general siting is beneficial for the operation of the tree-nursery program and generally respectful of the unrelated programs of the property. While not listed as a Resort ‘Activity’ specifically, the relationship of the proposed woods-based lodging to its surrounding wooded context acknowledges that the routines of the woods-based guests amidst this dense forest represent a Resort/Forestal hybrid experience in its own right. The Monitoring of Old-Growth Hardwoods program therefore represents an intersection between the Rurual Resort program and the Forestal Program accommodating both the professional monitoring by the outside-contracted tree nursery professionals for potential harvesting and replanting of specific trees, as well as the general enjoyment and hiking associated with the woods-based Resort guests.

FIGURE 6.26

6.25: (OPPOSITE PAGE) DIAGRAM OF POTENTIAL USERS OF THE RECONFIGURED FORESTAL PROGRAM FOR MONTCALM FARM. 6.26: IN ADDITION TO CONTINUING TO BE MONITORED BY THE TREE-NURSERY OPERATION, MONTCALM’S OLD-GROWTH HARDWOOD FORESTAL AREA COULD BE TAPPED AS A BUFFERED ZONE FOR THE

INTRODUCTION OF MODERN BUNGALOW CLUSTERS AVAILABLE FOR SHORT-TERM RENTAL BY THE ‘RURAL RESORT.’ Creek and Old-Growth Forest-Larch Mountain. Photograph. Wikipedia. Web. 1 Apr. 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Creek_and_old-growth_forest-Larch_Mou ntain.jpg>.

122

NURSERY WOODS

USERS

FORESTAL

PROPOSED

TREE NURSERY STAFF AND DIRECTOR OFFICE

FN:1

ON-SITE EQUIPMENT STORAGE / WORKSHOP

FN:2

MONITORING OF OLDGROWTH HARDWOODS

n/a

PROPOSED

PROGRAMS RL:1 LODGING IN WOODSBASED COMPLEX

LODGING

RL:2 LODGING IN HISTORIC CORE COMPLEXES

RL:4

RESORT RECEPTION AND REGISTRATION

CHICKEN COOP PARTICIPATION

AL:1

RA:1

‘LOCAVORE’ + ‘SLOW FOOD’

‘CHEF’S GARDEN’ PARTICIPATION

AL:2

RA:2

COOKING CLASS FACILITIES

RA:3

‘THE LODGE’ COMMUNITY GATHERING

RA:4

NATURAL SPRING POOL FACILITIES

HORSE STABLES AND ES:1 ASSOCIATED FACILITIES EQUESTRIAN LEARNING CENTER

DAY ACTIVITIES RA:5 GENERAL (HIKING, FISHING, BOATING, ETC.)

ES:2

EL:1

PASTURES AND PADDOCKS

EL:2

EQUESTRIAN-RELATED ACTIVITIES

RESORT

HORSE-RIDING TRAILS

LEARNING CENTER

RD:1 WINE CELLAR

EQUESTRIAN DIRECTOR AND STAFF OFFICES

EM:1

EQUESTRIAN FACILITIES AND STAGING AREA

EM:2

RD:3 RESTAURANT RD:4 KITCHEN RESTAURANT GREETING

RD:5 AND RESERVATION AREA

HORSE RIDING EDUCATORS AND INSTRUCTORS DIRECTOR AND STAFF OF RESORT MANAGEMENT

OR:2

HOUSEKEEPING AND PORTER VEHICLES

OR:3

OL:1

RE:1 LARGE-SCALE

EQUIPMENT STORAGE AND WORKSHOP

OL:2

RE:2

COORDINATION WITH AGRICULTURAL MGMT

OA:1

MANAGEMENT OF THE ‘LOCAVORE’ PROGRAM

OA:2

LANDSCAPING / MGMT OF WOODS-COMPLEXES

PRIVATE RESIDENCES

OT:1

LEASE MANAGEMENT AND SUPERINTENDENT

OT:2

EVENT STAGING AND STORAGE AREAS

LEGEND

OF:1 RESORT

OF:2

TENANT

FORESTAL

COORDINATION WITH TREE-NURSERY MGMT.

EVENT SPACES

LEASES

TENANT

OPERATIONS

EVENTS

FACILITIES MANAGEMENT OFFICE

EVENTS

KITCHEN, BARTENDING AND DINING STAFF

HOUSEKEEPING AND LAUNDRY FACILITIES

AGRICULTURAL

‘LOCAVORE’ + ‘SLOW FOOD’ DIRECTOR AND STAFF

OR:1

LANDSCAPING

RESORT

HOSPITALITY, CLEANING AND REGISTRATION STAFF

RESORT DIRECTOR AND STAFF OFFICES

RESORT MGMT

EQUESTRIAN

DIRECTOR AND STAFF OF EQUESTRIAN PROGRAMS

CONFERENCE AND EVENTS COORDINATOR AND STAFF

AC:2

EXTERIOR HEARTHS

DINING

FOREST

OUTSIDE-CONTRACTED TREE NURSERY CREW

AGRICULTURE EQUIPMENT STORAGE

ACTIVITIES

AGRIC.

ADMINISTRATION + STAFF

OUTSIDE-CONTRACTED AGRICULTURAL CREW

RL:3 CLUSTERED

RD:2 WINE ROOM MGMT.

MAIL DELIVERY AND MISC. UTILITY + SERVICES REPS.

AC:1

n/a LANDSCAPE

OPERATIONS

LANDSCAPING, LABORERS AND FACILITIES STAFF

EQUESTRIAN

DIRECTOR AND STAFF OF MONTCALM MANAGEMENT

STRUCTURE

MGMT.

OWNERS LIVING ON THE PROPERTY LONG-TERM

‘LOCAVORE’

OWNERS VISITING THE PROPERTY SHORT-TERM

CONTRACT

RESORT

OWNERS

LEASE-BASED TENANTS IN RESIDENCE

AGRICULTURAL

SINGLE-NIGHT OR MULTINIGHT RESORT GUESTS

TENANT

GUESTS

RESORT

EVENT-SPECIFIC OR SINGLE DAY GUESTS

CONTRACT AGRICULTURE DIRECTOR/STAFF OFFICE

EQUESTRIAN AGRICULTURE FORESTAL

RESORT PROGRAM EQUESTRIAN PROGRAM AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM FORESTAL PROGRAM

MONTCALM MGMT

MONTCALM DIRECTOR AND STAFF OFFICES

OM:1

TENANT

TENANT LEASE PROGRAM

PUBLIC RESTROOMS

OM:2

MONTCALM

MONTCALM OPERATIONS

PARKING LOT

OM:3

HYBRID

HYBRID PROGRAMS (BY COLOR)

FIGURE 6.27

123

THE RECONFIGURED AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM

providing opportunities for resort guests or day-guests to participate in the agricultural program.

The outside-contracted farming of the existing AGRICULTURAL program currently facilitates programmatic continuity with the farm’s 250 year identity as a productive agricultural landscape. Like the FORESTAL program this also results in significant reduction of property taxes due to eligibility for the county’s Agricultural Land Use incentive program. As discussed in Chapter 4, because this land is leased annually to an outside-contracted farm operation, the Contract Agriculture Director and Staff Office [AC:1] as well as the Agriculture Equipment Storage [AC:2] facilities are presently housed off-site. This is appropriate because the farming operation leases similar plots of land throughout the region and the scope of its crop land therefore expands beyond the borders of Montcalm Farm. Similar to the TENANT and FORESTAL programs, this operation is largely autonomous and should remain so. The newly proposed identity of Montcalm as a center for the ‘Locavore’ and ‘Slow Food’ movements however offers the opportunity for participants in the Rural Resort to engage directly the agricultural legacy of the property. Various portions of the current equestrian facilities of Montcalm are haphazardly distributed in the lower level of the Bank Barn, the upper Dairy Barn, and the Calf Barn. The proposed reconfigured agricultural program imagines that all EQUESTRIAN operations would be consolidated to the Dairy Barn Complex, freeing up the Lower Barn Complex for a new use. The two specific uses of the ‘Locavore‘ function of the AGRICULTURAL program are imagined as a way of

FIGURE 6.28

6.27: (OPPOSITE PAGE) DIAGRAM OF POTENTIAL USERS OF THE CONTRACT-BASED FARMING AND ‘LOCAVORE’ SUBPROGRAMS OF THE RECONFIGURED AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM FOR MONTCALM FARM. 6.28: THE ‘BREED RETREAT’ CHICKEN COOP BY FREDERIK ROIJE. ONE OF THE SUBPROGRAMS OF THE ‘LOCAVORE’ PROGRAM WOULD INCLUDE REPURPOSING AN EXISTING STRUCTURE AS A MODERN CHICKEN COOP.

The proposed Chicken Coop [AL:1] program represents a repurposing of the Corn Crib of the Lower Barn Complex in order to house dozens of hens and chickens. This would provide an opportunity for visitors to obtain hands-on learning about the sustainable cycle of raising chickens and collecting eggs, as well as providing daily eggs and poultry for use in the resort’s daily menu offering. Like the global goal for the Rural Resort experience, the design of the Chicken Coop would not be based on any preconceived typologies, but would reprent a thoughtful design response to a unique architectural program, at the scale of the livestock. An example of a similarly reimagined chicken coop designed by Frederick Roije can be seen in Figure 6.28 below. With the consolidation of all equestrian operations, the present pastures of the Lower Barn Complex would become available for the new Chef’s Garden [AL:2] program. Bracketing the southwest corner of the Telescoping-House Complex, this extensive garden would grow a wide variety of local ingredients for use in preparing the resort’s daily menu offerings and would represent an opportunity for bringing together the chef and dining staff with the participants in the ‘Locavore’ and ‘Slow Food’ Learning Center and the Cooking Class Facilities. The Chef‘s Garden’s unique position along the entry road to the property would serve as a visual indication of Montcalm’s new identity as a hub of local and sustainable agriculture.

FIGURE 6.29

Breed Retreat. Photograph. Roije.com. Web. 1 Apr. 2012. <http://roije.com/#/collection/breed_retreat>. 6.29: IN KEEPING WITH THE ‘SLOW FOOD’ ETHOS, MANY INGREDIENTS OF THE RESORT’S DAILY MENU WOULD BE GROWN IN THE PROPOSED ‘CHEF’S GARDEN.’ Garden 4. Photograph. CSUPomona.edu. Web. 1 Apr. 2012. <http://www.csupomona.edu/~rkr/sustainability.shtml>.

124

NURSERY WOODS

USERS

FORESTAL

PROPOSED

TREE NURSERY STAFF AND DIRECTOR OFFICE

FN:1

ON-SITE EQUIPMENT STORAGE / WORKSHOP

FN:2

MONITORING OF OLDGROWTH HARDWOODS

n/a

PROPOSED

PROGRAMS RL:1 LODGING IN WOODSBASED COMPLEX

LODGING

RL:2 LODGING IN HISTORIC CORE COMPLEXES

RL:4

RESORT RECEPTION AND REGISTRATION

CHICKEN COOP PARTICIPATION

AL:1

RA:1

‘LOCAVORE’ + ‘SLOW FOOD’

‘CHEF’S GARDEN’ PARTICIPATION

AL:2

RA:2

COOKING CLASS FACILITIES

RA:3

‘THE LODGE’ COMMUNITY GATHERING

RA:4

NATURAL SPRING POOL FACILITIES

HORSE STABLES AND ES:1 ASSOCIATED FACILITIES EQUESTRIAN LEARNING CENTER

DAY ACTIVITIES RA:5 GENERAL (HIKING, FISHING, BOATING, ETC.)

ES:2

EL:1

PASTURES AND PADDOCKS

EL:2

EQUESTRIAN-RELATED ACTIVITIES

RESORT

HORSE-RIDING TRAILS

LEARNING CENTER

RD:1 WINE CELLAR

EQUESTRIAN DIRECTOR AND STAFF OFFICES

EM:1

EQUESTRIAN FACILITIES AND STAGING AREA

EM:2

RD:3 RESTAURANT RD:4 KITCHEN RESTAURANT GREETING

RD:5 AND RESERVATION AREA

HORSE RIDING EDUCATORS AND INSTRUCTORS DIRECTOR AND STAFF OF RESORT MANAGEMENT

OR:2

HOUSEKEEPING AND PORTER VEHICLES

OR:3

OL:1

RE:1 LARGE-SCALE

EQUIPMENT STORAGE AND WORKSHOP

OL:2

RE:2

COORDINATION WITH AGRICULTURAL MGMT

OA:1

MANAGEMENT OF THE ‘LOCAVORE’ PROGRAM

OA:2

LANDSCAPING / MGMT OF WOODS-COMPLEXES

PRIVATE RESIDENCES

OT:1

LEASE MANAGEMENT AND SUPERINTENDENT

OT:2

EVENT STAGING AND STORAGE AREAS

LEGEND

OF:1 RESORT

OF:2

TENANT

FORESTAL

COORDINATION WITH TREE-NURSERY MGMT.

EVENT SPACES

LEASES

TENANT

OPERATIONS

EVENTS

FACILITIES MANAGEMENT OFFICE

EVENTS

KITCHEN, BARTENDING AND DINING STAFF

HOUSEKEEPING AND LAUNDRY FACILITIES

AGRICULTURAL

‘LOCAVORE’ + ‘SLOW FOOD’ DIRECTOR AND STAFF

OR:1

LANDSCAPING

RESORT

HOSPITALITY, CLEANING AND REGISTRATION STAFF

RESORT DIRECTOR AND STAFF OFFICES

RESORT MGMT

EQUESTRIAN

DIRECTOR AND STAFF OF EQUESTRIAN PROGRAMS

CONFERENCE AND EVENTS COORDINATOR AND STAFF

AC:2

EXTERIOR HEARTHS

DINING

FOREST

OUTSIDE-CONTRACTED TREE NURSERY CREW

AGRICULTURE EQUIPMENT STORAGE

ACTIVITIES

AGRIC.

ADMINISTRATION + STAFF

OUTSIDE-CONTRACTED AGRICULTURAL CREW

RL:3 CLUSTERED

RD:2 WINE ROOM MGMT.

MAIL DELIVERY AND MISC. UTILITY + SERVICES REPS.

AC:1

n/a LANDSCAPE

OPERATIONS

LANDSCAPING, LABORERS AND FACILITIES STAFF

EQUESTRIAN

DIRECTOR AND STAFF OF MONTCALM MANAGEMENT

STRUCTURE

MGMT.

OWNERS LIVING ON THE PROPERTY LONG-TERM

‘LOCAVORE’

OWNERS VISITING THE PROPERTY SHORT-TERM

CONTRACT

RESORT

OWNERS

LEASE-BASED TENANTS IN RESIDENCE

AGRICULTURAL

SINGLE-NIGHT OR MULTINIGHT RESORT GUESTS

TENANT

GUESTS

RESORT

EVENT-SPECIFIC OR SINGLE DAY GUESTS

CONTRACT AGRICULTURE DIRECTOR/STAFF OFFICE

EQUESTRIAN AGRICULTURE FORESTAL

RESORT PROGRAM EQUESTRIAN PROGRAM AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM FORESTAL PROGRAM

MONTCALM MGMT

MONTCALM DIRECTOR AND STAFF OFFICES

OM:1

TENANT

TENANT LEASE PROGRAM

PUBLIC RESTROOMS

OM:2

MONTCALM

MONTCALM OPERATIONS

PARKING LOT

OM:3

HYBRID

HYBRID PROGRAMS (BY COLOR)

FIGURE 6.30

125

THE RECONFIGURED EQUESTRIAN PROGRAM The reconfigured equestrian program for Montcalm imagines six distinct ‘uses’ distributed among the three functional categroies of Structure-Hosted facilities, Landscape-Hosted facilities, and Management Operations. The Structure-Hosted facilities consist of the Horse Stables and Associated Facilities [ES:1], which would represent the consolidation of all horse stables to the elegantly converted Dairy Barn facility, which is presently at only 20% occupancy. As will be explored in the site plan proposal, the first floor of this expansive barn also provides suffient area for accommodating a new Equestrian Learning Center [ES:2], which is conceived as a classroom with associated resources for the new equestrian instructors to hold group lectures in conjunction with the beginner equestrian riding lessons.

also include the Pastures and Paddocks [EL:2] uses, which would remain in the fenced-in fields surrounding the Dairy Barn Complex. This ‘display’ of grazing horses facilitates an unimposing opportunity for curious guests of the resort to become familiar with Montcalm’s ‘equine tenants.’ Because the reconfigured EQUESTRIAN program is imagined as a largely independent operation, the Equestrian Director and Staff Offices [EM:1] are conceived as being more directly affiliated with the EQUESTRIAN activities of the Dairy Barn Complex than with the operations management of the four other programs on the property and would therefore be sited within the EQUESTRIAN complex rather than among the other administrative offices.

The Landscape-Hosted facilities category includes a network of formal and informal Horse-Riding Trails [EL:1], which would be distributed throughout the acreage of Montcalm and allow for the EQUESTRIAN program to form adjacencies with the wide range of programs and landscape typologies of the property. This category would

The Equestrian Facilities and Staging Area [EM:2] represents the ‘back room’ of the equestrian operation that accommodates sufficient storage and staging space, without necessarily being on public display. It is believed that the Dairy Barn and connective structures could provide enough square footage to house all aspects of the EQUESTRIAN program in addition to Large-Scale Events of the RESORT program, but additional modern volumes could also be incorporated into the complex as needed.

