Download - Shack Mountain Final Report
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
1/145
Cover, adapted from Photograph, ca. 1955 (Courtesy of Osborne Mackie)
Prepared for The Garden Club of Virginia
Prepared by Kelly Halpin
2012 William D. Rieley Fellow
A LANDSCAPESTUDY
SHACKMOUNTAIN
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
2/145
Copyright 2012 By the Garden Club of VirginiaAll Rights Reserved.
Reproduction
All material contained herein is the intellectual property of theGarden Club of Virginia except where noted. Permission for reproduction,except for personal use, must be obtained from:
The Fellowship Committee, Chair
The Garden Club of Virginia
The Kent-Valentine House
12 East Franklin Street
Richmond, VA 23219
http://gcvirginia.org
*Unless noted, illustrations and photographs are by the author
SHACKMOUNTAIN
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
3/145
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
4/145
SHACKMOUNTAINSHACKMOUNTAIN
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
5/145SHACKMOUNTAIN 5
The Garden Club of Virginias William
D. Rieley Fellowship is a program that
identifies and documents historic gardens
within the Commonwealth of Virginia.
The 2012 Fellowship records the historic
landscape of Shack Mountain. The final
report is composed of measured drawings,
photographs, and illustrations, which supportthe written document, adding to the
comprehensive record of Virginias historic
landscapes. Shack Mountain: A Landscape
Study, was produced using extensive
archival research, site visits, interviews,
meetings, and journal entries integrating
the disciplines of landscape architecture andhistoric preservation as a discourse for the
investigation, analysis, and interpretation.
While there are several authors who have
examined Sidney Fiske Kimball1as an
architect, preservationist, restorationist,
museum director and author, the findings of
this study suggest that Kimballs scholarshipalso includes landscape design, theory and
practice. Kimballs wife, Marie Kimball,
somewhat overshadowed by her husband,
was a respected author and scholar in
her own right. This endeavor attempts to
document the historic cultural landscape
Shack Mountain, while furthering therecognition and accomplishments of Sidney
Fiske Kimball2 and his wife Marie Kimball.
While the period of significance for
this study is associated with the lives of
the Kimballs from 1935-1955, a significant
portion of this document will discuss
Jane Tarleton-Smith and Walter Bedford
Moore III, the owners and stewards of
Shack Mountain from 1956-2010. The
Moores played a significant role in thehistory of Shack Mountain through the
care and maintenance of the property
and establishment of the sites historical
significance. The narrative includes the
evolution of the landscape during the
Moores occupancy while addressing current
conditions. The Moores were key figures infurthering recognition of the Kimballs work
by preserving the legacy of Shack Mountain
through The National Historic Landmark
Program (NHL) and the placement of a
conservation easement on the property,
securing it from future development. The
current landscape, mostly constructedand designed by the Moores, has design
elements from Kimballs conceptual 1937
plan, respecting the built landscape already
in place. Shack Mountain is currently for
sale and held in trust with the proceeds to
be dispersed to several causes. The Moores
legacy validates the Kimballs place inhistory by honoring the contributions and
achievements of this dynamic couple.
DEFINING THE PROJECT
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
6/145
SHACKMOUNTAINSHACKMOUNTAIN
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
7/145
PART1
SHACKMOUNTAIN 7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART 1:
THE HISTORY &DEVELOPMENT OF SHACK MOUNTAIN
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Profile of Marie Goebel and Sidney Fiske Kimball
1.3 Kimballs Restoration of Lemon Hill, Philadelphia
1.4 A Second Home in Charlottesville, VA
PART 2:
KIMBALL THE ARCHITECT AND LANDSCAPE DESIGNER
2.1 Synopsis: The Construction of Shack Mountain
2.2 The Five Schemes of Shack Mountain
2.3 Kimballs Landscape Design for Shack Mountain
PART 3:
THE END OF AN ERA: THE PASSING OF THE KIMBALLS 3.1 Shack Mountain, the Kimballs Retreat
3.2 The Kimballs Final Years at Shack Mountain
3.3 New Life: Jane Tarleton-Smith and Walter Bedford Moore III
3.4 Pictorial History the Gardens at Shack Mountain
PART 4:
THE PHYSICAL LANDSCAPE
4.1 Evolution of the Landscape 1955-2010
4.2 Spatial Organization: Character and Description of the
Current Landscape
4.3 Then & Now
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
8/145
SHACKMOUNTAIN
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
9/145
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
10/145
SHACKMOUNTAINPART1
PART1
THE HISTORY & DEVELOPMENT OF SHACK MOUNTAIN
Figure 1.1. Location of Shack Mountain, property boundary in yellow, not to scale, 2012.
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
11/145
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
12/14512 SHACKMOUNTAIN
SHACKMOUNTAINPART1
The Historic Places Nomination for theproperty considers Shack Mountain to be
one of the finest examples of Jeffersonian
Classicism in the United States, inspired
by Jeffersons plan of Farmington (VHLC
1976, 4).
Using his skills as an architect,
restorationist and preservationist, FiskeKimball designed it as a retreat and
retirement home. His last project as an
architect, the house and grounds reflected
his lifes work by employing a classical
design based on the work of Thomas
Jefferson1while incorporating modern ideas
of construction. Joseph Dye Lahendro, architect and
Kimball historian, states in his masters thesis
Fiske Kimball American Renaissance
Historian, Kimball pays homage to
Jefferson and classicism during the 1930s
when this movement had given way to
modern architectural styles.
2
Indeed,Kimball referred to Shack Mountain as
an unexecuted design of Jefferson.2He
also improved on the livability of the
past by addressing the needs of twentieth
century life such as air conditioning and a
modern kitchen.3He creates authenticity
in his design using architectural elements
from Jeffersons drawings and local
materials along with advanced construction
techniques of the mid-1930s.
Lahendro points out that Kimballsarchitectural style was defined early in his
career, as seen in an unpublished letter from
Kimball to a client dated 1922, that could be
used as a description of Shack Mountain:
The effort has been to achieve the
greatest beauty of form, without
sacrificing convenience. Thus, forinstance, I have endeavored to give
the rooms themselves beauty and
variety of shape. So, too, I have sought
to make every room and every wall
regular and symmetrical, so that
wherever you look everything will
balance and harmonize it is hopeless
to achieve the finest results in interior
decoration without such balance inthe openings of wall spaces. (1995)
Having failed to find a suitable house
to restore, he set out to build a Jeffersonian
style home by using Jeffersons architectural
drawings as a template, his own Beaux-Arts
architectural training for the composition,
and his preservation mindset for guidance.
He built a house based on historic principles
incorporating balance, proportion, harmony
and rhythm as the central elements.
Kimball developed five schemes for
Shack Mountain over the course of two
years prior to its completion in 1937. He
carefully considered the composition of
1.1INTRODUCTION
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
13/145SHACKMOUNTAIN 13
SECTION1.1
rooms, the addition of modern features such
as air-conditioning and the secondary entry
that is level with the road for his wife who
was having early symptoms of heart disease.
Based on the footprint of Jeffersons
plan for Farmington, the Historic Places
Nomination (which ultimately gained
National Landmark status for the property)
describes Shack Mountain as a single floor
T-shaped footprint with elongated octagonal
rooms forming the top of the T the house
is brick cladded with triple sash framed
windows, characteristic of Jeffersons work
(1990).
The first floor is 1,870 sq. ft. and
comprises the central living area and a
basement of the same size. Kimball integrates
features found in his Lemon Hill residence
such as the curved doors and Palladian
windows, with components of Jeffersons
architectural style, developing the efficacy of
historic design.4
Kimball takes the same approach to the
grounds as he takes on the role of landscape
designer. As with the architecture, his
historicism shows in the landscape design
as he reinterprets the past while reflecting
present day conditions. He moves away from
Figure 1.1.2. Shack Mountain Site and Floor Plans by BuildingAnalysts, 1990 (#5232-b, University of Virginia Library,Charlottesville, VA).
Figure 1.1.1. Farmington: house (study plan), 1802 or ear-lier, by Thomas Jefferson. N15; K184 [electronic edition].Thomas Jefferson Papers: An Electronic Archive. Boston, Mass.:
Massachusetts Historical Society, 2003. http://www.thomasjef-fersonpapers.org.
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
14/14514 SHACKMOUNTAIN
SHACKMOUNTAINPART1
Jeffersons interpretation of the Picturesque,
towards the Colonial Revival style
associated with historic restorations during
this period,5 and makes a commanding
statement of Jeffersonian Classicism. The
house blends into the vernacular landscape
because of Kimballs use of local materials,
and the attentive siting and placement of the
house which was built into the hillside on
the edge of the forested landscape. Kimball
optimized views and reduced the heat effect
by using trees for shade.
