An Interview with Robert M. Utley on the History of Historic Preservation in the National Park Service—1947-1980

AN INTERVIEW WITH ROBERT M. UTLEY ON THE HISTORY OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE—1947-1980
by Richard W. Sellars and Melody Webb
September 24, 1985 - December 27, 1985

---

This is tape 13 of the interview with Bob Utley, December 19, 1985.

---

Bent's Fort was in the Midwest Region. It may have been even called Region Two then. All of the studying was done there. The legislative process may have been handled through them before I got involved with it. I do not believe that reconstruction was seriously considered during the authorizing hearings. That is something that surfaced later, when Bent's Fort was already in the Park System and we were wondering what to do about it. There was sentiment in Colorado for reconstruction. What Roy Appleman and I did was seize on that sentiment and its manifestation in the congressional delegation to get funds authorized to reconstruct it.

Dick: But the ghosting of the walls was never considered?

Bob: I don't believe that was ever considered. I'm not aware that it was ever proposed before Franklin Court at Independence.

That was another reconstruction proposal. The archeologist up there, John Cotter, had excavated Franklin's home and was convinced that he had found enough to reconstruct the Franklin House. Well the architects pointed out that there is an awful lot that archeology does not reveal about architectural detail, and so in Connally's office the decision was absolutely and unqualifiedly against reconstruction. John Cotter then went over Connally's head and sent a blue envelope memorandum to George Hartzog saying the architects say this can't be done but I say, because I did the excavation, that it can be done. That opened up the whole thing, and there was a knock-down fight in which Connally had to take on Cotter. Connally won. I suspect Bill Everhart might have entered into it somewhere, and his creative people up at Harpers Ferry, so that the ghosting idea then more or less resolved that question. No, I'm not going to give that credit to Harpers Ferry. I believe that ghosting proposal emerged under Ernest Connally's oversight.

Dick: What was your involvement in this?

Bob: Almost none.

Dick: Bob, what is your feeling about the Franklin Court?

Bob: Given all of the factors, probably that was a good thing to do. That framework doesn't turn me on like it seems to turn on most of the public, but I think it was the best thing that could have been done. Certainly an effort to reconstruct Franklin's House would have been disastrous. I do feel very strongly that underground museum is a disaster.

Dick: Bob, at Jamestown they have ghosted the walls of some of the very early structures in a kind of white brick. What do you think of that?

Bob: What they are doing is simply outlining on the ground. I don't know how Jamestown affects other people, but Jamestown to me is sterile. I have never been able to muster the least interest in anything at Jamestown. That may reflect a lack of interest in that particular period of our history, but I would much rather go down to Yorktown Battlefield and visualize the ramparts than try to figure out what it might have looked like at Jamestown.

Dick: It seems from this interview that you and Dr. Connally came around to an accord of some sort regarding the philosophy of historic preservation.

Bob: I would put it differently. I was not in a position to come around to an accord with anyone. It was a liberal education for me. It opened vistas that had never occurred to me, vistas that were not at all prevalent in the Park Service. Maybe my particular value was to be receptive to what he was saying, to be able to articulate it with conviction, and to carry to the field a sympathy that perhaps he didn't have. I could carry his message to the field and be listened to when sometimes he wasn't.

Dick: I gather then that he had a good bit of influence on your thinking.

Bob: Oh absolutely. It was an educational process.

Dick: I would like to get your impressions of the interior restoration or reconstruction, whichever, of Ford's Theater.