FIGURE 6.31

FIGURE 6.32

6.30: (OPPOSITE PAGE) DIAGRAM OF POTENTIAL USERS OF THE STRUCTURE-HOSTED, LANDSCAPE-HOSTED AND OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT SUBPROGRAMS OF THE RECONFIGURED EQUESTRIAN PROGRAM FOR MONTCALM FARM. 6.31: LOUDOUN COUNTY IS HOME TO VIRGINIA’S LARGEST EQUINE POPULATION - APPROXIMATELY 15,500 HORSES, VALUED AT $208,855,000, ACCORDING TO THE LOUDOUN

COUNTY OFFICE OF RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. Horse Gallery 4-4. Photograph. Matthew Seed. Web. 1 Apr. 2012. <http://www.horse-photographer.co.uk/horse-gallery-4-4.html>. 6.32: FOR THE PAST 52 YEARS NEARBY MIDDLEBURG HAS HOSTED A HIGHLY LUCRATIVE ANNUAL STABLE TOUR. Photograph. Matthews House and Garden. Web. 1 Apr. 2012.<http://matthewshouseandgarden.blogspot.com/>.

126

WOODS

FORESTAL

USERS

NURSERY

PROPOSED

TREE NURSERY STAFF AND DIRECTOR OFFICE

FN:1

ON-SITE EQUIPMENT STORAGE / WORKSHOP

FN:2

MONITORING OF OLDGROWTH HARDWOODS

n/a

PROPOSED

PROGRAMS RL:1 LODGING IN WOODSBASED COMPLEX

LODGING

RL:2 LODGING IN HISTORIC CORE COMPLEXES

PUBLIC RESTROOMS AVAILABLE TO ALL USERS

PARKING LOT AVAILABLE TO ALL USERS

AC:2

RL:4

RESORT RECEPTION AND REGISTRATION

CHICKEN COOP PARTICIPATION

AL:1

RA:1

‘LOCAVORE’ + ‘SLOW FOOD’

‘CHEF’S GARDEN’ PARTICIPATION

AL:2

RA:2

COOKING CLASS FACILITIES

RA:3

‘THE LODGE’ COMMUNITY GATHERING

RA:4

NATURAL SPRING POOL FACILITIES

EXTERIOR HEARTHS

HORSE STABLES AND ES:1 ASSOCIATED FACILITIES EQUESTRIAN LEARNING CENTER

DAY ACTIVITIES RA:5 GENERAL (HIKING, FISHING, BOATING, ETC.)

ES:2

EL:1

PASTURES AND PADDOCKS

EL:2

EQUESTRIAN-RELATED ACTIVITIES

RESORT

HORSE-RIDING TRAILS

LEARNING CENTER

RD:1 WINE CELLAR

EQUESTRIAN DIRECTOR AND STAFF OFFICES

EM:1

EQUESTRIAN FACILITIES AND STAGING AREA

EM:2

DINING

FOREST

OUTSIDE-CONTRACTED TREE NURSERY CREW

AGRICULTURE EQUIPMENT STORAGE

ACTIVITIES

AGRIC.

RD:3 RESTAURANT RD:4 KITCHEN RESTAURANT GREETING

RD:5 AND RESERVATION AREA

HORSE RIDING EDUCATORS AND INSTRUCTORS DIRECTOR AND STAFF OF RESORT MANAGEMENT

RE:1 LARGE-SCALE

EQUIPMENT STORAGE AND WORKSHOP

OL:2

RE:2

COORDINATION WITH AGRICULTURAL MGMT

OA:1

MANAGEMENT OF THE ‘LOCAVORE’ PROGRAM

OA:2

OT:1

LEASE MANAGEMENT AND SUPERINTENDENT

OT:2

LEGEND

OF:1 RESORT

OF:2

TENANT

LANDSCAPING / MGMT OF WOODS-COMPLEXES

PRIVATE RESIDENCES

EVENT STAGING AND STORAGE AREAS

LEASES

COORDINATION WITH TREE-NURSERY MGMT.

EVENT SPACES

EQUESTRIAN AGRICULTURE FORESTAL

MONTCALM MGMT

AVAILABLE TO ALL PROPOSED USERS

OR:3

OL:1

FORESTAL

AVAILABLE TO ALL PROPOSED USERS

HOUSEKEEPING AND PORTER VEHICLES

FACILITIES MANAGEMENT OFFICE

TENANT

OPERATIONS

EVENTS

CONFERENCE AND EVENTS COORDINATOR AND STAFF

OR:2

EVENTS

KITCHEN, BARTENDING AND DINING STAFF

HOUSEKEEPING AND LAUNDRY FACILITIES

AGRICULTURAL

‘LOCAVORE’ + ‘SLOW FOOD’ DIRECTOR AND STAFF

OR:1

LANDSCAPING

RESORT

HOSPITALITY, CLEANING AND REGISTRATION STAFF

RESORT DIRECTOR AND STAFF OFFICES

RESORT MGMT

DIRECTOR AND STAFF OF EQUESTRIAN PROGRAMS

RESORT MGMT

EQUESTRIAN

ADMINISTRATION + STAFF

OUTSIDE-CONTRACTED AGRICULTURAL CREW

RL:3 CLUSTERED

RD:2 WINE ROOM MGMT.

MAIL DELIVERY AND MISC. UTILITY + SERVICES REPS.

AC:1

n/a LANDSCAPE

OPERATIONS

LANDSCAPING, LABORERS AND FACILITIES STAFF

EQUESTRIAN

DIRECTOR AND STAFF OF MONTCALM MANAGEMENT

STRUCTURE

MGMT.

OWNERS LIVING ON THE PROPERTY LONG-TERM

‘LOCAVORE’

OWNERS VISITING THE PROPERTY SHORT-TERM

CONTRACT

RESORT

OWNERS

LEASE-BASED TENANTS IN RESIDENCE

AGRICULTURAL

SINGLE-NIGHT OR MULTINIGHT RESORT GUESTS

TENANT

GUESTS

RESORT

EVENT-SPECIFIC OR SINGLE DAY GUESTS

CONTRACT AGRICULTURE DIRECTOR/STAFF OFFICE

RESORT PROGRAM EQUESTRIAN PROGRAM AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM FORESTAL PROGRAM

MONTCALM DIRECTOR AND STAFF OFFICES

OM:1

TENANT

TENANT LEASE PROGRAM

PUBLIC RESTROOMS

OM:2

MONTCALM

MONTCALM OPERATIONS

PARKING LOT

OM:3

HYBRID

HYBRID PROGRAMS (BY COLOR)

FIGURE 6.33

127

THE RECONFIGURED OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT

be detailed in the site plan proposal.

The management of the five new and reconfigured programs of RESORT, FORESTAL, AGRICULTURAL, EQUESTRIAN, and TENANT operations proposed for Montcalm demand an extensive understanding of the networks generated among these coexisting operations. Therefore a careful investigation as to appropriate levels of collaboration and independence for each management aspect of these programs must be conducted. The site plan proposal will therefore give special consideration to the consequences of the spatial adjacencies that it proposes.

The monitoring and landscaping of the area surrounding the woods-based dwellings is proposed as a new responsibility of the outside-contracted Tree-Nursery operation to make use of the equipment that they presently maintain on site. Therefore the Landscaping Management of Woods-Complexes [OF:2] is proposed as an added component of the Tree-Nursery Director and Staff office and Equipment Storage and Workshop currently sited south of the wooded area.

The complexity of these relationships demands recongition of a sixth ‘program’ for the property, herafter referred to as the OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT program. While the management of many of these programs would benefit from direct collaboration, some degree of autonomy will be required for each discrete operation. With the exception of the EQUESTRIAN management offices, which as previously discussed will be integrated into the consolidated Equestrian activities of the Dairy Barn Complex, the ma jority of the director and staff offices for the various programs are proposed for the upper floors of the Telescoping-House complex. In addition to continuing this complex‘s tradition as the ‘heart and mind’ of the farm operation, this provides the directors and staff of each program with central access to the three surrounding complexes and the agricultural and forestal zones surrounding the historic core. The upper floors of the main stone house would therefore accommodate the Montcalm Staff and Director’s Office [OM:1], the Resort Staff and Director’s Office [OR:1], the Coordination with Agricultural Management [OA:1], the Management Office for the ‘Locavore’ Program [OA:2], the Tenant Lease Management and Superintendent [OT:2], and the Coordination with Tree-Nursery Management [OF:1] functions. Several necessary OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT functions support staff-level employees rather than directors and managers of the programs. Generally these ‘behind-the-scenes’ operations should be sited on the periphery of the historic core so as not to interfere with the daily activities of the various programs. For this reason the Housekeeping and Laundry Facilities [OR:2], the Housekeeping and Porter Vehicles [OR:3] accommodation, the Facilities Equipment Storage and Workshop [OL:2], and the Facilities Management Office [OL:1] are proposed for the north-facing zone of the Dairy Barn Complex, as will

While the thirteen distinct ‘uses’ of the OPERATIONS category largely represent administrative spaces, property-wide functions are also included under the organization of this category. These include the Public Restrooms [OM:2] and the Parking Lot [OM:3] which diagram 6.33 clearly indicates will be used by virtually all proposed ‘users.’ While vital to the successful operation of a property of this size and activity-level, these programs represent a traditionally undesirable aesthetic which must be accommodated in the lush pastoral landscape. Therefore the site plan proposal will give special attention to the siting, design, and detailing of these infrastructural programs so as to integrate them with the surrounding context in the most appropriate manner. EXPLORING A SPATIAL ‘PROGRAMMATIC BRIDGING’

EQUIVALENT

THIS

Equipped with a thorough articulation of the new and reconfigured programs for Montcalm and guided by this cursory set of design criteria for each proposed ‘use,’ the following chapter of this thesis will propose the distribution of these 44 subprograms throughout the four complexes of the historic core and its surrounding agricultural and forestal landscape. The careful siting of these progrommatic functions in the site plan proposal will seek to establish a new mechanism for inhabiting the landscape, offering the guest of the Rural Resort a unique and site-specific experience of the American farmstead. The nature of this experience will be guided by embedded historical, spatial, and programmatic relationships, rather than defaulting to the quaint caricature typical of most agri-destinations. Using the ‘Silo Diagram’ employed as a baseline in the Chapter 4 physical analysis, the consequences of this distribution will be iteratively evaluated so as to act as a ‘score card’ for maintaining and appropriate balance between historic fabric and modern intervention.

6.33: (OPPOSITE PAGE) DIAGRAM OF POTENTIAL USERS OF THE RESORT MANAGEMENT, LANDSCAPING, AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT, TENANT MANAGEMENT, FORESTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT SUBPROGRAMS OF THE RECONFIGURED ADMINISTRATIVE PROGRAM FOR MONTCALM FARM.

128

129

CHAPTER 7

THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN DISTRIBUTING THE NEW AND RECONFIGURED PROGRAMS THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY

THE PROPOSED DISTRIBUTION OF PROGRAMS AT THE SCALE OF THE PROPERTY As discussed throughout the thesis thus far, it is believed that most of the thirteen historic structures of Montcalm inherently hold sufficient historic, social, cultural and/or spatial value so as to be worthy of assimilation and reconfiguration, rather than total replacement. Particularly with respect to the bent-framed barn structures of the property, these existing shells could swiftly adapt to accommodate modern programs. Indeed throughout their 200+ year history they have continually done just that. Based on the design criteria established for the 44 new and reconfigured programs described in the Proposed Program of Chapter 6, Figure 7.2 on the following spread illustrates one possible strategy for distributing these programs. The global goal of the Site Plan proposal is to reverse the trend towards isolation and abandonment of each historic structure - as demonstrated in the ‘Silo Diagram’ analysis of Chapter 4 - and replace it with a programmatic and spatial ‘bridging’ between distinct users of the presently autonomous existing programs. Therefore, each of the four complexes of the ‘Historic Core’ is proposed as a ‘testing ground’ for intermingling various users and functions in the interest of revitalizing the historic core as a whole. Additionally, many of the landscape-hosted programs are distributed throughout the surrounding landscape, reaching beyond the perimeter boundaries of the thirteen historic structures. In addition to distributing these programs throughout the four complexes and the surrounding landscape, an entirely new ‘Woods-Based Complex’ is proposed for the forestal area of Montcalm. As opposed to Clark and Menefee’s Inn at Middleton Place, which consolidates its mass into a central compound, the various functions of the woods-based programs are attenuated and distributed throughout the wooded acreage to maximize privacy and the potential for weaving the structures into their natural surroundings. FIGURE 7.1

7.1: A PRESENT-DAY ‘FISHEYE’ LENS PHOTOGRAPH OF THE INTERIOR OF THE CIRCA 1830 CORN CRIB STRUCTURE. THE MANY VACANT HISTORIC STRUCTURES LIKE THIS THROUGHOUT THE ‘HISTORIC CORE’ OFFER IMMENSE SPATIAL POTENTIAL FOR ACCOMMODATING THE NEWLY PROPOSED PROGRAMS.

7.2: (FOLLOWING SPREAD) THE PROPOSAL FOR DISTRIBUTING THE 44 NEW AND RECONFIGURED PROGRAMS THROUGHOUT THE FOUR COMPLEXES OF THE HISTORIC CORE AND ITS SURROUNDING LANDSCAPE. AN AXONOMETRIC DIAGRAM OF EACH OF THE FOUR COMPLEXES IS INDICATED WITH THE BASIC FORM OF THE BUILDINGS REPRESENTED AS AN ABSTRACTION OF THEIR AVAILABLE SAQUARE FOOTAGE.

130

NURSERY WOODS

FORESTAL

TREE NURSERY STAFF AND DIRECTOR OFFICE

FN:1

ON-SITE EQUIPMENT STORAGE / WORKSHOP

FN:2

MONITORING OF OLDGROWTH HARDWOODS

n/a

RE:1

OM:2

RE:2

CONTRACT

AC:1

AGRICULTURE EQUIPMENT STORAGE

AC:2

RL:2

ES:2

EM:1

ES:1

EM:2

OR:2

OL:1

OR:3

OL:2

DAIRY BARN COMPLEX ‘LOCAVORE’

AGRICULTURAL

CONTRACT AGRICULTURE DIRECTOR/STAFF OFFICE

CHICKEN COOP PARTICIPATION

AL:1

‘CHEF’S GARDEN’ PARTICIPATION

AL:2

STRUCTURE

EQUESTRIAN LEARNING CENTER

ES:2

LANDSCAPE

EQUESTRIAN

HORSE STABLES AND ES:1 ASSOCIATED FACILITIES

HORSE-RIDING TRAILS

EL:1

PASTURES AND PADDOCKS

EL:2

MGMT.

EQUESTRIAN DIRECTOR AND STAFF OFFICES EQUESTRIAN FACILITIES AND STAGING AREA

EM:1 RA:4

EM:2

OM:3

RA:3

RA:5

RA:1

RA:2

OM:2

EL:1

AL:2 RESORT MGMT

RESORT DIRECTOR AND STAFF OFFICES

OR:1

HOUSEKEEPING AND LAUNDRY FACILITIES

OR:2

HOUSEKEEPING AND PORTER VEHICLES

OR:3

OL:1

RL:2

6 EL:2

AL:1

LANDSCAPING

EQUIPMENT STORAGE AND WORKSHOP

OL:2

AGRICULTURAL

COORDINATION WITH AGRICULTURAL MGMT

OA:1

TENANT

OPERATIONS

FACILITIES MANAGEMENT OFFICE

EL:2

LOWER BARN COMPLEX

FORESTAL

OA:2

LEASE MANAGEMENT AND SUPERINTENDENT

OT:2

COORDINATION WITH TREE-NURSERY MGMT.

OF:1

LANDSCAPING / MGMT OF WOODS-COMPLEXES

OF:2

AL:2 13

1000’

0’ 50’

500’

13 OT:1

MONTCALM MGMT

131

12 OM:1

PUBLIC RESTROOMS

OM:2

PARKING LOT

OM:3

2 6

10’ 100’

MONTCALM DIRECTOR AND STAFF OFFICES

EL:2 OM:3

MANAGEMENT OF THE ‘LOCAVORE’ PROGRAM

OT:1

AUTONOMOUS RESIDENCES

PROPOSED

PROGRAMS

OFFSITE

RL:3

RL:1 LODGING IN WOODS-

AC:1

RL:1

D-

RL:2 LODGING IN HISTORIC

AC:2

CORE COMPLEXES

RL:3 CLUSTERED

EXTERIOR HEARTHS

RL:4

RESORT RECEPTION AND REGISTRATION

RA:1

‘LOCAVORE’ + ‘SLOW FOOD’

RA:2

COOKING CLASS FACILITIES

RA:3

‘THE LODGE’ COMMUNITY GATHERING

RA:4

NATURAL SPRING POOL FACILITIES

LODGING

RL:1

BASED COMPLEX

RL:1 RL:3

RL:1

EL:1

RL:3

RL:1

DAY ACTIVITIES RA:5 GENERAL (HIKING, FISHING, BOATING, ETC.)

n/a

EQUESTRIAN-RELATED ACTIVITIES

RESORT

RL:1

ACTIVITIES

RL:1

LEARNING CENTER

RL:3 RL:1

RD:1 WINE CELLAR RD:2 WINE ROOM

RL:1

DINING

RD:3 RESTAURANT

RL:1

RD:4 KITCHEN RL:1

RL:3

RESTAURANT GREETING

RD:5 AND RESERVATION AREA

RESORT MGMT

EL:1

EL:2 EVENT SPACES

EL:2

RE:2

FN:2

EVENT STAGING AND STORAGE AREAS

EVENTS

RE:1 LARGE-SCALE

FN:1

OF:2

OT:1

NU RS E

ER A

PRIVATE RESIDENCES

LEGEND OR:1

OA:1

OM:1

OT:2

OA:2

OF:1

RD:5

RL:4

RESORT EQUESTRIAN AGRICULTURE

OM:2 RD:3

TENANT

EL:1

LEASES

FIG 3.6

RD:4

FORESTAL

RD:2

TELESCOPING-HOUSE COMPLEX

EQUESTRIAN PROGRAM AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM FORESTAL PROGRAM

TENANT

TENANT LEASE PROGRAM

MONTCALM

MONTCALM OPERATIONS

HYBRID

RD:1

RESORT PROGRAM

HYBRID PROGRAMS (BY COLOR)

132

OPERATIONS

RESORT LODGING

ACTIVITIES

MONTCALM MGMT

EVENTS

MGMT.

