Return to: Documents Determining Significance | Timeline of Events

Letter of response to Gettysburg NMP Section 106 Case Report
Dion Neutra, Architect for Richard and Dion Neutra, Architects and Associates

U.S. Dept. of the Interior
National Park Service; Gettysburg National Military Park
Gettysburg, PA 17326

Monday, January 11, 1999

Atten: John Latscher, Superintendent

Re: Gettysburg Cyclorama Center

Dear Dr. Latscher:

Thank you for your invitation of December 11 last, to comment on the Section 106 Case Report which you enclosed in that letter. I guess this is our first official correspondence; I'm glad to meet you!

As project architect for the original construction, I am indeed, an "interested party".

From the first paragraph of your letter, it is evident that despite the finding of Carol Shull, neither you nor the local Park Service officialdom appear to have moderated the local view of how best to develop the Park for the next century which appears to be: get rid of that 'mistake' at Ziegler's Grove and start over!

Please tell me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that one result of the declaration of eligibility of the Project for Listing and the Section 106 process, is that it now becomes the responsibility of the Superintendent "to preserve such resources for future use and interpretation to benefit the public".

How are you proposing to do this? Demolish the project?

Let's assume for the moment that we wished to analyze the actual costs of your plans involving demolition.

I have not seen a clear and concise financial analysis on which the proposed development plans are based. I have questions such as:

1. How much will it cost to demolish our building and its site per your plans and whose funds are to be used?

2. If this is done, how much will it cost to 'restore' the site to 1863 standards? I presume this would include removal also of all monuments, roads and extranea which dot the scene? Whose funds will be used?

3. How much is allocated to do the same with the Rosensteel facility? Again with whose funds?

4. How much will it cost to remove, rehang and restore the painting if it is moved, as compared to the same job, were it to remain in its present location?

5. How much are you figuring it will cost to build that portion of the new complex to house of the painting if moved? (In order to compare two approaches).

6. What happens if the proposed public fund raising effort falls short of the desired goal at some point in the middle of the new project? (i.e. or are you proposing not to break ground until all the funding is in hand?)

There would undoubtedly be other related questions like this, if you would disclose your analysis. Would you be kind enough to furnish me and the public with this sort of breakdown? I'm sure it would help all parties to understand your plan better.

Next, let's address the possibility that you would undertake preservation of the current Cyclorama Center.

Where in your considerations have you seriously outlined possible uses that could be carried out in this structure, were it to become part of the future plans rather than demolishing it?

Again, I'm not aware of any consideration having been given to this approach, assuming SAVING the building. If I'm wrong, could you supply us with that reference and the underlying cost analysis?

Were it up to us, we would approach the project from a value engineering point of view. Tax payer funds have been expended. There is now an historic monument of extraordinary beauty, grace and value as judged by a prestigious segment of the preservation community. I hope in time you too, can come to see that, so that a serious study can now be made of how to integrate this structure into the plan for the future of the park.

If that happens, I'd be pleased to be a part of that study.

It is my regret that at no time during the nearly 40 years since the completion of the Cyclorama Center, was our office ever consulted when the myriad 'deficiencies' came to light, which are now so copiously being listed. Undoubtedly much of this was before your watch. I am convinced, however, that much of the degradation that the painting and other parts of the project have sustained, could have been addressed, mitigated and solved long ago. But that is history; we have to go forward from here.

Just for the record, may I say that I feel some of what has been represented as failures of the design are, in fact, errors in judgment, if you will, or neglect of the Park Service and its consultants:

1. The location of the project. This was the result of long and agonizing discussions between historians and others in the decision-making loop in the late 50s when we were first instructed where to site the building. I happen to think this decision was at least as valid as the placement of the many 'monuments' that now dot the countryside and disturb the scene which would have been witnessed by the participants in the battle. Certainly much tax payer funding was expended to create this center.

I think the original impulses were correct: As one of the MOST heavily visited sites in the nation, placing the painting as close as possible to its vantage- point, and allowing the public to view the scene from essentially that same view point from the roof, is the most impressive and immediate way to interpret this site!

I would hope at some point, that some importance would be placed on the potential savings that would occur if a suitable use were found for the current and now historic Cyclorama Center.

2. The methods of hanging and preservation of the painting. In the programing stage, we were given the dimensions to which to design, The Park Service finally designed and installed the wooden structure to support the painting upon completion of construction. None of this was even part of the general contract!

To give the impression that the Neutra firm goofed up the supports and/or undersized the drum for the painting is yet another distortion that tends to discredit the design effort and shift the blame for the subsequent degradation and distortion of shape that the painting has sustained since. It never had a parabolic shape originally; in the last 30 years, it seems to have stretched more towards the bottom than the top; probably because it is supported/restrained at the top, coupled with the preservation/support means applied lower down over the years.

I have not personally observed this, but those who have, say they think this is what happened. While one approach indeed is to build a larger and more costly enclosure to add height to replace lost sky, and adjust for stretching down below, this does some violence to the painting anyway from the historic purity point of view.

One could as well explore the possibility of trimming off excess vertically, and allowing the draping to continue, or excising sections of the lower circumference and displaying them elsewhere for example, as a means of adjusting the painting to its space. Another approach could be the relaxation of the need for access to the lower-most portion of the painting; how many paintings have 100% access from the rear?

There are probably a number of other possibilities that should be considered, if SAVING THE BUILDING BECOMES A GIVEN!

If there is to be an accommodation for the historic value of this building, it should be given a position of equal importance to the preservation of the historic painting. Some adjustment of both would seem to be the reasonable approach; something no one in your group has evidently considered, at least so far.

Again, it is my impression that one of the mandates to you from the Section 106 process is to SERIOUSLY consider alternatives which would SAVE and find ADAPTIVE RE-USES of the existing monument, now considered eligible for inclusion on the Register.

Once the decision IS made "we have to live with this thing", I'm assuming attitudes would have to shift, especially if we were to have about the same funds available to spend, as are proposed to expend on a new enclosure. As far as the other deficiencies that have been reported, were we to be retained as consultants, we would list them in an orderly fashion and address them one by one to see NOW how best to mitigate their effects.

Regardless of whose funds are being spent, the taxpayers are going to need full disclosure of how this project is put together financially one way or the other. All dollars should be optimized over the long haul, with an eye to historic values both in the building as well as the painting it houses.

I thank you for finally contacting us. I hope these remarks will be of some value in reaching the ultimate decision, and that we can become part of that process.

"The world will little note nor long remember what we say here;" It will remember what we DO here!

Sincerely,

/s/

DION NEUTRA, Architect for Richard and Dion Neutra, Architects and Associates

This site composed and administered by Christine Madrid French 2004.