[Re]Purposing Preservation: A Transformational Theory

[Re] PURPOSING PRESERVATION A TRANSFORMATIONAL THEORY

[Re]PURPOSING PRESERVATION A TRANSFORMATIONAL THEORY

PADEN L. CHAMBERS

MASTERS THESIS HAMMONS SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE DRURY UNIVERSITY KAREN CORDES SPENCE FALL 2013

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

7

BACKGROUND

8

PRECIOUS OBJECTS THE COLONIAL EXPERIENCE DOCUMENTATION WITH HERITAGE SO RICH MODERN TRENDS THE MODERN CULT OF BUILDINGS JEFFERSON’S TRANSFORMATION

CASE STUDIES

38

HIGGINS HALL MILL CITY MUSEUM UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA

RESEARCH SUMMARY

74

PROJECT FRAMEWORK

76

ENDNOTES

84

IMAGE CITATIONS

87

BIBLIOGRAPHY

89

6

[Re] PURPOSING PRESERVATION

You walk into this room at your own risk, because it leads to the future, not a future that will be but one that might be. This is not a new world, it is simply an extension of what began in the old one. It has patterned itself after every dictator who has ever planted the ripping imprint of a boot on the pages of history since the beginning of time. It has refinements, technological advances, and a more sophisticated approach to the destruction of human freedom. But like every one of the super-states that preceded it, it has one iron rule: logic is an enemy and truth is a menace.

-Rod Serling The Twilight Zone The Obsolete Man -1961

7

INTRODUCTION Beginning in the hands of the private citizen and evolving to a bureaucratic system of federal and state organizations, architectural preservation in the United States has established itself as a significant aspect of our cultural heritage in the built form that must be honored or remembered. Our nation was unsure of its fate in its early years, but has now evolved into an innovative world power; with such a shift, the cultural values of the United States have also evolved concurrently with the transformation of our country. The values behind architectural preservation have also changed over time, expressing multiple facets in the retention of architectural works of varying time periods. These contemporary values can be found analytically in the building as a physical object, and experientially in its presence and symbolic meaning, but our countries theory towards architectural preservation has failed to acknowledge the qualities of transformation.

In order to establish a contemporary theory for architectural preservation, the ideas and values of a buildings that have continued to persist over its existence should be analyzed in order to provide a more in depth understanding of a buildings significance. Though the physical building may prove to be invaluable for preservation, the ideas behind it can be repurposed; bringing our architectural heritage into being.

8

[Re] PURPOSING PRESERVATION

BACKGROUND

Nobody wants to remember Mount Vernon as a half kept rural slum. At least the grass was mowed, or winter gave the illusion of a lawn.

The government didn’t want it then, the decay increased. When women in hoop skirts, were generally flattered and despised as the weaker sex, they showed their strength: Washington’s home is ours, because they made it theirs.

-George Zabriskie Images of Tradition With Heritage So Rich

Due to the young age of our country and with concerns of the formation of a new nation, in its beginning very little was done towards the preservation of historic sites and architectural works. If an act of preservation did take place, it was in the hands of the private citizen that valued architecture as noteworthy aspect of our young heritage. The first preservation initiative in the United States took place at Mt. Vernon, the home of George Washington, that established founding ideals and principals of what classifies a site or structure as being worthy of preservation.

9

Fig 1.1 - Mt. Vernon pre-restoration 1858

After Washington’s death in 1799, his estate along the Potomac River began to decay and weather with age as the decades passed. This outraged Ann Pamela Cunningham of South Carolina, who upon hearing of the state of Washington’s home in 1853 (fig. 1.1), and with concerns that the Civil War may threaten the nation’s patriotic heritage, began a quest to preserve the memory and legacy of the nation’s first president by raising funds for its restoration.1 The following year the Mount Vernon Ladies Association (MVLA) was established and through their social and political connections, were able to raise funds to purchase the home in 1858 owning and preserving the site to this day. It was the decision of the MVLA to restore the estate to its appearance upon the death of Washington in 1799.

The specificity of this date is explained through Cunningham’s retirement note from the MVLA requesting that “no irreverent hand change it; no vandal hands desecrate it with the fingers of progress. Those who go to the home in which he [Washington] lived and died wish to see in what he lived and died.”2 To Cunningham, Mt. Vernon instilled a sense of patriotism that could only be understood through the preservation of a structure designed by Washington. It was Cunningham’s association of a historical figure or event to a work of architecture that became a motive of the preservation movement in the United States.

10

[Re] PURPOSING PRESERVATION

PRECIOUS OBJECTS

Following the turn of the century, Americans were not just concerned with preserving aspects of our heritage associated with prominent figures and events but also of the common man; those responsible for the nations transformation and prosperity. Even their dwellings were viewed as characteristics of their culture that needed to be celebrated and saved for future generations. Founded in 1910 by Charles Sumner Appleton, the Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities, (SPNEA) made preserving domestic architecture of colonial America its highest priority, stating in its first bulletin that, “our New England antiquities are fast disappearing because no society has made their preservation its exclusive object.” 3 Appleton felt the most worthy objects for preservation were homes of the 17th, 18th and early 19th centuries believing that a minimal amount of human intervention both in the restoration and continued use of the home was essential to its preservation (fig.1.2).

Appleton’s manifesto created the modern day house museum; a preserved home lacking residents and functioning as a museum, both its architecture and personal effects acting as the exhibit. SPNEA “collected” many homes throughout New England over the past century and began allowing prospective residents to move into some of their private acquisitions in the 1980’s; though restrictions were enforced.4 Appleton’s intentions of preserving cultural identity were overshadowed by the collecting of domestic architecture as antiquities and artifacts resulting in the “freezing” of homes in history, leaving them untouched by the hands of man that created them (fig.

1.3). The actions of SPENA established the analytical method of preservation that views works of architecture as historic objects that shall remain timeless.

11

Fig 1.2 - William Boardman house 1687

Fig. 1.3 - Pitts Head Tavern 1726

Everyone wants to save colonial houses: truck them long distances, put them in

preserves. They serve everyman’s nostalgia for a life he really would not care to live.

-Jay Zabriskie Images of Tradition With Heritage So Rich

12

[Re] PURPOSING PRESERVATION

THE COLONIAL EXPERIENCE The analytical method of preservation continued, though the scale and supposed accuracy were refined. Following the restoration of his church in Williamsburg Virginia in 1906, parish priest Dr. W. A. R. Goodwin felt responsible for the resurrection of Williamsburg’s value as a historical icon of forgotten Americana.

Home to the College of William and Mary founded in 1693 and capitol of the Virginia Colony in 1699,5 the town soon fell from prominence allowing Williamsburg to transform into a small town typical of the tidewater region. Williamsburg’s character relied on many historic structures that were intact from earlier periods, though in numerous states of decay.

If you give up your land, it will no longer be your city. Will you feel the same pride in it that you now feel as you walk across the Green’s or down the broad streets? . . . We will reap dollars, but will we own our town? Will you not be in a position of a butterfly pinned to a card in a glass cabinet, or like a mummy unearthed in the tomb of Tutankhamen?

-Major Samuel Freeman Williamsburg City Council Meeting June 12, 1928

13

Goodwin saw economic progress as the leading cause of architectural deterioration and in 1923 proposed restoring the town to its 1770 appearance to philanthropist John D. Rockefeller Jr. who later put $40 million dollars towards the 301 acre site encompassing the entire town.6 Architects and historians researched endlessly to make the recreated buildings and site as accurate as possible, but in many cases archival documentation was not available and work turned from accuracy to vague assumptions and justifications (fig. 1.4).

Fig. 1.4 - The Family Tree of Williamsburg Landscape architecture design influences -1938 Drawn by Arthur Shurcliff

14

[Re] PURPOSING PRESERVATION

Restoring the town to an earlier date meant tearing down existing structures that were then replaced with aged replicas, as seen in the saga of Williamsburg High School built in 1921, demolished in 1930 and replaced by an inaccurate replica of the Governor’s Palace and Palace Green (fig. 1.5-1.8). Of the towns supposed 440 authentic buildings only 88 are authentic and original to the towns fabric.

Described as a living history museum, Williamsburg has become a cultural icon of American colonial life and though its architecture appears historically accurate, it fails to represent taboo aspects of the period such as poverty and slavery.7 Though Goodwin’s intentions were to bring his towns cultural value back through its architecture, one must question whether the projects motto of “that the future may learn from the past,” was successful or just restricted progress. Williamsburg established the theory that the transformation and modernization of architecture destroys history and cultural heritage and cannot exist alongside preserved buildings.

Fig. 1.5 - 1.8 (from top right to bottom) 1.5 - Goodwin, Rockefellar Jr., Trimble and Shurcliff (Williamsburg High School at left) 1.6 - Williamsburg High School built in 1921 1.7 - Unoccupied and demolished in 1930 1.8 - Replaced by the Palace Green and Governor’s Palace

15

16

[Re] PURPOSING PRESERVATION

17

DOCUMENTATION

With the rapid expansion of the United States in the late 1800’s evidence of the many natural landscapes worthy of protection were at the utmost concern of the federal government in matters of preservation. In 1872 the first national park was created at Yellowstone with the help of John Muir,8 who sought to protect its natural beauty from the destruction of progress.

With the help of such figures as Theodore Roosevelt, more tracts of land were secured as national parks and with the passage of the Antiquities Act in 1906, legislation was created for the protection of federally owned historic sites of Native American origin and Civil War battlefields.9

Created in 1916, the National Park Service was established as a branch of the Department of the Interior and later becoming the government’s de facto expert in matters related to preservation of both architecture and landscapes. During the Great Depression it was the National Park Service along with the Works Progress Administration (WPA) and Civilian Conservation Corp (CCC) that employed many out of work architects and historians in the recording of buildings and sites of historic significance (fig. 1.9-1.11), known as the Historic American Building Survey (HABS), the organization exists today as the countries archive of documented historic architecture.10 The turnover of all federally owned architectural and archeological sites to the National Park Service in 1935 allowed for Americans to have public access to the sites but no say in their orientation and preservation strategies. 11 Fig. 1.9 - 1.11 (from top left to bottom) HABS documentation of the Kentucky Institute for the Blind 1.9 - South front elevation 1.10 - Detail photo of portico column base 1.11 - Rear court from northeast

18

[Re] PURPOSING PRESERVATION

WITH HERITAGE SO RICH Matters of preservation at the onset and continuation of World War II were stalled, aside from the creation of the National Trust for Historic Preservation in 1949; the nonprofit organization tasked with educating and encouraging the conservation of historic buildings. Following years of preserving natural resources out of necessity, citizens celebrated the new technologies offered to them following the war, including architecture and construction techniques that signified new aspirations for the future, over history and tradition.12 Architecture as an aspect of culture heritage was threatened as Americans fled from cities invading suburbs of new homes and businesses, leaving established urban buildings vacant. To rid the cities of the blight, the solution was urban renewal; or the removal of the derelict structures replaced by infrastructure needed by modern society. Many significant structures were demolished during this period including New York Cities Pennsylvania Station, replaced by Madison Square Garden in 1961 at the protest of many New Yorkers (fig 1.12).13 This practice became the standard as cities began erasing the eclectic architectural fabric of their urban cores that was standing in the face of progress.

