UVa School of Architecture | Responses to July e-News PushPin: What do you think about the restoration plans for The Lawn?

Friday, August 14, 2009

Responses to July e-News PushPin: What do you think about the restoration plans for The Lawn?

Email your thoughts to: sarc-news@virginia.edu

Responses as of 8/14/09:

Preserve the lawn as it has evolved with its inaccuracies and intrusions. We like it this way. Stop the re-dos of Mr. Jefferson’s work and strive for the same quality of design in today’s architecture at UVA. Dare to challenge Mr. Jefferson’s architecture, rather than bowing to it at every turn, and give us the excitement of world class 21st century architecture at the University of Virginia!

John Farmer
School of Architecture, 1974

=

As wonderful as White’s Rotunda may seem to those who weren’t around in the 60’s and early 70’s, The interior room was one large, tall forlorn empty space. Once the Library left in the 30’s it became the reciprocal of a homeless person – it was a personless home.

The 70’s restoration inserted sensible uses and spaces into what had been Lurray Caverns, east.

The exterior is another story. White’s exterior, green roof and all, was a triumph.

Finally, remember Jefferson got to Italy, but gave up the journey as too difficult before he got to Rome. Jefferson never saw the Pantheon in person.

As the preservation community chases its tail, may I suggest considering how Jefferson would have designed the Rotunda, if he had gotten to Rome and seen the real thing? White, I presume had seen the real thing, and come to think of it, White’s central room looked a lot like the interior of the Pantheon.

Tobin Richter
SARC ’67 (BCP)

=

When I was studying preservation with Murray Howard in the late 1980s, he said there wasn’t enough information to reconstruct the parapet on Pavilion X — Jefferson’s drawings weren’t detailed enough, and the available photographs weren’t clear enough to gauge sizes accurately. Has new information been uncovered that now makes that possible?

As for restoring Jefferson’s "intentions" — he frequently changed his mind about things. Better to figure out what really was built, or else leave it alone.

Christopher Wigren
College ‘79
Architecture ‘89

=

This response is based solely on the article which does not discuss specific plans so much as it articulates contrasting opinions. What is evident is that many people are caught in the moment of their own experience. Those who criticize the 1970s renovation (which was linked to the Nation’s bicentennial in 1976) should stop and consider what a 21st century renovation may be thought of by future alumni and faculty - the operative idea is that "it seemed like a good idea at the time".

Everyone needs to take a step back from the architectural details (green versus white roofs, for instance) and consider the basic original Jeffersonian concept - that of the "Academical Village".

The Rotunda should be restored as a locus for academic activities. In the 21st century, this may not mean returning it to use as a library, since Alderman long ago usurped that function, but as a vibrant academic node - a coveted, continual meeting place for important forums, university based organizations, or other intrinsic educational activities.

I doubt that anyone would argue that Stanford White’s Cabell Hall has never been a satisfactory counterpart to the Rotunda. He had good reason to be nervous (although a commission is a commission).

Possibly the larger issue would be consideration of the demolition of Cabell Hall, to re-establish the vista that seemed to have satisfied Jefferson at the birth of his original design.

As wonderful a space as it is (and it is a space as much as an visually organized collection of buildings) Jefferson’s design is not original however. One has only to walk the original grounds of William and Mary, with the Wren Building as the anchor, to see where Jefferson’s inspiration originated.

Donald R. Greenwood
Architecture, 1971
=

	Home > Calendar > In the News > Friday, August 14, 2009 Responses to July e-News PushPin: What do you think about the restoration plans for The Lawn? Email your thoughts to: sarc-news@virginia.edu Responses as of 8/14/09: Preserve the lawn as it has evolved with its inaccuracies and intrusions. We like it this way. Stop the re-dos of Mr. Jefferson’s work and strive for the same quality of design in today’s architecture at UVA. Dare to challenge Mr. Jefferson’s architecture, rather than bowing to it at every turn, and give us the excitement of world class 21st century architecture at the University of Virginia! John Farmer School of Architecture, 1974 = As wonderful as White’s Rotunda may seem to those who weren’t around in the 60’s and early 70’s, The interior room was one large, tall forlorn empty space. Once the Library left in the 30’s it became the reciprocal of a homeless person – it was a personless home. The 70’s restoration inserted sensible uses and spaces into what had been Lurray Caverns, east. The exterior is another story. White’s exterior, green roof and all, was a triumph. Finally, remember Jefferson got to Italy, but gave up the journey as too difficult before he got to Rome. Jefferson never saw the Pantheon in person. As the preservation community chases its tail, may I suggest considering how Jefferson would have designed the Rotunda, if he had gotten to Rome and seen the real thing? White, I presume had seen the real thing, and come to think of it, White’s central room looked a lot like the interior of the Pantheon. Tobin Richter SARC ’67 (BCP) = When I was studying preservation with Murray Howard in the late 1980s, he said there wasn’t enough information to reconstruct the parapet on Pavilion X — Jefferson’s drawings weren’t detailed enough, and the available photographs weren’t clear enough to gauge sizes accurately. Has new information been uncovered that now makes that possible? As for restoring Jefferson’s "intentions" — he frequently changed his mind about things. Better to figure out what really was built, or else leave it alone. Christopher Wigren College ‘79 Architecture ‘89 = This response is based solely on the article which does not discuss specific plans so much as it articulates contrasting opinions. What is evident is that many people are caught in the moment of their own experience. Those who criticize the 1970s renovation (which was linked to the Nation’s bicentennial in 1976) should stop and consider what a 21st century renovation may be thought of by future alumni and faculty - the operative idea is that "it seemed like a good idea at the time". Everyone needs to take a step back from the architectural details (green versus white roofs, for instance) and consider the basic original Jeffersonian concept - that of the "Academical Village". The Rotunda should be restored as a locus for academic activities. In the 21st century, this may not mean returning it to use as a library, since Alderman long ago usurped that function, but as a vibrant academic node - a coveted, continual meeting place for important forums, university based organizations, or other intrinsic educational activities. I doubt that anyone would argue that Stanford White’s Cabell Hall has never been a satisfactory counterpart to the Rotunda. He had good reason to be nervous (although a commission is a commission). Possibly the larger issue would be consideration of the demolition of Cabell Hall, to re-establish the vista that seemed to have satisfied Jefferson at the birth of his original design. As wonderful a space as it is (and it is a space as much as an visually organized collection of buildings) Jefferson’s design is not original however. One has only to walk the original grounds of William and Mary, with the Wren Building as the anchor, to see where Jefferson’s inspiration originated. Donald R. Greenwood Architecture, 1971 =	This Week This Month : November In the News Feature Stories Archive Lectures & Symposia Exhibits Podcasts UVa Academic Calendar UVa Events Calendar UVa Student Activities Calendar
		Back to top