LANDSCAPE

STRUCTURE

PASTURES AND PADDOCKS

HORSE-RIDING TRAILS

EM:1

EL:2

EL:1

HORSE STABLES AND ES:1 ASSOCIATED FACILITIES

EQUESTRIAN DIRECTOR AND STAFF OFFICES

EM:2

ES:2

EQUESTRIAN FACILITIES AND STAGING AREA

OR:2

EQUESTRIAN LEARNING CENTER

HOUSEKEEPING AND LAUNDRY FACILITIES

OR:3

OM:2

HOUSEKEEPING AND PORTER VEHICLES

PUBLIC RESTROOMS

RE:1

OL:1

LARGE-SCALE EVENT SPACES

RE:2

FACILITIES MANAGEMENT OFFICE

EVENT STAGING AND STORAGE AREAS

n/a

OL:2

EQUESTRIAN-RELATED ACTIVITIES

RL:2

EL1

RESORT MGMT

EQUIPMENT STORAGE AND WORKSHOP

LODGING IN HISTORIC CORE COMPLEXES

RE:1

LANDSCAPING

EQUESTRIAN

EL:2 OM:2

RE:2

10 9

7 RL:2

RL:2

ES:2

EM:1

ES:1

EM:2

OR:2

OL:1

OR:3

OL:2

DAIRY BARN COMPLEX FIGURE 7.3

PROPOSING DESIGN CRITERIA AND PROGRAMMING FOR THE DAIRY BARN COMPLEX As detailed in the Analysis of Existing Programs conducted in Chapter 4, the upper ‘Dairy Barn Complex’ was converted from dairy stanchions to horse stalls around 1972 following the consolidation of dairy production to large-scale specialized facilities. This left independent dairy farms largely obsolete. The existing equestrian operations are presently thinly spread throughout the Historic Core with two tenant horses boarded in the covered exterior area below the Bank Barn of the Lower Barn Complex; 3-4 tenant horses occupying the lower level of the ‘Dairy Barn;’ and another 2-3 tenant horses boarded in the ‘Calf Barn.’ However, the converted dairy barn presently has eight first-class stalls sitting largely unoccupied.

presently using merely 48% of its available 12,800 square feet - could therefore also accommodate the new equestrian programs; landscaping facilities, service-based Resort Management offices and public restrooms. The Storage Barn (Bldg #7) and ‘Milk House’ (Bldg #9) are candidates for the ‘Lodging in the Historic Core’ program, and large-scale event spaces could occupy the cathedral-like ceilings of the Dairy Barn’s upper level.

The Site Plan proposal therefore advocates for consolidating all equestrian functions to the Dairy Barn Complex. The generous size of the complex - which is FIGURE 7.4

7.3: AN ENLARGED VIEW OF THE PROPOSED DISTRIBUTION OF ‘HISTORIC CORE-BASED LODGING;’ LARGE-SCALE EVENT SPACES; LANDSCAPING OPERATIONS; RESORT MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS; AND EQUESTRIAN FACILITIES THROUGHOUT THE DAIRY BARN COMPLEX.

133

7.4 A PRESENT-DAY ‘FISHEYE’ LENS PHOTOGRAPH OF THE INTERIOR OF THE CONVERTED HORSE STABLES ON THE FIRST LEVEL OF THE DAIRY BARN.

RESORT MGMT

OR:1

COORDINATION WITH AGRICULTURAL MGMT

OA:1

MANAGEMENT OF THE ‘LOCAVORE’ PROGRAM

OA:2

RD:1 WINE CELLAR

5 OT:2

COORDINATION WITH TREE-NURSERY MGMT.

OF:1

OM:2 RD:3

RD:5

RL:4

RD:4

OA:1

OM:1

OT:2

OA:2

OF:1

RD:2 WINE ROOM RD:3 RESTAURANT RD:4 KITCHEN

RESTAURANT GREETING

RD:5 AND RESERVATION AREA

RESORT

FORESTAL

LEASE MANAGEMENT AND SUPERINTENDENT

OR:1

DINING

TENANT

OPERATIONS

AGRICULTURAL

RESORT DIRECTOR AND STAFF OFFICES

RD:2

RD:1

MONTCALM MGMT

MONTCALM DIRECTOR AND STAFF OFFICES

OM:1

PUBLIC RESTROOMS

OM:2

TELESCOPING-HOUSE COMPLEX FIGURE 7.5

PROPOSING DESIGN CRITERIA AND PROGRAMMING FOR THE TELESCOPING-HOUSE COMPLEX The four contiguous structures of the Telescoping-House Complex are inherently suited to the proposed Operations Management offices of the General, Resort, Agricultural, Forestal, and Tenant sub-programs due to their partitioned organization. This arrangement historically accommodated increasingly specialized domestic functions. Therefore, following stabilization of the structural systems, the four bedrooms and two stairway halls of the ‘Main House’ and ‘Ballroom’ additions would essentially be ready for a ‘turn-key’ conversion to the new program.

The ‘Log Cabin’ and its large hearth are appropriately scaled for the proposed Wine Room.’ The original function of the ‘Stone Kitchen’ will be restored for the first time in nearly a century as it showcases food preparation for the ‘Locavore-focused’ Rural Resort. Because the ‘Telescoping-House Complex’ has traditionally served as the ‘heart’ of the property, these new programs will allow the complex to continue its programmatic legacy.

The five distinct sub-programs of the Resort’s Dining program are proposed for the lower floors of these structures. All but two of these structures historically required Montcalm’s successive residents to fully exit each structure before entering another. This long-standing condition has resulted in a procession throughout the complex that relies upon the land as a connective tissue. FIGURE 7.6

7.5: AN ENLARGED VIEW OF THE PROPOSED DISTRIBUTION OF VARIOUS PROGRAM OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT OFFICES AT THE UPPER FLOORS OF THE ‘TELESCOPING-HOUSE COMPLEX’ AND THE FIVE SUB-PROGRAMS OF THE RESORT’S DINING PROGRAM AT THE LOWER LEVELS.

7.6 A PRESENT-DAY ‘FISHEYE’ LENS PHOTOGRAPH OF THE INTERIOR OF THE ‘BALLROOM’ ADDITION FROM FIRST FLOOR PARLOR.

134

AL:1

‘CHEF’S GARDEN’ PARTICIPATION

AL:2

PARKING LOT

OM:3

RA:2

CORE COMPLEXES

OM:2

RA:4 OM:3

AL:2

RL:2

RA:1

‘LOCAVORE’ + ‘SLOW FOOD’

RA:2

COOKING CLASS FACILITIES

RA:3

‘THE LODGE’ COMMUNITY GATHERING

RA:4

NATURAL SPRING POOL FACILITIES

LEARNING CENTER

RESORT

OM:2

RA:1

RL:2 LODGING IN HISTORIC

ACTIVITIES

OPERATIONS

MONTCALM MGMT

PUBLIC RESTROOMS

RA:5

LODGING

‘LOCAVORE’

AGRICULTURAL

CHICKEN COOP PARTICIPATION

RA:3

DAY ACTIVITIES RA:5 GENERAL (HIKING, FISHING, BOATING, ETC.)

AL:1

LOWER BARN COMPLEX FIGURE 7.7

PROPOSING DESIGN CRITERIA AND PROGRAMMING FOR THE LOWER BARN COMPLEX The Lower Barn Complex is centrally sited within the ‘Historic Core’ providing an advantageous opportunity to realize the global goal of revitalizing the historic core by establishing programmatic and spatial ‘bridging’ between otherwise autonomous programs. As such, this complex is viewed as a potential ‘testing ground’ for juxtaposing seemingly opposing programs.

program; the ‘Lodge’ and ‘Natural Spring Pool Complex’ of the Resort program; one of the proposed ‘Lodging in the Historic Core’ bungalows; and the utilitarian parking lot program The Lower Barn Complex will serve as the site for the detailed intervention proposal in the following chapter, which will explore potential configurations of these six programs at the scale of the complex; the scale of the structure; and the scale of the details.

A fundamental conflict exists in proposing the introduction of a leisure-based ‘Resort’ upon the grounds of a historically labor-based working farmstead. To what extent could these tensions establish an architectural narrative that seeks to ‘push the boundaries’ - both physically and figuratively - of the existing historic structures? Therefore a wide-range of programs are proposed for this zone, including various components of the ‘Slow Food’ FIGURE 7.8

7.7: AN ENLARGED VIEW OF THE PROPOSED DISTRIBUTION 7.8 A PRESENT-DAY ‘FISHEYE’ LENS PHOTOGRAPH OF THE COVERED-EXTERIOR ZONE BELOW THE ‘BANK’ LEVEL OF THE BANK BARN, FACING SOUTH.

135

RL:1

RL:3 RL:1

RL:1

RESORT

LODGING IN WOODSBASED COMPLEX

RL:1

RL:1 RL:1

LODGING

EL:1 CLUSTERED EXTERIOR HEARTHS

RL:3

RL:1

RL:3

WOODS

FORESTAL

RL:1

RL:1 MONITORING OF OLDGROWTH HARDWOODS

n/a

LANDSCAPE

EQUESTRIAN

RL:1

HORSE-RIDING TRAILS

RL:1

RL:3

EL:1

PROPOSED WOODS-BASED LODGING COMPLEXES FIGURE 7.9

PROPOSING DESIGN CRITERIA AND PROGRAMMING FOR THE PROPOSED WOODS-BASED LODGING COMPLEXES The proposed ‘Woods-Based Lodging’ bungalows represent the only portion of the overall site where entirely new architectural volumes are proposed. Following the precedent of the Inn at Middleton Place, discussed in Chapter 5, the presently-abandoned forestal acreage representing nearly 1/3 of the property - will be considered as a virgin-landscape offering the opportunity to ‘carve away’ new dwellings from the dense woods that are intricately woven into their surrounding landscape. This strategy offers the opportunity to approach the area of the woods in a neo-settler capacity.

These individual cabins will be connected by the addition of the ‘Clustered Exterior Hearths,’ which extend outwards as a network of elevated walkways connecting the cabins of each cluster. These shared exterior hearths therefore represent a reconfiguration of the private hearths found at the Inn at Middleton Place, in which the long-standing ritual of communal fire is restored as a symbol of community interdependence.

Drawing spatial and compositional inspiration from the four distinct historic core complexes, the woods-based cabins will be explored as clustered communities - each with appropriate buffer zones of privacy calculated according to the ever-changing visibility that their surrounding tree species’ foliage hosts throughout the seasons. FIGURE 7.10

7.9: AN ENLARGED VIEW OF THE PROPOSED HORSE-RIDING TRAILS; WOODS-BASED BUNGALOWS’ AND CLUSTERED EXTERIOR HEARTHS, AS DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT THE WOODED ZONE.

7.10 A PRESENT-DAY PHOTOGRAPH OF THE FRAMING OF VIEWS THAT THE ATTENUATED TREES OF THE HARDWOODS FACILITATE AT THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE FORESTAL ACREAGE AND THE AGRICULTURAL ACREAGE.

136

FIGURE 7.11

EVALUATING THE CUMULATIVE SITE PLAN PROPOSALS The ‘Silo Diagram’ iteration indicated in Figure 7.12 is not meant to serve as an evaluation of a finalized site plan proposal for distributing the 44 new and reconfigured programs throughout the 225 acres of Montcalm Farm. Rather, it simply asses one possible scenario. The question of how to appropriately intervene with each distinct structure of the four ‘Historic Core’ complexes in order to accommodate their newly proposed functions must be cumulatively answered through independent design exercises. In many cases the existing square footage available is presently under-utilized to such a degree that virtually all of the proposed programs could be accommodated with minimal alterations to the existing structures (the Dairy Barn Complex for example). In other cases interventions which directly engage the historic fabric may be more appropriate (such as the Lower Barn Complex, for which numerous and potentially conflicting programs are proposed).

7.11: A CIRCA 1980 AERIAL VIEW OF THE ‘HISTORIC CORE’ 7.12 (OPPOSITE PAGE) ONE ITERATION OF THE SITE PLAN ‘SCORED’ THROUGH THE ‘SILO DIAGRAM.’ THE BLACK SILOS INDICATE AVAILABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE WITHIN EXISTING STRUCTURES; THE WHITE SILO INDICATES AN ENTIRELY NEW COMPLEX; THE ‘MILK’ SUBSTANCE INDICATES

137

In the following chapter one such design exercise will be conducted. Focusing on the ‘Bank Barn’ of the Lower Barn Complex, six of the 44 proposed programs will be distributed throughout the Bank Barn’s vicinity and those components of the structure which will soon require replacement will be given the ‘freedom’ to adapt to their newly intended uses. For, as observed in the Physical Analysis of Chapter 3, “what if the Bank Barn intervention sought to embrace and facilitate the process of continual replacement, rather than advocate for staving off the inevitable process of decay?” As numerous iterations for intervening with the existing fabric of the farmstead are explored, it is hoped that continual consideration will be given to the multi-layered adaptations embedded within Montcalm’s physical vestiges and the rich history of the residents who oversaw the property’s evolution from wilderness to productive agricultural land.

THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ASSOCIATED WITH EXISTING USES OF EACH COMPLEX; AND THE GREY SUBSTANCE INDICATES SQUARE FOOTAGE ASSOCIATED WITH NEWLY PROPOSED PROGRAMS.

2000

12800 SQFT

DAIRY BARN COMPLEX

63% OCCUPANCY

7000 SQFT 7000 SQFT

1800

100% OCCUPANCY

3800 SQFT 5900 SQFT

1600 2450 4050 SQFT

1900

6100 SQFT

2750 SQFT 2750 SQFT

AUTONOMOUS RESIDENCES

LOWER BARN COMPLEX 144% OCCUPANCY

‘TELESCOPE-HOUSE’ COMPLEX 97% OCCUPANCY

WOODS COMPLEX

100% OCCUPANCY

FIGURE 7.12

138

CHAPTER 8

PROPOSING A MODERN INTERVENTION FOR THE BANK BARN EMBODYING PROGRAMMATIC AND SPATIAL ‘BRIDGING’ AT THE SCALES OF THE BUILDING AND THE DETAIL

THE FALLACY OF THE ‘SACRED ARTIFACT’ Attempting to differentiate between the challenges associated with preserving landscapes and preserving physical structures, Patricia O‘Donnell and Robert Melnick wrote in a 1987 issue of Landscape Architecture: “The most important difference between preserving landscapes and preserving structures and objects is the dynamic quality of the land - it continuously changes and grows. Recognizing this quality reveals the fallacy of trying to freeze a landscape at a moment in time.”(8.1) What O’Donnell and Melnick failed to express however is that physical architecture also continually changes and adapts, and perhaps nowhere is this more clearly exhibited than in the rural structures of the traditional American farmstead. A close look at the continual adaptation of these structures reveals the inherent fallacy behind arguing for the authenticity of a barn structure as it exists at any single moment in time. By contrast, this thesis will argue that most of Montcalm’s thirteen historic structures would be better served by the removal of their burden as ‘sacred artifact’ and a return to the dignity long associated with their ability to freely adapt to new uses and programs.

Brand observed that traditional buildings are better suited to adaptation and evolution because they facilitate ‘slippage’ between component layers, which prevent faster layers - such as space planning and services - from being obstructed by slower layers - such as structure. In architectural design this principle is known as ‘Pace-Layering’ and places particular emphasis on the arrangement of building layers in order to equip the structure for the greatest possible longevity and maximum adaptability to unforeseen future uses and programs.(8.3) THE VARYING LIFE-CYCLES OF THE BANK BARN’S ASSEMBLY COMPONENTS The three photographs shown in Figures 8.2-8.4 reveal a sequence of clapboard replacement on the Bank Barn of the Lower Barn Complex around 1985. Given that the Bank Barn was first constructed around 1850, clearly these photographs do not depict the first replacement of the clapboard skin. How many times in the barn’s history has this process has unfolded? What other building components have been replaced and reconfigured? Which of these components are once again nearing their ‘expiration date?’

‘SHEARING LAYERS OF CHANGE’ In his book How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They‘re Built, Stewart Brand investigates what makes certain buildings successful and other buildings fail. As his colleague Frank Duffy had stated: “Our basic argument is that there isn’t any such thing as a building. A building properly conceived is several layers of longevity of built components.”(8.2) The components that Duffy and Brand identified included site, structure, skin, services, space plan, and ‘stuff’ - each of which deteriorates - and therefore demands replacement - at a different rate of time. FIGURE 8.1

8.1: STEWART BRAND’S DIAGRAM OF THE ‘SHEARING LAYERS OF CHANGE’ Brand, Stewart. How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They're Built. New York: Penguin, 1994.