One entered the city like a god; one scuttles in now like a rat.

-Vincent Scully The Destruction of Pennsylvania Station

19

Fig. 1.12 - Protesters in front of Penn Station August 2, 1962

20

[Re] PURPOSING PRESERVATION

Seeing the destruction of the countries architectural heritage, President Lyndon Johnson commissioned the Special Committee on Historic Preservation to study how preservation could fit into his “great society”. The committee later published their findings in a report entitled With Heritage So Rich, that recommended national standards for the rebirth of architectural preservation through a set mechanized objectives and steps.14

WITH HERITAGE SO RICH (EXCERPT) 1) COMPILATION OF A COMPREHENSIVE HERITAGE INVENTORY 2) CREATION OF A MECHANISM TO PROTECT HISTORIC PROPERTIESFROM DAMAGE BY FEDERAL ACTION

3) DEVELOPMENT OF A SYSTEM OF FINANCIAL INCENTIVES TO

ENCOURAGE PRESERVATION OF PRIVATELY OWNED SITES

4) ESTABLISHMENT OF AN INDEPENDENT ADVISORY BODY TO

COORDINATE ACTIONS AFFECTING HISTORIC PRESERVATION ISSUES TAKEN BY A FEDERAL AGENCY

The findings were used to create the 1966 Historic Preservation Act which standardized preservation efforts at federal state and local level. At the federal level the National Register of Historic Places was formed to “coordinate and support public and private efforts to list cultural resources worthy of preservation.” An independent body known as the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation was also created out of the act that advised and guided members of Congress and the President on matters related to architecture preservation.15 The legislation also saw the creation of state preservation organizations charged with further documentation and preservation efforts at a state and local level.

21

The final step was not achieved until 1976 when the Tax Reform Act was passed that allowed for tax incentives to citizens that rehabilitated historic buildings, though based on the quality of rehabilitation at the discretion of the federal government.

Aside from the continued documentation of buildings through the (HAER) Historic American Engineering Record and (HALS) Historic American Landscape Survey, little has been done towards a modern approach for architectural preservation aside from amending certain terms and phrases from the act in 2006 and through the creation of grant programs (fig. 1.13) such as Save America’s Treasures and Preserve America.16

Fig. 1.13 - Modern Views Demian Repucci -2010

22

[Re] PURPOSING PRESERVATION

MODERN TRENDS The current system is approaching half a century old and has dictated the ways that historic buildings should be perceived, and lacking a modern vision, fails to address the changing identity and value of historic buildings with the modernization and transformation of our country.

The current course of architectural preservation exemplifies how the ramifications of a standardized method can lead to a stale approach in the documentation and classification based on aesthetics, events, or experiences establishing a false sense of significance. The mechanized nature of this system has forced a delineation to a specific degrees of accuracy of the original structures aesthetics and use, creating separate definitions of preservation based on accuracy. In the words of William J. Murtaugh former director of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, if one is to talk about preservation, it is essential that “the distinct meanings of these terms must be grasped in order to communicate preservation concerns properly and authoritatively.” The proper definitions as mentioned

by Murtaugh can be found in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Preservation including preservation, rehabilitation, restoration and reconstruction:17

Preservation is a double edged sword. It gets too broad, and every lady in tennis shoes feels that everything should be preserved. There is no judgment.

-Philip Johnson Philip Johnson Sounds Off Sept/Oct 1986

23

SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION (EXCERPT) PRESERVATION:

the act or process of applying measures necesary to sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of a historic property.

REHABILITATION:

the act or process of making possible compatible use for a property through repair, altherations and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural or architectural values.

RESTORATION:

the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features and character of a property as it appeared of a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period.

RECONSTRUCTION:

the act or process of depticing, by means of new construction, the form, features, and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, building, structure or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic location.

These standards look to maintain or freeze a given event, period or style in a buildings history that discourages modern alterations and additions. According to this method, architecture is timeless and buildings deemed culturally significant for preservation shall stand as unchanged as the day they were constructed.

24

[Re] PURPOSING PRESERVATION

The National Register of Historic Places is the federal government’s record of buildings and sites that have been deemed historic and therefore be preserved. In order for a building to be valuable valuable or significant, it must fit one of four criteria in order to be considered for evaluation:18

NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.

B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.

C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or that possess high artists values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.

D. That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

E. Any building can be nominated for review by the National Register but if does not meet the criteria it is labeled as a consideration; as if less worthy than those associated with an event or style. Being noted on the National Register is nothing but an honorary recognition, which does not protect the building or site from adaptation or demolition. In many ways this honor has become overused and reduced to nothing more than a plaque (fig. 1.14) and though the honor may bring prestige and value to a building, the preservation, rehabilitation, restoration or reconstruction must follow guidelines set forth in The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties if to receive aide.

25

The document acts as a form of guidance for the “protection� of historic structures and covers a wide range of topics, such as an appropriate replacement material based on the original, through a recommended and not recommended scale. Though the intent of the instructions are to protect the historic integrity of a building, in many cases they act as limitations, reducing opportunities for the buildings improvement and redevelopment.

The preservation movement in the United States has established a technical method for how to properly determine a buildings significance for preservation based solely on analytical and experiential criteria that generalizes American history. A buildings transformation over time is ignored in the process of preservation, instead, hypothesizing a time in history that coincides with the buildings analytical and experiential qualities.

By analyzing the transformational values of a building, a better understanding of its significance is determined that can be used in the preservation process.

Fig. 1.14 -

CUMULATIVE LISTINGS OF THE

Cumulative graph of the National Register

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

Courtesy of the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation

of Historic Places honorees

88054 76002

BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

63951

69544

57608 44956 32214 18221

1204 1968

7116 1973

1978

1983

1988

1993

1998

2003

2009

2013

26

[Re] PURPOSING PRESERVATION

As described by John E. Hancock the overuse of the analytical method, “reveals the 20th century’s professional orthodoxy that regards the plan, spatial organization and abstract formal composition as the most important content of architectural works.”19 Though experiential criteria focus’ on phenomenology and the articulation of the original buildings materiality and symbolism, it along with the analytical methods focus’ on the preservation of a building as a timeless object.

These methods are used to provide an accurate representation of the structure, but preserving a building in a finished and pure state stops the buildings natural tendency to transform over its lifetime.20 The works of the past always influence us, whether or not we care to admit it, or to structure an understanding of how that influence occurs. The past is not just that which we know, it is that which we use, in a variety of ways, in making new work . . .

-John E. Hancock Between History and Tradition: Notes Toward a Theory of Precedent

Professor Edward Hollis agrees with this statement saying, “the very discourse of architecture is a discourse on perfection, a word which derives from the Latin for finished.”21 In his book, The Secret Lives of Buildings, Hollis uses American artist Thomas Cole’s The Architects Dream (fig. 1.15) to associate the current mind set of architectural preservation as being timeless. Standing together in a single landscape Egyptian, Greek and Roman structures appear as finished, perfect and unchanged by time.

The title infers that this concept is that of fantasy or a dream.

27

Fig. 1.15 - The Architect’s Dream Thomas Cole - 1840

Though buildings of the ancient world were built as monuments to test the ages of time, they survive today only as ruins, outliving the cultures that created them. The same could be said for contemporary buildings that outlive their original intended function as described by Hollis:22 Buildings long outlive the purpose for which they were built, the technologies by which they were constructed and the aesthetics that determined their form; they suffer numberless subtraction’s, additions, divisions and multiplications and soon enough their form and function have little to do with one another.

Architectural preservationist in the United States see transformation as compromising the integrity of a structures heritage, but in reality it is the reason for the eclectic and diverse assortment of architectural works representing changes in our culture throughout history. In order to use preservation as a design tool honoring our cultural heritage, it must repurpose the values behind a buildings transformation either in the built form or as concept, preserving the ideas while repurposing its use.

28

[Re] PURPOSING PRESERVATION

THE MODERN CULT OF BUILDINGS It is evident that Americans still values the preservation of certain buildings as part of our cultural heritage. What is not certain is whether the buildings analytical and experiential qualities are valued more than its transformational qualities. The question remains what is valued more, the building as an object or the ideas and theory behind its conception and evolution? A possible answer for assessing value can be found in The Modern Cult of Monuments: Its Essence and Its Development published in 1903 by Austrian art historian Alois Riegl. In his essay Riegl discusses intentional and unintentional monuments and the six values associated with their preservation being; deliberate commemorative, artistic, age, historical, use and newness.

According to Riegl intentional monuments are those that have been erected for a specific purpose in commemorating a historic event or figure that shall remain timeless. Known as having Deliberate Commemorative Value, these monuments or memorials, of a particular, person, event or task, must always remain in a state of pristine condition resisting change.

Contrasting this are unintentional monuments or works that have cultural value though not intended to be timeless memorials or objects. Riegl’s use of the term “cult” refers to the common misconception of describing unintentional monuments as intentional, creating a cult following supporting the preservation of all works regardless of significance.

In many cases the United States has become a follower of Riegl’s “cult” in our current understanding and practices of preservation, where all structures regardless of significance are classified as being deliberate monuments. In order to understand the significance that unintentional monuments have on cultural heritage, Riegl interprets five values that can be used to analysis the building being artistic, age, historical, use and newness.

These values can vary from one monument to the next both contrasting and coexisting.23

29

Artistic Value refers to the monument as being appreciated for its aesthetic and material qualities relating to a particular craft or style of an artist or architect. In order to appreciate its pureness as a work of art, the monument must be kept in a pristine condition, retaining its aesthetic qualities regardless of age.24

Age Value looks to the relationship between the monument and time, in which after its completion will continue to decay; the ruins eventually returning to the earth. Age is appreciated as a measurement of time and by preserving a monument, age is essentially being falsified.25

Historical Value is related to a specific event in time that is somehow represented through the physical monument. In order to keep the monument associated with the event in history, it must be preserved in the condition at the time of the event so that it is easily relatable.26

Use Value questions the original application as well as the modern function of the monument in society. A monument may appear to be outdated and of no use if it does not have a modern purpose.27

Newness Value describe the relationship of the monument as a contributing factor to the modern day. The appreciation of the monument is through its ability to provide a function that would be unsurpassed by something outdated.28

30

[Re] PURPOSING PRESERVATION

By applying Riegl’s theory to an unintentional monument, its cultural significance can be determined through an analysis of its values and lead to an approach supporting preservation or intervention. The Prentice Women’s Hospital in Chicago Illinois would benefit from an analysis using Riegl’s values, since the future of the buildings existence is being highly contested for either preservation or demolition Completed in 1974 (fig 1.16), Bertrand Goldberg’s innovative cloverleaf hospital attempted to provide a better experience in healthcare through its architecture.