Shack Mountain represented Kimballs
nationalist sentiment for the American
style, by building a Jefferson style house
which reflects simplicity of the ideal classic
form (Kimball 1966, 146). He integrates
architecture and landscape by siting the
house on a secluded Virginia mountaintop,
resonating Jeffersons sentiment of mans
desire for natures majesty:
And our own dear Monticello, where
has nature spread so rich a mantle
under the eye? Mountains, forests,
Figure 1.1.3. Photograph of Shack Mountain displayed next to Monticello (see Figure 1.1.4) revealing Kimballs use of Jeffersonsarchitectural style as seen in the triple sash windows, brick cladding, portico, and geometric form, 2012.
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
15/145SHACKMOUNTAIN 15
SECTION1.1
rocks, riverswith what majesty
do [sic] we ride above the storms!
How sublime to look down into theworkhouse of nature, to see her clouds,
hail, snow, thunder, all fabricated
at our feet! And glorious sun when
rising as if out of distant water, just
gliding the tops of the mountains and
giving life to all nature. (Kimball 1944,
106; Jefferson et al. 1905, 436-437)
Kimball theorizes that Jefferson, by choosing
the summit as the location of Monticello,
has claimed a romantic act unparalleled
in contemporary Europe (106). Shack
Mountain may be regarded as Kimballs
embodiment of quintessential twentieth
century romantic classicism reminiscent
of Jefferson, by claiming his own Virginian
mountaintop.
Figure 1.1.4. Photograph of Monticello, 2012.
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
16/145
Figure 1.2.1. Fiske Kimball at his desk, ca. 1913, Print Department Records, Philadelphia Museum of Art, Archives.
SHACKMOUNTAINPART1
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
17/145SHACKMOUNTAIN 17
SECTION1.2
1.2 PROFILEOF MARIE GOEBEL
KIMBALL AND SIDNEY FISKE
KIMBALL
Kimball was born in 1888 in the suburb
of West Newton, Massachusetts, west of
Boston, the younger brother of Theodora
Kimball and the son of Ellen Leora Ripley
and Edwin Fiske Kimball. According to
Kimball, he and his sister were raised in a
middle class family by parents who put their
childrens needs first, joining their life, their
love, their courage, their intelligence, and
their effort for their children.6Kimballs
father was a Headmaster in the Boston
Schools and taught at the Gilbert Stuart
School in Dorchester from 1909 until his
death in 1924.7Edwin Kimball relocated
the family within Massachusetts from West
Newton to Milton, a small New England
town south of Boston. Kimballs memoirs
reflect upon the sacrifices of his father who
risk(ed) his small means to build and to
live where he thought the environment
most favorable for us.8Kimballs memoir
reminisces about his fathers affinity for the
landscape, conveyed during their walks and
climbs as his father patiently answered the
many questions of a curious child.9Edwin
Kimball had a devotion to American
History, institutions and strong belief in the
democracy of public schools10which he
imparted to his children with an emphasis
on higher learning. The siblings maintained
their close relationship, which extended
beyond familial ties and manifested itself in
mutual respect and admiration reflective of
the environment created by Kimballs father.
He fostered curiosity while encouraging
achievement and, within this context, the
Kimball siblings both attended top colleges,
excelling in their studies and professional
lives.
Kimball first enrolled in the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology in
1905 but soon transferred to the Lawrence
Scientific School of Harvard University to
study engineering. He changed schools
one last time entering the Harvard College
School of Arts and Sciences before earning
his bachelors degree in 1909. Kimball
graduated summa cum laude, then enrolled
in the masters program at the Harvard
School of Architecture. Instituted in 1895,
the program was modeled after the Ecole
des Beaux-Arts, the French national school
of architecture based on the Beaux-Arts
Tradition.11 Lahendro states that Kimballs
classes while at Harvard were standard for
architecture students, studying history of
Architecture, and the general history of the
arts in civilization while simultaneously
taking classes on freehand drawing,
architectural design and deconstruction,
and aesthetics.12According to Kimballs
memoirs, for the first two years (he)
thought of little else but drawing and
architecture, but later in his education
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
18/14518 SHACKMOUNTAIN
SHACKMOUNTAINPART1
credits his roommates, the young history
men, for the conveyance of the principles
of historical research at Harvard. It is during
this time that he became acquainted with
the book Introduction to the study of History,
1912 by Langlois and Seignobos, which had
a profound effect on Kimballs keen intellect
because it challenged traditional conventions
towards historic research. Lauren Bricker
Weiss, in the article The Writings of Fiske
Kimball: A Synthesis of Architectural History
and Practice, discussed this further by
stating:
Kimball developed a historical
method that merged scientific
investigation of the material remains
of structureswith dependence on
architectural documents. Kimballs
utilization of historic architectural
drawings had limited precedent in
American Architectural History.
(1990, 35:218)
Langlois and Seignobos (1912) asserted that
the study of history is a scientific pursuit
and outlined a detailed, comprehensive, andpractical system for a historical method
based on the examination of original
documents and manuscripts. Kimballs
success as an author and historian is in part
due to learning these principles of historical
research, writing in his memoir it is in this
indirect way, that I am forever grateful toHarvard.
Lahendro credits Kimballs Harvard
education for his allegiance to classicism
because of the Beaux-Arts architectural
model taught by the university.13Classical
architecture is based on order, proportion
and balance, with classical design arising
from understanding that the composition
is based on a hierarchical formal system
seeing parts as wholes and wholes as parts
(Gromort 2001, 16). Denmin Ross, a lecturer
on the theory of design at the Harvard
Architectural School, instilled in Kimball the
belief that all art could be analyzed on the
basis of harmony, balance, and rhythm,14
which in turn becomes the basis for
Kimballs architectural designs.
Kimball excelled in school earning
numerous honors, awards, scholarships, and
assistantships that helped to finance his
education.15While working towards his
masters degree in architecture, Kimball
received the Sheldon Scholarship funding six
months of travel abroad.16This was Kimballs
first opportunity to travel internationally
visiting Paris, Italy, Austria, Hungary, and
Germany.17Kimballs assistantship at
the Harvard library needed to be filled
during his absence, so he worked out an
arrangement for his sister to unofficially take
his position during his absence. This meant
that Theodora Kimball performed the work,
while her brother maintained his title and
salary while on leave until he finished his
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
19/145SHACKMOUNTAIN 19
SECTION1.2
masters in Architecture (Hohmann
2006, 29:170).18Theodora
Kimball withdrew her pay from
Kimballs account as she was not
acknowledged by Harvard as an
official employee (170). She turned
out to be well suited for the task,
having earned a degree in library
science from Simmons College in
1904. In order to prepare for the
position, Theodora Kimball read
many of her brothers books and
course notes, corresponding with
him in Europe about the study
of landscape design, theory, and
practice. According to Hohmann,
Theodora Kimball was particularly
fascinated with the biography of
Charles Eliot; as it had for many
practitioners of the time, Charles
Eliot greatly influenced Theodora
Kimballs understanding of the
profession (170).19
Kimball returned to Harvard after
six months but rather than fulfilling his
obligation to the library, accepted an offer
as the assistant to professor George Chase of
the Architecture Department, thus allowing
Theodora Kimball to retain her status as
interim librarian. Chase was so impressed
by his assistant that he commissioned
Kimball to write a book about the history
of architecture while still a masters degree
candidate (Lahendro 1982, 8). Kimball
Figure 1.2.2. Theodora Kimball, ca. 1913, Print Department Records,Philadelphia Museum of Art, Archives.
graduated from Harvard in 1912 with a
master of architecture degree and acceptedthe position of instructor at the University
of Illinois. This was a fortuitous move on
Kimballs part, not only because of his
appointment but also for the chance
meeting of his future wife.20
Marie Kimball began her university
studies at Radcliffe College in Cambridge,21
MA, but before finishing relocated with her
family to Illinois when her father accepted
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
20/14520 SHACKMOUNTAIN
SHACKMOUNTAINPART1
the position of professor of Germanic
Studies at the University of Illinois (Howard
2006b, Loc 98 of 5339).
She received herB.A. from the University of Illinois in
1911, reared in a close family who, like the
Kimballs, valued education above all else.22
The couple was enamored with each other,
marrying in June of 1913, shortly after they
met. The Kimballs traveled to Boston the
summer after they were married, staying inMassachusetts when the teaching contract at
the University of Illinois was not renewed.
They spent the following fall at
Cambridge researching Kimballs book on
the history of architecture, commissioned
by Chase while Kimball was a graduate
student at Harvard. The findings during
this research, along with his wifes curiosity
and scholarship, introduced the Kimballs
to the life and work of Thomas Jefferson.
