martinhouseclr

205 5 // TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS During the proceedings of the November 2014 ‘Stakeholder Meeting,’ it was suggested that the Gardener’s Cottage be removed from the historic core. The purpose of this was to ensure the recommended primary treatment was consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s standards and to establish a clearer boundary for interpretive purposes. In essence, the intent was to sever the piece of the historic core that held the lowest level of integrity, perhaps the least historical significance, and the least possibility of landscape restoration. The reasons for this are several: the greenhouse no longer exists, the Gardener’s Cottage has a non-contributing building addition on the east façade, and interpretive and administrative infrastructure dominates the parcel itself and the immediate environs. It was felt that any serious discussion of restoration was unwarranted due to the level of integrity. Based on feedback provided by Christine Capella-Peters of the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, it was decided to change the primary treatment to a rehabilitation. Thus, the final treatment recommendations do not advocate for the removal of the Gardener’s Cottage parcel from the historic core with regard to the National Register. While low in integrity and grossly changed since the Period of Significance, the property retains significance for several reasons and blurring the lines between the National Register historic core and the Treatment historic core is not advisable. The Gardener’s Cottage remains as part of the collection of buildings commissioned by Darwin D. Martin, which, in part, holds documented significance for the diversity of architectural detailing and construction budgets executed by Wright and simply for being an important part of the residential estate of Darwin D. Martin. What the treatment recommendations do advocate is an overall intention to express a clear distinction between the interpretive value of the Gardener’s Cottage parcel (as a landscape) and that of the remaining historic core, which retains considerably higher levels of integrity. Due to its low integrity and the continual need for visitor services and related infrastructure, it is recommended the Gardener’s Cottage parcel should principally be surrendered to these uses in an effort to bolster the integrity of the remaining property and provide necessary space for the current use. For the purposes of these treatment recommendations and the interpretive goals of the MHRC, this remaining ‘historic core’ boundary (being the NR historic core, less the Gardener’s Cottage parcel) has been referred to as the “interpretive core.” [Fig. 190] Historic Core Proposed “Interpretive Core” Fig. 190 For treatment purposes, the area in yellow is referred to as the “interpretive core”.