MUSEUM-L Archives

Museum discussion list

MUSEUM-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Matt Nowakowski <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Museum discussion list <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:07:13 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (54 lines)
I agree with Deb.

I think it's a waste of time and resources to strip away these accretions.  I could understand if the house was truly disfigured.  However, I think the du Pont additions actually add to the character oand history of Montpelier.

From what I understand, Montpelier has always sufferred from a lack of funds.  Now that Montpelier has some money in the bank, its board can't wait to spend it on questionable historic preservation
practices.

//Matt Nowakowski

>----- Original Message -----
>From: Deb Fuller
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 5:10 PM
>Subject: Montpelier Restorations
>
>
>Hi all,
>
>I'm a little disturbed by the recent announcement of the restorations going on at Montpelier. They plan to tear down the duPont additions that were added in the early 1900s to return the mansion back to its original state when the Madisons owned it. Now I can understand tearing down a more modern addition but if something's been around for 100 and added on by a prominent family to boot, I would think that it would warrant preserving. Afterall, it's not that much older than the original house. I doubt they'll rip out the "modern" indoor plumbing, heating and electricity; why destroy other house additions?

The full story is here: http://www.montpelier.org/restoration.htm

I can understand wanting to take off the stucco and get down to the
original brick as well as keeping the house interpretation to the time period of the Madisons. But it seems to me that there's room to interpret the later addition as well. Afterall, houses were built to be lived in and have been lived in over many decades. They weren't meant to be frozen in time.

So anyway, I was wondering if this was bothering anyone else out there in the museum community. It certainly puts into question what is of historic value and what is not.

Deb
>
>=========================================================
>Important Subscriber Information:
>
>The Museum-L FAQ file is located at
>http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed
>information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail
>message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should
>read "help" (without the quotes).
>
>If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to
>[log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff
>Museum-L" (without the quotes).


H. Matthew Nowakowski, MS, MSHP
Washington, DC
202-744-8533

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).

ATOM RSS1 RSS2