Marie Kimball aided her husbands research,
devoting herself to the study of Jeffersons
correspondence and papers.23In the fall of
1913, Kimball entered the Ph. D. Program
in Architecture and accepted a teaching
position with the University of Michigan,
but this did not hinder their investigation of
Jefferson. The massive amount of research
he and his wife collected over the course
of two years was not only the foundation
for his dissertation while at the University
of Michigan, but according to Lahendro,
also used for Kimballs book,A History of
Architecture, 1918:
(leading) Kimball to the original
drawings of Thomas Jefferson at the
Massachusetts Historical Society
giving him the materials necessaryfor his articles on Jefferson, his
dissertation, Thomas Jefferson and
the First Monument of the Classic
Revival in America and for the
publication of his book, Thomas
Jefferson Architect, 1916.24
Kimballs Ph.D. was conferred in June 1915
from the University of Michigan and his
status was advanced to assistant professor.
In that same year, he also completed his
first major commission of the residential
development of Scottswood in Ann Arbor,
Michigan.25
Kimballs next project, the writing of
Thomas Jefferson Architect,not only defined
his early career but also demonstrated his
wifes aptitude for research and skill as
an editor.26The idea for Thomas Jefferson
Architect,while originating with Kimball,
was kept alive by his wife who commenced
the research (Howard 2006a, loc 138).
The Kimballs analyzed Jeffersons original
drawings, employing scientific methodology
in historical research. Their method included
the research and analysis of drawings by
arranging and dating 300 undated drawings
in chronological sequence with his ordering
(of the drawings) surviving, nearly intact for
seventy-five years (Wilson 1993, 55). Their
analysis and research provided the evidence
to support Jefferson, not only as an architect,
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
21/145
Figure 1.2.3. Marie Kimball ca. 1913, Print Department Records,Philadelphia Museum of Art, Archives.
SHACKMOUNTAIN 21
SECTION1.2
but also as the father of national
architecture.
Marie Kimball reinforced her
husbands early career by assisting
with the research and editing
of his books and articles while
also taking on the traditional
role as hostess and head of
household. Kimball viewed his
wife as a partner, respectful of
her dedication and intelligence,
conveying this sentiment in
the opening of Thomas Jefferson
Architect:
A special acknowledgment
I owe to my wife, Marie
Goebel, who first suggested
taking up in earnestthe study of Jeffersons
architectural work, and
who has given the
assistance of her editorial
experience, especially in the
examination of the Jefferson
manuscripts of the Massachusetts
Historical Society and in the
description and comparison of thepapers employed. Her
self-sacrificing collaboration
is a debt I can never repay. (1916, 1)
In his wife, Kimball found the intellectual
and support system that he had with his
sister.27Marriage did not undermine
his relationship with his sister but
rather provided Theodora Kimball the
opportunity to define her own path.28
Two years after taking over her brothers
assistantship, Theodora Kimball was officiallynamed the first librarian for the Harvard
School of Landscape Architecture. While
nepotism may have helped get her in
the door, her credentials, work ethic, and
aptitude kept her there. She was driven
like Kimball and became one of the first
women to earn a Masters Degree in Science
from Simmons College in 1917. As part of
her degree, she wrote a thesis on English
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
22/14522 SHACKMOUNTAIN
SHACKMOUNTAINPART1
landscape gardening, a mutual topic of
interest between her and her brother. While
working at Harvard, Theodora Kimball
befriended a colleague from the Harvard
Landscape Architecture Department,
Henry Vincent Hubbard. They eventually
married, changing both Theodora Kimballs
professional and personal life.
Theodora Kimball was an early theorist
in the fields of landscape architecture and
city planning. She was both distinguished
in the fields of landscape architecture and
city planning, writing along with Hubbard
Introduction to the Study of Landscape Design,
1917, one of the most influential books
about landscape design and theory during
the early to mid-1900s in part because it
allowed for flexibility within the design
by balancing aesthetics, site and monetary
constraints.
Kimball and his sister ran in many of the
same academic circles and collaborated on
several projects. Theodora Kimball began
writing book reviews for the publication
Landscape Architecture Journal, founded by
Hubbard in 1910. In this capacity she wrote
the review of her brothers book, Thomas
Jefferson Architect,for the 1917 edition of
the journal, publishing it after Kimballs
edits.29 In the review, she makes the explicit
connection between Thomas Jefferson Architect
and landscape architecture:
There are several passages of particular
interest to landscape architects, which
show evidence of almost the earliest
interest in landscape design as suchin the American colonies, and the
influence of the English Landscape
School. (1917/1931, 201-2)
Kimballs subsequent article, Thomas
Jefferson as Architect and Landscape Designer,
also published in Landscape Architecture
Journal, reinforces the idea of Jefferson aslandscape designer after Theodora Kimballs
prompting in the review of Thomas Jefferson
Architect. Kimball, using the same proven
research techniques, looking at original
documents, drawings and manuscripts in
order to support his findings, concluded
that landscape gardening in America
may claim its father the father of American
independence itself, a worthy forerunner
of Downing, Olmsted and Eliot, (1917,
7:187) the notable early practitioners of the
landscape architecture profession.30Kimball
references Jefferson throughout his career,
not only as an architect, but also as an artist
and landscape designer, strengthening this
idea in articles through the mid-1940s.
By 1919, Kimball was nationally
recognized as a scholar and author after
the rave reviews of his second book,
History of Architecture,1918 coauthored
by George Harold Edgell. Looking for
advancement opportunities, he was
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
23/145SHACKMOUNTAIN 23
SECTION1.2
approached by the University of Virginia
(UVA) in Charlottesville with an offer for
a teaching position. Unsure, Kimball wrote
to his sister asking her advice; in response,
she writes a letter outlining the reasons
he should accept the offer, namely his
interests, goals, future salary increases, and
the possibility for advancement to a larger
university.31Heeding the advice, Kimball
left the University of Michigan, accepting
the position from UVA as head of the
Department of Architecture and Fine Arts
for the new McIntire School of Fine Arts.
The couple moved to Virginia, inaugurating
a lifelong attachment with Virginia and
Charlottesville.
While at UVA, Kimball contributed
to many building projects including the
Memorial Gymnasium, faculty apartments,
and the amphitheater.32Kimball also
maintained a small architectural firm in
Charlottesville, working on varied residential,
commercial and historic restoration
projects. According to Bricker, each project
presented Kimball and his small staff with
the challenge of adapting new works to the
established Jeffersonian vocabulary (1990,
217:219). In the early 1920s, Kimball began
to define himself as a restoration architect;
preservation theory and practice was still in
its infancy with no formal policy in terms
of historic restoration and preservation
of buildings. Bricker described Kimballs
architectural practice and collaborations with
Philadelphia Architect Erling H. Peterson
as (embodying) the characteristic modest
approach of a preservation-restoration
architect which according to Kimball
are quite different from an architect: not
imagination but historical knowledge, not
originality, but self-abnegation (1990,
35:229). The Kimballs lived in Charlottesville
until 1923, when Kimball took the position
of director of the Department of Fine
Arts and Morse Professor of Literature of
Arts of Design at New York University.
Two years later Kimball left his academic
life, ambitiously accepting the position of
Director of the Pennsylvania Museum of
Art, later to be known as the Philadelphia
Museum of Art (PMA) and the Kimballs
relocated to Philadelphia, beginning a next
chapter of their lives.
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
24/145
Figure 1.3.1. Lemon Hill, front (north) elevation, Historic American Buildings Survey [HABS PA-51], Jack E. Boucher,
photographer, 1995, memory.loc.gov, accessed June, 2012.
SHACKMOUNTAINPART1
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
25/145SHACKMOUNTAIN 25
SECTION1.3
In 1925, the couple moved to
Philadelphia and began their new lives
within the social culture of the Pennsylvania
Art Museum: Kimball as director and Marie
Kimball as his counterpart. Kimballs position
included housing, and he persuaded the
museum board to restore the historic Lemon
Hill Mansion (located near the museum andowned by the City of Philadelphia) into
their residence. The Kimballs immediately
began the renovation of the house and
garden. Kimball had undertaken several
historic house renovations but never a
garden, especially one as significant as
Lemon Hill.Built in 1799-1800, Lemon Hill was
the summer home of Henry Pratt, a senior
partner in the mercantile firm of Pratt &
Kintzing and son of painter Mathew Pratt
(Ali 1984a, 5). Pratt purchased the property
in a sheriff s sale from the former owner
William Morris.33
The Morris estate, thenknown as The Hills, was surrounded by an
extensive garden with fruit trees and a large
and elegant green house which was widely
acclaimed and the focal point of the gardens
(Haavik 2004, 56). Under Pratts direction,
the home-site was extended, expanding
the greenhouse scheme to include pleasuregardens (24). Pratt was a merchant with
access to many exotic plants, augmenting
1.3 KIMBALLS RESTORATION OF
LEMON HILL, PHILADELPHIA
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
26/14526 SHACKMOUNTAIN
SHACKMOUNTAINPART1
the plant species of the grounds and
greenhouse (Ali 1984a, 23).
