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


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


3/145


4/145

SHACKMOUNTAINSHACKMOUNTAIN


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


6/145

SHACKMOUNTAINSHACKMOUNTAIN


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


8/145

SHACKMOUNTAIN


9/145


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.


11/145


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



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.



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.



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.


16/145

Figure 1.2.1. Fiske Kimball at his desk, ca. 1913, Print Department Records, Philadelphia Museum of Art, Archives.

SHACKMOUNTAINPART1



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



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



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



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,


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



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



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.


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



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



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).



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).



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).



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.



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.



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).



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).



SECTION1.3


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).



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



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.



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



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.


39/145



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.


41/145



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



PART1NOTES

des Beaux-Arts: Modes and

Manners.JAEno. 33 (1979):

7-10.

12 Lahendro, Fiske Kim-

ball, American Renaissance

Historian 8.



Historian 42.

14 Memoirs, FKP, PMA.


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-


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



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),


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,


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.



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,


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,


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.


ball, 8 May 1935, Series III,


48 Ibid.


ball, 29 April 1935, Series III,


50 H. T. Van Nostrand to

F. Kimball, 30 April 1935,


PMA.




52 F. Kimball to M. Kim-


Subseries I, FKP, PMA

52 F. Kimball to M. Kim-ball, 30 April 1935, Series III,





54 F. Kimball to Van Nos-

trand, 2 May 1935, Series III,


55 Ibid.







59 Ibid.

60 Ibid.

61 F. Kimball to M. Kim-



62 M. Kimball to F. Kim-ball, 10 May 1935, Series III,


63 B. Chamberlin to

F. Kimball, 19 November

1935, Series III, Subseries I,

FKP, PMA.


46/145


47/145



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



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



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,



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.


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


53/145


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.


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.


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.


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


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