martinhouseclr

171 4 // ANALYSIS & EVALUATION nomination should be revised to explicitly state as such and include the provided additional rational and background as necessary. 3. Griffin Designed Landscape Attribution Along with the listing of the landscape as a contributing feature, the existing NR Statement of Significance should be revised to include the acknowledgement of Walter Burly Griffin as associated with the design of the landscape while under Wright’s employ, as well as the acknowledgment of his collaborative contributions to the construction administration of the project. The revisions should include necessary background as required to convey Griffin’s unique contributions in horticulture, among other things, as well as the contributions resultant of his garden design philosophy and significant role in Wright’s office. 4. Enhanced Narrative of Wright’s Integration of Building and Site Taking into account research performed as part of this CLR and by others in the years since the preparation of the NR nomination, it is suggested that the nomination be augmented to include an enhanced description of Wright’s philosophies toward landscape design and his integration of landscape into his Prairie works of the period. The description of the Martin House landscape within the NR data should be revised to more clearly illustrate the significance expressed in the existing NHL nomination, including Wright’s integration of architecture, interior design and landscape at the property. 5. Reconstructed Features as Contributing Additional research and analysis should be performed with respect to reconstructed buildings that may have attained significance as contributing features. These features should be evaluated based on NPS special criteria for reconstructions. If found to have attained significance then the NR Statement of Significance should be updated to reflect these inclusions. At a minimum, the nomination should identify that these buildings and features have been reconstructed. 6. Updated Period of Significance The existing Period of Significance noted within the NR nomination should be revised to reflect the additional areas of significance noted above, suggested as being 1903 to 1929. 7. Recognition of Additional Properties It is recommended that the boundary of the NR property remain as shown within the existing nomination (the ‘Historic Core’). However, the supporting material should indicate the location, extent and historic use of additional adjacent properties owned by Darwin Martin during the period of significance. 8. Qualifying the ‘Wasmuth Portfolio’ Plan For clarity of the record, it is recommended that the provided historic site plan within the existing NR supporting documentation be accurately identified and described as an idealized and spatially inaccurate plan developed well after the design and construction of the house and grounds (Wright’s ‘Wasmuth Portfolio,’ 1910). The plan provides a false sense of history, particularly of the neighborhood setting and the landscape design, and should be qualified as such or supplemented with a more accurate site plan of the historic condition. 9. Parity of NR and NHL Data Partly inclusive of the above recommendations regarding significance, the NR nomination should be updated to achieve more parity with the National Historic Landmark nomination in terms of significance, contributing features and supporting narrative/material. The NHL data should also be investigated; however, some descriptions of the landscape appear to be inaccurate based on updated research. If the descriptions are found to be accurate then sources should be cited within the nomination.