Bob: That had just been begun when I went to Washington. The only thing left from the time of principal significance were the four walls. When I got there, that's all that was standing. Everything inside had been gutted. It had been an office building and then a museum, so those four walls were standing and that was it. There wasn't even a roof on it. The idea was a total and accurate interior reconstruction, so what the visitor would see would be exactly what Lincoln saw the night he was assassinated. Hartzog had just taken over as Director, and Stewart Udall was quite new and very much concerned with Washington through his involvement in the Pennsylvania Avenue renovation plans with Nat Owings. There were some local elements working on Udall to do something beyond a reconstruction people would go look at. There was an active element that wanted to make it a living theater in which to stage drama and other productions. Udall thought that was a peachy keen idea. And so therefore Hartzog thought so too. We in the preservation end of the Park Service were appalled at the compromises that would have to be made to make that into a living theater, but I don't think there was any great debate about it. Udall and Hartzog decided what was going to be done and never gave us an opportunity to argue. It was a matter anyway that was largely handled between Udall, Hartzog, and the National Capital Region. I don't remember ever being consulted about it. But the decision was made, and as the project went forward it was just one compromise after another. The original Ford's Theater was not constructed according to the D.C. buildings code of 1965. For one thing, there were steps that went down through the viewing area. From each row of seats there was a step that went down. That is against the fire code now. You have to have an incline or ramp. In some instances the D.C. authorities compromised with history and made variances in the code, and in others the code had to be enforced. The result was an interior reconstruction that closely resembles the visible aspects of 1865 but with major exceptions that the average visitor would not be likely to notice. However, purist that I was at the time, in retrospect I think the Udall-Hartzog decision was right. I think that far more use, far more public appreciation of the history, has been derived from the theater aspects than would have been the case with a sterile historic house museum.

Dick: The fact that it was in use as a theater at the time of the historic event adds to the validity of the treatment.

Bob: That helped greatly to justify what they wanted to do. I doubt that they were aware of it, but it did.

Dick: Bob, you said at Harpers Ferry in May of 1985 that reconstructions by the NPS could not be done without disavowing the capabilities of Harpers Ferry Center. Would you elaborate?

Bob: I've said that for years. It's a good line. We were told all through the 60's and 70's about that wonderful group of creative, innovative, and imaginative people that had been assembled in that setting at Harpers Ferry conducive to original creativity. The policy on reconstructions states that the Regional Director must certify that only by a reconstruction can a site be interpreted, that in no other way can public understanding and appreciation be achieved. Is Harpers Ferry Center prepared to concede anywhere that it cannot find another way to convey significance to the public? In fact, reconstructions came about based on management and political considerations. I can't believe HFC would agree to it if they understood the full implications.

Dick: Bob would you discuss your feelings about HFC's approach toward cultural resources and their preference for treatment of these resources?

Bob: What follows is an oversimplification and an overstatement deliberately done for effect. But it was my perception during the 70's that the people at HFC tended to look on historic properties in no other sense than as stage settings on which to create interpretive presentations. They had no other particular value and they were to be manipulated to the extent necessary for that purpose. Again that is an exaggeration and, quizzed on it, they would certainly deny it, but nonetheless this was what was manifested in their approach to interpretation of historic properties. That may have been a product of the whole living history craze of the 70's and so therefore may have receded into the background today, now that living history isn't quite so overriding. And perhaps there is some justification for that mindset, because after all their business is interpretation. It's just that I feel that interpretation should be making the historic resource meaningful to the public, not constituting the show itself.

Dick: It might be more challenging to interpret a site with minimal alteration to the fabric than to have, say, the sky's the limit kind of approach.

Bob: Well certainly it's more challenging. It's harder. But another factor that enters into this is that the truly successful interpretation of a historic property rivets the public's attention on the resource and not on the interpreter or the interpretation. So the measure of success is the degree of invisibility of interpretation and it is a hard thing for any creative person to direct attention away from what he is doing.

Dick: What value do you feel should be placed on original fabric?

Bob: A great deal. The visiting public has demonstrated over and over that they are obsessed with original fabric. Is this the self-same brick that Thomas Jefferson laid up with his own hands as he was building Monticello? Monticello is a good illustration because all of these things that are obviously done by Jefferson himself are endlessly fascinating to the visiting public in terms of original fabric. Therefore, our policies, much more than in other countries, put great stress on original fabric. When I visited Japan I found out they're not hung up on original fabric at all. The design, the visual aspect, is the main thing to them. And they are willing to compromise with expediency. I asked them why a particular shrine had a copper roof on it. Well, it has a copper roof because that's a much better roof than was on it six centuries ago when it was built. I asked why a particular shrine was built of reinforced concrete. They said, well you Americans bombed the other one out of existence, and as long as we had to rebuild it, we thought we'd build it in something that would last. But here, our policy spotlights original fabric, and I think rightly so. It's a reflection of American sentiment.