139

FIGURE 8.2

FIGURE 8.3

FIGURE 8.4

RED PAINTED SURFACE |± 3 YEAR LIFESPAN|

CLAPBOARD WOOD EXTERIOR SKIN |± 30 YEAR LIFESPAN|

STANDING-SEAM METAL ROOFING |± 50 YEAR LIFESPAN|

LUMBER-FRAMED ROOF RAFTERS |± 50 YEAR LIFESPAN|

MORTISE AND TENON TIMBER BENTS |± 100 YEAR LIFESPAN|

TIMBER POSTS AND FLOOR JOISTS |± 80 YEAR LIFESPAN|

LUMBER-FRAMED CLAPBOARD SUPPORT |± 70 YEAR LIFESPAN|

STONE FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALL |± 200 YEAR LIFESPAN|

FIGURE 8.5

8.2: A CIRCA 1985 PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING REMOVAL OF THE CLAPBOARD SKIN COMPONENT OF THE BANK BARN AT THE COMPLETION OF ITS PREVIOUS LIFE-CYCLE. Bank Barn Rehabilitation Work #1, Montcalm Farm, Purcellville, VA. Personal photograph of owner John Marsh, circa 1985. 8.3: ANOTHER VIEW OFTHE CLAPBOARD SKIN REMOVAL. Bank Barn Rehabilitation Work #2, Montcalm Farm, Purcellville, VA. Personal

photograph of owner John Marsh, circa 1985. 8.4: A VIEW OF THE REPLACEMENT OF THE SKIN WITH NEW CLAPBOARD MEMBERS. Bank Barn Rehabilitation Work #3 Montcalm Farm, Purcellville, VA. Personal photograph of owner John Marsh, circa 1985. 8.5: A CUT-AWAY PERSPECTIVE RENDERING OF THE BANK BARN’S ASSEMBLY COMPONENTS WITH APPROXIMATE LIFESPANS INDICATED

140

STONE FOUNDATION |± 200 YEAR LIFESPAN|

TIMBER BENTS

|± 100 YEAR LIFESPAN|

FLOOR JOISTS

|± 80 YEAR LIFESPAN|

SECONDARY FRAMING |± 70 YEAR LIFESPAN|

ROOF RAFTERS

|± 50 YEAR LIFESPAN|

STANDING SEAM ROOF |± 50 YEAR LIFESPAN|

CLAPBOARD SIDING |± 30 YEAR LIFESPAN|

RED-PAINTED SURFACE |± 3 YEAR LIFESPAN|

LIFE-SPAN (IN YEARS) OF VARIOUS ASSEMBLY COMPONENTS OF IN THE BANK BARN

FIGURE 8.6

NATURAL SELECTION AND ADAPTATION In keeping with Brand’s theory of ‘Shearing Layers,’ the chart in Figure 8.6 above attempts to consider the Bank Barn as an assembly of eight distinct components. Approximate lifespan durations for each of these components is indicated and a hypothetical 200 year timeline is introduced along the ‘X’ axis. Based on the estimated ‘expiration date’ of each component odd-numbered iterations are indicated in grey and even-numbered iterations are indicated in white. Clearly as time progresses the ‘genealogical’ complexity of each component becomes increasingly distant from its original iteration. The circles above represent the moments of replacement for each component. As we have seen in the physical analysis of Chapter 3, such moments have traditionally represented opportunities to alter that component in order to meet its most current functional requirements (e.g. aperture change in Figures 3.19-3.21). Presently a number of crucial building components are rapidly approaching their ‘expiration dates.’ Given the dramatic shift in program and function that this thesis advocates for in Chapters 6 and 7, perhaps the most ‘authentic’ and appropriate approach to replacing these components would be to allow them to adapt to accomodate the newly proposed programs. REALIZING A MODERN INTERVENTION THROUGH THE DEPLOYMENT OF A TRADITIONAL ‘KIT OF PARTS’ Henry Glassie writes in Vernacular Architecture: “A distinction between local and imported materials was among the first criteria that writers, in England particularly, used to define vernacular architecture. Vernacular buildings are composed of local materials they argued. During travel

8.6: DIAGRAM INDICATING THE LIFE-CYCLES AND SUCCESSIVE ITERATIONS OF THE VARIOUS BUILDING COMPONENTS THAT MAKE UP THE LOWER BARN COMPLEX’S ‘BANK BARN.’ NOTE THAT EVERY CIRCLE SIGNIFYING THE INTRODUCTION OF A COMPONENT’S REPLACEMENT ALSO REPRESENTS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE STRUCTURE TO ADAPT TO ACCOMMODATE PREVIOUSLY UNINTENDED PROGRAMMATIC FUNCTIONS.

141

they enjoyed watching the substrate of the earth rise and form into buildings, crossing the land in bands of sandstone, limestone, and granite, and they deplored the rash of red brick buildings that spread along the railways, oblivious to geological differences. Their taste was built on conventional dichotomies: natural and artificial, native and alien, old and new, local and national, handmade and industrial.”(8.4) As previously discussed in the physical analysis of Chapter 3, most of the thirteen historic structures of Montcalm Farm are to some degree built from the land itself. The ‘Log Cabin’ and ‘Pigsty’ are built of notched logs cleared for farming. The structures of the bent-framed barns were hand hewn from the property‘s woods. The ‘Stone Kitchen,’ ‘Milk House’ and ‘Bank Barn’ foundations were each built from stones pulled from the ground by hand. As the critique at the end of the Inn at Middleton Place case study chapter argued, perhaps a new intervention strategy could be explored for Montcalm Farm that presents an alternative to tabula rasa development but does so without defaulting to the ‘modern juxtaposition’ approach of distinguishing between old and new fabric solely through the use of contrasting materials and building techniques. Instead, perhaps the traditional materials long present and well-suited to centuries of previous alterations upon the traditional American farmstead could again be deployed to accommodate newly proposed uses and functions. A new strategy could be explored that seeks to establish modernity through articulation of these traditional materials. Is it possible to achieve modern architecture using a traditional ‘kit of parts,’ which is neither faux-historic nor “oblivious to geological differences?” This is not to argue for an ideological restriction to a material palate consisting only of traditional materials, for building technology has made huge advancements in recent decades. Rather, the intervention proposal will seek

to explore whether or not the intervention could serve as a ‘temporal bridge’ bringing old and new materials into dialogue with one another, in a similar capacity to the programmatic and spatial ‘bridging’ previously discussed. RECONFIGURING ‘THE RITUAL OF HABITATION’ Figures 8.7a and 8.7b depict the transformation of Tom Kundig’s ‘Delta Shelter’ cabin. This small-scaled project was conceived as a weekend cabin located on the flood banks of the Mazama River in Washington State.(8.5) Because the structure is only in use for a small percentage of any given year, the program called for the integration of a two-storey high steel shutter system which could secure the property when not occupied, but dramatically open up the interior to 360° views when its owner was in residence.

Place. In both cases the shutter systems are deployed to provide either privacy and security or exposure and views within an entirely modern structure, but could a similar strategy be explored as a mechanism for gradually revealing a modern intervention within a historic skin? The ‘ritual of habitation’ will therefore be reconfigured as preservation and intervention strategy realized through the next iteration of the Bank Barn’s building envelope components. ARTICULATING THE FORCES ASSOCIATED WITH NEWLY INTRODUCED PROGRAMS

At a much larger scale, this strategy is reminiscent of Clark and Menefee’s interior shutters at the Inn at Middleton

Throughout the intervention proposal, special consideration will be given to the degree to which the 44 proposed subprograms are relatively native or foreign to the historical use of the site. This will inform a strategy for how the intervention will accommodate these various programs with relationship to the historic fabric.

FIGURE 8.7a

FIGURE 8.7b

8.7a: A VIEW OF TOM KUNDIG’S ‘DELTA SHELTER’ CABIN LOCATED IN MAZAMA, WASHINGTON WITH THE TWO-STOREY HIGH SLIDING SHUTTER PANELS IN THE ‘CLOSED’ POSITION. Ngo, Dung, and Tom Kundig. Tom Kundig: Houses. New York: Princeton Architectural, 2006

8.7b: A VIEW OF THE ‘DELTA SHELTER’ WITH THE SLIDING SHUTTER PANELS IN THE ‘OPEN’ POSITION. Ngo, Dung, and Tom Kundig. Tom Kundig: Houses. New York: Princeton Architectural, 2006

142

10 9

UNDERSTANDING THE BUILDING INTERVENTION PROPOSAL AS A SEQUENCE OF TEN ITERATIVE STEPS

8 8.8 8.10

Consistent with the multi-layered history of countless previous alterations to the Lower Barn Complex - and indeed all four historic core complexes of Montcalm Farm the intervention proposal will follow an iterative sequence of programmatic and architectural ‘moves’ in order to establish a context for the appropriateness of the overall proposal. The structure of the remainder of this chapter will therefore follow a detailed ten-step transformative process. The global goal of this intervention proposal will be to consider the reconfiguration of the Lower Barn Complex as a prototypical process, offering a strategic methodology for accommodating the 44 new and reconfigured programs distributed throughout the remaining three complexes of the historic core and its surrounding landscape. In all cases the ‘Silo Diagram’ should be continually used as a ‘score card’ for evaluating the successful dialogue generated between existing and new architectural fabric. Furthermore, the degree to which each proposal successfully revitalizes its respective portion of the historic core should be carefully considered.

10’ 0’

8.9

100’ 50’

500’

FIGURE 8.8

THE EXISTING CONDITION OF THE LOWER BARN COMPLEX As previously discussed in the physical analysis of Chapter 3, the Lower Barn Complex is comprised of three historic structures: the circa 1780 ‘Pigsty’ (Figure 8.10); the circa 1830 ‘Corn Crib’ (Figure 8.9); and the circa 1850 ‘Bank Barn’ (Figure 8.8), so named for its embedded siting within the landscape, which facilitates ground-level entrance to either the upper ‘bank’ level from the north, or the covered exterior foundation level from the south. The western edge of the Lower Barn Complex is bounded by a circa 1985 ‘Run-in Shed’ (left side of Figure 8.8), which represents the third-generation of ‘connecting barns.’ the previous two iterations of this structure have each collapsed due to the steep 9’-0” change in the topographical grade of the site.

FIGURE 8.9

As the present-day photographs to the right indicate, each of these three historic structures presently exhibits varying degree of fatigue and deterioration. Only the ‘Bank Barn’ currently hosts any activity, which merely consists of the boarding of two tenant horses at the lower foundation level, and the storage of hay and miscellaneous items at the upper level. As the longitudinal section through the Pigsty, Connecting Barn and Bank Barn shown in Figure 8.12 indicates, the Lower Barn Complex holds significant spatial potential for accommodating a modern program. FIGURE 8.10

8.8 A PRESENT-DAY PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE BANK BARN OF THE LOWER BARN COMPLEX FROM THE SOUTH. NOTE THE COVERED EXTERIOR ZONE AT THE LOWER FOUNDATION LEVEL OF THE STRUCTURE Bank Barn, Montcalm Farm, Purcellville, VA. Personal photograph of author, 2011. 8.9 A PRESENT-DAY PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE CORN CRIB OF THE LOWER BARN COMPLEX FROM THE EAST. Corn Crib, Montcalm Farm,

143

Purcellville, VA. Personal photograph of author, 2011. 8.10 A PRESENT-DAY PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE CIRCA 1780 PIGSTY OF THE LOWER BARN COMPLEX FROM THE EAST. Pigsty, Montcalm Farm, Purcellville, VA. Personal photograph of author, 2011. 8.11 (OPPOSITE PAGE) AN AXONOMETRIC OF THE LOWER BARN COMPLEX 8.12 (OPPOSITE PAGE) A TRANSVERSE SECTION THROUGH THE BANK BARN

PRESENT EQUESTRIAN USE

THE ‘BANK BARN’

|BOARDING OF TWO HORSES|

CIRCA 1850 |± 2,400 SQFT|

THE CORN CRIB CIRCA 1830 |± 1,200 SQFT|

THE PIGSTY CIRCA 1850 |± 450 SQFT|

THE RUN-IN SHED CIRCA 1985 |MODERN REPLACEMENT|

8.12

AXONOMETRIC OF THE ‘LOWER BARN COMPLEX’ SCALE: NTS

FIGURE 8.11

LONGITUDINAL SECTION THRU PIGSTY, ‘CONNECTING BARN’ AND BANK BARN SCALE: 1”=16’-0”

1’ 0’

10’ 5’

50’ 25’

FIGURE 8.12

EXISTING CONDITION EXISTING BUILDING STOCK: THREE HISTORIC STRUCTURES AND ONE MODERN ‘CONNECTOR’ BARN CURRENT PROGRAM: BOARDING OF TWO HORSES IN RUN-IN SHED AND UNDERSIDE OF BANK BARN. UPPER LEVELS OF BANK BARN, PIGSTY AND CORN CRIB ARE PRESENTLY NOT IN USE.

144

THE LOWER BARN COMPLEX

THE BANK BARN APPROXIMATE 8’-10” CHANGE IN GRADE

|BENT-FRAMED| CIRCA 1850 +/-2,400SQFT

THE CORN CRIB |BENT-FRAMED| CIRCA 1830 +/-1,200SQFT

THE RUN-IN SHED |LUMBER-FRAMED| CIRCA 1985 [MODERN REPLACEMENT]

LEGEND RESORT EQUESTRIAN

THE PIGSTY |LOG-CABIN STRUCTURE W/ CLAPBOARD SKIN| CIRCA 1780 +/-450SQFT

AGRICULTURE FORESTAL

RESORT PROGRAM EQUESTRIAN PROGRAM AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM FORESTAL PROGRAM

TENANT

TENANT LEASE PROGRAM

MONTCALM

MONTCALM OPERATIONS

HYBRID

HYBRID PROGRAMS (BY COLOR)

FIGURE 8.13

DEVELOPING A STRATEGY FOR DISTRIBUTING SIX UNIQUE SUB-PROGRAMS AMIDST THE HISTORIC STRUCTURES OF THE LOWER BARN COMPLEX The diagram shown in Figure 8.13 explores the spatial distribution of the six unique sub-programs proposed for the Lower Barn Complex. This diagram seeks to articulate the cursory arrangement suggested in the Site Plan of Chapter 7 at a higher resolution. In the context of the historic core as a whole, the Lower Barn Complex is felicitously situated at the center of the four complexes and therefore offers a unique opportunity to realize the goal of programmatically and spatially ‘bridging’ between otherwise autonomous sub-programs. As detailed in the ‘Users/Uses’ diagrams of Chapter 6, the ‘clash’ of these programs within a single complex offers significant potential for reactivating the historic core through the rich and dynamic exchange fostered among various users, each with unique experiences and expertise. The six sub-programs proposed for this complex represent aspects of the ‘Slow Food,’ Rural Resort, and Operations

8.13 AN AXONOMETRIC DIAGRAM SHOWING THE ‘CLASH’ OF SIX VARYING SUB-PROGRAMS PROPOSED FOR THE LOWER BARN COMPLEX. THE INTERVENTION PROPOSAL WILL SEEK TO SERVE AS A SPATIAL ‘BRIDGE’ FOR ACCOMMODATING THESE SOMETIMES OPPOSING PROGRAMS.

145

master-programs. Because the agriculture subprograms of the ‘Slow Food’ component represent those activities with the most direct relationship to the historic use of the property, the ‘Chicken Coop,’ and ‘Slow Food Cooking Class Facilities’ are woven into the inner courtyard level occupying the former Corn Crib and the foundation level of the Bank Barn, with the ‘Chef’s Garden’ of the former pasture occupying the connective landscape bridging between the two predominantly architectural programs. Following a similar rational, the leisure programs of the resort’s ‘Lodge’ and ‘Natural Spring Pool Complex’ are relatively foreign to the site and therefore float above the landscape, occupying the upper ‘bank’ level of the complex. The parking lot program is imagined as an ‘undesirable necessity’ and therefore embedded within the topography along the under carriage of the pool complex. The 450 square foot Pigsty structure is imagined to be an appropriate candidate for the ‘Lodging in the Historic Core’ subcategory of the resort’s ‘Lodging’ program as detailed in Chapter 6 and will therefore be outside of this scope of this proposal.

8.14 (OPPOSITE PAGE) STEP #2 OF THE INTERVENTION PROPOSAL - ALL EQUESTRIAN ACTIVITY WILL BE CONSOLIDATED TO THE UPPER ‘DAIRY BARN COMPLEX’ FREEING THE ‘LOWER BARN COMPLEX’ FOR A NEW PROGRAM. THE THIRD-GENERATION ‘CONNECTING BARN’ WILL BE DISASSEMBLED TO MAKE WAY FOR A NEW FOURTH-GENERATION ITERATION THAT WILL ACCOMMODATE THESE VARIOUS PROGRAMS.

STEP 2: CONSOLIDATION OF THE EQUESTRIAN PROGRAMS AND REMOVAL OF THE CONTEMPORARY CONNECTING BARN Step 2 of the intervention proposal begins with the consolidation of all equestrian programs at Montcalm Farm to the upper Dairy Barn Complex, which was converted from Dairy stanchions to horse boarding stalls decades ago. Because the Lower Barn Complex is presently only used to board two tenant horses, this consolidation leaves the entire complex available for a new programmatic use. The utilitarian, third-generation ‘Connecting Barn’ at the western boundary of the complex could be disassembled

to make way for a new fourth-generation iteration of the structure suitable for accommodating the newly proposed Natural Spring Pool Complex and parking area. Through the process of editing and clarifying those structures with inherent value for the Lower Barn Complex, special attention is paid to the enduring stone foundation component of the Lower Barn Complex, which has survived where the connecting barns have failed due to its significant depth and flared end details, which sufficiently resist the lateral forces associated with the 9’-0” change in grade. An extension of this wall will therefore be considered to increase the longevity of the addition.

THE ‘BANK BARN’ CIRCA 1850 |± 2,400 SQFT|

EXISTING EQUESTRIAN ACTIVITY CONSOLIDATED TO THE DAIRY BARN COMPLEX

STONE FOUNDATION COMBATS LATERAL FORCES ASSOCIATED WITH +/- 9’-0” CHANGE IN GRADE FROM NORTH-WEST CORNER OF BANK BARN TO NORTH-WEST CORNER OF PIGSTY.

