Products, Vendors, CAD Files, Spec Sheets and More...
Sign up for LAWeekly newsletter
Gardens and historic sites in America typically focused on the ?EUR??,,????'??founding fathers?EUR??,,????'?? to inspire citizens to rise to the challenges facing the nation in our emerging role as a world power after World War I. Colonial Williamsburg?EUR??,,????'???s physical-creation in 1927 was first intended to preserve surviving, old buildings, but turned out to be a unique mix of historical evidence coupled with design refinements intended make the colonial past more attractive to visitors.
The intersection of historical evidence and contemporary myth is perhaps most evident today in Colonial Williamsburg?EUR??,,????'???s reconstructed gardens, first designed by Arthur A. Shurcliff, FASLA, and later by his assistant and successor, Alden Hopkins, FASLA. While based upon late seventeenth century English formal landscape design styles, the ?EUR??,,????'??period?EUR??,,????'?? gardens they designed reflected the nostalgic values and veneration of the American past typical of depression-era America. Today, these gardens are referred to as ?EUR??,,????'??Colonial Revival?EUR??,,????'?? landscape design.
As time passed, the public increasingly questioned the validity of the all-white, gentry biased, ?EUR??,,????'??picture-postcard?EUR??,,????'?? vision of our colonial past. Responding to the needs and desires of today?EUR??,,????'???s society, Colonial Williamsburg?EUR??,,????'???s interpretive focus shifted in the mid-1970?EUR??,,????'???s to teach ?EUR??,,????'??social history,?EUR??,,????'?? or the history of all the diverse peoples of the community.
In recent years, however, it has become evident that the teaching of social history visually conflicts with the existing gentrified garden settings created by Shurcliff and Hopkins. Scholars now believe that many of the colonial revival gardens in Williamsburg do not reflect the ordinary vernacular gardens that recent archaeological evidence suggests were more typical among eighteenth century middle class town dwellers. This raises the ethical debate known as ?EUR??,,????'??Scrape vs. Anti-Scrape.?EUR??,,????'?? The question centers around whether it is proper to revise (scrape) the Colonial Revival gardens to bring them into conformity with these simpler, vernacular gardens, or whether they be left intact (anti-scrape) because they are now visual documents of an earlier preservation philosophy and thus historic.
Historical research is an ongoing activity at Colonial Williamsburg, with a deep commitment to self-improvement. Colonial Williamsburg?EUR??,,????'???s educational programs are continuously revised as perceptions of life in the past are being reshaped. To teach history better, Colonial Williamsburg recognizes that they must successfully integrate three elements into the learning process: visitors?EUR??,,????'??? personal interests and concerns, the historical themes selected to shed insight on our shared national past, and the physical organization of the programs and exhibition sites used for transmitting those messages.
The ?EUR??,,????'??physical organization of exhibition sites?EUR??,,????'?? is where landscape design, preservation, and management enter into this complex equation. It is appropriate to question whether the colonial revival landscapes continue to support the evolving educational goals and objectives of the institution. If so, they obviously must be maintained and preserved. If not, where, how, and to what extent should they be revised?
The overall appearance of the Historic Area today continues to reflect the 1930?EUR??,,????'???s colonial revival ethos, which re-created it. While the foundation works very hard to keep the gardens colorful and attractive to the eye, many lack enough substantive differences in detailing, plantings, maintenance practices, and materials used to reflect the site-to-site variances in economic status and personal tastes of individual eighteenth century owners.
In the gardens of the gentry class, the maintenance standards, design refinements, and degree of detailing should visually establish the owner?EUR??,,????'???s wealth and sophistication to the casual observer. It is known that intricate fencing, repetitive flower planting themes, and delicately crafted topiary were all intended to convey that message to eighteenth century passers-by. In contrast, the simplicity of design and detailing in the vernacular gardens of the middle and lower classes should also be as apparent. Fences were simple, functional, and without much decoration; the variety of flowers planted in these utilitarian gardens was limited in species and quantity; and plantings were more random and mixed together. In addition, there were obviously more vegetables planted and few, if any, evergreen parterres or topiary.
Today, although Colonial Williamsburg displays different types of gardens, the visual distinctions between these typological extremes still seem too subtle to be fully believable. Varying the standards of landscape maintenance in the gardens partially mitigates this ?EUR??,,????'??sameness of appearance?EUR??,,????'?? condition, but is not the ultimate solution. The solution lies with resolving other design and detailing issues.
To help resolve these issues, laboratory technologies and landscape archaeological techniques are now at the disposal of the foundation to give new insights to the people of the past and their many influences on the land. This is new information that our pioneer predecessors did not have to assist their efforts.
While recent landscape preservation guidelines formulated by the National Park Service will be helpful to all employed in this line of work, realistically, there is no way that they can address all dilemmas posed by unique problems found on every historic site. In order to resolve the apparent impasse that surrounds the ?EUR??,,????'??Scrape vs. Anti-Scrape?EUR??,,????'?? ethical dilemma, each historic site must actively search for those variables and qualifiers peculiar to their respective institution rather than rely on generalized dogma on both sides of the debate. What works for one museum might not be applicable nor proper in other settings.
Colonial Williamsburg recognizes that it possesses some of the finest Colonial Revival gardens in existence, many of them deserving to be preserved in perpetuity. Yet, if they are to remain a relevant outdoor museum into the next century, some physical landscape changes will have to be made. It is their hope that they will be able to devise more carefully considered approaches concerning how they can best manage their gardens in support of their teaching focus, while at the same time preserving the most important elements of their existing landscape environment. The way they choose to respond will be the legacy they leave to those whom Colonial Williamsburg?EUR??,,????'???s future care will be entrusted.
Raleigh, North Carolina
Francisco Uviña, University of New Mexico
Hardscape Oasis in Litchfield Park
Ash Nochian, Ph.D. Landscape Architect
Sign up to receive Landscape Architect and Specifier News Magazine, LA Weekly and More...
Invalid Verification Code
Please enter the Verification Code below
You are now subcribed to LASN. You can also search and download CAD files and spec sheets from LADetails.