Dick: Okay, we've been talking a good bit here about preservation, reconstruction, interpretive demands and so forth. Let me ask you a theoretical question. If Hyde Park Estate had burned to the ground rather than the fire being limited to the attic, most of the 3rd floor, along with all of the contents, do you feel you could support reconstruction of that place?

Bob: I couldn't support it with great enthusiasm. I probably could be persuaded not to oppose it. There are probably some monuments that are so significant that in a catastrophe like that they deserve to be recreated. I'm remembering the fire that took out that Russian church in Sitka. There were complete HABS measured drawings that permitted it to be reconstructed right down to the last detail. Philosophically, I would oppose that. But I have to admit that Sitka without that monument is not Sitka. And I suppose in retrospect I would have to approve it. Had Roosevelt's home burned to the ground I would have a hard time trying to reconstruct it or support it in my mind, or any other. Independence Hall perhaps.

Dick: The Adams Home?

Bob: The Adams Home yes. Now I don't know, I can't explain to you how I differentiate between the Adams Home and Hyde Park. Because I would be hard put to say the Adams Home is more significant in our history than Hyde Park.

Dick: Wilhemina Harris would argue with you.

Bob: Well I'm sure she would.

Melody: Hyde Park is one of the two places in the NPS where you have a President from birth through burial.

Bob: That's right, but if it burned down you wouldn't. You would have your recreation of one of those elements. As you do with the birthplace at Lyndon Johnson.

Melody: No, because Lyndon Johnson built the birthplace.

Bob: Well that's right. So it does not represent his birth, it represents his Presidency.

Melody: His myth making.

Dick: Bob, you went to Yosemite park last fall. What's your impression of Pioneer Village at Yosemite.

Bob: We liked it.

Dick: So did I.

Bob: Again, I no longer have to be consistent. I can indulge the luxury of inconsistency because I no longer have to enforce the party line. I thought Pioneer Village came off quite successfully. Here is an instance where those buildings would have been lost. Doug Hubbard simply went out and got them all moved into this one place, where they go together to form something that never existed, but in their individual entities they convey something. They are legitimate preservation, and overall I don't have the problems philosophically that I thought I had.

Dick: Would you recommend that kind of thing if you were in the Service now and similar circumstances, do you think?

Bob: Well, it would have to be an almost identical circumstance, where the buildings were going to be lost, where they represented something of value that would disappear, and where they could be preserved and interpreted for what they are and no more than they are. I think they've succeeded in doing that at Yosemite.

Dick: Bob, there has been very little reconstruction of prehistoric sites in the NPS. There are some such as the Great Kiva at Aztec, and there is a reconstruction at Bandelier, but why do you think that is, why is there less of that than there is reconstruction of historic sites?

Bob: I suppose because until recent years the preservation of prehistoric sites has been in the hands of the archeologists, with little intervention from the architects. In fact I had to force a situation in the middle 70's or earlier in which ruins stabilization was taken away from the archeologists and entrusted to architects much better equipped to handle it. For reasons that I don't know, the tradition with archeologists evolved of preserving the ruins and not trying to reconstruct them. I know of no reason. I don't think there is any more justification for reconstructing prehistoric than historic structures.

Dick: Yet it was the archeologist at Franklin Court who argued for reconstruction while the architects argued against it.

Bob: That's true, but in the East, and in association with historic preservation, the archeologists are a breed apart from those who have handled prehistoric sites. A John Cotter or a Pinkie Herrington, their whole career has been built on historic sites archeology. I mean post-Columbian history. Their way of looking at things is different from that of an Erik Reed or an Al Schroeder.

Dick: Were you involved in any discussions on the reconstructions of prehistoric sites?

Bob: None that I can recall. I don't think of any reconstruction of prehistoric sites in the period that I was in Washington.

Dick: With regard to the policies on refurnishing. Did you have any role in the development of these policies.

