martinhouseclr

210 DARWIN D. MARTIN HOUSE // CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT preservation efforts. As noted in the analysis section, it is likely that these reconstructed features may be considered contributing features through special evaluation criteria. Rigorous effort should be made in protecting and preserving existing buildings and structures prior to beginning any landscape treatment implementation projects. Project work should not be undertaken that will irreparably damage buildings or structures, or where appropriate preventative specifications or maintenance strategies cannot be realized. Any replacement of missing structures or replacement with new compatible designs, including walls, fences or other features, should follow the site-wide general guidelines. Some structures that have been lost – such as the Pierson-Sefton greenhouse located on the Gardener’s Cottage parcel – should not be replaced with interpretive elements that try to reconstruct the three-dimensional scale and form of the feature. This is known as ‘ghosting’ and can be an effective strategy for some historic sites that may have completely lost their context, integrity, or have other program or interpretive goals. However, it is not a recommended strategy for the Martin House property. A more appropriate strategy would be to signify its existence and allow interpretation through a more restrained approach that does not interrupt views or lessen the usefulness of the space for current program needs. Non-contributing structures or furnishings, including benches or other non-health, safety and welfare features, should be removed from the “interpretive core” of the property. Vegetation and Plantings Due to the extent of the historic plant material, recommended guidelines for treatments involving vegetation are varied and in-depth. It is recognized that many of the treatment tasks will involve the design for replacement of missing vegetative materials, including trees, shrubs, and perennial plantings – in an effort to accurately reproduce, where possible, the character of the historic gardens. Therefore, these guidelines are further broken down into themes that will help guide decisions. It should be reiterated that contributing vegetative features, both individual specimen plants and groups/collections of plantings, are largely missing from the property. Extant historic vegetative features include a contributing specimen tree (Fagus sylvatica atropurpurea group) within the Jewett Frontage area [Fig. 193] and off-site transplanted collections of what is believed to be historic plant material, including wisteria and lilac. When undertaking tasks for the replacement of vegetative features it should be accepted that it is primarily vegetative features that, if appropriately rehabilitated or restored, would Fig. 193 The “Copper Beech” (Fagus sylvatica atropurpurea group) is the lone surviving historic vegetative feature within the historic core.