Lemon Hill, while well known for
the landscape, is also one of the best early
examples of Federal Style Architecture
(Ali 1984b, 2). Pratt sold Lemon Hill in
1836, and it changed hands several times
until it was purchased by the City of
Philadelphia in 1844.34Lemon Hill, with
the once magnificent mansion, gardens and
greenhouse known worldwide, had been
reduced to a sad state of disrepair and neglect
by the late 1800s. Andrew Jackson Downing
mournfully mentioned Lemon Hill in
Treatise on Landscape Gardening, Lemon
Hill, was, twenty years ago, the most perfect
specimen of the geometric mode in America,
and since its destruction by the extension of
the city, there is nothing comparable with
it (Ali 1984a, 5; Downing 1844, 27). The
property had been leased to several vendors
over the years including a beer concession,
but the most damaging occurrence changed
the grounds permanently in 1888 when,
according to Haavik the construction of the
Music Pavilion over top of the old parterre,
effectively turned the once celebrated garden
into a lawn (2004, 26).
Restoring the Lemon Hill Mansion
and gardens back to their once magnificent
splendor represented a unique opportunity
for the Kimballs, already well versed on
historic research methods and renovations.
Lemon Hill allowed them to put
Figure 1.3.2. Interior view, First Floor, North Central Hallfrom south, HABS PA, 51-Phila, 234-23, http://www.loc.gov/pictures (accessed June 2012).
Figure 1.3.3. Interior view, First Floor, South Oval Room fromeast, HABS PA, 51-PHILA, 234-27, http://www.loc.gov/pic-tures (accessed June 2012).
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
27/145SHACKMOUNTAIN 27
SECTION1.3
preservation theory to practice while still
reflecting their desire for livability in the
modern world as seen in this description by
Ali of the changes made to the house:
The exterior restoration was based
off an early illustration replacing the
Victorian cornices, and stairs with
what we see today. The internal
changes had to do with historic, as
well as personal tastes including:
reopening several fire places, shifting
the location of doorways and mantel
pieces, the installation of bathrooms,
converting the west porch into a
garage and the later installation of an
elevator,36which was later removed by
the current stewards of the property
the Colonial Dames. (1984a, 3-4)
Lemon Hill features a series of three oval
rooms, one stacked on top of each other
with curved mahogany doors and fireplace
mantels. The mansion has double-hung
Palladian windows, which gives access to
the exterior, light and views of the river
valley (2). The high style, neoclassical rooms
were unique in America in the 1800s.35Well
known examples of Federal style architecture
that exist from the same period are The
White House designed by James Hoban,
and the Joseph Barrell House designed by
Charles Bullfinch.
Figure 1.3.4. Interior view, First Floor, Northwest Room fromSouthwest, HABS PA, 51-Phila, 234-PHILA, 23425,http://www.loc.gov/pictures (accessed June 2012).
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
28/14528 SHACKMOUNTAIN
SHACKMOUNTAINSHACKMOUNTAINPART1
Kimballs Colonial Revival Landscape Design of
Lemon Hill
The restoration of Lemon Hill included
a Colonial Revival style garden. According
to Norman Tyler in Historic Preservation:
An Introduction to Its History, Principles, and
Practice, the Colonial Revival was the
most common residential style between
1880-1950 combining historicism with
modern conveniences while expressing
nationalistic sentiment by reaffirming the
American style in architecture and landscape
architecture(2000, 83). Elizabeth Barlow
Rogers in Landscape Design: A Cultural and
Architectual History, defines the elements
of this garden style as a combination of
arts and crafts planting principles with
geometric layout of old-fashioned American
gardens (2001, 379). She
further discusses how the
garden is an extension of
the architecture, understood
as a single entity, employing
plants as paint to be applied
to the landscape canvas (379).
Colonial Revival landscape
design adapts elements from
the historical period,using
Beaux-Arts principles of
axial planning, symmetry
and balance in a geometric
garden layout. Kimballs
Beaux-Arts training, proclivity
towards sequencing geometry,
Figure 1.3.5. Aerial view, looking north, 1956, HABS PA,51-PHILA, 234-32,http://www.loc.gov/pictures (accessed June 2012).
Figure 1.3.6. Detailed view of Lemon Hill form a 1938 WorksProgress Administration (WPA) topographic map. (Courtesy ofthe Fairmount Park Archives).
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
29/145SHACKMOUNTAIN 29
PART1SECTION1.3
and allegiance to classicism provided
the foundation for his Colonial Revival
landscape design of Lemon Hill.
In 2002, a Cultural Landscape Study
for Lemon Hill by Menke & Menke and
Associates, recommended the restoration
treatment of the site be based on the time
period between 1926-1929, identifying
Kimball as the person of historical
significance. This was due to Kimballs 1927
Colonial Revival landscape design, which
was used as a template for the restoration
of the gardens of Lemon Hill (Menke &
Menke 2002). This project specifies long
and short-term recommendations for the
preservation, management and interpretation
of the Lemon Hill, proposing restoration
treatment for the land surrounding the house.
The decision was based on several factors
including:
The importance of Fiske Kimball in
Philadelphia history as a person of
significance,
The Colonial Revival designs he
installed at Lemon Hill,
The photographic evidence of the
installed designs by Kimball,
The extant historic landscape elements,
The availability of Kimballs plans on
which to base restoration,
And the integration of the 1925-1926
restoration of the interior and exterior
spaces as viewed by Kimball.
Kimballs restoration of the Lemon
Hill gardens coincided with the mansion
restoration and included a plot and planting
plan. The study concluded, after comparing
dated images with the planting plan, that
the concept of the design, a perennial border
with some shrubs and trees, likely came
from Kimball, who applied Colonial Revival
style to this and other Fairmount Park
Mansions (3.14). Kimballs interpretation
also included the oval drive, fencing and
planting beds flanking the south path (2.5).
Kimball worked with landscape designer
Amy Cogswell36on a landscape planting
plan in Mt. Pleasant prior to the Lemon Hill
planting, and according to Menke & Menke,
it is probable that Kimball used Cogswells
planting recommendations from Mt. Pleasant
for the planting plan for Lemon Hill (B1).
The report also indicates that Kimball may
have had help from Samuel N. Baxter, a
Fairmount Park Commission landscape
gardener and possibly Thomas Adams Sears,
a Philadelphia landscape architect. Kimballs
landscape design for Lemon Hill was
appropriate for the site and consistent with
the Colonial Revival style during the 1920s,
demonstrating his ability as a landscape
designer though he consulted with other
professionals within the field.
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
30/14530 SHACKMOUNTAIN
SHACKMOUNTAINPART1
The newly renovated Lemon Hill
mansion was a suburban residence, with a
vehicular drive and privacy fence. Kimballs
design included a solid wood fence to
surround the property, which offered privacy
from the nearby music pavilion while
providing a sense of enclosure. The fence
segregated the property into four rooms
including; a forecourt with an oval drive
leading to a garage and visitor drop off on
the north side of the house, two smaller
service areas along the east and west sides
of the house, and the south garden which
was the former entrance. The new formal
entry was established by the south gate, now
centered on the house (Menke & Menke
2002, 3.9). Kimballs 1927 plot plan reveals a
Figure 1.3.7.Enlargementof the FenceDetail by FiskeKimball, 1925,(Courtesy ofthe FairmountPark Archives).
Figure 1.3.8. Plot Plan for Lemon Hill by Fiske Kimball, 1925, (Courtesy of the Fairmount Park Archives).
geometric pattern with lineal planting beds
on both sides of the entry walk, reinforcing
the strong central axis and reestablishing the
southern pedestrian gate as the formal entry.
He maintained the existing trees along
the oval drive and interspersed lilac,
philodendron and vines along the north
garden fence. The eastern side garden, or
drying yard, contained the cutting garden
while the western garden was boxed with
fragrant roses and honeysuckles.
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
31/145SHACKMOUNTAIN 31
PART1SECTION1.3
The lineal planting beds featured rows of
perennials bordering the grass. Trees filled
the corners of the south garden while roses
and hollyhocks were planted along the
fence. According to Menke & Menke, the
plant list from Amy Cogswells design of
the perennial border for Kimballs 1926
restoration project, Mt. Pleasant, is similar
to the garden he laid out for Lemon Hill
(2002, A14).
Kimball completed the narrative of
Lemon Hill by including the grounds with
the house restoration plans. He used the
Colonial Revival style as a departure for
design, working within the context of the
site, and reinterpreted the garden for the
twenty-first century. Kimballs Colonial
Revival landscape design set the precedent
for the garden design of Shack Mountain.
The Kimballs moved into Lemon Hill
during the spring of 1926, after a year of
extensive renovations; it remained their
primary residence until 1955. Lemon Hill
served as an extension of the Philadelphia
Museum of Art, and was used for social
gatherings and entertaining in matters
relating to the Museum. Marie Kimball
was the consummate hostess, as seen in this
acknowledgment from the minutes of the
Board of Governors meeting in 1955:
Figure 1.3.9. Planting Plan for Lemon Hill, by Fiske Kimball, 1927, (Courtesy of the Fairmount Park Archives).