Fig. 1.16 - Bertrand Goldberg in front of Prentice Women’s Hospital 1969-1974

31

Designed with the patient in mind, rooms were arranged around nurse stations or cores (fig. 1.17), the open floor plan providing better assistance and interaction. The arrangement of the cores or hubs formed an undulating exterior façade and with the entire form being elevated by concrete cantilevers, it offered striking views and glimpses of the city.29 This progressive design used computers in order to calculate the structural support of its cantilevered arches; a revolutionary method at the time.

Fig. 1.17 - Floor plan nodes of Prentice Women’s Hospital

Imaginative and bold hospital planning could lead to a higher standard of patient care.

-Bertrand Goldberg 11 Most Endangered Places National Trust for Historic Preservation

32

[Re] PURPOSING PRESERVATION

Following three decades of use the hospital relocated in 2007 and ownership was passed to Northwestern University who in 2011 announced plans to demolish the building, replacing it with a new research facility. A debate has begun between university administration who are viewed as not respecting the work of ingenious designer and local architectural preservationists who are seen as standing in the path of progress.

The universities main argument is that it is impossible to reuse a building as a modern medical training center that was designed four decades ago, referring to its age value, specifically for clinical care, or its use value. The buildings striking concrete curves and organic quality give it artistic value but other designs by Goldberg in the Chicago area offer a similar palette of fusing organic architecture and structure. Technologically advanced for the 1970’s, the use of computers in the buildings engineering analysis is evidence of its historical value, though proving to be outdated, due to the modern reliance on computers in many aspects of design. Though Northwestern University would agree that the structure is not a 21st century healthcare facility, referring to its newness value, Goldsberg’s nodal floor plan proved to be a breakthrough in hospital design in the 1970’s, allowing for patients to have better access to doctors and nurses, leading to a higher standard of care.30 Goldberg’s advocacy and philosophy became the standard in healthcare design, which can be found in many modern works such as the Rush University Medical Center in Chicago Illinois. Designed by Chicago based Perkins + Will the butterfly winged patient tower has a striking familiarity to Prentice’s nodal wings (fig. 1.18). Further investigation of the plan shows a similar approach where nurses are placed around the patients they serve. The Rush design used strategies found in Prentice that provided a standard for better health care. These ideas and strategies were preserved and re-appropriated towards the design of a 21st century medical center.

33

Fig.1.18 - Rush University Medical Center floor plan 2008-2012

Though originally written specifically for monuments, Riegl’s theory offer a more critical analysis and review of the transformational values of a building. In the case of the Prentice Women’s Hospital, though the physical building cannot be preserved, the ideas behind its conception and design can be repurposed in a modern application. The preservation of an idea and its repurposement in a modern design can be found in many works of architecture throughout history, but one of the first American applications of this concept can be found in the works of Thomas Jefferson, specifically his home at Monticello that was derived from classical precedents and transformed over time to suit his needs.

34

[Re] PURPOSING PRESERVATION

JEFFERSON’S TRANSFORMATION In many ways Thomas Jefferson’s home at Monticello was his laboratory that allowed him to analyze and interpret precedents and apply them in the built form as he saw fit. Much of his knowledge of architecture was gathered from the books and theories of Palladio and patterned templates by Morris, but also from his extensive travels abroad as minister to France, seeing first-hand the modernization of societies in the built form.

Jefferson’s design for Monticello was concurrently evolving just as the new nation he helped found matured.

Beginning in 1768 and finished 1823, Monticello went through three separate iterations over its half a century lifetime (fig. 1.19).31 In his mind, Jefferson saw the opportunity for improvement and continually altered his home both aesthetically and programmatically. Beginning construction in 1768 as a bachelor, Jefferson’s small yet suitable design, many of its elements derived from patterned books, reflected his simple lifestyle and knowledge of architecture. Following his marriage in 1722 his new family required more space and he expanded the home, continuing in a constant state of construction until his wife’s untimely death in 1782 and his appointment as minister to France.32 Jefferson’s experiences aboard allowed for new methods in architecture to be introduced to him from the ancient Maison Carree to the neoclassical Hotel de Salm. He saw the resurgence of classical architecture of the Greek and Roman movements as a progressive mind set that should be used in the built form of his new nation striving for the future.33

Architecture is my delight, and putting up, and pulling down, one of my favorite amusements.

-Thomas Jefferson Sketches of the Life, Writings, and Opinions of Thomas Jefferson

35

1768

1789

1823

Fig. 1.19 - The evolution of Monticello

Upon his return in 1789 his status as a statesmen increased, requiring more space for entertaining and study resulting in the transformation of Monticello into an American show place inspired by classical works repurposed in their form and function. Following his retirement from public office in 1809 after serving as Vice-President and President, Jefferson continued to alter and manipulate his design through the addition of dependencies separating served and serviced spaces and with the experimentation of modern materials such as lead, cooper, tin and wrought iron.34 Completed in 1823, Jefferson’s final design is a collaboration between contemporary and preserved elements and spaces. He was able to transform the physical and functional qualities of a space by repurposing ideas found in historical precedents.

36

[Re] PURPOSING PRESERVATION

Preservation is the job of finding ways to keep those original buildings that provide the

city’s character and continuity, and of incorporating them into its living mainstream.

This is not easy. It is much simpler to move a few historical castoffs into quarantine, putting the curious little “enclave,” or cultural red herring, off limits to the speculative developer while he gets destructive carte blanche in the rest of the city . . . This city is about to settle for a rtifical nostalgia and cultural conscience balm rather than a living heritage.

-Ada Louise Huxtable The Lively Original vs. the Dead Copy The New York Times May 20, 1965

37

CASE STUDIES HIGGINS HALL MILL CITY MUSEUM UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA

In order to reinforce concepts found in the background research, case studies were chosen as examples of the modern application of preservation through transformation. These examples were chosen based on their ability to preserve memories or values of a building through its transformations, and by applying those values, a modern application can occur that is relevant towards contemporary culture. Though a specific typology was not used in the assessment, the projects that were chosen related to cultural institutions such as museums and universities and the tension between their ability and inability to use different values over time to both preserve the cultural heritage of a building while also providing guidance for a contemporary intervention.

38

[Re] PURPOSING PRESERVATION

HIGGINS HALL PRATT INSTITUTE | BROOKLYN, NY STEVEN HOLL [1997-2005]

Designed by Stephen Holl, the Higgins Hall addition was designed to be inserted in between historic buildings of varying age and height following a fire that destroyed the central section. Holl took the opportunity to rethink the function of the architectural school and through the relationship between a modern academic program and the proximity of the historic structures was able to create a solution “bridging” academic and institutional needs with the historic setting.

The evolution of a concept over time is found in many instances especially in a buildings form and function. It is even more evident in institutions of higher education that are reflective of the time in which they originated. Colleges, universities and academia in general, exemplify the cultures that put them in place and just as the ideals and principals of an institution transform over time, so does its facilities and identity.

Due to the blossoming economy of New York City in the 1860’s, education was as much a commodity as the goods and services that the growing middle class were offering. To fill this need a group of educators founded the Adelphi Academy of Brooklyn New York in 1863, one of the first preparatory schools for boys in the city.35 Located at the corner of Lafayette Avenue and St. James Place the school was designed in 1869

by Mundell & Teckritz (fig. 2.1). The six story brick Romanesque Revival building fulfilled the schools needs but following an ever increasing student population, a western wing was added in 1873 followed by an eastern wing in 1880 both being highly ornamented.36

39

1880 1869

1873 1887

Fig. 2.1 - Aerial view of Higgins Hall [pre-fire]

The schools increasing population represented its high quality of education offered and brought support from influential citizens such as orator Henry Ward Beecher and Charles Pratt.

Pratt, an American oil industrialist, would later found the Pratt Institute, in 1887 in the same Clinton Hill neighborhood as the academy, that would specialize in the study of design and engineering. To begin this in devour, Pratt funded a new building to the academy to begin a collegiate department of continuing studies. Designed by Charles C. Haight in 1887 the south wing different from its northern counterpart in increased floor height and a simplification of ornament.37 The addition also contained the cities first gymnasium and was connected to the north wing through the 1869 structure.38

40

[Re] PURPOSING PRESERVATION

Following changes in neighborhood demographics, enrollment steadily declined until 1965 when the school relocated. Due to the academy’s proximity to the Pratt Institute, the university acquired the site in 1965, and placed the school of architecture in the century old building renaming it Higgins Hall.39 In order to better suit the programmatic needs of the school, Pratt spent $1.5 million dollars on a complete renovation including the cleaning of the façade and window replacement.

The final phase was to include a remodel of basement studio spaces but was cut short by a summer fire that occurred on July 21, 1996 that completely destroyed the central portion of the building and damaging the north and south wings. At the time about 800 of the institutes 3,400 undergraduate students were housed throughout the building and were now without studio space.40 It was decided that a new connection between the two wings must be created in order for the continued use of the building. The school required a modern intervention and Steven Holl was chosen as its designer.

Holl saw the relationship between program and site as two defining factors of the design. The challenge was to create an addition housing a modern program that responded to the historic qualities of the site. The fire left a void in between the two historic wings or a void in the buildings time line. Instead of reconstructing its original form and style or recreating history, the design established a contemporary central addition that represented the schools 20th century teaching techniques. In Holl’s mind, a “dissonance zone” was created (fig. 2.2) following the fire, that exposed the irregular floor heights between the two century old additions. In order for the wings and new addition to function as a whole, a connection was needed that allowed the misaligned floors to become “realigned”.41

41

Fig. 2.2 - Floor plate height diagram

Holl’s realignment came in the form of a series of ramps beginning in the outdoor space between the two existing buildings (fig. 2.3) and circulating to each floor of both the north and south wings. New programmed elements such as a lobby, gallery, lecture hall, classrooms and studio spaces were placed in between the existing wings at irregular floor heights allowing the ramp to navigate the dissonance.

Fig. 2.3 - Longitudinal Section

42

[Re] PURPOSING PRESERVATION

The structure and enclosure of the new central addition reflects the transformation from the traditional to a contemporary space. Compared to the tectonics of the existing brick structure the central addition was constructed of precast concrete beams and columns around its periphery. The structure is therefore allowed to span large distances creating open floor space for classroom and studio spaces (fig. 2.4).

