continued

Reliance on "architecture" can also foster the taste prerogative — the unthinking, snobbish notion, still cherished in many preservation circles, that physical things are assessed by some immutable, yet never articulated, canon of formal attributes. Looking at the built environment as a landscape can expose the pernicious effects of such predilections, but old habits die hard.

Building and Battle

An especially unfortunate case of the "history" versus "architecture" dialectic — one that is likely to become infamous if current plans are realized — is the impending destruction of the former visitor center (now called the Cyclorama Building) at Gettysburg National Military Park.

Designed by Richard Neutra in 1959 and dedicated three years later, the building was the flagship of the National Park Service's Mission 66 program, which provided not only long-overdue infrastructural improvements, but also played a pioneering role in the advancement of historic site interpretation as part of public history.

Vienna-born Neutra, conscious of lingering North-South animosities and having experienced the effects of monarchal rule firsthand, dedicated his efforts to one of his foremost heroes, Abraham Lincoln, and to the causes of freedom and peace.

Conceptually the scheme was developed not just to facilitate visitation but as an instrument to advance global harmony at the height of the Cold War. The lessons to be learned from the battle were not just ones of military engagement and of strife in America's past; they were essential ones for the present if holocaust was to be averted and lasting peace attained.

These and many other facets that make the building one of national significance were never investigated by park managers, who continue to downplay its importance and insist that it violates hallowed ground.

Early on in the process, the then-state historic preservation officer and the president of the National Trust for Historic Preservation concurred that the building should be removed on the basis that it was an intrusive feature on the battlefield, standing near the heart of General George Pickett's tragic and decisive charge.

Once a campaign was launched to save the Neutra building and the case made for its significance, decision makers still maintained an "either-or" perspective. In sanctioning demolition, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation issued an opinion that irrespective of how important the building might be, it was nonetheless incompatible with the park; the Battle of Gettysburg's significance far transcended that of the building.

The leadership of the National Trust has also staunchly adhered to this view. In recent communication with Neutra's son, president Richard Moe observed: "the prevailing view [at the National Trust] is that the battlefield is the historic resource that the park is intended to preserve and, regrettably, it's difficult to do that properly when the building is on part of the battlefield."

The leadership of the World Monuments Fund disagreed and placed the building on its 100 most endangered properties list in 2005.

What remains the prevailing official perspective toward the Neutra building not only ignores the intent of the design, it takes an unduly narrow view toward the continuum of commemoration that is central to the park as a landscape and to its meaning for many visitors. The new general management plan gives the terminal date for the park's period of significance as 1933 — the year the National Park Service assumed custody! — even though numerous commemorative markers have been added since then.

In place of the building will be a landscape "restored" to its 1863 appearance. Yet restoration is impossible, for the site is one of the richest places of combat memorialization in the United States — a landscape in which the building can be seen as an integral part.

Furthermore, a flanking highway and mid-20th-century commercial establishments along it stand as conspicuous indications of the passage of time. If realized, the quasi-recreated patch of 1863 landscape that is planned will always be surrounded by an environment of substantially later vintage.

Interpretation of the battle will continue whatever the outcome. The concept of cultural landscape can create a slippery slope for preservation if it is used in certain ways: demolition of the building and the creation of a new, open setting are just part of the ongoing changes to foster interpretation.

In this way cultural landscape bears analogy with the concept of anti-restoration — or antiscrape, as it frequently called — which has become a determinant of preservation policy in many parts of the world.

Taken to its extreme, anti-scrape would prevent any change in the name of preservation or for any other reason as it would sanction all changes made up to the time of designation.

But the practice of preservation, like the crafting of history, is of necessity a selective act that is impossible to conduct in a purely neutral fashion. Rather, practice must be guided by reason, principle, knowledge, and fact. Much the same applies to cultural landscape, which is a construct no less than the idea of anti-restoration or of historical significance.   >>>

Discuss this article in the Architecture Forum...

Richard Longstreth is professor of American studies and directory of the graduate program in historic preservation at George Washington University. A past president of the Society of Architectural Historians and vice president of the Vernacular Architecture Forum, he has written extensively on architectural and urban history as well as on historic preservation subjects. Currently he is completing a detailed study, The Department Store Transformed, 1920-1960.

This article is excerpted from Cultural Landscapes: Balancing Nature and Heritage in Preservation Practice, Richard Longstreth, editor, copyright © 2008, with permission of the publisher, University of Minnesota Press.

Image credits: The two black-and-white photographs showing the Cyclorama Building and nearby memorials, respectively, appear in the book Cultural Landscapes; they and the book cover image are reproduced here courtesy of the University of Minnesota Press. The remaining images do not appear in the book, and are sourced as credited.

SUBSCRIPTION SAMPLE Monuments for the Battle of Gettysburg line the approach to the Cyclorama Building. Photo: Courtesy University of Minnesota Press Extra Large Image The entry to the Cyclorama Building is adjacent to the cylindrical exhibition hall that originally housed an 1884 cyclorama — a painting that encircles the viewer — depicting the Battle of Gettysburg. Photo: Leslie Johnston Extra Large Image A steel sculpture in the ground-floor exhibit space emulates the detailing around the central cylindrical room. Photo: Leslie Johnston Extra Large Image The Cyclorama Building was constructed to enclose elements of the original Gettysburg landscape. Photo: Leslie Johnston Extra Large Image Cyclorama Building floor plan drawings. Image: Historic American Buildings Survey Extra Large Image Cyclorama Building section drawing. Image: HABS Extra Large Image A spiral ramp brings visitors to the second-floor exhibition space that once housed the Gettysburg Cyclorama painting. Photo: Leslie Johnston Extra Large Image Cultural Landscapes by Richard Longstreth. Image: University of Minnesota Press Extra Large Image   Click on thumbnail images to view full-size pictures.