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
32/14532 SHACKMOUNTAIN
SHACKMOUNTAINPART1
We desire to say a word of the
contribution of Mrs. Kimball to the
growth and the life of the museum.
Under her hand of distinguishedhospitality (Lemon Hill) through
the years, has been a focal point
contributing strength to the
development of the Museum. Scholars,
collectors and Museum Directors,
as well as trustees and donors,
always found there Mrs. Kimballssympathetic and stimulating approach,
aiding and abetting the work of her
husband.37
Figure 1.3.10. Aerial view of the Philadelphia Art Museum taken 1966, HABS PA, 51-Phila, 335-2,http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/pa1065.photos.138253p/ (accessed August 2012).
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
33/145SHACKMOUNTAIN 33
SECTION1.3
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
34/145
SHACKMOUNTAINPART1
Figure 1.4.1. Group Portrait, West Lawn, Monticello, standing on the west lawn are from left to right: Milton Grigg, FiskeKimball, and Board members Frank Houston, Henry Johnston, and William S. Hildreth, (courtesy of the Thomas JeffersonFoundation at Monticello).
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
35/145SHACKMOUNTAIN 35
SECTION1.4
1.4 ASECOND HOME IN
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA
The Kimballs now had a place to call
home, but even so Marie Kimball longed
for Virginia, often traveling there during the
cooler fall season to visit friends.38While in
Virginia, she did research for her biographical
series on Jefferson publishing five books
and numerous articles during her lifetime.39
Kimball also traveled to Virginia, serving on
several boards and committees including:
Chairman of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial
Foundations Restoration Committee (1924-
1955), the Thomas Jefferson Memorial
Foundation Board (1939-1955), as a member
of the Architectural Advisory Board for the
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation (1928-
1948), and the Thomas Jefferson Memorial
Commission (1935-1943).
The museum construction was underway
and the Kimballs were settling into their
new lives when the United States entered
the Great Depression. There was vast
unemployment and growing poverty with
nearly one in every four Americans out
of work (Alter 2007, 2). Newly elected
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt
worked with Congress to enact more
legislation than in any previous time in
Americas history creating the New Deal
programs for unemployed workers (275).
The nation was in crisis, but the focus of
the government was on the American
people, recovery, and getting the masses
back to work with programs like the Works
Progress Administration (WPA) and theCivilian Conservation Corps (CCC), which
supported projects of national interest
(Hosmer 1981). With the resurgence
of nationalism, historic preservation was
prevalent in the United States under
Roosevelts administration (Hosmer 1980).
The onset of the Great Depressionled to deflation, which in turn created
opportunities to purchase investment
property at reasonable prices. After the
passing of Marie Kimballs father in the
spring of 1931, her mother moved in with
them at Lemon Hill, thus eliminating the
need to travel during holidays to visit them.
These combined factors may have influenced
the Kimballs decision to purchase a second
home. The timing was right to look for
a second home in Charlottesville. They
began the search for a house as early as
1931, with an inquiry into the J.R. Johnson
farm, Intermont.40H.T. Van Nostrand, a
Charlottesville realtor, responded to the letter
and the Kimballs enlisted his services to find
them such a property.
During the Great Depression, Kimballs
position at the museum was tenuous due to
constant budget cuts; the museum was only
open three days per week and half a day on
Sundays and by 1933 his salary was cut from
$13,500 in 1935 to $8,700 (Robert and
Robert 1959, 128). In order to stimulate the
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
36/14536 SHACKMOUNTAIN
SHACKMOUNTAINPART1
economy, Congress passed the 1934 National
Housing Act creating the Federal Housing
Administration (FHA), offering mortgages
at lower interest rates. The United States
economy was in slow recovery by 1935, with
things beginning to look up for the PMA,
and for Kimball. It was his tenth anniversary
as the director of the PMA and the museum
was now open full time. Kimballs job was
once again secure (148) and by that spring,
the search for a property escalated. The
Kimballs visited sites around Charlottesville
including Edgemont, Kenwood, and
Stillhouse Mountain. Unable to find what
they were looking for, they abandoned
the idea of renovating a historic house and
instead looked for land on which to build.
Kimball evaluated their needs and shared
them with Van Nostrand:
As we analyze our desires, they are to
get some wooded summit to the west
of the University, as close in as possible,
and not along a railroadThe reason
we would like wooded land is to
get out of any need of farming the
property, which would otherwise be
a burden. Mrs. Kimball would like a
considerable area of land, if it could
be without burden. As we know, there
is not property of this kind. Just in
the right location, which also has a
house on it, I incline to buying a tract
Charlottesville VA
Shack Mountain
Figure 1.4.2. Google Earth imagery showing the location of Shack Mountain relative to Charlottesville, VA, 2012.
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
37/145SHACKMOUNTAIN 37
SECTION1.4
without a house. I am
pretty good at faking
an old house myself.41
With the decision
made to build, the search
for a site was narrowed
to mountaintop locations
around Charlottesville and
near UVA.42Unfortunately
for the Kimballs, this area
was also popular with other
UVA professionals looking to
purchase property near the
university.43Time was of theMarie Kimball worked tirelessly over the
next month and a half, handling the details
of finding a site, negotiating the price, and
finalizing the contract. The story of Shack
Mountain unfolds in lines of correspondence
between the Kimballs during the spring of
1935. It becomes evident that Marie Kimball
is not only the force behind choosing
Charlottesville, but it is also her desire to
retire to the area. Kimball is aware of his
wifes ambition, reproaching her in a letter
because he feels that she is lingering in
Virginia when she should be Philadelphia.47
In response she writes that, as much as I
love my Virginia, I love you more and soon
hoped to be on her way to Philadelphia.48
Marie Kimball wrote letters daily to her
husband, describing the details of hercontinued search and eventual success in
locating their mountaintop retreat.
Figure 1.4.3. Google Earth topographic map of Shack Mountain, 2012.
Shack Mountain
essence as desperate landowners who were
deeply mortgaged had to sell family lands
that otherwise would have not been on the
market. Land was being purchased quickly
due to the drop in land value attributed
to the depressed economy, the increase of
properties for sale, and improved accessibility
due to the advent of the automobile
(Hosmer 1980, 12:20-1).
The Kimballs recognized the need to act
quickly and to maintain their anonymity
in order to keep the prices down.44Many
desirable locations went under contract
as soon as they became available and the
Kimballs realized it would be necessary to
stay in Charlottesville until they closed on
a property.45Kimball was called back to
work in mid-April 1935, leaving his wife to
continue the search alone while he advised
her from Philadelphia.46
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
38/14538 SHACKMOUNTAIN
SHACKMOUNTAINPART1
Marie Kimball: Finding the Site and Negotiating
the Purchase
One early spring morning on April
30,1935,Marie Kimball and Van Nostrand
visited the C. C. Greer property. In her letter
to Kimball that evening, she described the
beauty of the surrounding landscape, there
is a splendid sunset of [sic] the mountains
the sun was already setting through one of
the trees at the early hour and I also have
found the ideal site location for our home.49
The property was two separate sites; 40-acresowned by C.C. Greer and 84-acres owned
by J.R. Wingfield.50In order to acquire
the mountaintop, unobstructed views and
the right of way, the Kimballs needed to
acquire the Wingfield property. Kimball was
sent a map with the two tracts of land, the
proposed house site (located on the Greertract) and the current woodland road access
from Lambs gate.
Marie Kimball was enamored with the
site and revisited the property with her
friend, Isabelle. She wrote to Kimball and
once more described the view, comparing
it to the Stillhouse property her husband
coveted:
While the view (from Stillhouse
Mountain) was lovely, of course it is
not as good as the other place (Shack
Mountain). Isabel and I went there
yesterday and as we stepped into
the clearing she said, there is BlueHeavensIsabel was entranced.51
Kimball desired to please his wife and
knowing how much she loved Virginia he
gave her his approval, go little one-you have
my blanket ok.52
Marie Kimball figured the cost of the
two parcels to be $2,250. The taxes werelow and there was potential to sell off pieces
of the acreage, therefore; it was a good
Figure 1.4.4. Photograph of the entry road to Shack Mountain, June 2013.
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
39/145
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
40/14540 SHACKMOUNTAIN
SHACKMOUNTAINPART1
investment for the future.53By May 2, 1935,
Kimball had produced his first plan for
the site which included his lot and house
site, and a 95-acre proposed subdivision.54
Kimball assumed that the property had
a sufficient water supply to support the
subdivision and planned on selling water to
the future development.55
Marie Kimball was enamored with the
property and Kimball deferred judgment
to his wife, approving of her decisions
and advising her when necessary. While
Kimballs letters to his wife were brief,
attending to business details with words
of encouragement, Marie Kimballs letters
to her husband were often contemplative
narratives of the landscape. In one of the last
letters on file during this time period, MarieKimball described the sunset to her husband
who had yet to see it, everyone who has
been there says we have the most beautiful
site in Albemarle, we were there toward
sunset last evening and it was so supremely
beautiful it took your breath away.56
The Greer and Wingfield properties were
exactly what Marie Kimball was looking for,
and her husband abided by her decision even
though they would have to purchase more
land than they needed for the securement of
the house-site. The purchase price was nearly
double the original estimate, complicated
by the fact that Wingfield was deeply
mortgaged with the bank requiring $30 an
acre minimum for the whole parcel.57The
purchase was also complicated by Greers
wife who tried to back out at the last minute,
reluctant to sell their land.58 Kimball agreed
to the purchase in part because he believedhe could make up the $844.74 difference
by subdividing the property and because he
Figure 1.4.6. View of the Blue Ridge Mountains taken from the north patio of Shack Mountain, June 2013.