Fig. 2.4 - Open studio floor plans linked by ramps

In order to provide adequate lighting for students the entire east and west elevations are clad in structural channel glass, providing diffused daylight for studio spaces (fig. 2.6).

Direct light is provided through an overhead skylight that projects into the northern and southern spaces throughout the day (fig. 2.5) along with a collage of translucent windows found bisecting the east and west elevations on all levels.

Fig. 2.5 - Overhead skylights direct sunlight into spaces

43

Fig. 2.6 - Entrance court flanked by existing buildings

44

[Re] PURPOSING PRESERVATION

Though Holl’s main focus was the center wing of the school, it was imperative that the existing north and south wings follow a similar design strategy of providing usable spaces in a historic setting. In order to accomplish this in the existing 1880 and 1887 wings, Holl collaborated with Rogers Marvel Architects in repurposing the century old wings and site, beginning with the entrance court.42 Similar strategies were used inside the existing wings, such as providing adequate lighting through skylights and relocating structural elements to create open floor plans, improving the quality of studio spaces (fig. 2.7). Individual floors were also reconfigured into single and double height spaces that retained the historic quality of the brick enclosure but provided a more suitable environment for the functions of the architecture department (fig. 2.8).

The addition to Higgins Hall completed in 2005 provides an example of how the unexpected transformation of a building can be used to evoke the architectural heritage of a site while providing a facility for an evolving curriculum and department. Holl and partners took the opportunity to rethink the organization of the architectural department and through the program was able to create a relationship bridging the historic structures of the past to the modern design wing of the future.

Because it’s an architecture school, you can read the whole structure as you go . . .

There’s not one stich of it that you can’t see - its bones, its skin.

-Stephen Holl The New York Times September 26, 2005

45

Fig. 2.7 - Renovated attic studio of the north wing

Fig. 2.8 - Double height critique space

46

[Re] PURPOSING PRESERVATION

MILL CITY MUSEUM MILL DISTRICT | MINNIEAPOLIS, MN MEYER, SCHERER & ROCKCASTLE [1991-2003]

Housed in the remains of a nineteenth century flour mill, the Mill City Museum has become the premiere urban destination in the mill city, Minneapolis Minnesota. Following the decline of the milling industry and a fire, MS&R architects took the responsibly of preserving the mill ruins, transforming them into a cultural institutional of the fabric of the city. The preservation of the mill acted as a catalyst, reconnecting the city to the Mississippi River, its origin, and reestablished the once blighted riverfront and mill district.

Once Father Louis Hennepin sighted and named the great falls on the upper Mississippi River in 1680, it was certain that St. Anthony Falls would having an everlasting impact on the Minnesotan landscape, turning the region into economic powerhouse through milling. The use of the falls for power emerged as early as 1849 when grist and sawmills emerged along the banks of the river, channeling the falling water to power machinery. The number of mills increased due to the falls vast size (fig. 2.9), providing jobs for immigrants brought to the area because of their milling expertise but also due to the proximity and large amounts of grain produced in the upperMidwest. 43

Fig. 2.9 - 1895 lithograph of the Mill District (inset of Washburn “A� Mill)

47

The original Washburn Mill structure was constructed in 1874 by Cadwallader C. Washburn, the future founder of General Mills, and the father of Minneapolis milling, and at the time was the largest flour mill in the United States. On May 2, 1878 the mill was completely leveled due to a grain dust explosion, killing 18 men and destroying neighboring mills as well as much of the riverfront (figure 28). The explosion led to many reforms in the milling industry from safer working conditions, to new innovations in grain dust collection. C.C. Washburn rebuilt his milling complex in 1880, partnering with John Crosby and transitioned from a millstone method of milling, to the more powerful all-steel rollers, increasing the quality of flour while reducing the amount of space required.44 Due to the heavy vibrations caused by moving machinery that could literally shake the building apart, the mill required two separate structural systems. The exterior limestone walls acted merely as an enclosure while a wooden interior structure supported the men and machinery. This improvement in the production of flour led the mill to begin producing Gold Medal Flour (fig. 2.10), one of the first nationally advertised brands that is still present today. 45

Fig. 2.10 - Gold Medal Flour 1948

48

[Re] PURPOSING PRESERVATION

In the 1930’s mills began transitioning away from the use of hydroelectric power, allowing them to be located away from the river and leading to the steady demise of the milling industry in Minneapolis. The mill now a part of General Mills moved away from the production of flour, instead focusing on grains and cereals leading to the mills demise and abandonment in 1965.46 For the next 26 years the building sat vacant acting as a storage warehouse for furniture and unused equipment (fig. 2.11). In 1971 the mill complex was nominated for the National Register of Historic Places by the owner who wished to turn sections of the mill into apartments. In 1978 the complex was included on the National Register being one of only two mill complexes left in Minneapolis to be recorded. 47 On the night of February 26, 1991 a fire was started that later engulfed the entire eight stories of the building (fig. 2.12). The following morning all that remained of the 1870 mill structure built by Washburn were the charred ruins of the exterior limestone walls and equipment that had crashed to the basement (fig. 2.13). Members of the Minnesota Historical Society and Minneapolis Community Development Agency concerned with the future of the now ruined cultural landmark, approached the local Minneapolis firm of Meyer, Scherer & Rockcastle for a concept and proposal for not only the preservation of the complex but for the redevelopment of the now blighted riverfront (fig. 2.14).48 After the unsalvageable rubble was cleared and exterior structure was stabilized, the Minneapolis Historical Society announced its intention to create a milling museum somewhere on site, giving a program for Thomas Meyer of MS&R to design the Mill City Museum, beginning in March of 2001 and opening in 2003. The concept made the assumption that by inhabiting the ruin, the new program and structure could bring the historic site and riverfront back to life.49

49

Fig 2.11 - 1971 mill condition

Fig. 2.12 - February 26, 1991 fire

Fig. 2.13 - Aftermath the following morning

Fig. 2.14 - Aftermath the following morning

50

[Re] PURPOSING PRESERVATION

Meyer’s design called for the integration of a new structure into the historic fabric of the mill, occupying the ruin left over from the fire (fig. 2.15). The program of the museum would occupy half of the original footprint of the mill and extrude upward, representing the vertical process of milling flour, ending in a rooftop observation deck. The space leftover, including the turbine pits and large equipment that still remained after the fire, would act as outdoor courtyard and sculpture garden, bordered by the collapsed limestone walls, connecting the former interior of the mill to the Mississippi riverfront.

Fig. 2.15 - Section axon of mill

51

Fig. 2.16 - Stabilized limestone walls and contemporary addition

The biggest challenge facing the firm was maintaining the ruin, especially the jagged top condition of the exterior wall.

The fire left the wall brittle and sections were charred red from the intense heat. A modern intervention was needed that did not take away from the quality of the limestone. The answer came from the original dual structural system of the mill; one acting as enclosure the other as support. The steel framed structure of the museum rests inside the confines of the exterior wall (fig. 2.16), the steel details gently inserting themselves into fenestrations of the limestone. Covering the adjacent north facade is a curtain wall of glass that is etched as if a section were cut through the building when in production. Images of machinery, notations and structural supports can be found on the full scale 1898 section drawing.

52

[Re] PURPOSING PRESERVATION

The main floor of the museum occupies the first three levels of the mill and is being expanded yearly with the introduction of new exhibits and rehabilitated sections of the mill complex. The 100 - by – 100 foot courtyard alone has become one of the most sought after urban spaces in Minneapolis (fig. 2.19) offering a location for concerts, dances, lectures, plays and weddings. It has become a resurrected symbol of the city built around its milling heritage and its proximity of the Mississippi. With the completion of the project in 2003 the mill district saw a transformation not seen since its original establishment in 1870. West of the museum and once the parking lot for the nearby Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome (fig. 2.17), by 2013 the entire area had been transformed into mixed use developments, a far cry from its beginnings as a railyard for grain trains (fig. 2.18).

1999

2013

Fig. 2.17 - 2.18 (top to bottom) Development of the Mill District

53

Fig. 2.19 - Ruin courtyard and Mississippi River beyond

54

[Re] PURPOSING PRESERVATION

With the renovation of the mill rail corridor and train shed (fig. 2.20), a local farmers market was organized for the influx of new residents, occupying the former loading area for grain and flour trains beside the mill.50 The success of the redevelopment persuaded the Guthrie Theater to move to a new location next to the museum on the banks of the river in 2006. Designed by Jean Nouvel and inspired by the geometric shapes found in the head houses and silos of the neighboring mills, the new theater offers another means of transforming the former milling district into a cultural corridor (fig. 2.21).

Fig. 2.20 - Site axon with future development opportunities

55

The Mill City Museum has not only revitalized a blighted area of Minneapolis but has reinstated the cultural heritage of the city as a former center for milling and industry in part through the neighboring Mississippi River. Telling the history of the city in the built form, for generations it provided the livelihood to citizens of Minneapolis, it now serving as an urban catalyst for life itself, once based around industry now a modern renaissance of culture.

Fig. 2.21 - Guthrine Theater and Mill City Museum

The complex relationship of old and new can be orchestrated not only into functional architecture and a dynamic part of a city, but can also impart authentic meaning that embodies diversity, honesty, creative tension, cultural continuity, and sustainability.

-Thomas Meyer Meyer Scherer & Rockcastle The Old/New Design Philosophy

56

[Re] PURPOSING PRESERVATION

THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA SELECTED PROJECTS | CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA [1819-PRESENT]

From a young age Thomas Jefferson knew he was privileged to have had a formal education. He understood the value of knowledge from his time spent at the College of William and Mary, an experience only available to wealthy white males at the time but felt in a new nation founded under the principles of freedom and unalienable rights, that a free public educational system must be implemented. 51In his mind a university should offer a free curriculum where students would be allowed to select their course of study from a wide range of topics and electives. Jefferson stated that a new relationship between professors and students must be forged in order to create a collaborative environment for learning. Though he pursued many of his ideas on education as Governor of Virginia, VicePresident and President it was only until following his retirement that in 1817 his dream became a reality with the planning and construction of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville.

Jefferson’s modern educational institution would reinterpret the spatial setting in which students learned, a far departure from the more introverted and cloistered institutions of Europe such as Oxford and Padua designed to educate future members of the clergy in a monastic setting.52 He felt the central focus of the university should not have a religious affiliation, saying that religion would disrupt from the collaborative and free thinking environment he wished to create. In the words of Jefferson the University of Virginia would be” free of “the restraint imposed in other seminaries by the shackles of a domineering hierarchy and a bigoted adhesion to ancient habits.”53 To him the relationship between educator and student as social equals coincided with the organization of the school as a small community or village where living and learning would coexist in the campus layout described by Jefferson.