DISASSEMBLY OF THIRD-GENERATION ‘CONNECTING BARN’

THE PIGSTY CIRCA 1850 |± 450 SQFT|

CONSOLIDATION OF EQUESTRIAN ALL EXISTING EQUESTRIAN PROGRAMS CONSOLIDATED TO THE UPPER ‘DAIRY BARN COMLEX’ LEAVING THE THREE HISTORIC STRUCTURES OF THE LOWER BARN COMPLEX AVAILABLE TO ACCOMMODATE NEW AND RECONFIGURED PROGRAMS INCLUDING: THE CHEF’S GARDEN, THE MODERN CHICKEN COOP, THE ‘SLOW FOOD’ COOKING CLASS FACILITIES, THE RESORT’S “LODGE,” THE NATURAL SPRING POOL COMPLEX, AN EMBEDDED PARKING AREA, AND A ‘HISTORIC CORE CABIN.’

146

STEP 3: DISASSEMBLY OF THE CLAPBOARD SKIN Step 3 of the intervention proposal represents the initiation of the replacement process for those building components which are nearing their ‘expiration date,’ as previously discussed. The eight various component systems of the bank barn are therefore analyzed according to the longevity of their life-span and categorized as either ‘slow’ components - those with a lifespan greater than a century and characterized by qualities of heaviness and robustness; or ‘fast’ components - those with a lifespan less than a century and characterized by qualities of lightness and flexibility.

The existing clapboard skin and roof structure are therefore disassembled, with each clapboard member evaluated for possible future reinstallation as a rainscreen. As previously discussed in Figures 3.19-3.21 of the physical analysis in Chapter 3, the apertures of this clapboard skin have continually been reconfigured to accommodate varying new uses. The existing door and window openings hold no particular historical significance as currently arranged and therefore may be reevaluated as the building envelope now proceeds to its next iteration.

The resulting classifications are indicated in Figures 8.15 and 8.16. The stone foundation and mortise and tenon timber bent structure will therefore be allowed to continue to perform their structural functions, while the building’s existing envelope and foundation level structure will soon be in need of replacement.

What is significant with regards to these openings however is the longstanding precedent found in most barn typologies of installing over-scaled sliding door openings to accommodate access by a wide range of scales, from human to vehicular. These traditional ‘barn door hardware’ systems will therefore be assessed for their potential to accommodate a gradual transformation of the structure as a new manifestation of the ‘ritual of habitation.’

RELATIVELY ‘SLOW’ COMPONENTS

RELATIVELY ‘FAST’ COMPONENTS

HEAVY, ROBUST, ENDURING

LIGHT, FLEXIBLE, TEMPORARY RED PAINTED SURFACE

MORTISE AND TENON TIMBER BENTS

|± 3 YEAR LIFESPAN|

|± 100 YEAR LIFESPAN|

CLAPBOARD WOOD EXTERIOR SKIN

STONE FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALL

|± 30 YEAR LIFESPAN|

STANDING-SEAM METAL ROOFING

|± 200 YEAR LIFESPAN|

|± 50 YEAR LIFESPAN|

LUMBER-FRAMED ROOF RAFTERS |± 50 YEAR LIFESPAN|

LUMBER-FRAMED CLAPBOARD SUPPORT |± 70 YEAR LIFESPAN|

TIMBER POSTS AND FLOOR JOISTS |± 80 YEAR LIFESPAN|

FIGURE 8.15

FIGURE 8.16

8.15 A TAXONOMY OF THE ‘SLOW’ BUILDING COMPONENTS (e.g. LIFESPAN GREATER THAN 100 YEARS) FOUND IN THE BANK BARN.

8.17 (OPPOSITE PAGE) STEP #3 OF THE INTERVENTION PROPOSAL - IN KEEPING WITH THE LONGSTANDING TRADITION OF REPLACING ‘EXPIRED’ BUILDING COMPONENTS, THE EXISTING CLAPBOARD BUILDING ENVELOPE AND STANDING-SEAM ROOF ARE DISASSEMBLED. CLAPBOARD MEMBERS ARE RETAINED AND EVALUATED FOR POSSIBLE FUTURE REINSTALLATION AS A RAINSCREEN AND ‘LIGHT FILTER’ IN THE NEW SKIN ASSEMBLY.

8.16 A TAXONOMY OF THE ‘FAST’ BUILDING COMPONENTS (e.g. LIFESPAN LESS THAN 100 YEARS) FOUND IN THE BANK BARN.

147

STANDING-SEAM METAL ROOF IS NEARING ‘EXPIRATION DATE’ AND IN NEED OF REPLACEMENT. INTERIOR SURFACE OF CLAPBOARD SKIN RETAINS ITS NATURAL COLOR

TIMBER-FRAMED BENT STRUCTURE REMAINS SUFFICIENT FOR NEW INTERVENTION

EXTERIOR SURFACE OF CLAPBOARD SKIN IS CONTINUALLY PAINTED RED

CLAPBOARD SKIN WITH GAPPED INSTALLATION INSUFFICIENT TO PERFORM MINIMAL THERMAL INSULATION REQUIREMENTS FOR HUMAN HABITATION.

EXISTING STONE FOUNDATION REMAINS SUFFICIENT FOR NEW INTERVENTION

DISASSEMBLY OF CLAPBOARD SKIN THE EXISTING CLAPBOARD BUILDING ENVELOPE IS DISASSEMBLED IN KEEPING WITH THE EXPIRATION OF ITS 30 YEAR-LIFE SPAN. LIKEWISE THE EXISTING STANDING SEAM ROOF AND ASSOCIATED STRUCTURE IS DISASSEMBLED FOR REPLACEMENT. CLAPBOARD MEMBERS ARE RETAINED FOR FUTURE REINSTALLATION AS A ‘RAIN SCREEN’ AND FILTER OF LIGHT.

148

6’-6”

13’-4”

6’-4” 1’-6” 6” 12’-9”

14’-3” 10’-11”

7’-

2”

7’-

2”

7’-

2”

”

8’12

’-6

2”

”

8’-

7’-

”

8’-

” 7’-

”

8’-

”

FIGURE 8.18

STEP 4: A NEW ENVIRONMENTALLY-CONDITIONED ENVELOPE INSTALLED The next step to the intervention proposal sequence acknowledges a fundamental difference between the performative requirements that the modern program will now ‘ask’ of the bank barn structure and those functions, which it has historically accommodated. For the first time in over 150 years the Bank Barn must now facilitate human occupancy. In all previous iterations of the building envelope, not only was environmental-conditioning not required, it would in fact have been contrary to the barn’s intended function of aiding in the drying process of stored hay. In addition to minimizing construction expense, this simple gapped clapboard detail (see Figure 8.34 at the end of this chapter) has therefore been particularly well-suited to the

8.18 AN AXONOMETRIC DRAWING OF THE INITIALLY PROPOSED UNITIZED CURTAIN WALL SYSTEM. NOTE THAT EACH EDGE OF A TYPICAL UNIT REPRESENTS ONLY HALF OF THE MULLION SYSTEM. WHEN A PAIR OF NEIGHBORING UNITS ARE INSTALLED THE RESULTING MULLION IS CAPABLE OF PROVIDING AIR AND WEATHER INSULATION SEALS. THESE MODULES ARE DESIGNED TO ALIGN WITH THE EXISTING BENT-STRUCTURE TO

149

bank barn’s intended functions. With the clapboard skin now disassembled, step 4 proposes the introduction of a modern unitized curtain wall system capable of providing an insulated building perimeter to keep the interior warm in the winters, and cool in the summers of its northern Virginia site. This new skin initially takes the form of the original barn structure, but this shape will be further articulated in subsequent steps. As Figure 8.18 indicates, the modules of this curtain wall system are designed to align with the existing posts of the timber-framed bent structure to underscore the rhythm of the original structural bays and essentially disappear from the occupant’s interior view. The system imagines enclosing the foundation level of the barn for the first time in its history, nearly doubling its square-footage available to its new programs.

REEMPHASIZE THE STRUCTURAL BAY OF THE STRUCTURE AND ALLOW THE NEW LAYER TO ‘DISAPPEAR’ AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE BEHIND THE PRIMARY STRUCTURAL SYSTEM. 8.19 (OPPOSITE PAGE) STEP #4 OF THE INTERVENTION PROPOSAL - A NEW ENVELOPE IS INSTALLED, INITIALLY MIMICING THE BARN’S ORIGINAL FORM.

NEW BUILDING ENVELOPE INITIALLY MIMICS THE FORM OF THE ORIGINAL BARN STRUCTURE

STRUCTURE OF MODERN SKIN TO ALIGN WITH BAYS OF EXISTING BENTS TO REINFORCE PRIMARY STRUCTURAL SYSTEM

LOWER LEVEL OF BANK BARN INCLUDED IN BUILDING AREA TO BE ENVIRONMENTALLY CONDITIONED

DISASSEMBLED CLAPBOARD MEMBERS RETAINED FOR FUTURE REINSTALLATION AS A RAIN-SCREEN AND PERFORMATIVE SURFACE

NEW THERMAL ENVELOPE INSTALLED IN RECOGNITION THAT NO PREVIOUS USE OF THE BANK BARN HAS EVER REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONING SUITABLE FOR HUMAN OCCUPATION, THE STRUCTURE’S LEGACY OF CONTINUALLY ADAPTING TO ACCOMMODATE NEW PROGRAMS NOW DEMANDS THE INSTALLATION OF A MODERN ENVELOPE CAPABLE OF PROVIDING A THERMALLY CONDITIONED INTERIOR. AS A BASELINE THIS NEW SKIN MIMICS THE BARN’S ORIGINAL FORM...

150

EXISTING SECTION THRU PIGSTY, ‘CONNECTING BARN’ AND BANK BARN SCALE: 1”=16’-0”

PROPOSED SECTION THRU PIGSTY, ‘CONNECTING BARN’ AND BANK BARN SCALE: 1”=16’-0”

1’ 0’

10’ 5’

1’ 0’

50’ 25’

10’ 5’

FIGURE 8.20a

50’ 25’

FIGURE 8.20

STEP 5: ‘CARVING AWAY’ THE MODERN ENVELOPE Visualizing the new building envelope as a ‘solid’ volume of conditioned space, step 5 begins with a critique of the inadvertent consequences of step 4, which has essentially transformed a once fluid sequence of navigating from the upper ‘bank’ level to the lower pasture level through an ambiguous interior/exterior condition, into a sequence of abrupt transitions from exterior to interior and back to exterior. Such a procession has little precedent on the property, and bears no particular value with regards to the global goal of spatially ‘bridging’ the volumes of independent programs. Therefore, step 5 reevaluates the form of the conditioned perimeter and attempts to restore the covered exterior procession between vertical levels by ‘carving away’ a covered exterior stairway at the western edge of the bank barn. As shown in Figure 8.20, this new form essentially ‘lifts’ the north-west corner of the building enclosure to encourage

8.20a AN EXISTING SECTION THRU THE PIGSTY, ‘CONNECTING BARN’ AND BANK BARN 8.20b A TRANSVERSE SECTION THROUGH THE PROPOSED STAIRWAY FROM THE UPPER ‘BANK’ LEVEL TO THE LOWER FOUNDATION LEVEL.

151

the infiltration of the outdoors into the building’s footprint. At the undercarriage of the enclosed stair to the mezzanine level, a covered entry vestibule is created, further blurring the distinction between interior and exterior. The resulting stairway to the lower level of the ‘Chef’s Garden’ extends itself as a ceremonial portal allowing visitors to slip upwards through the tunnel-like volume flanked to the west by the exposed stone foundation, and to the east by the crisply modern interior of the new ‘Slow Food Cooking Class Facilities,’ which have reclaimed the covered exterior space formerly occupied by boarding horses. As previously mentioned, many of the disassembled clapboard members have been retained (as indicated in Figure 8.21) for future reinstallation as a rainscreen. The following steps will therefore seek to cloak this modern intervention in traditional materials, not unlike the long established precedent of unifying buildings of dissimilar construction techniques through the use of red paint.

8.21 (OPPOSITE PAGE) STEP #5 OF THE INTERVENTION PROPOSAL - THE INITIAL BUILDING ENVELOPE PROPOSAL IS ‘CARVED AWAY’ TO PRESERVE THE EXISTING EXTERIOR SEQUENCE FROM THE UPPER ‘BANK’ LEVEL TO THE LOWER FOUNDATION LEVEL, WHICH WILL SOON HOUSE THE ‘CHEF’S GARDEN’ AND COOKING CLASS FACILITY SUB-PROGRAMS OF THE ‘SLOW FOOD’ PROGRAM.

A PATHWAY THROUGH THE ENVIRONMENTALLY CONDITIONED ZONE IS VOIDED AWAY TO ACCOMMODATE A COVERED EXTERIOR STAIRWAY BETWEEN THE UPPER ‘BANK’ AND THE LOWER ‘CHEF’S GARDEN.’

ENTRANCE/EXIT TO THE COVERED EXTERIOR PATH AND STAIRWAY THROUGH THE REPURPOSED BANK BARN.

DISASSEMBLED CLAPBOARD MEMBERS RETAINED FOR FUTURE REINSTALLATION AS A RAIN-SCREEN AND PERFORMATIVE SURFACE

5 ‘CARVING AWAY’ THE MODERN ENVELOPE GIVEN THAT THE BANK BARN HAS ALWAYS SERVED AS A DEVICE FOR NEGOTIATING BETWEEN VARIOUS VERTICAL LEVELS IN THE LANDSCAPE, THE NEW BUILDING ENVELOPE IS VOIDED TO ACCOMMODATE A PATHWAY TO MAINTAIN AN EXTERIOR CONNECTION BETWEEN THE LOWER PASTURE - NOW REPURPOSED AS THE ‘CHEF’S GARDEN’ AND THE UPPER ‘BANK’ LEVEL. THIS CREATES A HYBRID CONDITION ALLOWING FOR A COVERED STAIR THAT IS NEITHER PURELY INTERIOR NOR EXTERIOR.

152

A-1 3 1

A-1 2

MEZZANINE LEVEL 4

‘BANK LEVEL

A-1 1

SOUTH FACADE

A-1 3

PARTIAL PLAN

SCALE: NTS

FOUNDATION LEVEL

A-1 2

PARTIAL SECTION SCALE: NTS

SCALE: NTS

STEP 6: CLAPBOARD MEMBERS REINSTALLED AS A SCREEN As discussed in the critique of the Inn at Middleton Place of Chapter 5, this thesis seeks to offer an alternative to both tabula-rasa development and to the ‘modern juxtaposition’ strategy to which most modern interventions within historic contexts usually default. The design proposal therefore seeks to establish a more ambiguous relationship between old and new fabric, which is experienced through a transformative process rather than as a sudden and straightforward juxtaposition between traditional and modern materials and construction techniques. The reinstallation of clapboard members as a rainscreen is therefore conceived as a mechanism for establishing a ‘temporal bridge’ between a range of eras, materials, and construction techniques. With the introduction of the modern curtain-wall system, the clapboard skin is no longer restricted by its previous function as building enclosure and may therefore adapt to accommodate a series of new uses. Such uses might include an extension of the clapboard layer as a privacy screen, an attenuation of the layer as a performative surface, or a modular system of operable panels that could be sequentially

8.22 AN IN-PROCESS SKETCH OF THE SOUTH FACADE INDICATING THE POTENTIAL ‘SLIPPAGE’ OF CERTAIN CLAPBOARD PANELS TO REVEAL THE MODERN ‘GLASS BOX’ WITHIN. A PARTIAL PLAN AND TRANSVERSE SECTION THROUGH THIS THREE-LAYER FACADE SYSTEM IS ALSO INDICATED. 8.23 (OPPOSITE PAGE) STEP #6 OF THE INTERVENTION PROPOSAL - WITH THE NEW ENVIRONMENTALLY-CONDITIONED BUILDING ENVELOPE

153

opened or closed to facilitate varying degrees of light and/or security, much like Tom Kundig’s ‘Delta House’ precedent previously discussed (see Figure 8.7a-b). Figure 8.22 above illustrates a concept for panelizing these rehung clapboard members to realize such a system of sliding planes. As the partial plan demonstrates, three distinct building perimeter layers are proposed: an inner layer representing the insulated perimeter; a middle layer housing the fixed clapboard members; and an outer layer accommodating a track that enables the sliding panels to slip past the fixed panels. This system could be deployed to achieve an infinite number of variable exposure/privacy conditions, not unlike the shutter system of the Inn at Middleton Place. As Figure 8.23 identifies, four distinct interior conditions can be achieved with this system: an opaque, insulated interior wall with fixed exterior cladding; a transparent interior glazing unit with fixed cladding, which maintains the barn’s present condition as a filter of natural light (see Figure 3.32a-x); a transparent interior glazing unit without clapboard cladding; and operable interior glazing units with operable sliding clapboard panels.

INSTALLED, EXISTING OR NEW CLAPBOARD MEMBERS CAN BE REINSTALLED OUTBOUND OF THIS MODERN SKIN. THIS STRATEGY EXPANDS THE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED PROGRAMMATIC AND SPATIAL ‘BRIDGING’ OF THE THESIS PROPOSAL TO ADDITIONALLY PERFORM AS A ‘TEMPORAL BRIDGE’ BRINGING THE MATERIALITY AND TECTONICS OF OLD AND NEW COMPONENTS INTO DIALOGUE WITH ONE ANOTHER.