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
41/145
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
42/14542 SHACKMOUNTAIN
SHACKMOUNTAINPART1
1 A Brief Biography of
Thomas Jefferson, accessed
August 8, 2012, http://www.
monticello.org/. Thomas Jef-
ferson (1743-1826) was born
in Albemarle County, Vir-
ginia. Jefferson was a lawyer,
statesman and delegate to the
Continental Congress, gov-
ernor of VA, associate envoy
to France, Vice President of
the United States (1796-
1801), and President of the
United States (1801-1809).
Kimball provides evidence to
support that Jefferson was an
architect in his book Thomas
Jefferson Architect, 1916 and
Kimballs intimate knowl-
edge of Jeffersons architec-
tural drawings influence the
design of Shack Mountain.
2 Joseph Dye Lahendro,
Fiske Kimball, American
Renaissance Historian (mas-
ters thesis, M. Arch. Hist.,
University of Virginia, 1982),
61.
3 During the 1930s,
new materials and build-ing techniques combined
with modern interpretations
and solutions initiated new
design solutions based on
historic design principles.
David Gebhard, The Amer-
ican Colonial Revival in the
1930s, Winterthur Portfoliono.
22 (1987): 110.
4 The Kimballs were well
versed in Federal Period ar-
chitecture having been in-
volved in the restoration of
Lemon Hill in 1925. They
were also involved with the
development and restoration
of Philadelphias House Mu-seums called the Colonial
Chain. Kimball inaugurated
a program to restore furnish,
and landscape a selection of
houses that would be opened
to the public. Lauren Brick-
er Weiss, The Writings of
Fiske Kimball: A Synthesis
of Architectural History andPracticeArchitectural Histori-
an in Americano. 217 (1990):
224n57.
5 Elizabeth Barlow Rog-
ers, Landscape Design: a Cul-
tural and Architectural History
(New York: Harry N. Abrams,2001), 267-72. Barlow dis-
cusses Jefferson as an early
practitioner of the pictur-
esque in America.
6 Fiske Kimball, Mem-
oirs: Harvard in Transition
(unpublished manuscript,
1933-1955), Series I, Sub-
series I, Fiske Kimball Papers
(FKP), Philadelphia Muse-
um of Art (PMA), Archives.
(hereafter will be cited as
Memoirs, FKP, PMA).
7 Obituary of Edwin
Fiske Kimball, 1924, Series II,
Subseries C, FKP, PMA.
8 Memoirs, FKP, PMA.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid.
11 According to Carlhian,
the Ecole des Beaux Arts
style atelier (studio) teach-
ing system was introducedinto the United States in the
late 1800s. Classical propor-
tions, scale, balance, beauty,
and a deep understanding
of architecture from the an-
cient world down through
the Renaissance was stressed.
Students took classes on
aesthetics, history, technicaland studio courses, round-
ing their education. Jean
Paul Carlhian, The Ecole
NOTESPART 1
1 Philadelphia Museum of,Art, and Merle Chamberlain.
1982. A Guide to the Fiske
Kimball Papers. Philadelphia,
Pa.: Archives, Philadelphia
Museum of Art. Sidney Fiske
Kimball changed his name
from Sidney to Fiske in 1915,
around the same time his
Ph. D. was conferred.
2 In order to alleviate
confusion, from this point
on in the text Fiske Kimball
will be referred to as Kimball
and Marie Goebel Kimball
will be referred to as Marie
Kimball.
NOTES
DEFINING THE PROJECT
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
43/145SHACKMOUNTAIN 43
PART1NOTES
des Beaux-Arts: Modes and
Manners.JAEno. 33 (1979):
7-10.
12 Lahendro, Fiske Kim-
ball, American Renaissance
Historian 8.
13 Lahendro, Fiske Kim-
ball, American Renaissance
Historian 42.
14 Memoirs, FKP, PMA.
15 Lahendro, Fiske Kim-
ball, 8.
16 The Sheldon Fellow-
ship began in 1909, and al-
lows the recipient to travel
abroad at ones own devices.
Fiske Kimball, Thomas Jef-
ferson Architect, in (Boston:
Riverside Press) last modifiedAugust 14, 1997, accessed 10
July 2013, http://www2.iath.
Virginia.edu/wilson/TJA/tja.
home.html
17 George Robert and
Mary Robert, Triumph on
Fairmount: Fiske Kimball and
the Philadelphia Museum of Art(Philadelphia: J.P. Lippencott
Company, 1957), 30.
18 T. Kimball to F. Kimball,
22 July 1911, Series II, Sub-
series A, FKP, PMA.
19 Eliot interned with
Frederick Law Olmsted in
1883, established his ownpractice in 1886, and in 1893
formed a partnership with
Frederick Law Olmsted Jr.
and Charles Law Olmsted.
Eliot was considered a dis-
tinguished landscape archi-tect and landscape historian,
advocate for regional plan-
ning and pioneer in land-
scape conservation as well as
writer on landscape topics.
Birnbaum, Charles A., Lisa
E. Crowder, Sally Boazberg,
States Catalog of Landscape
Records in the United, andInitiative Historic Landscape.
1993. Pioneers of American
Landscape Design: an Annotat-
ed Bibliography. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of
the Interior, National Park
Service, Cultural Resources:
Preservation Assistance Di-
vision, Historic LandscapeInitiative. 107.
20 Marie Goebel Kim-
ball had six siblings: Julius Jr.,
Louise, Irma, Anne, Walther,
and Eunice.
21 TheNew York Times
online; Radcliffe College,
article written January 14,
1894. Radcliffe was founded
in 1879 as a womens liberal
arts college in Cambridge
Massachusetts and the co-
ordinate college of Harvard
University. Harvard Universi-
ty professors taught the class-
es at the college.22 Funeral Program for
Marie Kimball, 9 April 1952,
Series II, Subseries C, FKP,
PMA.
23 Marie Kimball com-
menced an examination of
the Jefferson correspondence
at the MA Historical Society
and the Thomas Jefferson Pa-
pers the Library of Congress
1913-1914 Marie Goebel
Kimball, accessed July 20,
2012, http://www.monticel-
lo.org24 Lahendro, Fiske Kim-
ball, American Renaissance
Historian 114.
25 Ibid., 57-8. Scottswood
Subdivision in Ann Arbor,
Michigan, is a suburban res-
idential development for
which Kimball designed theas well as the architecture.
26 Kimball and Marie
Kimball shared similar inter-
ests, and at times their work
overlapped, suggesting they
collaborated on projects.
Upon the examination of
two articles, Philadelphias Co-lonial Chainwritten by Kim-
ball in 1926 and The Revival
of the Colonial; Philadelphia
Restores its Old Houses on the
Schuylkillwritten by Marie
Kimball in 1927, similarities
in content, style and phrasing
are unmistakable.
27 Heidi Hohmann,
Theodora Kimball Hubbard
and the Intellectualization
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
44/14544 SHACKMOUNTAIN
SHACKMOUNTAINPART1
of Landscape Architecture
1911-1935, Landscape Journal,
25(2): 169-186. Contempo-
rary theory has shed light oncertain subjects, redefining
the study and examination of
history. Hohman acknowl-
edges the accomplishments
of Theodora Kimball by
using gender theory as the
device to communicate her
contributions. She disclos-
es the relationship betweensiblings extending beyond
the bonds of family into the
realm of their professional
endeavors suggesting the in-
fluence they had upon each
other throughout their lives,
both personally and profes-
sionally, as documented in
their personal correspon-dence.
28 Theodora Kimball
Hubbard 1887-1935, (1935),
Series II, Subseries C, FKP,
PMA
29 F. Kimball to T. Kimball,
1917, Series VII, Subseries 2,
FKP, PMA. The edited copy
of the review is in Kimballs
hand and matches the pub-
lished article by Theodora
Kimball in Landscape Architec-
ture.
30 Kimball equates
Jefferson to Frederick Law
Olmsted Jr. and Downing,two of the thirteen founding
members of the American
Society of Landscape Ar-
chitects, along with Charles
Eliot.
31 T. Kimball to F. Kim-
ball, 20 March 1919, Series II,
Subseries A, FKP, PMA.