57

“The common plan followed in this country of making one large expensive building, I consider as unfortunately erroneous. It is infinitely better to erect a small separate lodge for each separate professorship, with only a hall below for his class, and two chambers above for himself; joining these lodges by barracks for a certain portion of the students, opening into a covered way, to give dry communication between all of the schools. The whole of these arranged around an open square of grass and trees, would make it what it should be in fact, an acAdemical Village.”54 The precedent behind his concept may have come from Jefferson’s time aboard in France upon visiting the Chateau de Marly. Designed as an informal residence for King Louis XIV in 1649 (fig. 2.22), the plan consisted of the palace as the head building residing over an open garden and twelve smaller pavilions for the courtier to the king. The horizontal forms referenced many of Jefferson’s early understandings of Palladian design, later implemented in the universities plan.55

Fig. 2.22 - Perspective view of the Chateau de Marly and Pavilions 17th Century

58

[Re] PURPOSING PRESERVATION

With the selection of the site on Monroe Hill in 1817, Jefferson along with Benjamin Lathrobe, began formal plans of his earlier concept for the campus, consisting of a U shaped configuration of ten pavilions and anchored at the head by a prominent building, all connected by a colonnade enclosing a lawn (fig. 2.23). It was all to be constructed of brick, due to the readily available clay in the region. The pavilions would be parallel to one another five on each side of the lawn with classroom space on the ground floor and professors quarters on the upper level while student apartments would be located in between pavilions along the colonnade.

Fig. 2.23 - Plan of the Academical Village John Nelson - 1882

59

Fig. 2.24 - Eclectic pavilion architecture of the Academical Village

Inspired by the temples of the ancient world, the pavilions were not just enclosures for educational activities, but their different forms and ornamentation selected by Jefferson were to act as lessons in the study of ancient architecture, no two alike (fig. 2.24).56 To Jefferson, the buildings and spaces he created had as much a role in educating students as the educators that occupied them.

60

[Re] PURPOSING PRESERVATION

A second row of flanking colonnades and pavilions were located behind the first and contained additional student housing and campus refectories or dining halls. The two flanking rows on either side of the lawn would be separated by small gardens and alleys, periphery spaces as found in small towns and villages. The focal point of the entire campus was to be a non-secular building, following Jefferson’s early opposition to religious affiliation. A central building surveying over the campus as a repository of all past, present and future knowledge was needed, and with Jefferson’s love of books a library was the obvious choice. Described as “the authority of nature and power of reason,”57 the libraries precedent was the Pantheon (the temple of all gods) in Rome and as an ancient space celebrating innovative and reception, the rotunda proved to be a successful model for the library (fig. 2.25). An oculus in the dome even provided natural daylight to the reading room, the stacks being recessed around its perimeter.58

Fig. 2.25 - Pantheon drawing with Jefferson’s south elevation of the Rotunda

61

Fig. 2.26 - Aerial view of the Academical Village

Residing in front of the library the lawn gradually sloped down in elevation from the north and was left open at its southern end, allowing for expansive views of the surrounding mountains (fig. 2.26). Several weeks before Jefferson’s death in June of 1826, he visited the campus and following an inspection sat in the upper floor of the Rotunda, taking in one of his favorite views. To him the view represented the future possibilities in the expansion and growth of our new nation.

62

[Re] PURPOSING PRESERVATION

It took a decade to complete the campus beginning with surveying in 1817; the Rotunda being completed in October of 1826. Though Jefferson’s death on July 4, 1826 stopped him short of seeing his design completed, he laid the groundwork for the future expansion of the university described by Jefferson as, “one so liberal and broad, as to be worth patronizing with the public support, and be as a temptation to the youth of other states, to come to drink the cup of knowledge and fraternize with us.”59 Jefferson’s philosophies of education and architecture were articulated in the original design of the university in which crated a new typology for a progressive new nation.

Following the original design by Thomas Jefferson, for the past 200 years the University of Virginia has attempted to continue the legacy and philosophy of its founder. The interpretation of this legacy has resulted from the most tangible evidence of his presence at the university; its design. To many the legacy of “Mr. Jefferson’s University” refers to the aesthetic qualities of its architecture found in the 19th century design of the Academical Village. With the modernization of the university in curriculum and culture, this false legacy has forced modern design interventions to preserve the aesthetic qualities of the campus instead of preserving Jefferson’s educational ideals.

Described as “tiptoe contextualism” by Daniel Bluestone, historic preservation professor at the University of Virginia, “the university consistently fostered quiet, hushed, unobtrusive designs that hesitated to distract from (let alone rival) Jefferson’s work.”60 By examining key building projects following Jefferson’s original design of the Academical Village, we are able clearly see how a false sense of preservation values both analytically and experientially have restricted transformation, allowing the university to regress into a false sense of identity as faux (fake) Jeffersonian.

63

The Rotunda, the most prominent building of the Academical Village offered the first opportunity to transform Jefferson’s vision resulting from a fire on October 27th 1895.

Following its completion in 1826, the library functioned as it was intended, but with the growth of the student population more than doubling, classroom space was at a premium. It was decided that an addition must be made and Jefferson’s protégé, Robert Mills, was selected for its design completed in 1853. Mills chose to add a classroom and auditorium annex to the north side of the rotunda, providing a formal entrance to Charlottesville the north while not disturbing the organization of the lawn (fig.

2.27).61 The porticoed annex was allowed to fulfill a need of the university while creating a modern interpretation of the original design.

Fig. 2.27 - Routnda Annex by Robert Mills

On October 27th 1895, the fire began in the annex and spread to the Rotunda, resulting in the loss of its dome and floors. Immediately following the disaster faculty and university officials called for the “restoration of the Rotunda in which the original proportions of this central building should be religiously observed.”62 The discussion then turned to the fate of the annex; the faculty responded by ridiculing the design attached to Mr. Jefferson’s Rotunda, calling it a “monstrous tail projecting into the space behind and only ending apparently when the bricks gave out.”63

64

[Re] PURPOSING PRESERVATION

The firm of McKim Mead & White was chosen for the reconstruction of the Rotunda adding a northern portico mirroring Jefferson’s to the south while also creating a single domed space out of the original two stories (fig. 2.28). Though their completed renovation allowed for better organization of the library, it did not reflect the original request ordered by the university. The design was justified by hypothesizing Jefferson, the firm insisting that, “only one deviation from the original plan has been made but this one which Jefferson would unquestionably have adopted himself had he been able to do so when the Rotunda was built.”64 According to Jefferson’s notes, the upper portion of the rotunda was intended to be painted in stars and used to study astronomy though never executed. Following the nations bicentennial in 1976 the Rotunda was restored to Jefferson’s original design, its previous condition erased.

Fig. 2.28 - 1895 intervention and the 1976 renovation to Jefferson’s design

The Rotunda reconstruction established the guidelines for future expansion projects that opposed the introduction of modern materials and methods, instead, supporting the continued fetishization of Jefferson’s original design. With the destruction of the Rotunda annex, replacement classrooms and auditorium spaces were needed. The university returned to McKim Mead and White and requested a building that would “harmonize” with the rest of campus.

65

The site for Cabell Hall, built between 1896-1898, originally occupied a space alongside the south lawn, a respectful gesture towards the original design. Discussions regarding the incompleteness of Jefferson’s plan, left open to the south, brought the suggestion of placing the building at the southern end of the lawn, creating a quadrangle by filling the open side (fig. 2.29).

Though this suggestion completely disregarded Jefferson’s intent of creating an open vista, it proved to be the “most natural and architectural finish of the group.”65 To the firm the southern site also provided a unique opportunity due to its steep topography. It was seen as a solution to designing a building of excessive height that would dwarf the work of the existing campus, which from the universities standpoint, was not an acceptable solution.66 Instead of creating a design that would rival the Rotunda annex lost to fire, the firm chose to harmonize with the height and “Jeffersonian Classicism” of the village, by burying the building in the hillside and hiding the program.

Fig. 2.29 - Cabell Hall by McKim, Mead & White with addition 1896-1952

66

[Re] PURPOSING PRESERVATION

Following the enlargement of the university library, which no longer could be housed in the Rotunda, a similar method was used in the design of the Alderman Library built between 1936-1938 (fig 2.30).67 At grade level the bricked front elevation appears to be only two stories in height fronted by a colonnade of columns. The rear elevation however descends into the hillside for three floors resembling a defensive battery accompanied by minuscule fenestrations. Once occupying the most prominent and celebrated building of the Academical Village, the library had been reduced to that of a crypt through the shallow design method of tucking buildings out of sight. This method of hiding buildings is a strategy that has been repeated on Virginia’s campus which avoids addressing the buildings character siding with the existing scale of campus.

Fig. 2.30 - Alderman Library by the University of Virginia 1926-1938

67

After World War II enrollment at the university increased rapidly, requiring administrators to purchase and annex land outside of the Academic Village. This siting away from the central core allowed for a brief period in which contemporary design techniques were accepted to the periphery of the campus, though not without criticism. In many cases, modernism was allowed to exist as long as it was unseen from the Jeffersonian core. With the introduction of new programs, specifically those related to science, new facilities and laboratories were needed that could not be fulfilled in the original campus buildings.

Most people were of the opinion that modern courses of study required modern facilities, an opinion also shared by Jefferson.

The fear by many supporters of Jefferson’s work was that modern interventions would bring an unfamiliar type of building to campus. Modernism was allowed to prevail through designs such as Gilmer Hall, (fig. 2.31) the life science building designed by alumnus Louis Ballou.

Fig. 2.31 - Gilmer Hall, Life Sciences Building by Louis Ballou 1959-1963

Located away from the Academical Village, the building was reduced in scale by creating separate forms housing the different programs of the department. Though appearing as large cubes, the materiality was within a texture palette of the Jeffersonian campus core.68 By including an abstracted serpentine wall in the design, Ballou was able to appease the supporters of tradition.

68

[Re] PURPOSING PRESERVATION

With modernism remotely accepted, the university was willing to work towards a more progressive design philosophy. A new chemistry building located near Gilmer Hall justified the use of a contemporary architect and the administration chose Louis Kahn to design a proposal for the building in 1961, though they were unaware of his techniques. Kahn’s proposal of an abstracted interpretation of the lawn in concrete (fig. 2.32) was ridiculed as “design brutality” and “totally unsatisfactory in appearance.”69 Though he wanted to create an intervention that was not a literal representation, as found in Ballou’s serpentine wall, Kahn said, “I have the feeling that what is wanted is a ‘red and white’ building,”70 something that he could not force himself to design. He was dismissed from the project in 1963 due to other disagreements, though aesthetic criticism may also have been evident.