NEW ROOF ASSEMBLY TO REPLACE ‘EXPIRED’ PREVIOUS STANDING-SEAM ROOF

EXISTING CLAPBOARD MEMBERS RE-HUNG OUTBOUND OF NEW THERMALLY CONDITIONED ENVELOPE

NEW DOUBLE-LAYER ENVELOPE FACILITATES DEPLOYMENT OF FOUR DISTINCT INTERIOR CONDITIONS: 1) OPAQUE INTERIOR WALL WITH FIXED EXTERIOR CLAPBOARD CLADDING. 2) TRANSPARENT INTERIOR GLAZING WITH FIXED CLADDING. (MAINTAINING PRESENT CONDITION AS A FILTER OF NATURAL LIGHT)

3) TRANSPARENT INTERIOR GLAZING WITHOUT CLAPBOARD CLADDING. 4) OPERABLE INTERIOR GLAZING WITH OPERABLE SLIDING CLAPBOARD PANELS

CLAPBOARD MEMBERS REINSTALLED PREVIOUSLY DISASSEMBLED CLAPBOARD MEMBERS ARE REINSTALLED AROUND PORTIONS OF THE BARN’S PERIMETER TO ACT AS A PERFORMATIVE RAIN-SCREEN AND AS A STRATEGY FOR DEVELOPING A ‘TEMPORAL BRIDGE,’ BRINGING THE MATERIALITY AND TECTONICS OF THE OLD AND NEW STRUCTURES INTO DIALOGUE WITH ONE ANOTHER. THIS REPRESENTS A DIFFERING STRAREGY TO THE MORE PREVALENT ‘MODERN JUXTAPOSITION’ BETWEEN NEW AND HISTORIC FABRIC.

154

CUSTOM ANCHOR MOUNTED TO TIMBER POST WITH FOUR-WAY ADJUSTABILITY FOR ALIGNMENT

‘MALE’ HALF OF A TYPICAL MULLION OF THE UNITIZED CURTAIN WALL SYSTEM

1” I.GU. INTEGRAL SHELF EXTENSION

SERRATED LOCK-WASHER TO SECURE ANCHOR CLIPS IN ALIGNED POSITION

AIR SEAL WEATHER SEAL EXIST. TIMBER POS TO REMAIN

RAIL FIELD-MOUNTED TO UNDERSIDE OF SHELF

REHUNG SLIDING CLAPBOARD PANELS

DRAINAGE PAN

INTEGRAL WHEEL ON RAIL DETAIL

AXONOMETRIC DETAIL OF CURTAIN WALL MULLION JUNCTION WITH ANCHOR CLIP AND PARTIAL SLIDING CLAPBOARD PANEL SCALE: 3”=1’-0”

STEP 7: ‘SLIDING’ THE CLAPBOARD SCREEN The detail illustrated in Figure 8.24 seeks to realize the global goal of ‘temporal bridging’ at the scale of the detail. Shown at a scale of 3”=1’-0” the detail is meant to meet the aggressive performative demands of transforming the relatively porous bank barn into an environmentally conditioned space, while maintaining a delicate balance between old and new fabric. This shares much in common with the ‘Silo Diagram’s intention as a system for measuring this balance at the scale of the site plan.

FIGURE 8.24

‘old’ materials. In addition to facilitating the transformative ‘ritual of habitation’ process of unfolding the panels of the clapboard rainscreen, this system allows the intervention to embrace the process of continual replacement of its building components. In addition to the sliding of the clapboard skin at the scale of the panel, the entire system of the clapboard skin can also be allowed to shift along the building’s perimeter, as indicated in Figure 8.25.

In the relatively narrow zone between the bank barn’s existing timber-framed bent structure and the reinstallation of its aged clapboard siding, a crisply modern curtain wall system bridges between these two

This strategy allows for the displaced layer to perform as either a privacy screen, as indicated at the north-west corner, or as a mechanism for permanently revealing the modern intervention within, as indicated at the south-west corner of the axonometric drawing.

8.24 THE ‘TEMPORAL BRIDGING’ DISCUSSED IN FIGURE 8.23 IS FURTHER DEVELOPED AT THE SCALE OF THE DETAIL. SHELF EXTENSIONS INTEGRAL TO THE CURTAIN WALL FRAME ALLOW FOR THREE DISTINCT LAYERS OF THE NEW SKIN: THE INSULATED GLAZING UNIT LAYER; A FIXED CLAPBOARD RAINSCREEN LAYER; AND A SLIDING CLAPBOARD PANEL LAYER. THE EXISTING TIMBER BENT POSTS ARE RETAINED TO SUPPORT THE SYSTEM.

8.25 (OPPOSITE PAGE) STEP #7 OF THE INTERVENTION PROPOSAL - THE CONCEPT OF ‘SLIPPING LAYERS’ IS REALIZED AS A STRATEGY FOR PEELING AWAY THE CLAPBOARD SKIN FROM ITS CONFINEMENT TO THE BUILDING’S ORIGINAL PERIMETER TO BEGIN TO ACT AS A PRIVACY SCREEN OUTBOUND OF THE ORIGINAL FOOTPRINT, AND TO FULLY REVEAL A FULL BAY OF THE GLASS STRUCTURE AT THE SOUTH FACADE.

155

FOR VARIOUS CONDITIONS ‘SLIDING’ CLAPBOARD LAYER CAN PERFORM AS A PRIVACY SCREEN... ... OR AS A MECHANISM FOR REVEALING THE MODERN INTERVENTION WITHIN.

‘SLIDING’ THE CLAPBOARD SCREEN NOW THAT CLAPBOARD MEMBERS NO LONGER PERFORM THE FUNCTION OF THE STRUCTURE’S ENCLOSURE, THEY ARE FREE TO SHIFT AROUND THE BUILDING’S PERIMETER TO STRATEGICALLY REVEAL OR CONCEAL THE MODERN LAYER WITHIN. THIS WILL FURTHER FACILITATE A CONTINUATION OF THE CLAPBOARD SKIN’S INADVERTENT FUNCTION AS A FILTER OF NATURAL LIGHT.

156

FIGURE 8.26

STEP 8: UNRAVELING THE CLAPBOARD SKIN With the clapboard panel layer now fully freed of its previous function as building enclosure, step 8 of the intervention proposal investigates the potential creep of these clapboard members to act as a performative surface for accommodating the deck of the Natural Spring and Pool Complex.

integral bench as indicated in Figure 8.27. Likewise, at the eastern edge of the extended pool deck, a single clapboard member can be attenuated to serve as a guard rail. Responding to these ‘spilling’ forces, the stone foundation of the Bank Barn is also extended southward to act as a new retaining wall component for the developing addition.

This new surface can unravel itself to accommodate specialized functions, such as the new entry stair at the south-west corner of the Lower Barn Complex and an

As Figure 8.26 illustrates, at the entry to the new exterior stairway, which was carved out of the building envelope, the clapboard is pulled along the under carriage of the enclosed stair above, pointing the way to the ‘Chef’s Garden.’

8.26 A PERSPECTIVAL SECTION THROUGH THE EXTERIOR STAIRWAY ‘CARVED AWAY’ FROM THE ORIGINAL BARN FORM OF THE NEW ENVELOPE. THE CLAPBOARD IS PULLED ALONG THE UNDERCARRIAGE OF THE UPPER STAIR TO LINE THE PATHWAY TO THE LOWER LEVEL. 8.27 (OPPOSITE PAGE) STEP #8 OF THE INTERVENTION PROPOSAL - NOW FULLY FREED FROM ITS ORIGINAL ENVELOPE FUNCTION, THE CLAPBOARD

LAYER IS ALLOWED TO ‘UNRAVEL’ AS A PERFORMATIVE SURFACE TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEW NATURAL SPRING POOL COMPLEX PROGRAM. A NEW ENTRY STAIR AT THE NORTH-WEST CORNER IS INTRODUCED AND A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE RESPECTIVE INSIDE AND OUTSIDE SURFACES OF THE CLAPBOARD LAYER CONTINUALLY REGISTERS THROUGH THE MATERIAL ‘CODING’ OF ITS PAINTED OR UNPAINTED SURFACES.

157

PERFORMATIVE SURFACE ACCOMMODATES A NEW ENTRY STAIR AT THE SOUTH-WEST CORNER BY WAY OF ‘SLIPPING’ CLAPBOARD MEMBERS

PERFORMATIVE SURFACE ACCOMMODATES A BENCH SURFACE ALONG THE NORTH AND WEST EDGE OF THE ELEVATED DECK SURFACE

COVERED CEILING OF EXTERIOR PATHWAY IS LINED WITH ATTENUATED CLAPBOARD MEMBERS FORMING A COVERED AWNING ON THE LOWER LEVEL

UPPER ENTRANCE/EXIT TO CARVED-AWAY EXTERIOR PATHWAY DETAILED AS A ‘PEEL AWAY’ IN THE CLAPBOARD FACADE

GUARD RAIL SURFACE IS DETAILED AS AN ATTENUATED CLAPBOARD ELEMENT AS SURFACE BENDS TO ACCOMMODATE VARIOUS PROGRAMS EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR SURFACES OF THE MEMBRANE ARE INDICATED THROUGH COLOR

STONE FOUNDATION EXTENDED SOUTHWARD TO ENCLOSE ‘FOURTH GENERATION’ CONNECTING BARN.

CLAPBOARD SURFACE ‘DEMATERIALIZES’ INTO ITS SURROUNDING CONEXT AND LANDSCAPE AFTER ITS PERFORMATIVE FUNCTION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED.

UNRAVELING THE CLAPBOARD SKIN THE EXISTING COMPONENTS AND INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE EXISTING BANK BARN BEGIN TO DEMATERIALIZE AND ATTENUATE INTO AN ADAPTABILE SYSTEM FOR MORPHING THE CLAPBOARD PRIVACY SCREEN INTO THE DECK SURFACE OF THE NATURAL SPRING POOL COMPLEX AND THE EXTERIOR PATH FROM THE LOWER ‘CHEF’S GARDEN’ TO THE UPPER ‘BANK.’ THE SYSTEM ALSO ACCOMMODATES NEW PROGRAMMATIC FUNCTIONS SUCH AS A WESTERN STAIRWAY AND AN INTEGRAL BENCH.

158

FIGURE 8.28

STEP 9: VOIDING THE SURFACE OF THE POOL DECK Step 9 of the building intervention proposal investigates a further articulation of the performative surface of the Natural Spring Pool Complex through the process of voiding basins for the hot-tub and elongated pool. Following the same strategy deployed for the formation of the deck, the stair and bench details associated with these programs are created through the vertical undulations of individual clapboard members. The basic arrangement of the hot-tub basin aligns with the central two bays of the existing bank barn structure, mimicking the adjacent voided stairway, resulting in an 18’ long by 8’ wide basin, appropriately sized to feel either abundantly spacious or intimately scaled based on the locations of its occupants. The elongated pool to the south follows the same basic module. This arrangement has the added benefit of maintaining consistent circulation zones along the north and south

8.28 A RENDERING SHOWING THE ITERATIVE CULMINATION OF INTERVENTION PROPOSAL STEPS 1-9. THE CLAPBOARD COMPONENT OF THE ORIGINAL BARN STRUCTURE HAS BEEN ENCOURAGED TO TAKE ON A NEW FORM IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEWLY INTRODUCED PROGRAM OF THE NATURAL SPRING POOL COMPLEX. FULL-BAY PANELS OF THE CLAPBOARD RAINSCREEN CAN BE OPENED OR SHUT TO ACCOMMODATE

159

bays of the barn structure, both indoors and outdoors. Similarly, the extended stone retaining wall (see Figure 8.28 and 8.29) lining the eastern edge of both basins, also serves as an exterior pathway made possible by the position of the western curtain wall facade, which is recessed from its original location. This arrangement inverts the condition of the westernmost bent, which is situated outbound of the building new enclosure. The central bay of the bank barn, which previously housed a pair of sliding doors along its north facade, is shown with its full south clapboard panel slid to the open position. A portion of the floor at the ‘bank’ level has been eliminated, creating a triple-height space above the ‘Slow Food’ Cooking Class Facilities’ communal table. This results in a dramatic 12’-6” wide by 25’ high glazed wall, flooding the converted bank barn with natural light. From the location of the figure indicated indoors, most of the sub-programs distributed throughout the Lower Barn Complex can be observed.

A NEW ‘RITUAL OF HABITATION’ 8.29 (OPPOSITE PAGE) STEP #9 OF THE INTERVENTION PROPOSAL - VOIDS IN THE NEW POOL DECK SURFACE ACCOMMODATE THE HOT-TUB AND POOL BASINS.

HOT-TUB PROGRAM COINCIDES WITH THE CENTRAL TWO BAYS OF THE BENT-STRUCTURE AND ALIGNS WITH THE INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR STAIRS TO ALLOW FOR CONTINUOUS CIRCULATION ZONES FOR THE BAYS TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH.

THE SURFACE OF THE ELONGATED POOL PROGRAM IS ACCOMMODATED THROUGH FURTHER ARTICULATION OF THE CLAPBOARD SURFACE AND LINED TO THE EAST WITH AN EXTENSION OF THE STONE FOUNDATION WALL.

VOIDING THE SURFACE OF THE POOL DECK THE ATTENUATED CLAPBOARD SYSTEM CAN BE FURTHER ADAPTED TO ACCOMMODATE VOIDED BASINS FOR THE NEW HOT-TUB AND POOL PROGRAMS. WITH THE SOUTHWARD EXTENSION OF THE STONE RETAINING WALL - HISTORICALLY PRESENT WITH THE FIRST GENERATION OF THE ‘CONNECTING BARN’ (SEE FIG. 3.19) - THE ‘GHOST’ OF THE THREE PREVIOUS GENERATIONS OF THIS STRUCTURE ARE REINTERPRETED AS A MODERN ‘CONNECTIVE TISSUE’ ACCOMMODATING THE NEW POOL PROGRAM.

160

THE BOURGEONING ‘LOCAVORE’ AND ‘SLOW FOOD’ MOVEMENTS... (INTENTIONAL DUPILICATE OF FIGURE 6.16)

MEET THE LEISURE OF ZUMTHOR’S THERME VALS, EMBEDDED IN A PASTORAL SETTING (INTENTIONAL DUPILICATE OF FIGURE 6.17)

STEP 10: THE PROCESSION FROM LABOR TO LEISURE Step 10 of the intervention proposal seeks to expand the nine preceding architectural ‘moves’ in order to establish a cursory framework for developing the remainder of the Lower Barn Complex. Here the previously explored strategy of unraveling the clapboard layer to meet the specific demands of the new programs further articulated to create an angled lounging surface, which approximates the roofline of the previous three generations of ‘connecting barn’ structures. As previously indicated in Figure 8.26, the zone below this platform accommodates the pathway to and from the covered exterior stairway, so the southward extension of these clapboard members continues this performance as a covered awning.

only upon entering the stairway. The previously introduced extension of the stone retaining wall is here joined by an additional retaining wall, which lines the western boundary of the hot-tub and pool basins, essentially compressing each body of water between these two stone walls. Below the deck surface of the Natural Spring Pool Complex a series of four private changing rooms are introduced. The entry bays of these structures align with the spacing of crop rows in the chef’s garden. These pathways protrude through the two retaining walls and culminate with a series of four private stairways, which bring the guest to the pool deck, completing the ‘procession from labor to leisure.’

As previously discussed, careful attention is paid to the presence or absence of the red color as a signifier of either inside or outside surfaces of the clapboard layer. The privacy screen at the north-west corner of the barn has been reconfigured to act as a seamless continuation of the northern facade leaving the intervention to be discovered

The outermost retaining wall takes the form of an ‘L’ configuration, which reaches westward to retain the steep topography responsible for the failure of the two previous generations of the ‘Connecting Barn.’ The introduction of this robust component facilitates a sunken parking area which is embedded into the landscape. Using a strategy similar to the ‘ha ha’ deployed in traditional English plantations, this allows the ‘undesirable’ program to be essentially hidden from the north, preserving the lush vista from the upper Dairy Barn Complex and its surrounding landscape.

8.30 (OPPOSITE PAGE) STEP #10 OF THE INTERVENTION PROPOSAL BELOW THE SURFACE OF THE NATURAL SPRING POOL COMPLEX FOUR PRIVATE CHANGING ROOMS ARE INTRODUCED, SANDWICHED BETWEEN TWO STONE RETAINING WALLS. THE SEQUENCE THROUGH THESE ROOMS INIITIATES WITH WELL INTO THE ‘CHEF’S GARDEN’ FACILITATING A CLEAR PROCESSION FROM LABOR TO LEISURE. THE FAILURE OF THE THREE

PREVIOUS GENERATIONS OF THE ‘CONNECTING BARN’ DUE TO THE STEEP TOPOGRAPHICAL GRADE CHANGE OF THE SITE ARE SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED BY THE RETAINING WALL. THE EMBEDDED AREA TO THE WEST OF THE ADDITION CAN THEREFORE ACCOMMODATE THE ‘UGLY’ PROGRAM OFTHE PARKING LOT, WHICH IS HIDDEN FROM THE NORTH USING A STRATEGY SIMILAR TO THE ‘HA HA’ AS DEPLOYED IN ENGLISH PLANTATIONS.

Along the western edge of the pool deck, the integral bench detail is rhythmically perforated to allow for a series of entry points to the deck from below.

161

REHUNG CLAPBOARD MEMBERS SPILL AWAY FROM THE SOUTH FACADE TO ACCOMMODATE AN ANGLED LOUNGING SURFACE APPROXIMATING THE ROOF LINE OF THE PREVIOUS THREE GENERATIONS OF THE STRUCTURE

PORTIONS OF THE REINSTALLED CLAPBOARD SIDING ARE PANELIZED AND MOUNTED ON INTEGRAL SLIDING DOOR HARDWARE ALLOWING THE STRUCTURE TO ‘UNFOLD’

THE PATHWAYS THROUGH THE CHEF’S GARDEN ALIGN WITH THE ENTRY BAYS OF THE CHANGING ROOMS BELOW THE POOL

THE RETAINING WALL FACILITATES AN EMBEDDED PARKING AREA TO THE WEST OF THE POOL COMPLEX EACH PATHWAY THROUGH THE CHANGING ROOMS ALIGNS WITH AN INDIVIDUAL STAIRWAY LEADING TO THE NATURAL SPRING POOL COMPLEX

THE EXISTING STONE FOUNDATION IS CONTINUED AS A RETAINING WALL LINING THE POOLS

THE PROCESSION FROM LABOR TO LEISURE BELOW THE UNRAVELLED CLAPBOARD SURFACE OF THE NATURAL SPRING POOL COMPLEX FOUR PRIVATE CHANGING ROOMS ARE SITUATED BETWEEN TO EXTENDED STONE RETAINING WALLS WHICH SUPPORT THE WEIGHT OF THE ELEVATED POOL ABOVE AND FACILITATE AN EMBEDDED PARKING AREA TO THE WEST. THE BAYS OF THESE ROOMS ALIGN WITH THE ROWS OF ‘CHEF’S GARDEN’ TO UNDERSCORE THE RESORT GUEST’S PROCESSION FROM LABORING IN THE GARDEN TO REFLECTING ON THE EXPERIENCE BEFORE PROCEEDING UPWARD TO THE POOL COMPLEX THROUGH PRIVATE STAIRWAYS.

