The heirs of iconic architect Richard Neutra (you may have heard of him; he’s got a sick typeface) have won their own Battle of Gettysburg after squaring off against historical preservationists who sought to return the battlesite to its original sylvan state. In 1999, the National Park Service declared its intention to demolish the L.A.-based architect’s Cyclorama Center, a 1962 modernist edifice built to house a giant circular painting depicting Pickett’s charge at Gettysburg. Civil War purists consider the 20th-century landmark building an “incursion on the historic site of Pickett’s charge, where Union forces held back a Confederate assault on the third day of the battle.” The presiding judges may not have ended the war, but Neutra’s design has received a stay of execution for now.
A section of the Pickett’s Charge painting housed in Cyclorama Center
The wrecking ball was set in motion last year when park officials tore down the Gettysburg vistors’ center and parking lot adjoining the Cyclorama Center, planning to raze Neutra’s building as part of a restoration effort for the 1860s-era Ziegler’s Grove.
According to the LA Times, “the federal court ruling may signal a turning point in the movement to save modernist landmarks, which supporters argue are as worthy of preservation as older, more traditionally designed structures.” A host of architects have rallied to save the building, pointing out its significance within the big picture of American history. Jason Hart, a Boston architect, points out that it was “meant as a monument to President Lincoln, who delivered the Gettysburg Address a few hundred yards away, at the national cemetery: ‘It has a lot of meaning and value to Gettysburg.’” Architecture lions Frank Gehry and Robert A.M. Stern have evidently agreed, “sending letters of support to save the center.” And Neutra’s own son, now 83, states for the record that Cyclorama Center “was ‘way up’ on his father’s list of the most important buildings of his career.”
Two views of Neutra’s Cyclorama Center, constructed in 1962
While there’s something powerful about an empty field commemorating a vital piece of U.S. historical record, a thoughtfully designed vistors’ center lends context to a place. It’s difficult to glean deeper meaning (or even chronology) without guidance, and let’s face it, most Gettysburg visitors in 2010 — 147 years after the climactic battle — aren’t Civil War experts. Tying our nation’s past to its more recent present with the help of art and architecture is a necessary effort, and one that we hope the federal justice department deems beneficial.
What do you think about preserving national historic sites and landmarks? Should one take precedence?
Comments (7)
The “father” of the Gettysburg Military Park was David McConaughy, a citizen of Gettysburg who purchased 50 acres of land after the battle, with the specific intention of preserving the field as it looked during the battle. He stated that “Immediately after the battle of Gettysburg, the thought occurred to me that there could be no more fitting and expressive memorial of the heroic valor and signal triumphs of our army, on the first, second and third days of July, 1863, than the battlefield itself, with its natural and artificial defenses, preserved and perpetuated in the exact form and condition they presented during the battle.” The park was run by an organization named the Gettysburg Battlefield Memorial Commission, and expanded thanks to donations by the veterans who fought there. In 1895, the Association turned over title to the federal government. In the 1960′s, the federal government had the Neutra-designed building placed on the very ground where soldiers fought. IMHO, this was a violation of the very intent of the park. What the Park Service wants to do now is correct a mistake – it should never have allowed the building to be constructed there in the first place.
Do you mean Historic Preservationists? Prior to dabbling in the debates of an obviously foreign field, I believe engaging correct terminology should take precedence.
A quick look at an aerial photo compared to a map of the battlefield shows that the town has expanded over much of the area despite the efforts of a few wealthy citizens of the time who were able to acquire and preserve parts of it. The Neutra building seems is tucked in a corner adjacent to the new town housing development, and on a relatively less significant area of the conflict (I’m ready to be corrected on this). To me, the placement of the Neutra building was likely well-considered at the time it was done. It would certainly have been an excellent home for the cyclorama of the battle–being near the center of the action represented in the painting. Too bad the Park decided to relocate and restore the painting and not improve the building. They spend a lot of $$$ on the new building, restoration of the painting, and yet still more $$$ to restore the landscape (an ongoing project of planting trees, removing trees, re-erecting fences, etc.). It all seems like a terrible squandering of money and resources, that sadly neglects a significant part of our modern legacy in the process.
John — A small correction: No soldiers fought on the site of the Cyclorama Center. The site was a key part of the Union line on July 2 and 3, 1863, but no actual combat occurred there.
I would welcome people to post comments at the original LA Times article (available through the link) so decision makers have more access to public comment, as it is unlikely they will read them here.
Great post Kelsey! Save the Cyclorama!
Post for article by Kelsey Keith of April 7.
4/14 On the occasion of the my mothers’s 109th birthday, and as co-designer of the original cyclorama center, may I add my two cents to these excellent posts.
Looking at all the battlefield monuments and the adjoining highway with fast food joints and motels, I’m sure the predecessors of the current Park Service decided that this part of the battlefield could never again look like it did in ’63. They chose our site because it was the spot from which the painting was created and they wished to provide an overview of the battlefield from that same vantage point; our roof deck.
Having occupied this site now for a third of the life of the battlefield, and being perfectly located to commemorate the Gettysburg Address, I think our building deserves to be repurposed rather than destroyed. So long as all the other incursions to this scene are not proposed to be cleansed, why not instead, install an accurate diorama in our building that depicts the battlefield the way it looked in those days?
Something no one speaks about; destruction of our building and large parts of what remains of Ziegler’s Wood is about as ‘ungreen’ as one could conceive! Where will all this broken concrete be housed? How about all the wasted energy that such operations would consume? How long would it take for saplings that would be planted to look like 1863?
After all is said and done, you still have those motels and KFC!
My father’s vision for this building was that once a year a throng of people could be assembled on the field outside to listen to a world class orator to paraphrase the immortal sentiments of the Address, which continue to resonate for us down the years from ’63. We have included in our design what we called ‘The Historic Rostrum’ from which this oration could be given. Broad sliding doors open the interior of the museum for this occasion when the Nation should pause and remember.
My vote is to re-title our building ‘The Abraham Lincoln Memorial Museum at Gettysburg’ and use the cyclorama theater to present a moving documentation of the three day battle to supplement the viewing of the static painting nearby. A separate show could document the events leading up to and culminating with the recitation of the Gettysburg Address. Lincoln memorabilia and history could be presented in the galleries along with civil war artifacts as available.
Post a new comment