Fig. 2.32 - Chemistry building proposal by Louis Kahn 1962

69

In 1987 Monticello and the University of Virginia were selected as World Heritage Sites by UNESCO, and an attempt was made to resurrect the admirable qualities of Jefferson’s design and progressive ideas on education through collaboration as explained in its selection criteria.

UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE SITE SELECTION CRITERA Criterion (i): Both Monticello and the University of Virginia reflect Jefferson’s wide reading of classical and later works on architecture and design and also his careful study of the architecture of late 18th century Europe. As such they illustrate his wide diversity of interests.

Criterion (iv): With these buildings Thomas Jefferson made a significant contribution to neoclassicism, the 18th century movement that adapted the forms and details of classical architecture to contemporary buildings.

Criterion (vi): Monticello and the key buildings of the University of Virginia are directly and materially associated with the ideas and ideals of Thomas Jefferson. Both the university buildings and Monticello were directly inspired by principles, derived from his deep knowledge of classical architecture and philosophy.

Though the university was noted as being founded under Jefferson’s ideas and philosophy on education, the selection criteria focused specifically on his assumed connection with the American neoclassic movement as a contributor. The association made between his design ideals and a particular style of architecture allowed for the literal interpretation of his architectural techniques to continue, justifying the use of postmodern architecture as a tool for resurrecting classical concepts through traditionalism.

70

[Re] PURPOSING PRESERVATION

The Darden School of Business designed by Robert Stern is an example of the post-modern tendency of the school to propose classical ornament of the Academical Village into a design, while ignoring the underlying concepts that Jefferson instilled. Located on the edge of campus and built between 1992 and 1996, Stern chose to recreate the campus core as a modern interpretation ornamented with classical flare. The main central building is flanked by eight pavilion-esque wings surrounding a lawn, all Xeroxed versions of themselves (fig. 2.33), and lacking diversity of form and ornament. The entire complex is connected through a series of colonnades, but are unutilized, due to the accompanying interior hallways used for circulation. Sterns design attempted to respect the architectural language already established on campus, but his misuse of Jefferson’s architectural techniques only added to the many failed attempts at designing for modern needs while attempting to honor previous work.

Fig. 2.33 -Darden School of Business by Robert A.M. Stern 1992-1996

71

After several decades of misappropriated motifs and principles of Jefferson, the department of architecture chose to question the universities understanding of Jefferson’s ideas and their future role in campus design. In 2005, following the dismissal of architect James Polshek from a university project, known prominently for his culturally and historically sensitive design additions, the architecture department sent a signed letter to university administration regarding their commitment to “architecture of excellence”. The faculty called out the universities conservative design methods and questioned their understanding of Jefferson’s principles asking “Is there not a difference between buildings that merely look Jeffersonian, as opposed to the infinitely more difficult task of being Jeffersonian?”71 Though the faculty was ridiculed by many traditionalist, the faculty felt “strongly that Jefferson would stand with them and innovation.”72 To prove that modern interventions could exist without disrupting the identity of the campus, the department chose to make their own addition to the architecture building, an attempt at “being Jeffersonian.”

Is the University of Virginia to become a theme park of nostalgia at the service of the university’s branding?

Why has Jefferson’s innovation in architecture and design been allowed to degenerate into a rigid set of stylistic prescriptions?

What are the Jeffersonian Architectural Ideals?

-U. Va. Architecture Faculty September 7, 2005

72

[Re] PURPOSING PRESERVATION

Designed by the school faculty, what resulted was an addition that refocused Jefferson’s ideas regarding collaboration between students and professors in an environment that creates teaching opportunities. Formerly on the first floor, faculty offices were first relocated next to studio spaces on the third and fourth floor to provide better communication between professors and students.

Scattered throughout the south and east additions of the new building meeting and review spaces were planned that ranged in size from the glass studio review tower (fig. 2.36) that allowed for the campus to view the work of the students, to the smaller outdoor meeting porches shared by faculty that are warmed by sunlight (fig. 2.34).74

Fig. 2.34 -Louvers in their open position Fig. 2.36 (right side) Review tower entrance

73

Fig. 2.35 - Shared porches adjacent to faculty offices

The faculty offices are shielded from the sunlight by louvers designed to remain open during the day, closing at night (fig. 2.34). The building to act as a gadget or machine that could allow for experimentation and testing, an interest also shared by Jefferson. Landscaping was also revitalized around the building allowing the new design to remove impurities from groundwater and handle erosion control, becoming “a teaching landscape.�75 The success of the addition has proven that Jeffersonian ideas can be preserved and help guide contemporary design.

74

[Re] PURPOSING PRESERVATION

RESEARCH SUMMARY •

Architectural preservation looks to honor or remember aspects of our heritage in the built form.

•

The current preservation mindset in the United States supports the assimilation of history into certain types or styles of architectural based on analytical (asthetics) and experiential (phenomenology) qualities while disregarded change or transformation.

•

Preserved works of architecture have values that are deemed significant by culture such as artistic, age, historical, use, newness and deliberate commemorative.

•

Values change or transform concurrently with culture.

•

Though all buildings have values of analytical and experiential quality, transformational qualities exist in buildings that are valued by culture for preservation.

•

The transformational qualities of a building look at the values that have continued to persist and evolve over the buildings lifetime.

•

Transformational qualities preserve certain ideas or concepts of a building while repurposing them through an intervention based on modern culture.

•

These values are the true qualities that should be preserved either in the physical building or by repurposing them as concepts and ideas of contemporary design.

75

CASE STUDY TAKEAWAY

HIGGINS HALL •

Contemporary buildings in a historic setting should respond to multiple aspects or events of its history; its historical value.

•

Newness or use value can bring a historic structure into being by repurposing its original form and function to a suit a modern need.

MILL CITY MUSEUM •

The preservation of a building should respect the cultural transformation of its setting over time.

•

A building can celebrate different time periods of its existence, or age value, by layering its existing form with a modern function.

•

Modern architectural interventions can serve as a catalyst for a greater area or purpose.

THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA •

The destruction of historic buildings provides an opportunity to reassess design strategies, techniques and use.

•

Architectural concepts and inspiration must go beyond the analytical and experiential qualities of design.

•

In a university setting, transformation and modernization should drive campus design, with respect to its founding principles.

76

[Re] PURPOSING PRESERVATION

PROJECT FRAMEWORK VISION AND RATIONAL According to architect and educator Sim Van Der Ryn, “a buildings identity in a given setting can affect the ways in which it is preserved or repurposed. In many ways institutional buildings such as those found at universities resist change, fearing that their image as a timeless and credible source of learning and knowledge will be compromised through a new intervention.”76 The University of Virginia is an example of an institution that has resisted intervention and struggled with the concept of a changing identity (fig. 3.1). Modern intervention has been regulated and limited to its periphery, forcing the Academical Village and nearby structures to be preserved in a state of timelessness, disregarding Jefferson’s original design concept of a community in which “the past was to be the starting point for a new and different future.”77 The universities solution to continue its legacy is based on artistic and historic values that fetishize existing aesthetics and styles; a concept that it shares with the current preservation movement in the United States. Though Jefferson prescribed ancient architectural principles in his design as teaching devices, his true goal behind the Academical Village was to create an environment for educational collaboration, establishing its use value.

77

Fig. 3.1 - Jefferson’s Rotunda drawing with University of Virginia logo

The university’s idea of a good buliding is more or less the opposite of what we teach.

What they’ve been putting up year after year are mediocre buildings decked out in pseudo-jeffersonian cladding. We try to attract graduate students and faculty to come here, and they look around and say, “What era are you people living in?”

-W.G. Clark U. Va. Architecture faculty expanding on Jefferson

78

[Re] PURPOSING PRESERVATION

In order for the University of Virginia to retain a sense of identity of “being Jeffersonian” instead of solely “looking Jeffersonian,” it must preserve the concepts and ideals Jefferson used to create the University instead of preserving their aesthetical quality. The university is in need of a modern intervention that can act as a catalyst to reestablish the Jeffersonian values of community, collaboration, innovation and tolerance used in its conception. The reestablishment of these values can serve as the objectives and principles guiding contemporary campus design.

The current sprawling nature of campus is evident of its lack of density (fig. 3.3-3.7), fearing that the excess of students and facilities will compromise the landscape designed

by Jefferson. This is even more evident in the Academical Village (fig. 3.2) that has remained the same both formally and functionally for much of its 194 year existence. Beginning with 68 students on 393 acres in 1819, Virginia’s enrollment has now exceeded 24,000 students scattered across 3,392 acres.78 This dilution of the campus fabric has allowed for its core to be gentrified in student use and function, offering little in terms of a diverse student identity.

Fig. 3.2 - Aerial view of Academical Village Fig. 3.3 - 3.7 (following pages) University growth (Academical Village in yellow)

79

1830

80

[Re] PURPOSING PRESERVATION

1831-1894

1895-1945

81

1846-1980

1981-present

82

[Re] PURPOSING PRESERVATION

In order to reestablish the collaborative environment put in place by Jefferson, a modern intervention to the Academical Village is needed that supports contemporary student use and function based around Jeffersonian values. This living and learning community shall bring a more diverse student body back to its core while providing educational and recreational functions that support contemporary student life while being an inspiring and informative piece of the campus fabric, serving as an educational opportunity in the built form.

The existing site conditions offers many challenges to the project, specifically the relationship of preserved and contemporary spaces that will be introduced (fig. 3.8 - 3.10) but also the resurrection of Jeffersonian ideals that have been misrepresented in a particular architectural form and style.

Creating diversity and tolerance in the campus’ core will also be difficult due to the university’s conservative tendencies.

Virginia’s lack of diversity has been evident throughout its history with African Americans allowed to integrate into the student population in 1955, women were not formally admitted until 1970.79 Though these events are evident of their time period, Jefferson’s creation of a free public institution of higher education, allowed for tolerance towards all people to become a founding principle of the university that should be repurposed and celebrated.

DESIGN OBJECTIVES •

Design a modern living and learning community based on Jeffersonian ideals in the Academical Village

•

Bring density and diversity back to the campus core

•

Let the intervention to challenge traditional university design techniques based on aesthetics

•

Allow the design to act as an educational tool in its own right

•

The design shall serve as an catalyst for future campus development and design

•

83

1868

1914

2013 Fig. 3.8 - 3.10 - Unchanged perspectives of the Academical Village

84

[Re] PURPOSING PRESERVATION

ENDNOTES BACKGROUND 1. William J. Murtagh, Keeping Time: The History and Theory of Preservation in America (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1997), 28-29.

