martinhouseclr

208 DARWIN D. MARTIN HOUSE // CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT Treatment Philosophy & Site-Wide Guidelines The overall treatment philosophy for the Darwin D. Martin House cultural landscape is to rehabilitate the documented historic characteristics of the designed landscape while supporting the interpretive, preservation and management goals of the Martin House Restoration Corporation (MHRC). Any rehabilitation or restoration treatments undertaken within the landscape should principally aim to enhance the accurate interpretation of the historic property for visitors and the community. These interpretation objectives should focus on the foundations behind the property’s documented significance (Wright, Griffin, and Martin), and the idealistic unification of architecture, landscape, and interior design. Based on the preferred treatment of rehabilitation, the following site-wide guidelines and principles have been developed to supplement this overall treatment philosophy. These guidelines form an essential structure for decision making on treatment activities within the “interpretive core.” They are also largely applicable throughout the NR Historic Core and on adjacent parcels that contribute to the character of the historic property, e.g. “borrowed” scenery experienced from within the “Interpretive Core,” or from the public realm landscape of the surrounding Parkside Historic District. General Guidelines The characteristics of the designed landscape that are documented to have existed during the Martin’s tenure include a clearly defined series of both expansive and intimate outdoor rooms and garden spaces. These gardens consisted of a vast diversity of plant species, taking the shape of naturalistic shrub massings, English border gardens, vine covered architecture, the use of vegetative screening, and an observable overhead canopy of large deciduous shade trees. It is these general characteristics that treatment decisions should strive to convey. Due to the condition of the designed landscape, most of the recommended rehabilitation tasks involve the replacement of missing features. Replacement of missing features should always be the preferred course of action when possible. If adequate historical, photographic, or other documentation exists so that the feature may be accurately reproduced, then it is appropriate to replace these features as they existed during the Period of Significance. In some instances it may not be desirable or possible to accurately reproduce a feature. For instance, the feature may not have adequate documentation or it may not be compatible with the current use of the property or MHRC management capacities. In these cases an appropriate course of action is to replace the feature with a new design that is compatible with the remaining features of the historic property. New designs should fully consider the spatial organization, features, and materials of the overall landscape and should not give a false sense of history. Rehabilitation allows non-historic changes to the landscape, including new contemporary-use additions, but these changes must not destroy historic features that characterize the property. New work should be differentiated from the historic features and also be compatible with the historic materials, scale, size, and proportion. If MHRC program needs cannot be achieved through additions outside of this area then the additions should be utilitarian and subordinate to the landscape. Removal should also be perused for any feature documented as non-contributing within the “interpretive core.” This may include older features that are newly identified as non- contributing (not existing within the Period of Significance) or utilitarian features that are considered unessential for the property’s current use or for health and safety reasons. Removal and replacement should also be considered for reconstructed elements where the reconstructions have been documented as inaccurate based on new research information.