Bob: I'm sure I did, but I don't remember what the role was. it wasn't something I was ever particularly interested in.

Dick: Do you think the policies are properly restrictive?

Bob: I don't even know what they are now. My impression is that they may be overly restrictive. Requiring original furniture and, where such doesn't exist, prohibiting similar pieces. Am I right?

Dick: There are about three different stages of guidelines there. Bob, would you comment on the quality of certain interpretive media at historic and prehistoric sites, such as films and slide presentations and how they might have changed over the years.

Bob: I think two trends can be identified. One is a remarkably increased sophistication in audiovisual presentations accompanied by some impressionistic approaches that offend my desire for the literal. I think that our audiovisual presentations, like all of our interpretation, have been designed more for the design arbiters in New York who hand out the kudos than for the travelling public who may lack that sophistication. But overall there has been a great enhancement of the technical perfection of audiovisual presentations accompanied by what I question to be a good content. The other trend I see is worse. It is an increasingly exclusive reliance on audiovisual presentations to tell the whole story. This downgrades museums, publications, and especially personal interpretation. I think the true approach for any park is multi-media, in which you have a balanced approach that spreads itself among all interpretive media. The trouble with too exclusive a reliance on the audiovisual is that it deprives the visitor of flexibility and forces him into a straight jacket created by some interpretive planner in HFC who has decided what he should know about the park and leaves him no freedom to decide how much he wants.

Dick: Bob, recently have you been particularly favorably or unfavorably impressed by interpretive presentations?

Bob: Yes, Melody and I went to Saratoga a couple of years ago, which I had not visited since the late 60's. It was almost totally revamped in its interpretive approaches for the Bicentennial. Not only the visitor center with the museum, the audiovisual, but also the waysides out in the park. And the only element of the new interpretation at Saratoga that we could approve were the old dioramas. Everything else was a disaster. The film was a disaster, in the visitor's center. The museum was a disaster. It was one of these new museum approaches where you simply scatter objects around unlabelled to create a mood. And worst of all were the juvenile audio waysides in connection with art work. The only literal and meaningful interpretation were those old dioramas from Mission 66.

Before we get off the negative, we stopped on another trip at the Lincoln Home in Springfield, Illinois, which was similarly a negative experience. The whole visitor center we found a turnoff. Such displays as they did have were not meaningful and labelled imperfectly. The audiovisual presentation was a mood-setting thing that didn't come off at all. The treatment of the Lincoln Home, much contrary to Ernest Connally's recommendations 15 years ago, created a sterile and open setting around the Home. When I was working on it, the home was surrounded by houses that generally presented the visual aspect of residential urban setting similar to that of Lincoln's time, even though the structures themselves came from a later time. For the most part, those have been removed, and the only thing left are the buildings that had been there at the time Lincoln occupied it. So the setting was much worse than it was when we got the place.

Dick: I believe that particular site treatment created quite a debate.

Bob: Yes it did, but it was a debate that was stacked in favor of the interpreters.

Dick: Wasn't Washington opposed to that treatment?

Bob: Certainly Ernest Connally's office was, and Ernest had been very heavily involved in the proposal stage because he had come from Illinois and he had a good rapport with the congressman from that district, Paul Findley, who was a Lincoln scholar and principally behind getting that into the Park System. So Ernest was very much involved, and he was involved initially in the planning. I don't know where along the line that got changed, but it was a bad move, and it was done, I'm sure, at the behest of people who were predominantly interpretation.

Dick: That would have been a case where the leasing program would have helped enormously.

Bob: Sure, and even though leasing was not in vogue in the early 70's, this is what Connally was promoting. Let's keep these structures in place and lease them back. Well, there is a Park Service mindset against that or was then, most prevalent in superintendents who want to draw boundaries around the park and exclude all non-park uses, because it's easier to administer, and that is the way it's always been done in the Park Service. That's beginning to break down some, but it was very much in control during those years.

NEXT >>>

Last Modified: Mon, Mar 22 2004 10:00:00 pm PDT
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/utley/utley9.htm