32 On Kimball as Archi-
tect and Historian, A Sym-
posium held at the School of
Architecture, UVA, accessed
December 5, 2012, http://
www2.lib.Virginia.edu/fin-earts/exhibits/fiske/confer-
ence/Lahendro.html.
33 William Morris was a
financier of the American
Revolution; he was elected
to the Assembly of Pennsyl-
vania and signer of the Dec-
laration of Independence.
34 This was a judicious
decision on the part of the
City. Haavick points out that
the City purchased the prop-
erty in order to control the
citys water purification by
not allowing factory devel-
opment upriver of the waterworks, the primary water
source for Philadelphia.
Haavick, Lemon Hill Inven-
tory, 6.
35 Fairmount Park 2010
Holiday House Tour, ac-
cessed June 8 2012, http://
www.colonialsense.com/
Architecture/Houses/Fair-
mount_Park/Lemon_Hill.
php.
36 Webb-Deane-Ste-
vens Colonial Revival Gar-
den, accessed June 10, 2012,
http://www.webb-deane-stevens.org/garden_and_
grounds.html. Amy L. Cog-
swell was a 1916 graduate
of the Lowthorpe School
of Landscape Architecture,
Gardening, and Horticul-
ture for Women in Groton,
Massachusetts. She worked
on several colonial revivalgardens during the 1920s
including Mount Pleasant.
Menke & Menke, Lemon
Hill Study, B1.
37 Board of Governors
Minutes, 24 October 1955,
Series II, Subseries C, FKP,
PMA.
38 F. Kimball to T. Water-
man, 8 October 1931, Series
I, Subseries I, FKP, PMA.
39 Marie Kimball began a
biographical series on Thom-
as Jefferson, receiving two
Guggenheim Fellowships
for the project, one in 1945and 1946. She completed
three out of the five books in
the series before she died in
1955 with handwritten notes
for the fourth and possible
fifth book stored in boxes
and filed by chapters located
at the UVA Archives.
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
45/145SHACKMOUNTAIN 45
NOTES
40 F. Kimball to H. T. Van
Nostrand, 10 August 1931,
Series III, Subseries I, FKP,
PMA.
41 F. Kimball to H. T. Van
Nostrand, 27 March 1935,
Series III, Subseries I, FKP,
PMA.
42 Ibid.
43 B. Chamberlin to M.
Kimball, 16 May 1935, SeriesIII, Subseries I, FKP, PMA.
44 F. Kimball to H.T. Van
Nostrand, 1 January 1935,
Series III, Subseries I, FKP,
PMA.
45 H. T. Van Nostrand to F.
Kimball, 5 April 1935, Series
III, Subseries I, FKP, PMA.Kimball was very interest-
ed in the top of Stillhouse
Mountain but it was already
under contract.
46 M. Kimball to F. Kim-
ball, 23 April 1935, Series III,
Subseries I, FKP, PMA.
47 M. Kimball to F. Kim-
ball, 8 May 1935, Series III,
Subseries I, FKP, PMA.
48 Ibid.
49 M. Kimball to F. Kim-
ball, 29 April 1935, Series III,
Subseries I, FKP, PMA.
50 H. T. Van Nostrand to
F. Kimball, 30 April 1935,
Series III, Subseries I, FKP,
PMA.
51 M. Kimball to F. Kim-
ball, 1 May 1935, Series III,
Subseries I, FKP, PMA.
52 F. Kimball to M. Kim-
ball, 2 May 1935, Series III,
Subseries I, FKP, PMA
52 F. Kimball to M. Kim-ball, 30 April 1935, Series III,
Subseries I, FKP, PMA.
53 M. Kimball to F. Kim-
ball, 1 May 1935, Series III,
Subseries I, FKP, PMA.
54 F. Kimball to Van Nos-
trand, 2 May 1935, Series III,
Subseries I, FKP, PMA.
55 Ibid.
56 M. Kimball to F. Kim-
ball, 5 May 1935, Series III,
Subseries I, FKP, PMA.
58 M. Kimball to F. Kim-
ball, 1 May 1935, Series III,
Subseries I, FKP, PMA.
59 Ibid.
60 Ibid.
61 F. Kimball to M. Kim-
ball, 2 May 1935, Series III,
Subseries I, FKP, PMA.
62 M. Kimball to F. Kim-ball, 10 May 1935, Series III,
Subseries I, FKP, PMA.
63 B. Chamberlin to
F. Kimball, 19 November
1935, Series III, Subseries I,
FKP, PMA.
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
46/145
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
47/145
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
48/14548 SHACKMOUNTAIN
SHACKMOUNTAINPART2
The preliminary designs for ShackMountain were drawn over the course
of eighteen months with the first scheme,
Bellevue, completed in June just one month
after the land purchase. His deductions about
the site came from descriptions in letters
and telephone conversations from as well
as a topographic map and surveys from VanNostrand.1 Kimball was able to construct the
plan quickly because of the following factors:
The site requirements he dened
in March were validated in the land
purchase with the mountaintop
location being the key element. Theterrain dictated the placement of the
house and since the views, aspect,
and climate were fixed, a function of
the design was to adapt to these site-
specific conditions.
The architectural style was previously
defined Jeffersonian in Character.
He was conversant in Jeffersons
designs and he based Bellevue on
the plan he sketched for Stillhouse
Mountain.
Documents received from
Van Nostrum included a plat map
indicated property lines, Old Barracks
Road, entry road, topography, house
site, proposed lots, the stonewall
2.1 SYNOPSIS: THE CONSTRUCTION
OF SHACK MOUNTAIN
within property and Ivy Creek.2The
right of way for power and telephone
was on Greers property but while
he assumed he had a water source, it
wasnt confirmed until he drilled a
well 1937.3
Kimball was familiar with the area
having lived in Charlottesville and
because of the couples frequent trips
to Virginia.
The Kimballs decision to pasture and
not cultivate the land.4
Marie Kimballs vivid narratives of
the site, embodying a sense of place.
She had already picked out the house
site and mentioned the possibility of
subdividing and selling plots.
The Kimballs enlisted the services of
Robert E. Lee, owner of Charlottesville
Lumber Company, as the contractor to build
their house. Lee and Kimball were already
acquainted, as Kimball had asked Lee in a
letter dated February, 1935, to look overthe Edgemont property. Their working
relationship turned into a lifelong family
friendship. The correspondence between the
Kimballs and Lees over the next two decades
provides a history of Shack Mountains
development.
Kimballs first set of plans, labeledBellevue, was given to Lee on June 19,
1935.5Excluding the landscaping, materials
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
49/145SHACKMOUNTAIN 49
SECTION2.1
and contractors fees were estimated at
$17,940.00.6His ability for research and
interpreting documents gave him confidence
that he had enough information for the
plans but his lack of intimacy with the site
lead to immediate changes to the plan.7
The new plans enlarged Bellevue thereby
increasing costs which Lee estimated at
$22,293.00.8The construction of Shack
Mountain was put on hold for nearly two
years, as the coming events of Kimballs
personal life most likely delayed the
construction.
Kimballs sister had health problems from
the 1920s onward with a serious decline in
the late 1920s. By 1933, she was working
from her bed, intermittently taking periods
to convalesce (Hohmann 2006, 25:181).
Her health problems included high blood
pressure, heart trouble, and severe migraines
(181) as well as mental instability
(181n27).9She died in November 1935, a
well-respected author and early theorist of
City Planning and Landscape Architecture.10
Her colleague, Dr. Lefavour, recognized
Theodora Kimballs achievements:
In the death of Theodora Kimball
Hubbard there lies a professional
woman of great distinction. Prostrated
for several years by a wasting illness,
she has already, before half the span of
like, accomplished a whole lifes workgratefully recognized by men in many
countries.11
Dr. Lefavours sentiment, guided Kimball
in the writing of his sisters obituary. He
used part of the Dr.s passage in the opening
paragraph, expanding upon the idea and
broadening the scope of her professional
influence:
She found her vocation in providing
the new professions of landscape
architecture and city planning
with their basic literary toolsshe
developed a sphere of influence whichextendedin fact to every country
where men attempt to make their
surroundings more beautiful and more
livable.12
Her death was difficult on Kimball, made
more so by her rapid deterioration. When
Kimballs wife became ill the following
summer, he was worried enough to compare
his situation to his brother in laws:
Maries illness, which is so similar to
Teds, brings home to me more than
ever all that she had to go through
and all fell on you. I can only hope I
can be such a brick as you are.13
The death of his sister, along with his wifes
poor health, offers a possible explanation for
the gap in archival material relating to Shack
Mountain.
By August, 1936, Kimball was still
reconciling the budget, suspending plans
for his second design and calling for new
estimates from Lee.14Marie Kimball began
to recover by February 1937; with the
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
50/14550 SHACKMOUNTAIN
SHACKMOUNTAINPART2
worst of her illness behind her, the project
in Virginia was once again underway with
Kimballs latest design Scheme C.