162

EXISTING DETERIORATING CLAPBOARD SIDING WITH GAPPED PLACEMENT PROHIBITS ENVIRONMENTAL-CONDITIONING OF THE SPACE

EXISTING 7.5” x 7.5” TIMBER POST TO REMAIN

FIGURE 8.31

DETAILING THE NEW CURTAIN WALL AND CLAPBOARD RAINSCREEN LAYERS In addition to the development of the previously discussed typical detail for ‘bridging’ between the existing components of the Bank Barn and the new curtain wall system, a number of specialized details were developed to fully explore the hidden potentials of the newly proposed system. In all cases particular attention was paid to developing thoroughly-researched solutions that placed equal emphasis on the economy and feasibility of fabricating and installing the system as well as maintaining a proportionate relationship between historic and modern fabric. Figure 8.31 above illustrates the existing clapboard skin corner condition, which relies upon a straightforward attachment of individual clapboard members directly to the 7 1/2” x 7 1/2” timber bent posts or the secondary lumber framing that spans between them. As previously

8.31: THE EXISTING CONDITION OF GAP-SPACED CLAPBOARD PANELS MOUNTED DIRECTLY TO TIMBER BENTS AND SECONDARY FRAMING OF THE SKIN STRUCTURE. THE BANK BARN HAS NEVER PREVIOUSLY NEEDED TO ACCOMMODATE HUMAN OCCUPATION SO THIS ‘BREATHABLE’ SKIN WAS SUFFICIENT FOR ITS INTENDED USES. THE NEWLY PROPOSED PROGRAM HOWEVER WILL DEMAND AN ENVELOPE CAPABLE OF PROVIDING

163

discussed, this condition prohibits environmental conditioning of the space, which until now has stood as a barrier to reprogramming the Lower Barn Complex. By contrast, Figure 8.32 to the right depicts the proposed corner detail condition. From the exterior this detail nearly matches the existing condition, with two notable exceptions. First, the depth of the curtain wall mullions and their custom anchor system necessitates an approximate 9” projection outbound of the existing building perimeter. While this is a sizable change, within the context of the 50’ length of the north and south facades the offset remains relatively minimal. Secondly, the resulting chase that this projection creates at the corners of the facade presents an opportunity for integrating a downspout and other services in the enclosed chase, as indicated. This strategy facilitates a purification of the barn’s original form and provides a subtle indication of the the modern intervention upon approach.

APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONING...

ALUM. ‘L’ ANGLE TO SUPPORT REINSTALLED CLAPBOARD MEMBERS OF RAINSCREEN PANELS ADJUSTABLE ANCHOR W/ 1” TOLERANCE ATTACHED TO WOOD POSTS VERTICALLY ADJUSTABLE CLIP TO CONNECT MULLIONS TO ANCHOR WEATHER SEAL OF JOINED MULLIONS

STRUCTURAL SILICONE GLAZED 1” INSULATED GLAZING UNITS

MALE SECTION OF A TYPICAL UNIT OF THE UNITIZED CURTAIN WALL SYSTEM

ORIGINAL CLAPBOARD SIDING IS REHUNG AS RAINSCREEN PANELS

ANGLED PLATE SUPPORTS INSULATION IN PLACE

INSULATION W/ TIE BACK TO ANGLED BACK PLATE

INTEGRAL 4” DOWNSPOUT IN CORNER CHASE

CORNER UNIT WITH RADIUSED 3/16” THK. FORMED ALUM. PANEL

EXISTING 7.5” x 7.5” TIMBER POST TO REMAIN

FIGURE 8.32

8.32: ... THEREFORE A NEW UNITIZED CURTAIN WALL SYSTEM IS PROPOSED TO PROTECT THE INTERIOR FROM AIR AND WATER INFILTRATION AND FACILITATE THE REINSTALLATION OF EXISTING OR NEW CLAPBOARD MEMBERS AS A RAINSCREEN. THOSE BUILDING COMPONENTS THAT HAVE NOT YET REACHED THEIR ‘EXPIRATION DATE’ ARE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE TO SERVE THEIR INTENDED PURPOSE, WHILE THE SKIN IS ALLOWED TO

ADAPT TO ACCOMMODATE ITS NEW PROGRAM. THE NEW SYSTEM ALLOWS FOR AN APPROXIMATE 6” DEEP ‘FLOATING’ ZONE AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE STRUCTURE TO FACILITATE THE INSTALLATION OF SERVICES AND A SHARED EXPOSURE TO NATURAL LIGHT FOR ALL THREE FLOORS. A CHASE AT THE BUILDING’S CORNERS ACCOMMODATES AN INTEGRAL DOWNSPOUT AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES.

164

A MODERN COUNTERPOINT TO MORTISE AND TENON JOINERY The relationship between traditional craftsmanship and modern industrial fabrication is often too simplistically dismissed as antithetical. In fact the design and execution of a building system like that which is here proposed demands precisely the same degree of ingenuity and invention as is demonstrated in the lovingly-crafted 19th century mortise and tenon joinery of the Bank Barn’s original timber-framed bent structure. Figure 8.33 depicts an exploded axonometric drawing of the eight custom aluminum extrusions that comprise a typical corner junction between four curtain wall units prior to the addition of the numerous secondary system

components. Each of these extrusions must be carefully milled for proper joinery. The previously discussed anchor detail must facilitate a fine-tuned alignment between all units, and the varied movements and forces continually present in all structures must be carefully accounted for in the weather and air seal tolerances of each mullion and stack joint. Figures 8.34 and 8.35 depict perspectival sections through the upper and lower stack joints of the curtain wall and rainscreen system in both the CLOSED and OPEN position of the sliding clapboard panels. All three facade layers are present including the 1” thick insulated glazing unit at the inner layer, the fixed clapboard panels in the middle layer, and the sliding clapboard panels in the outer layer.

7 1 8

2 3

9 4

5 6

LOWER SECTION OF TYPICAL LEFT HALF OF HORIZONTAL ALUM. MULLION

UPPER SECTION OF TYPICAL RIGHT HALF OF HORIZONTAL ALUM. MULLION

LOWER SECTION OF TYPICAL RIGHT HALF OF HORIZONTAL ALUM. MULLION

ASSEMBLED LOWER RIGHT CORNER OF TYP. UPPER FLOOR CURTAIN WALL UNIT

RIGHT SECTION OF TOP MEMBER OF UPPER STACK JOINT W/ SHELF

ASSEMBLED LOWER LEFT CORNER OF TYP. UPPER FLOOR CURTAIN WALL UNIT

RIGHT SECTION OF BOTTOM MEMBER OF UPPER STACK JOINT W/ SHELF

ASSEMBLED UPPER RIGHT CORNER OF TYP. MAIN FLOOR CURTAIN WALL UNIT

UPPER SECTION OF TYPICAL LEFT HALF OF HORIZONTAL ALUM. MULLION

ASSEMBLED UPPER LEFT CORNER OF TYP. MAIN FLOOR CURTAIN WALL UNIT

FIGURE 8.33

8.33: AN EXPLODED AXONOMETRIC DRAWING OF THE EIGHT UNIQUE ALUMINUM EXTRUSIONS THAT COMPRISE A TYPICAL JUNCTION BETWEEN FOUR UNITS OF THE PROPOSED CURTAIN WALL SYSTEM. NOTE THAT ALTHOUGH THESE COMPONENTS ARE ASSEMBLED FROM INDUSTRIAL MATERIALS AND FACTORY ASSEMBLED, THE CAREFUL CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO THE DETAILS OF THEIR ASSEMBLY REPRESENT NO LESS

165

INGENUITY AND INVENTION THAN THE ORIGINAL MORTISE AND TENON BENT FRAME JOINERY EXHIBITED. 8.34: (OPPOSITE PAGE) PERSPECTIVAL SECTIONS OF UPPER AND LOWER STACK JOINT DETAILS IN THE CLOSED-PANEL POSITION. 8.35: (OPPOSITE PAGE) PERSPECTIVAL SECTIONS OF UPPER AND LOWER STACK JOINT DETAILS IN THE OPEN-PANEL POSITION.

6 7 2 8

9 10

3 12 4

FIGURE 8.34 1/8”

0”

FIGURE 8.35

1” 1/2”

6”

STRUCTURAL SILICONE GLAZED 1” INSULATED GLAZING UNIT

WHEELS MOUNTED TO BOTTOM OF SLIDING CLAPBOARD PANELS

BOTTOM MEMBER OF THE UPPER STACK JOINT

TYP. FIXED CLAPBOARD RAINSCREEN PANELS IN MIDDLE LAYER POSITION

ORIGINAL 1” THICK CLAPBOARD MEMBERS REHUNG AS RAINSCREEN

TOP MEMBER OF UPPER STACK JOINT WITH INTEGRAL SHELF EXTENSION

UPPER WHEELS MOUNTED TO TOP OF SLIDING CLAPBOARD PANELS

INTEGRAL BOTTOM GUIDE RAIL INTEGRAL TO SHELF EXTENSION

ALUMINUM ‘L’ FRAME TO SUPPORT REHUNG CLAPBOARD SIDING

TOP RAIL SYSTEM MOUNTED TO UNDERSIDE OF UPPER SHELF

TOP MEMBER OF THE LOWER STACK JOINT

BOTTOM MEMBER OF LOWER STACK JOINT WITH INTEGRAL SHELF EXTENSION

166

CONCLUSION AN ETHOS FOR MOVING FORWARD

“In terms of settlement, we are only comforted when we see evidence of the necessity to occupy. So we are pleased by a settlement based on cultivation where, at least to our minds, we offer the economy of cultivation as an assuagement of the inevitable destructive result of habitation. We are also pleased by deference to the landscape, in the places we refuse to occupy, the places we save from ourselves. We vacation in those places, where we have either left the Earth alone or have engaged it in a way that is satisfying, where there are the fewest needless and senseless acts to represent our being. In our towns and in our isolated buildings we search for this deference and economy. We want civilization to be a good thing. We want our habitats and artifacts to become part of the place and to substantiate our wish to belong. We want our things, like those of the civilizations we admire, to form an allegiance with the land so strong that our existence is seen as an act of adoration, not an act of ruin. We are only happy where this occurs, where we have managed to make something to replace what we have taken. Always, we must start from that initial, crucial, puzzling recognition: that we are seeking justification through deference — and failing that, through economy and respectful use. That is why farms, barns and silos always seem appropriate and beautiful. That is why we like pig pens and deplore theme parks, because it is not necessary that buildings be beautiful, but it is necessary that they be necessary.”(9.1) W.G. Clark, “Replacement,” 1991

ENDNOTES RECONFIGURING MONTCALM FARM: A PROTOTYPE FOR A NEW CROSS-DISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO PRESERVING RURAL ARCHITECTURE

NOTES TO CHAPTER 1: THE THESIS CONCEPT 1.1

| Gruen, Victor, The Heart of Our Cities: The Urban Crisis, Diagnosis and Cure (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1964), p.342

1.2

| Gruen, Victor. "Tomorrow: A Prophecy." LIFE Magazine 47.26 (Dec. 28, 1959): 172

1.3

| England, Robert E. and David R. Morgan. Managing Urban America, 1979

1.4

| "Maryland-Virginia Milk Producers Association Top Butterfat Producing Herds of Loudoun County by Month." The Blue Ridge Herald [Purcellville, VA] 1910s.

1.5

| "Population Change and Components of Change, April 1, 2000 to April 1, 2010: Virginia Localities". Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service (University of Virginia). Retrieved September 8, 2011.

1.6+

| 2010 Census Interactive Population Search: VA - Loudoun County, US Census Bureau, retrieved December 7, 2011

1.7

| Deed of Sale from Executors of Harrison Osburn to Edgar H. Hirst by Public Auction, April 27, 1911, Loudoun County, Virginia, Deed Book 8N, page 480. Clerk of the Circuit Court Archives, Leesburg, VA.

1.8

| Clark, W. G., Richard Jensen, and Charles Menefee. "Replacement." Clark and Menefee. New York, NY: Princeton Architectural, 2000. 13. Print.Originally published in: Modulus 20. University of Virginia, 1991

NOTES TO CHAPTER 2: AN ANALYSIS OF THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF MONTCALM FARM 2.1

| Scheel, Eugene M. "Introduction." Loudoun Discovered: Communities, Corners & Crossroads. Vol. 4. Leesburg, VA: Friends of the Thomas Balch Library, 2002.

2.2

| Bentley, Ruth S. "From Indians to Speculators." Waterford Perspectives (1983). (The publication of the Waterford Foundation).

2.3

| Ibid.

2.4

| Scheel 2002. “Introduction.”

2.5

| Ibid.

2.6

| Ibid.

2.7

| Osburn, Penelope M. "The Oldest Towns Established in Loudoun." The Bulletin of the Loudoun County Historical Society 1 (1958): 51. Print.

2.8

| National Register of Historic Places, Ketoctin Baptist Church, Round Hill, Loudoun County, Virginia, DHR File No. 053-0308.

2.9

| Ibid.

2.10

| Loudoun County Historical Society. "Jefferson and the Ketoctin Baptist Association." The Bulletin of the Loudoun County Historical Society 1 (1958): 57-60. Print.

2.11

| Ibid.

2.12

| Scheel 2002. “Introduction.”

2.13

| Scheel, Eugene. "Yardley-Taylor Map - Attention to Detail Marks Rare Map of Loudoun County." The History of Loudoun County. LoudounHistory.org. Web. 15 May 2012.

2.14

| Taylor, Yardley. Memoir of Loudoun County. Leesburg, VA: Thomas Reynolds, 1853. p. 3. Print.(A booklet accompanying the Yardley Taylor Map of 1853)

2.15

| Scheel, "Yardley-Taylor...”

2.16+

| Northern Neck Grant (NN) B, p. ?, Awbrey, Francis grant of 4000 acres (Kittoctin Creek), 1730, Land Office Patents & Grants/Northern Neck Grants & Surveys, Library of Virginia.

2.17

| Taylor, 1853, p. 15

2.18

| Ibid. p.24

2.19

| Osburn 1958, p. 53

2.20

| Divine, John; Hall, Wilber; Osburn, Penelope et. al. “A County Divided: Loudoun County and the Civil War - A History and Guide.” By the Virginia Civil War Centennial Commission, County of Loudoun, Commonwealth of Virginia. Published by the Virginia Civil War Centennial Commission 1961-1965

2.21

| Scheel, "Yardley-Taylor...”

2.22

| History Matters. "The Cole Farm, Purcellville, VA." 2009. Web. 15 May 2012. <http://www.historymatters.net/pdf/ColeFarmBrochure09-03-09.pdf>.

2.23

| "W.S." "Our Potomac Army Correspondence: From the Advance. Goose Creek Meeting House, Loudoun County, VA" The New York Times [New York, NY] 1 Nov. 1862

2.24

| "J." "Our Potomac Army Correspondence: From the Advance. Purcellville, Loudoun County, VA" The New York Times [New York, NY] 1 Nov. 1862

2.25

| Scheel 2002. p.45

2.26

| Scheel 2002. p.47

2.27

| Nichols, Joseph V. "Tales of Old Virginia: The Turkey Drive." The Bulletin of the Loudoun County Historical Society 1 (1958): 42-43. Print.

2.28

| Ibid. p.43

2.29

| Scheel 2002. p.49-50

2.30

| Ibid. p.50

2.31

| Ibid. p.48

2.32

| Purcellville Preservation Association. "Historic Walking Tour, Purcellville, VA." 2008. Web. 15 May 2012. <http://www.ppa-va.org/uploads/WalkingTour.pdf>.

2.33

| Scheel 2002. p.48

2.34+

| History Matters. 2009, p.4-5

2.35

| Purcellville Preservation Association 2008, p.2

2.36

| Ibid. p.2

2.37

| Virginia Dept. of Agriculture and Immigration. Dairy and Food Division. Ten Reasons Why a Dairy Farm in Virginia Pays Better than in Any Other State. 1915. Print.

2.38

| Ibid. p.33

2.39

| Ibid. p.33,40

2.40+

| Marsh, Helen H. Purcellville, Virginia, 1852-1952. 1963. p.?

2.41

| "Maryland-Virginia Milk Producers Association Top Butterfat Producing Herds of Loudoun County by Month." The Blue Ridge Herald [Purcellville, VA] 1910s.

2.42

| History Matters. 2009, p.4

2.43

| Scheel 2002. “Introduction.”

2.44

| Plaster, Henry G. “Bluemont's Historic E.E. Lake Store,” p. 9 <http://www.bluemontva.org/historyarticle20080311_3.html>.

2.45

| McCray, Paul. "W&OD Railway Brochure of Loudoun Resorts and Boarding Houses." 2008. Web. 15 May 2012. Photos courtesy of Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority. <http://www.geocities.ws/purcellvillehistory/wodrailroadresortbook.htm>.

2.46

| Bentley. 1983

2.47

| McIlhany, Jr., H. M. "The McIlhany Family Excerpt." Some Virginia Families. 1903.

2.48

| Ibid.

2.49

| Ibid.