2. John H. Stubbs and Emily G. Makas, Architectural Conservation in Europe and the Americas.

(Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2011), 431.

3. Historic New England. “Founder and History.” Last modified 2013, http://www.historicnewengland.org/about-us/founder-and-history-1#founding-spnea.

4. John H. Stubbs and Emily G. Makas, Architectural Conservation in Europe and the Americas.

(Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2011), 432.

5. William J. Murtagh, Keeping Time: The History and Theory of Preservation in America (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1997), 36.

6. Colonial Williamsburg. “The Restoration.” Last modified 2013, http://www.history.org/media/video Player/index.cfm.

7. John H. Stubbs and Emily G. Makas, Architectural Conservation in Europe and the Americas.

(Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2011), 433.

8. Ibid., 436.

9. Ibid., 436.

10. Ibid., 437.

11. William J. Murtagh, Keeping Time: The History and Theory of Preservation in America (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1997), 58.

12. John H. Stubbs and Emily G. Makas, Architectural Conservation in Europe and the Americas.

(Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2011), 440.

13. Ibid., 444.

14. William J. Murtagh, Keeping Time: The History and Theory of Preservation in America (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1997), 64.

15. John H. Stubbs and Emily G. Makas, Architectural Conservation in Europe and the Americas.

(Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2011), 440.

16. Ibid., 454-455.

17. National Park Service. “The Secretary of the Interiors Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.” Last modified 2013, www.nps.gov/hps/TPS/standguide/‎.

18. Ibid,.

19. John E. Hancock, “Between History and Tradition: Notes Toward a Theory of Precedent.” Harvard Architectural Review (1986): 73.

20. Ibid., 73-74.

21. Edward Hollis, introduction to The Secret Lives of Buildings (New York: Macmillan Publishers, 2009, introduction, 6.

22. Ibid., 8-9.

23. “What’s Worth Preserving,” In Writing About Architecture: Mastering the Language of Buildings and Cities, Alexandra Lange (Princeton: Princeton Architectural Press, 2012), 79.

24. Alois Riegl, “The Modern Cult of Monuments: Its Essence and Its Development,” In Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, Nicholas Price, M. Kirby Talley Jr. =and Alessandra Melucco Vaccaro, (Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute, 1996), 71.

25. Ibid., 72.

26. Ibid., 70.

85

27. Ibid., 80.

28. Ibid,. 79.

29. Bertrand Goldberg: Chicago Architect: 1913-1997. “Prentice Women’s Hospital.” Last modified 2013, http://bertrandgoldberg.org/projects/prentice-women%E2%80%99s-hospital/.

30. do.co,mo.mo_us. “Old Prentice Women’s Hospital.” Last modified November 12, 2011, http:// docomomo-us.org/register/fiche/old_prentice_women%E2%80%99s_hospital_norman_ida_stone_institute_ psychiatry.

31. Chuck Willis, Thomas Jefferson, Architect (Philadelphia: Running Press, 2008), 26.

32. Ibid., 29.

33. Michael Bawne, Architecture in Detail: University of Virginia (London: Phaidon Press, 1994),5-6.

34. Stewart Brand, How Buildings Learn (New York: Penguin Books USA Inc., 1994), 43-44.

CASE STUDIES 35. “Adelphi Academy of Brooklyn|About Adelphi,” last modified October 15, 2013, http://adelphiacademy.org/about/history.php.

36. Francis Monroe, An Architecture Guidebook to Brooklyn (Layton: Gibbs Smith, 2001), 195.

37. Ibid., 196.

38. “Adelphi Academy of Brooklyn|About Adelphi,” last modified October 15, 2013, http://adelphiacademy.org/about/history.php.

39. Ibid.

40. Somini Segupta, “Pratt’s Dream Is Thwarted by a Fire,” The New York Times, July 28, 1996.

41. Fernando Marquez and Richard Levene. “Higgins Hall Center Section,” El Croquis Steven Holl, 2004-2008, 8.

42. “Society of College and University Planning,” last modified October 25, 2013, http://www.scup. org/page/awards/2006/higgins-hall-reconstruction.

43. Mill City Museum. “Minneapolis Riverfront.” Last modified 2013. http://www.millcitymuseum.org/ minneapolis-riverfront.

44. Department of the Interior, National Parks Service, National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form for the Washburn “A” Mill Complex, 1977, Pub. 1978. (2), Nashville, TN: American Association for State and Local History.

45. Mill City Museum. “Building History.” Last modified 2013. http://www.millcitymuseum.org/building-history.

46. Mill City Museum. “Flour Milling History.” Last modified 2013. http://www.millcitymuseum.org/ flour-milling-history.

47. Department of the Interior, National Parks Service, National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form for the Washburn “A” Mill Complex, 1977, Pub. 1978. (5), Nashville, TN: American Association for State and Local History museum/.

48. Meyer Scherer & Rockcastle Ltd. “Mill City Museum.” http://msrdesign.com/project/mill-city-

49. Mill City Museum. “Art and Architecture.” Last modified 2013. http://www.millcitymuseum.org/ art-and-architecture.

50. Facebook. Mill City Museum. “About and News.” Last modified 2013. https://www.facebook. commillcitymuseum.

86

[Re] PURPOSING PRESERVATION

51. Chuck Willis, Thomas Jefferson, Architect (Philadelphia: Running Press, 2008), 71.

52. Ibid., 72.

53. Ibid.,70.

54. Michael Bawne, Architecture in Detail: University of Virginia (London: Phaidon Press, 1994), 8.

55. Ibid., 13.

56. Ibid., 11.

57. Chuck Willis, Thomas Jefferson, Architect (Philadelphia: Running Press, 2008), 76.

58. Ibid., 75.

59. Michael Bawne, Architecture in Detail: University of Virginia (London: Phaidon Press, 1994), 8.

60. Daniel Bluestone, Buildings, Landscapes and Memory: Case Studies in Historic Preservation (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2011), 43.

61. Ibid., 45.

62. Ibid., 45.

63. Ibid., 46.

64. Ibid., 47.

65. Ibid., 51.

66. Ibid., 52.

67. Ibid., 58.

68. Ibid., 64.

69. Ibid., 66.

70. Ibid., 65.

71. Adam Goodheart, “Expanding on Jefferson,” The New York Times, May 21, 2006, online.

72. Daniel Bluestone, Buildings, Landscapes and Memory: Case Studies in Historic Preservation (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2011), 76.

73. Ibid., 67.

74. Vernon Mays, ”Old School New School, University of Virginia.” Architect, November 2008, online.

75. Ibid.

PROJECT FRAMEWORK 76. Stewart Brand, How Buildings Learn (New York: Penguin Books USA Inc., 1994), 45.

77. Michael Bawne, Architecture in Detail: University of Virginia (London: Phaidon Press, 1994), 9.

78. Ibid., 13.

79. Daniel Bluestone, Buildings, Landscapes and Memory: Case Studies in Historic Preservation (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2011), 69-70.

IMAGE CITATIONS

87

BACKGROUND 1.1 - #60 With Heritage So Rich - Mount Vernon Ladies Association 1.2 - Old Time New England vol. 78 #263 -1997 1.3 - #64 With Heritage So Rich - Preservation Society of Newport County 1.4 - http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/winter12/restoration.cfm 1.5 - http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/autumn11/man.cfm 1.6 - http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/autumn11/man.cfm 1.7 - http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/autumn11/man.cfm 1.8 - http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/autumn11/man.cfm 1.9 - http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/newdeal/habs.html 1.10 - http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/newdeal/habs.html 1.11 - http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/newdeal/habs.html 1.12 - http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/50-years-ago-sharply-dressed-protesters-stood-up-for-atrain-station-they-revered/?_r=0 1.13 - http://demianrepucci.com/modern-views-prints/ 1.14 - Graph by Paden L. Chambers - from the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation 1.15 - Artstor 1.16 - http://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/archives/2013/06/03/you-wont-see-this-again-initial-stages-ofprentice-hospital-demolition-underway 1.17 - http://bertrandgoldberg.org/projects/prentice-women%E2%80%99s-hospital/ 1.18 - http://www.architectmagazine.com/healthcare-projects/rush-university-medical-center.aspx 1.19 - How Buildings Learn - Stewart Brand

CASE STUDIES 2.1 - http://www.flickr.com/photos/prattinstitutelibraries/5915826811/ 2.2 - El Croquis Steven Holl - 2004-2008 2.3 - El Croquis Steven Holl - 2004-2008 2.4 - El Croquis Steven Holl - 2004-2008 2.5 - El Croquis Steven Holl - 2004-2008 2.6 - El Croquis Steven Holl - 2004-2008 2.7 - El Croquis Steven Holl - 2004-2008 2.8 - El Croquis Steven Holl - 2004-2008 2.9 - http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/h?ammem/gmd:@field(NUMBER+@band(g4144m+pm003970)) 2.10 - http://www10.aeccafe.com/blogs/arch-showcase/2012/03/02/mill-city-museum-in-minneapolis-mn-bymsr-architecture/ 2.11 - https://www.facebook.com/millcitymuseum/photos_stream 2.12 - https://www.facebook.com/millcitymuseum/photos_stream 2.13 - http://msrdesign.com/project/mill-city-museum/ 2.14 - http://msrdesign.com/project/mill-city-museum/ 2.15 - http://www10.aeccafe.com/blogs/arch-showcase/2012/03/02/mill-city-museum-in-minneapolis-mn-bymsr-architecture/ 2.16 - http://www10.aeccafe.com/blogs/arch-showcase/2012/03/02/mill-city-museum-in-minneapolis-mn-bymsr-architecture/

88

[Re] PURPOSING PRESERVATION

2.17 - https://www.facebook.com/millcitymuseum/photos_stream 2.18 - https://www.facebook.com/millcitymuseum/photos_stream 2.19 - http://www10.aeccafe.com/blogs/arch-showcase/2012/03/02/mill-city-museum-in-minneapolis-mn-by-msrarchitecture/ 2.20 - http://www10.aeccafe.com/blogs/arch-showcase/2012/03/02/mill-city-museum-in-minneapolis-mn-by-msrarchitecture/ 2.21 - https://www.facebook.com/millcitymuseum/photos_stream 2.22 - Artstor 2.23 - Architecture in Detail - Michael Brawne 2.24 - http://www.flickr.com/photos/zachstern/2976621657/ 2.25 - http://art200cuestacollege.wordpress.com/slides/week-8-307/ and Thomas Jefferson Architect: The Interactive Portfolio 2.26 - Architecture in Detail- Michael Brawne 2.27 - https://explore.lib.virginia.edu/exhibits/show/architecture-after-jefferson/the-romantic-picturesque/rotunda-annex 2.28 - http://uvamagazine.org/only_online/article/charlottesville_then_now 2.29 - http://www.virginia.edu/architectoffice/GroundsPlanWebsite/GPNEW/Setting/GPTheSettingPostwarGrowth.html 2.30 - Buildings, Landscapes, and Memory: Case Studies in Historic Preservation.

