Table of Contentss

Acknowledgements

Introduction

Dinosaur

Wright Brothers

Gettysburg

Pertified Forest

Rocky Mountain

Cecil Doty

Conclusion

Bibliography

Appendix I

Appendix II

Appendix III

Appendix IV

Mission 66 Visitor Centers Chapter 3

Choosing the "Color Palette"

Although the structural details of the concrete forms and foundation were of utmost importance throughout construction, the choice of colors ultimately became the most debated aspect of the Gettysburg project. Nearly a year after the color controversy began, Dion Neutra explained to the Park Service that his father "spent years thinking about colors and their effect, and . . . consulted with some of the most advanced thinkers in the field, such as Francis Adler of Johns Hopkins, Baltimore." [99] The architects' original selection of a "palette" of colors for the building, introduced in July 1960, resulted in some significant interior changes. The designers considered the colors of all the interior spaces and facilities, from museum exhibits to restroom toilets. Fearing that the exhibit space would prove too dim, Neutra tried to highlight the displays through a careful selection of colors; in one case, he hoped to substitute the original garnet granite with opalescent ruby-ebony at considerable extra cost. The toilet stalls were to have light gray front doors, pilasters, and screens; the men's toilet would feature maroon cross walls and the women's terra cotta. For the lounge, the architects envisioned a warm char brown carpet, which would complement the rust terrazzo and contrast with lighter plastic covered furniture. The selecting of colors had only just begun.

As Dion Neutra indicated, the color choices involved more than simply tones and patterns that harmonized. Neutra and Alexander thought of color as an architectural element that influenced perception of the entire building mass. They layered closely related shades to create a receding effect in the office wing's west elevation, which also made it seem "to float." The white view deck rail stood out against elements closely related in tone. The hope was always "a subliminal effect," in other words, a sense of the place that visitors would not associate with architectural manipulation. [100]

The color dilemma intensified in November 1960, when John Cabot reported that his office found itself "in almost complete disagreement with the over-all color selections proposed." [101] The Park Service rejected both the brown-multi, a "dark and lifeless color," and the charcoal-multi, except in two sections of the museum where darker accents were useful. Black formica for toilet room shelves, the ticket booth, and the dioramas was impractical due to the propensity for fingerprints on these surfaces. Park designers particularly objected to artificial finishes, such as "the practice of painting wood and steel with aluminum paint, staining ash and fir with a walnut stain, and using wood-grained formica." In response to further selections made by the architects later that month, the Park Service decided to prepare its own color study. [102] Meanwhile, Neutra persuaded the client to accept a revised scheme he called "basically simple: a light warm gray-beige color as the basic element throughout the main level. As contrast in smaller areas, a good dark terrazzo on the stair and upper Lobby as contrast to the light floor on both levels." [103] With the pressure of deadlines mounting, understandable tension developed around the subject of colors. When Dion Neutra requested a site visit in December, John Cabot was quick to deny him the privilege, explaining that his associates were engaged in their own color analysis and would not discuss the subject until after its completion. He then admonished the firm for pressuring the government to make its color decisions and informing the contractor that the client was delaying progress. Cabot considered this both unprofessional and unfair, since the Park Service had waited many months for the architects' previous selections. Over the next few weeks, the architects talked with EODC designer Ann Massey and reached a suitable compromise in terms of "color harmony." [104]

During deliberations over colors for restroom facilities, Neutra and Alexander alluded to the reasoning behind their passionate defense of certain color combinations. Although the architects agreed that the restrooms should be visible from outside, they hoped to resolve the issue "without impairing the dignity and monumental quality of the building." [105] Drawing attention to the restrooms with brightly colored doors or large signs, as the Park Service suggested, would take away from the impression the architects hoped to create. Neutra illustrated this point by comparing the visitor center to "Independence Hall in your city, the Lincoln and Jefferson memorials in Washington, the Taj Mahal, or most any building of prominence," in which "especially accented toilet doors" would be most inappropriate. [106] The architects understood their building to "be in the same class as any of the above albeit of simple materials." Subtle elements set the building apart from utilitarian structures. The substitution of the blue west view deck railing with a more reserved Puritan gray, for example, furthered the visitor center's dignified demeanor. Neutra explained the firm's belief that blue would not only be a dangerous color to juxtapose with the blue sky, but might also impart a "too 'flippant' or 'playful' aspect to what should be a sober building at least in its main exterior effect."

Neutra voiced tentative approval for the color palette from his west coast office, but once on the site, he often changed his mind. [107] After a visit in May 1961, John Cabot reported the architect's "aversion" to the chosen mustard color and agreed to replace it with citron or lemon yellow. [108] By October, Alexander had met with Massey, Longstreth, and Smith to discuss interior finishes and determined that a new plain brown color should replace the chocolate tone. In the meantime, the EODC did not approve the change from white texture coat to beige multi for the curving south wall of the mechanical room and auditorium. Richard Neutra sent a telegram "regarding auditorium beige multi," insisting that, while he agreed with the park "in principle," the "high quality and maintenance freedom of glitter Thoroseal" was superior to an ordinary paint job and worth the extra trouble. He also suggested that the light gray Thoroseal originally contemplated in the specifications might harmonize more effectively with the interior color scheme. The color selection for office partitions also proved more difficult than anticipated. For the partition framework, the architects suggested beige for the metal bases, mustard for door frames, and metallic aluminum gray for end plates, tops, and mullions. The Park Service found this "an extremely busy pattern," and ordered everything in beige to match the rubber cove base. [109]

In a December 1 meeting, the contractor complained about the delays in reaching any color agreements, and by the next week he threatened to stop work if this aspect of the project remained unresolved. Longstreth pointed out that the architects could only recommend colors, not approve them. Although this was true, when it came to artistic issues, the architects operated on a different level from their Park Service collaborators. Seemingly insignificant details, such as "the play of color planes or values in the area of the corridors leading to the museum," took on great architectural importance. The architects' response to a discussion about the color of "Door #13," a minor component of the overall plan, warranted the following explanation:

If you feel that a lighter color for the "frame" (everything on the door but the applied sash which is heavier brown) would not show on the inside anyway, we would appreciate it if we could be allowed to paint this to express the essential quality of this design and meet Mr. Neutra's idea of reduced brightness differential. We propose to treat the "structural" part of the door with Puritan Gray and the "applied sash" in Beaver Brown. [110]

As indicated by their work on the louver window wall, the architects were also concerned with the effect of natural and artificial light on the colors. They asked that contractors delay the final coat of paint until "after simulating the quality of light from the various types of lighting fixtures to be used in windowless areas." [111]

Finally, in early March, Don Benson and Ann Massey took color boards to Gettysburg and presented the completed scheme to Superintendent Myers. [112] As Cabot noted, the Park Service did not include aspects of the exterior—the view deck railing, concrete office wall on the west side, and eastern roof fascia—which still required consideration. Contract and Park Service architects reached agreement on the colors after what Cabot called "some five months of continuous review." [113] Despite this resolution, changes were still proposed as late as August 1961, when Dion Neutra reminded the Superintendent that "this business of getting the best final result does sometimes require a bit of readjusting of ones thinking from time to time. The building will be there a long time and we want to give it everything we've got for the final result." [114]

CONTINUED

 

http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/allaback/vc3d.htm