2.50

| Ibid.

2.51

| Ibid.

2.52

| Deed of Sale from James McIlhany, Sr. to Stephen Gregg, Sr., November 7, 1795, Loudoun County, Virginia, Deed Book W, page 217. Clerk of the Circuit Court Archives, Leesburg, VA.

2.53

| McIlhany 1903.

2.54

| Virginia Geological Survey, Records, 1834-1903. Box 1, Folder 3, Correspondence to William B. Rogers, 1838. Accession 24815, State Government Records Collection, The Library of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia.

2.55

| McIlhany 1903.

2.56

| Deed of Sale from Executors of Stephen Gregg, Sr. to James McIlhany, Jr., April 4, 1829, Loudoun County, Virginia, Deed Book 3R, page 424. Clerk of the Circuit Court Archives, Leesburg, VA.

2.57

| Deed of Sale from James McIlhany, Jr. to James McIlhany Kilgour, April 1, 1844, Loudoun County, Virginia, Deed Book 4U, page 344. Clerk of the Circuit Court Archives, Leesburg, VA.

2.58

| McIlhany 1903.

2.59

| Ibid.

2.60

| Deed of Sale from James McIlhany Kilgour to Harrison Osburn, March 22, 1858, Loudoun County, Virginia, Deed Book 5Q, page 286. Clerk of the Circuit Court Archives, Leesburg, VA.

2.61+

| Marsh, 1963. p.?

2.62

2.63

| Deed of Gift from Helen H. Marsh to John and David Marsh, August 22, 1972, Loudoun County, Virginia, Deed Book 556, page 135. Clerk of the Circuit Court Archives, Leesburg, VA.

2.64

| Virginia Dept. of Agriculture 1915. p.7

2.65

| Frost, Robert. “Mending Wall” (1914)

2.66

| Swanson, Drew Addison. “Fighting over Fencing: Agricultural Reform and Antebellum Efforts to Close the Virginia Open Range.” Virginia Magazine of History and Biography. Vol. 117. No. 2

2.67

| Ibid.

2.68

| Ibid.

2.69

| Scheel 2002. “Introduction.”

2.70

| Dimitri, Carolyn; Effland, Anne, et. al. “The 20th Century Transformation of U.S. Agriculture adn Farm Policy. Electronic Information Bulletin # 3, June 2005. <http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib3/eib3.htm>.

2.71

| Ibid.

NOTES TO CHAPTER 3: AN ANALYSIS OF THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF MONTCALM FARM 3.1

| Scheel, Eugene. "Dulles Airport Has Its Roots in Rural Black Community of Willard." The History of Loudoun County. LoudounHistory.org. Web. 15 May 2012.

3.2+

| 2010 Census Interactive Population Search: VA - Loudoun County, US Census Bureau, retrieved December 7, 2011

3.3

| City-Data.com. "Mountain View Elementary School in Purcellville, VA." Web. 15 May 2012. <http://www.city-data.com/school/mountain-view-elementary-school-va.html>.

3.4

| Ibid.

3.5

| Wikipedia. "Short Hill Mountain." Web. 15 May 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Hill_Mountainl>.

3.6

| Ekblaw, Karl John Theodore. Farm Structures. 1914.

3.7

3.8

| U.S. Census Slave Schedule, Loudoun County, 1860

3.9

| Richfield, Clare J. The Suburban Ranch House in Post-World War II America: A Site of Contrast in an Era of Unease, Uncertainty, and Instability. Thesis. Barnard College, Department of History, 2007

NOTES TO CHAPTER 5: THE INN AT MIDDLETON PLACE: A CASE STUDY 5.1

| 2010 Census Population. U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. 2012. Retrieved 2012-05-01.

5.2

| Duell, Charles, Barbara Doyle, Tracey Todd, and Lee Helmer. Middleton Place: A Phoenix Still Rising. [Charleston, S.C.]: Middleton Place Foundation, 2011. p. 24

5.3

| Ibid. p.22

5.4

| Ibid. p.23

5.5

| Ibid. p.13

5.6

| Yeadon, Richard, Editor. The Charleston Courier. Saturday March 7, 1840

5.7

| Duell 2011, p.17

5.8+

| Ibid.

5.9

| Middleton Place Foundation. “A Short History of the Middleton Place Foundation.” Web. 15 May 2012. <https://www.middletonplace.org/history/foundation.html>.

5.10

| Ibid.

5.11

| Ibid.

5.12

| Behre, Robert. "Inn at Middleton Place Has Proven Architect's Vision." The Post and Courier. Behre Column. 31 Oct. 2011. Web. 15 May 2012. <http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20111031/PC1602/310319932>

5.13

| Boles, Daralice. "A Place Apart." Progressive Architecture (May, 1986). Print. p.86

5.14

| Ibid.

5.15

| Dixon, John Morris. "The Art of Accommodation: Design of the Middleton Inn, in Charleston, South Carolina." Progressive Architecture (April 1, 1994). Print.

5.16

| Boles 1986, p.86

5.17

| Ibid. p.86

5.18+

| Dixon 1994, p.?

5.19

5.20

| Harmon, FAIA, Frank. "The Road Less Taken: Clark and Menefee's Inn at Middleton Place." Frank Harmon Architect PA. 13 Sept. 2011. Web. 15 May 2012.

NOTES TO CHAPTER 6: PROPOSING A NEW PROGRAM FOR MONTCALM FARM 6.1

| See for example: Chan, Selina Ching. “Temple-Building and Heritage in China.” Ethnology , Vol. 44, No. 1 (Winter, 2005), pp. 65-79 <http://www.jstor.org/stable/3773960>

6.2

| "The 2006 JBF Award Winners." Awards. James Beard Foundation, 2006. Web. 15 May 2012. <http://www.jamesbeard.org/awards>

6.3

| Pollan, Michael. The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals. New York: Penguin, 2006. p. 53

6.4

| Ibid. p.54

6.5

| Roberts, Allison. “Carlo Petrini: The Slow Food Tsar.” The Independent, December 2006

6.6

| Kennelly, Stacey. "Taking It Slow: Grassroots Movement Seeks to Appreciate Food in All Its Natural Healthful Aspects." Green Guide Sustainability. NewsReview.com, 25 Mar. 2010. Web. 15 May 2012.

6.7

| "Oxford Word of the Year: Locavore." OUPBlog. Oxford University Press, 12 Nov. 2007. Web. 15 May 2012. <http://blog.oup.com/2007/11/locavore/>.

6.8

| "The Polyface Story." Polyface: "The Farm of Many Faces" Web. 15 May 2012. <http://www.polyfacefarms.com/story/>.

6.9

| "Alice Waters, Executive Chef, Founder and Owner, Chez Panisse" Web. 15 May 2012. <http://www.chezpanisse.com/about/alice-waters/>.

6.10

| "Agritourism is Growing." Gateway Agritourism Association. Web. 15 May 2012. <http://gatewayagritourism.com/index.php>.

6.11

| "Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services." Agri-Tourism. Web. 15 May 2012. <http://www.vdacs.virginia.gov/news/c-tourism.shtml>.

6.12

| "About the Historic Hotels of America." Historic Hotels of America. National Trust for Historic Preservation. Web. 15 May 2012. <http://www.historichotels.org/about-historic-hotels/>.

6.13

| Ibid.

6.14

| Ibid.

6.15

| Margaret Halsey Gardiner, Executive Director, Merchant’s House Museum Museum (personal communication, April 4, 2012)

6.16

| Kira Garcia, Public Relations Manager, Lower East Side Tenement Museum (personal communication, April 4, 2012)

6.17

| Visit Loudoun. The Loudoun County Convention & Visitors Association. Web. 15 May 2012. <http://www.visitloudoun.org/>.

6.18

| "Lodging in the Purcellville Area." Patrick Henry College, 2012. Web. 15 May 2012. <https://www.phc.edu/events_lodging.php>.

6.19

| "History & Overview." The Boar's Head Inn, 2012. Web. 15 May 2012. <http://www.boarsheadinn.com/about/history-overview/history-overview.asp>.

6.20

| Ibid.

6.21

| "Awards & Accolades." The Inn at Little Washington, 2012. Web. 15 May 2012. <http://www.theinnatlittlewashington.com/washington-va-inn-awards.php>.

6.22

| Carman, Tim. "Dear Zagat." Washington City Paper, 18 Sept. 2009. Web. 15 May 2012. <http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/37797/dear-zagat-a-hearty-thanks-for-your-30-years-of>.

6.23

| "Saddles and Scenery: Touring Loudoun's Horse Country." Visit Loudoun. The Loudoun Convention & Visitors Association, 2012. Web. 15 May 2012. <http://www.visitloudoun.org/Plan-Your-Visit/Road-Trip-Itineraries/Featured-Itineraries/ Saddles-and-Scenery-Touring-Loudoun-s-Horse-Country>.

6.24

| Marion DuPont Scott Equine Medical Center. Web. 15 May 2012. <http://www.vetmed.vt.edu/emc/>.

6.25

| Purcellville Infrastructure Committee, Minutes of Regulr Meeting, Meeting of 22 December 2008. Town of Purcellville, VA. <http://www.purcellvilleva.com/Archive.aspx?ADID=785>.

6.26

| "Residential Renewable Energy Tax Credit." Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency. 20 Dec. 2011. Web. 15 May 2012. <http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=US37F>.

6.27

| Visit Loudoun. The Loudoun County Convention & Visitors Association. Web. 15 May 2012. <http://www.visitloudoun.org/>.

6.28

| Ibid.

6.29

| "San Francisco Convivia of SlowFood |." Slowfoodsanfrancisco.com. Web. 15 May 2012. <http://www.slowfoodsanfrancisco.com/sf_events.html>.

6.30

| "Land Use Assessment Program." Loudoun County Official Website. Loudoun County, VA. Web. 15 May 2012. <http://www.loudoun.gov/index.aspx?NID=652>.

NOTES TO CHAPTER 8: THE BUILDING INTERVENTION PROPOSAL 8.1

| O'Donnell, Patricia, and Robert Melnick. Landscape Architecture (1987): 136. (As per S'12 Colloquium Reader - Original Volume and Issue obscured)

8.2

| Brand, Stewart. How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They're Built. New York: Penguin, 1994

8.3

| "Panarchy Pace Layering (Stewart Brand)." Public Intelligence Blog. Web. 15 May 2012. <http://www.phibetaiota.net/2011/03/graphic-panarchy-pace-layering-stewart-brand/>.

8.4

| Glassie, Henry, Vernacular Architecture. Bloomington/Indianopolis: Indiana University Press, 2000: p.25

8.5

| Ngo, Dung, and Tom Kundig. Tom Kundig: Houses. New York: Princeton Architectural, 2006.

NOTES TO CONCLUSION: AN ETHOS FOR MOVING FORWARD 9.1

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY RECONFIGURING MONTCALM FARM: A PROTOTYPE FOR A NEW CROSS-DISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO PRESERVING RURAL ARCHITECTURE

"The 2006 JBF Award Winners." Awards. James Beard Foundation, 2006. Web. 15 May 2012. <http://www.jamesbeard.org/awards>. "About the Historic Hotels of America." Historic Hotels of America. National Trust for Historic Preservation. Web. 15 May 2012. <http://www.historichotels.org/about-historic-hotels/>. "Awards & Accolades." The Inn at Little Washington, 2012. Web. 15 May 2012. <http://www.theinnatlittlewashington.com/washington-va-inn-awards.php>. Behre, Robert. "Inn at Middleton Place Has Proven Architect's Vision." The Post and Courier. Behre Column. 31 Oct. 2011. Web. 15 May 2012. <http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20111031/PC1602/310319932>. Bentley, Ruth S. "From Indians to Speculators." Waterford Perspectives (1983). Print.The publication of the Waterford Foundation. Boyd, Julian P., L. H. Butterfield, Charles T. Cullen, John Catanzariti, and Barbara Oberg. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1950. Print. Brand, Stewart. How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They're Built. New York: Penguin, 1994. Print. Carman, Tim. "Dear Zagat." Washington City Paper, 18 Sept. 2009. Web. 15 May 2012. <http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/37797/dear-zagat-a-hearty-thanks-for-your-30-years-of>. Clark, W. G., Richard Jensen, and Charles Menefee. "Replacement." Clark and Menefee. New York, NY: Princeton Architectural, 2000. 13. Print.Originally published in: Modulus 20 University of Virginia, 1991 Dixon, John Morris. "The Art of Accommodation: Design of the Middleton Inn, in Charleston, South Carolina." Progressive Architecture (April 1,1994). Print. Duell, Charles, Barbara Doyle, Tracey Todd, and Lee Helmer. Middleton Place: A Phoenix Still Rising. [Charleston, S.C.]: Middleton Place Foundation, 2011. Print. Ekblaw, Karl John Theodore. Farm Structures. 1914. Print. Gruen, Victor. "Tomorrow: A Prophecy." LIFE Magazine 47.26 (Dec. 28, 1959): 172. Print. Harmon, FAIA, Frank. "The Road Less Taken: Clark and Menefee's Inn at Middleton Place." Frank Harmon Architect PA. 13 Sept. 2011. Web. 15 May 2012. "History & Overview." The Boar's Head Inn, 2012. Web. 15 May 2012. <http://www.boarsheadinn.com/about/history-overview/history-overview.asp>.

"J." "Our Potomac Army Correspondence: From the Advance." The New York Times [New York, NY] 1 Nov. 1862. Print. History Matters. "The Cole Farm, Purcellville, VA." 2009. Web. 15 May 2012. <http://www.historymatters.net/pdf/ColeFarmBrochure09-03-09.pdf>. Kennelly, Stacey. "Taking It Slow: Grassroots Movement Seeks to Appreciate Food in All Its Natural Healthful Aspects." Green Guide Sustainability. NewsReview.com, 25 Mar. 2010. Web. 15 May 2012. "Land Use Assessment Program." Loudoun County Official Website. Loudoun County, VA. Web. 15 May 2012. <http://www.loudoun.gov/index.aspx?NID=652>. "Lodging in the Purcellville Area." Patrick Henry College, 2012. Web. 15 May 2012. <https://www.phc.edu/events_lodging.php>. Marion DuPont Scott Equine Medical Center. Web. 15 May 2012. <http://www.vetmed.vt.edu/emc/>. Marsh, Helen H. Purcellville, Virginia, 1852-1952. 1963. Print. "Maryland-Virginia Milk Producers Association Top Butterfat Producing Herds of Loudoun County by Month." The Blue Ridge Herald [Purcellville, VA] 1910s. Print. Mayflower Ancestor. Margaret Henderson McIlhany Gravestone. 2010. Photograph. Leesburg, VA. Find A Grave. Web. 14 May 2012. <http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=54445816>. McIlhany, Jr., H. M. "The McIlhany Family Excerpt." Some Virginia Families. 1903. Print. Ngo, Dung, and Tom Kundig. Tom Kundig: Houses. New York: Princeton Architectural, 2006. Print. O'Donnell, Patricia, and Robert Melnick. Landscape Architecture (1987): 136. Print.(As per S'12 Colloquium Reader - Original Volume and Issue obscured) Osburn, Penelope M. "The Oldest Towns Established in Loudoun." The Bulletin of the Loudoun County Historical Society 1 (1958): 51. Print. "Oxford Word of the Year: Locavore." OUPBlog. Oxford University Press, 12 Nov. 2007. Web. 15 May 2012. <http://blog.oup.com/2007/11/locavore/>. "Panarchy Pace Layering (Stewart Brand)." Public Intelligence Blog. Web. 15 May 2012. <http://www.phibetaiota.net/2011/03/graphic-panarchy-pace-layering-stewart-brand/>. Pollan, Michael. The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals. New York: Penguin, 2006. Print. "The Polyface Story." Polyface: "The Farm of Many Faces" Web. 15 May 2012. <http://www.polyfacefarms.com/story/>. "Residential Renewable Energy Tax Credit." Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency. 20 Dec. 2011. Web. 15 May 2012. <http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=US37F>. Richfield, Clare J. The Suburban Ranch House in Post-World War II America: A Site of Contrast in an Era of Unease, Uncertainty, and Instability. Thesis. Barnard College, Department of History, 2007. Print. "Saddles and Scenery: Touring Loudoun's Horse Country." Visit Loudoun. The Loudoun Convention & Visitors Association, 2012. Web. 15 May 2012. <http://www.visitloudoun.org/Plan-Your-Visit/Road-Trip-Itineraries/Featured-Itineraries/ Saddles-and-Scenery-Touring-Loudoun-s-Horse-Country>.

"San Francisco Convivia of SlowFood." Slowfoodsanfrancisco.com. Web. 15 May 2012. <http://www.slowfoodsanfrancisco.com/sf_events.html>. Scheel, Eugene M. "Introduction." Loudoun Discovered: Communities, Corners & Crossroads. Vol. 4. Leesburg, VA: Friends of the Thomas Balch Library, 2002. Print. Scheel, Eugene. "Yardley-Taylor Map - Attention to Detail Marks Rare Map of Loudoun County." The History of Loudoun County. LoudounHistory.org. Web. 15 May 2012. Taylor, Yardley. Memoir of Loudoun County. Leesburg, VA: Thomas Reynolds, 1853. Print.(A booklet accompanying the Yardley Taylor Map of 1853) "Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services." Agri-Tourism. Web. 15 May 2012. <http://www.vdacs.virginia.gov/news/c-tourism.shtml>. Virginia Dept. of Agriculture and Immigration. Dairy and Food Division. Ten Reasons Why a Dairy Farm in Virginia Pays Better than in Any Other State. 1915. Print. Visit Loudoun. The Loudoun County Convention & Visitors Association. Web. 15 May 2012. <http://www.visitloudoun.org/>. White, Mason, and Maya Przybylski. Bracket [On Farming]. Barcelona: Actar, 2010. Print.