2.31 - Buildings, Landscapes, and Memory: Case Studies in Historic Preservation.

2.32 - Buildings, Landscapes, and Memory: Case Studies in Historic Preservation.

2.33 - http://blog.clearadmit.com/category/interview-reports/school/uva-darden/ 2.34 - http://www.architectmagazine.com/educational-projects/old-school-new-school-university-of-virginia.aspx 2.36 - http://www.architectmagazine.com/educational-projects/old-school-new-school-university-of-virginia.aspx 2.37 - http://www.architectmagazine.com/educational-projects/old-school-new-school-university-of-virginia.aspx

PROJECT FRAMEWORK 3.1 - Thomas Jefferson Architect: The Interactive Portfolio and http://www.virginia.edu/uvalogo/identity/ 3.2 - http://uvamagazine.org/photo_gallery/grounds_cville/charlottesville_shifted16 3.3 - http://www.virginia.edu/architectoffice/GroundsPlanWebsite/GPNEW/Setting/GPTheSettingJeffersonVision.html 3.4 - http://www.virginia.edu/architectoffice/GroundsPlanWebsite/GPNEW/Setting/GPTheSettingFirstChallenges.html 3.5 - http://www.virginia.edu/architectoffice/GroundsPlanWebsite/GPNEW/Setting/GPTheSettingAfterTheFire.html 3.6 - http://www.virginia.edu/architectoffice/GroundsPlanWebsite/GPNEW/Setting/GPTheSettingPostwarGrowth.html 3.7 - http://www.virginia.edu/architectoffice/GroundsPlanWebsite/GPNEW/Setting/GPTheSettingTowards21.html 3.8 - http://uvamagazine.org/retrospect/article/1968_first_photograph_of_the_university/#.UpOwgfmsiSo 3.9 - http://kirchmanassociates.blogspot.com/2009_10_01_archive.html 3.10 - http://dcaiga.blogspot.com/2013/06/thomas-jefferson-17431826-and-american.html

89

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY Advisory Council for Historic Preservation. 2013. Advisory Council for Historic Preservation. June 13.

Accessed August 29, 2013. http://www.achp.gov/.

Website for the independent agency that advices Congress and the President on historic preservation initiatives. The site contains publications and news relating to preservation education and training as well as laws and federal standards.

Alexander, Christopher. 1979. The Timeless Way of Building. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Establishing a new theory of design that relies on order and patterns, occurring over a period of time in multiple scales.

Architecture Faculty of the University of Virginia. 2005. “What Are the Jeffersonian Architectural Ideals?” lunch: trespass, September 7: 18.

Open letter from the architecture faculty of the University of Virginia to administration questioning the campus design methodology appearing in the architecture department’s student publication.

Bluestone, Daniel. 2011. Buildings, Landscapes, and Memory: Case Studies in Historic Preservation. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Multiple case studies that look at specific types of historic preservation in the United States on multiple scales. Several look at preservation in terms of destruction including the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial in St. Louis and the misinterpretation of the University of Virginia campus.

Brand, Stewart. 1994. How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They’re Built. New York: Penguin Books USA Inc. Analysis of the many lives a building endures over its existence and how that relates to the different methods behind preservation.

Brawne, Michael. 1994. Architecture in Detail: University of Virginia The Lawn. London: Phaidon Press.

History of the concepts behind the design of the Academic Village of the University of Virginia including plans and photos.

Buono, Jon. 2011. do.co,mo.mo_us. November 12. Accessed November 9, 2013. http://docomomo-us.org/ register/fiche/old_prentice_women%E2%80%99s_hospital_norman_ida_stone_institute_psychiatry.

Brief on the conception, construction, deterioration and preservation efforts of Prentice Women’s Hospital in Chicago Illinois designed by Bertrand Goldberg, including plans and photographs.

Butler, Rosanne Thaiss. 2011. Colonial Williamsburg: The Man Who Said No. Accessed September 27, 2013. http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/autumn11/man.cfm.

Article discussing the little known opposition to the creation of Colonial Williamsburg by members of the town.

G. Goldberg + Associates. n.d. Bertrand Goldberg: Chicago Architect, 1913-1997. Accessed November 9, 2013. http://bertrandgoldberg.org/projects/prentice-women%E2%80%99s-hospital/.

Online archive of documented work by architect Bertrand Goldberg including plans, models and photographs.

Gale, Edmund. n.d. Adelphi Academy of Brooklyn. Accessed October 25, 2013. http://adelphiacademy.org/ about/history.php.

History of the Adelphi Academy of Brooklyn New York featuring information on the expansion and additions made to the school.

Goodheart, Adam. 2006. “Expanding on Jefferson.” The New York Times, May 21: online.

Article explaining the modern design theory behind the University of Virginia’s campus featuring specific projects and discussions with architects and school faculty.

90

[Re] PURPOSING PRESERVATION

Hancock, John E. 1986. “Between History and Tradition: Notes Toward a Theory of Precedent.” Harvard Architectural Review 65-77.

Paper explaining a historic buildings analytical, experiential and transformational qualities and their use as precedent in modern design.

Historic New England. 2013. Historic New England. Accessed September 24, 2013. http://www.historicnewengland.org/about-us/founder-and-history-1#founding-spnea.

Brief history of the Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities, its founding principles and acquisitions.

Hollis, Edward. 2009. The Secret Lives of Buildings. New York: Macmillan Publishers.

Discussion of the ways building adapt to new uses through examples found throughout history.

Huxtable, Ada Louise. 1965. “The Lively Original vs. the Dead Copy.” The Free Lance Star, March 20: 4-5.

Editorial criticizing the preservation movement as a museum oddity following urban renewal.

Lange, Alexandra. 2012. Writing About Architecture: Mastering the Language of Buildings and Cities.

Princeton: Princeton Architectural Press.

Collection of writings about architectural criticism and methods for justifying design and preservation.

Leach, Andrew. 2010. What is Architectural History. London: Polity Press.

Definitions and approaches explaining architectural history and its relationship to the past and present.

Lee, Antoinette J. 1992. Past Meets Future. Washington D.C.: Archetype Press, Inc. Collection of essays and papers that were submitted in tandem with the 1991 National Preservtion Conference in San Francisco. Authors offer viewpoints related to culture, ethics, and values that question current trends in historic preservation.

Lynch, Kevin. 1988. This Is Place? Cambridge: MIT Press.

Examining the multiple scales of objects found throughout history and interpreting their existence as aspects of a given culture.

Marquez, Fernando, and Richard Levene. 2004-2008. “Higgins Hall Center Section.” El Croquis Steven Holl, 6-17.

Analysis of the contemporary addition made to the architecture department by Steven Holl featuring descriptions of the work, plans, sections, elevation, photographs and diagrams.

Mays, Vernon. 2008. “Old School, New School: University of Virginia.” Architect, November: online.

Analysis of the contemporary addition to the University of Virginia School of Architecture, designed by school faculty based on Jeffersonian ideals and principles.

Meyer Scherer & Rockcastle Ltd. 2013. Meyer Scherer & Rockcastle. Accessed September 15, 2013. http:// msrdesign.com/project/mill-city-museum/.

Firm website featuring finished projects, specifically the Mill City Museum in Minneapolis Minnesota and interviews with the principles on design concepts and methodology.

Minnesota Historical Society. 2013. Mill City Museum. Accessed September 15, 2013. http://www.millcitymuseum.org/history.

Online archive of historic photos of Minneapolis featuring the mill district and numerous views of the Washburn “A” Mill.

Monroe, Francis. 2001. An Architecture Guide to Brooklyn. Layton: Gibbs Smith.

Compiled history of significant works of architecture in Brooklyn New York featuring a section on the Clinton Hill neighborhood where Higgins Hall is located.

91

Murtagh, William J. 1997. Keeping Time: The History and Theory of Preservation in America. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Primer on the history and modern movement of architectural preservation in the United States, featuring projects that contributed to the movements overall principles.

National Register of Historic Places. 1997. Guidelines for Completing National Register of Historic Places Forms. Bulletin, Washington D.C.: Department of the Interior.

Reference material for completing a National Register nomination including definitions and descriptions as well as examples of types and styles of buildings.

Otero-Pailos, Jorge, interview by Laura Raskin. 2011. The Design Observer Group: Jorge Otero-Pailos and the Ethics of Preservation (January 18).

Examination of the work of Jorge Otero-Pailos and the struggles of being creative in the field of preservation.

Riegl, Alois. 1996. “The Modern Cult of Monuments: Its Essence and Its Development.” In Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, by Nicholas Price, M. Kirby Talley Jr. and Alessandra Melucco Vaccaro, 69-83. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute.

Paper critiquing the values and different viewpoints of a monument or building that is being preserved.

Semes, Steven W. 2009. The Future of the Past. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

General history of building conservation that looks at the relationship of architecture and historic preservation around the world, containing past and current theories on preservation and questions the values of a culture toward historic architecture.

Stubbs, John H. 2009. Time Honored: A Global View of Architectural Conservation. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Survey of past and present meanings of preservation and their methods around the world, with an emphasis on modern application.

Stubbs, John H., and Emily G. Makas. 2011. Architectural Conservation in Europe and the Americas. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Focused towards specific countries and regions this Discussion of theories of conservation and architectural preservation is geared towards their protection as cultural heritage.

The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. 2013. Colonial Williamsburg. Accessed September 22, 2013. http:// www.history.org/Foundation/journal/.

Online archive of drawings, plans, photographs and correspondence for the restoration of Colonial Williamsburg.

Weeks, Kay D., and Anne E. Grimmer. 1995. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Washington D.C.: United States Department of the Interior.

Guidelines established by the Secretary of the Interior for preserving and protecting United States historic sites along with general information the document looks to specific aspects of building construction such as exterior and interior finishes and accessibility considerations.

Willis, Chuck. 2008. Thomas Jefferson Architect: The Interactive Portfolio . Philadelphia: Running Press.

Collection of prints, plans, letters and photographs discussing Thomas Jefferson’s’ innovative contribution to the architectural movement in the United States.

Wolfe, Charles R. 2012. “What the History of Diocletian’s Palace Can Teach Us About Adaptive Reuse.” The Atlantic, February 7.

Examining Diocletian’s Palace as a case study for the adaptation of a historic site to a modern use over multiple time periods.

92

[Re] PURPOSING PRESERVATION