The square footage of the house had
been reduced and the form began to take
on the familiar elongated T-shape. The
facade resembled Farmington Country
Club, only without the octagonal wings that
Thomas Jefferson had designed as the entry
for the owner, George Divers. The square
footage was smaller than the previous two
designs with more focus on equipment;
Kimball needed air-conditioning for his
wife who had difficulty with the heat. By
the middle of March, the site was cleared
and the excavation almost complete when
Lee received a telegram from Kimball
March 12, 1937 house too expensive for
accommodations suspend construction have
different plan.15Lee received a letter from
Kimball the next day stating, essentially
we have too much equipment in too little
house. I have sketched a new plan with the
same equipment but enclosing a little more
room.16 The rough sketch for Scheme
Q was drafted on March 12, 1937, taking
on the footprint of Farmington with the
addition of the elongated octagon, adding
square footage by increasing the width
of the house. The final scheme for Shack
Mountain was based on Scheme Q, with
a slight decrease of size and a general
refinement revealing the elongated T-shape
with octagonal ends.
The Kimballs mortgage on the house
was for $10,000 with the cost of the land
and improvements totaling $23,861.02.17
14The Kimballs were bequeathed a total of
$5,000 from Theodora Kimballs estate,18
which most likely went towards the down
payment of Shack Mountain. Kimball still
needed money after the house was built,
refinancing Shack Mountain in 1937, and
increasing his loan by $2,000.19
Kimball defined the architectural style
early on but the site program evolved with
each site design. Kimballs sketches for the
house were drawn within the context of the
built and natural landscape. While some plans
have limited detail, two of his landscape
designs reveal the garden as an extension of
the architecture by using Colonial Revival
garden design elements.
Kimballs landscape ideals were founded
in his New England landscape aesthetics and
reinforced by his Beaux-Arts architectural
education. Most of the literature written
about Kimball does not discuss his
relationship with his sister, their professional
association or common interests in art,
literature and appreciation of the English
Landscape.20According to Bricker, Kimball
and his sister were nurtured (in) the
intellectual, and aesthetic values associated
with the New England landscape, reflected
by their shared passion for the English
landscape garden which had similar pastoral
qualities (Hubbard and Hubbard 1917/1931,
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
51/145SHACKMOUNTAIN 51
SECTION2.1
69-70). Throughout the design process
Kimball maintains his objective to design
an architectural statement of Jeffersonian
classicism suited to modern day living within
the framework of the Virginian landscape.
He articulated this through a house design of
perfect proportion and balance, but without
the designed landscape.
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
52/145
1 Portico
2 Central Hallway
3 Drawing Room
4 Bedroom
5 Library
6 Dining Room
7 Kitchen
1
2
1
3
6
7
4
4
4
Figure 2.2.1. Key map for Kimballs 1935 plan for ShackMountain labelled Bellevue (Series III, Subseries I, FKP, PMAArchives, with labels by author).
52 SHACKMOUNTAIN
SCHEMEA: BELLEVUEDate: May-June 1935
Estimated Cost: $17,940
The geometric plan of the house features
square rooms with an octagonal salon
forming the main living area, reflective of
Jeffersons use of geometric shapes. The
portico steps lead up to the main floor of the
two-story house. The entry opens up to the
central hallway from which the other roomsare accessed. The central axis continues
down the hallway into the octagonal
drawing room, which provides views of the
Blue Ridge Mountains. The bedrooms are
located on the ground floor on the west side
of the house with the library, dining room,
and kitchen located on the main floor onthe east side of the house.
There is a notation to reverse the plan so
that the dining room and library would be
on the west side. Based on the time line from
the land purchase and Kimballs first plan,
the scheme was most likely drawn before
Kimball visited the site. While Kimballaccounted for views from within the
drawing room, he did not do the same for
the dining room and library, only receiving
early morning sun and forest views. The
footprint of Bellevue is similar to Kimballs
design for Stillhouse Mountain except for
the addition of a semi-octagonal dining
room and the inside room arrangement.
2.2 THE FIVE SCHEMES OF SHACK MOUNTAIN
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
53/145
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
54/145
House Site
House Site
Old Wood Road
Old Barracks Road
Figure 2.2.3. Location of house site for Shack Mountain.Adapted from the 1937 aerial survey, with notations by author
(see fig. 1.4.5.).
Figure 2.2.4. Location of roads leading to Shack Mountain asof 1935, with notations by author (see fig. 1.4.5.).
Figure 2.2.5. Enlargement of circular drive from Bellevue plan,1935 (see fig. 2.2.2.).
54 SHACKMOUNTAIN
SHACKMOUNTAINPART2
SCHEMEA
Location and Orientation
Kimball sited the house on the top of the
hill, offering the best views of the mountains
from the main living area. The front facade
of the house faces south with the central
axis running north/south. With the dining
room and library reversed, the rooms
would receive afternoon sun, and the sun
setting behind the mountains. If the plan
were reversed, one could assume that the
landscape design would remain unchanged
in order to accommodate the entry.
Circulation
The drive entered the property from Old
Barracks Road at Lambs gate, then followed
the existing Woodland Road, diverging
slightly east to towards the site. The road
terminated with a circular drive at the front
entry of the house.
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
55/145
a
a
b
b bcc
Figure 2.2.6. Bellevue plan with garden features labelled, 1935,notations by author (see fig. 2.2.2.).
SHACKMOUNTAIN 55
SECTION2.2
Garden Design
Terraces formed the architectural base of the
house outside of the dining room and living
room (a), extending the living area of the
house. The garden was located on the north
side of the house, accessed by steps from
the drawing room terrace or by one of the
three entrances (b) in the center of each wall,
with the north entrance marked by a trellis
aligned with the central axis of the house. A
stone retaining wall formed the rectangular
platform of the garden with square parterres
(c) used as planting beds flanking the east
and west sides of the grass lawn. A wall
extended from the southeast and southwest
corners of the terrace disappearing into the
woods.
The terrace was below the main floor
of the house so not to obstruct views, but
still providing a protected area to enjoy the
outdoors, safe from the intrusion of animals
in the pasture. The terrace would have been
shaded because of the north facade.
Kimball proposed to keep existing trees
where they did not interfere with the house
plans. He also called for grass on the north
terrace and planting beds. The terrace could
have been viewed from the drawing room
but would have been hidden from the other
parts of the house while the trees were in
bloom. The terrace would have provided
views of the north side of the house and a
panoramic view of the landscape.
The garden featured geometric patterns,
an axial arrangement of design elements
and parterres consistent with Colonial
Revival design elements. Kimball did not
further detail this plan, instead changing the
house and garden design in his subsequent
scheme.
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
56/145
1 Portico
2 Circular Stair
3 Entry Hall
5 Drawing Room
4 Library
6 Dining Room
7 Kitchen
1
2
4
5
6
7 3
* Bedrooms Located on 2nd Floor
Figure 2.2.7. Key map for Scheme B, drawn by Kimball, 1936,with notions by author (Series III, Subseries I, FKP, PMA
Archives).
56 SHACKMOUNTAIN
SCHEME BDate: July-August 1936
Estimate: 22,293
Scheme B was introduced in 1936 withthe footprint based on Jeffersons Plan for
a City Dwelling. While it shares many of
the same elements as Bellevue (two levels, an
octagonal drawing room and a geometric
shaped plan), the rectangular house now
has octagonal rooms on the east, west
and north sides. The house sits on top ofthe ridge with a south facing entrance
level.
The main living area is on the first
floor and the bedrooms are on the
second floor. Both floors of the house
are above ground with a portico outside
the main entrance and a circular stairjust inside the entry. The rooms on
the first floor are accessible through
the entry hall. A large drawing room is
located on the north side of the house with
a high ceilings extending to the second floor.
The library faces east and dining room faces
west. The kitchen is next to dining withthe stair off the hallway in the southeast
corner of the house leading to the upstairs
bedrooms.
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
57/145
AA
Figure 2.2.8. Scheme B, first floor plan, 1936 (Series III, Subseries I, FKP, PMA Archives).
Figure 2.2.9. Scheme B, second floor plan, 1936 (Series III, Subseries I, FKP, PMA Archives).
SHACKMOUNTAIN 57
-
8/10/2019 Shack Mountain Final Report
58/145
House Site
Old Wood Road
Old Barracks Road
Figure 2.2.10. Location of house site for Shack Mountain.Adapted from the 1937 aerial survey, with notations by author(see fig. 1.4.5.).
Figure 2.2.11. Site plan with road alignment, Scheme B, ca.1936 (Series III, Subseries I, FKP, PMA Archives, with northarrow added by author).
58 SHACKMOUNTAIN
SHACKMOUNTAINPART2
SCHEMEB
Location and Orientation
The main axis of the house is north/south
with the large drawing room positioned
north for the mountain view. The house is
sited in the same location as Bellevue, built
on the hilltop with the entry elevation one
foot below that of the house. All but the
north side of the house is built into the
surrounding forest, with the north facade
facing the panoramic v