POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTIONS by KAITLIN

EXPLORING THE ORIGINS OF TODAY’S HISTORIC ST. AUGUSTINE: POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTIONS

KAITLIN DORN

A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2017

To my family

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my thesis committee including Morris Hylton III and Kristin

Larsen. I would like to thank my “alternate thesis committee” including Jenny Wolfe,

Robin Moore, and Paul Weaver. After taking some time off, they inspired me to pick up where I left off and finish. I would like to thank the City of St. Augustine’s Planning and

Building Department. I would like to thank the St. Augustine Historical Society Research

Library, especially Mr. Tingley, Mr. Nawrocki, Ms. Willis, and Dr. Parker. I would like to thank the folks at the Government House Research Library, especially Mr. Caswell and

Mr. Armstrong. I would like to thank Arnold Päcklar; he was my support system. I would like to thank my parents, Julie and John. I would not have finished without consistent encouragement from my grandparents, Robert and Marilyn Dorn, and Mary Merryman.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... 4

LIST OF TABLES ...... 8

LIST OF FIGURES ...... 9

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... 11

ABSTRACT ...... 12

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 14

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 21

Early Twentieth Century Projects ...... 23 Colonial Williamsburg, VA (1926) ...... 24 Old Sturbridge Village, MA (1946) ...... 26 Plimoth Plantation, MA (1947) ...... 27 (Re-)defining Reconstruction ...... 30 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 ...... 30 Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties ...... 31 The Debate: To Reconstruct or Not to Reconstruct? ...... 34 Authenticity ...... 34 Reasons to Support Reconstruction ...... 36 Reasons to Oppose Reconstructions ...... 38 Late Twentieth Century Projects ...... 40 Benjamin Franklin House, PA (1976) ...... 40 St. Mary’s City – 1667 Brick Chapel (2007) ...... 41 Virtual Reconstruction ...... 42 St. Augustine ...... 43 History ...... 43 Flagler Legacy ...... 46 St. Augustine Historical Society ...... 47 Carnegie Institute: St. Augustine Historical Program ...... 49 Llambias House ...... 54 Oldest House ...... 55 St. Augustine Historical Society: Development Plan of 1955...... 55 Special Advisory Committee: St. Augustine Restoration Plan of 1958 ...... 59 St. Augustine Historic Preservation and Restoration Commission of 1959 ...... 61 St. Augustine Restoration, Inc...... 64 The Preservation Movement of the 1960s ...... 65 Case Studies ...... 66

Manuel de Herrera House ...... 66 Salcedo House ...... 67 Alexander-Garrido House ...... 67 De Hita House ...... 68

3 RESEACH METHODS ...... 70

Methodology ...... 71 Strategies of Inquiry ...... 71 Bounding the Study ...... 72 Data Collection Strategies ...... 73 Data Recording Procedures ...... 73 Data Analysis and Interpretation ...... 73 Verification ...... 74 Reporting the Findings ...... 75 Method ...... 75 Research Question ...... 75 Criteria for Analysis ...... 75 Stakeholders ...... 75 Goals and objectives ...... 76 Processes and strategies ...... 76 Tools for implementation ...... 77 Funding ...... 77 Interpretation ...... 78 Impacts on tourism ...... 78 Impacts to the urban environment ...... 79 Integrity ranking ...... 79 Evidence ...... 80

4 OUTCOMES ...... 82

Don Manuel de Herrera House ...... 82 Stakeholders ...... 83 Goals and Objectives ...... 84 Processes or Strategies ...... 85 Implementation Tools ...... 86 Funding ...... 88 Interpretation ...... 88 Impacts on Tourism ...... 89 Impacts to the Urban Environment ...... 90 Integrity Ranking ...... 90 Salcedo House ...... 102 Stakeholders ...... 102 Goals and Objectives ...... 103 Processes or Strategies ...... 104 Implementation Tools ...... 104 Funding ...... 106

Interpretation ...... 107 Impacts on Tourism ...... 107 Impacts to the Urban Environment ...... 108 Integrity Ranking ...... 108 Alexander-Garrido House ...... 118 Stakeholders ...... 118 Goals and Objectives ...... 119 Processes or Strategies ...... 120 Implementation Tools ...... 121 Funding ...... 123 Interpretation ...... 124 Impacts on Tourism ...... 124 Impacts to the Urban Environment ...... 125 Integrity Ranking ...... 125 De Hita House ...... 135 Stakeholders ...... 135 Goals and Objectives ...... 137 Processes or Strategies ...... 137 Implementation Tools ...... 137 Funding ...... 139 Interpretation ...... 139 Impacts on Tourism ...... 140 Impacts to the Urban Environment ...... 140 Integrity Ranking ...... 140

5 CONCLUSION ...... 148

Assessments ...... 149 Criterion Consideration E: Reconstructions ...... 149 Integrity at Mid-twentieth Century ...... 149 Criteria for Significance ...... 154 Integrity at the 50-year Age Mark ...... 154 Suggestions for Future Research ...... 155

LIST OF REFERENCES ...... 159

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 170

LIST OF TABLES

Table page

1-1 Timeline ...... 19

3-1 Ranking Sample ...... 81

4-1 List of Stakeholders for the Manuel de Herrera House ...... 84

4-2 Ranking for the Manuel de Herrera House ...... 91

4-3 List of Stakeholders for the Salcedo House ...... 103

4-4 Ranking for the Salcedo House ...... 109

4-5 List of Stakeholders for the Alexander-Garrido House ...... 119

4-6 Ranking for the Alexander-Garrido House ...... 126

4-7 List of Stakeholders for the De Hita House ...... 136

4-8 Ranking for the De Hita House ...... 141

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

1-1 Reconstructions in the St. Augustine Historic District...... 20

4-1 Elevation Drawings of the Museum Storage Building...... 92

4-2 First Floor Plan, Foundation Plan, Section, and Details of the Museum Storage Building...... 93

4-3 Second Floor Plan, Elevation, and Details of the Museum Storage Building...... 94

4-4 Perspective Drawing of the Museum Storage Building...... 95

4-5 Floor Plan, Foundation, Section, and Elevation of the Museum Lab Building. ... 96

4-6 Sketch Drawing of the Don Manuel de Herrera House...... 97

4-7 Manuel de Herrera House, c.1876...... 98

4-8 Manuel de Herrera House, c.1893...... 99

4-9 Manuel de Herrera House, Museum Storage Building, Exterior...... 100

4-10 Manuel de Herrera House, Museum Lab Building, Exterior...... 101

4-11 Bob Steinbach conducting archaeological excavations...... 110

4-12 Archaeological excavations at Salcedo House...... 111

4-13 Archaeological excavation showing a coquina well on the Salcedo House...... 112

4-14 Artist's Rendering of a possible reconstruction of the Salcedo House...... 113

4-15 Artist's rendering of the reconstruction of the Salcedo House...... 114

4-16 Original sketch of the courtyard of the Salcedo House, looking West...... 115

4-17 Construction of Salcedo House, looking Southwest...... 116

4-18 Salcedo House from St. George Street, looking Southwest...... 117

4-19 Alexander-Garrido House exposed foundations, c. 1962...... 127

4-20 Excavation from Hale Smith’s excavation in 1962...... 128

4-21 A. Garrido Foundation Plan...... 129

4-22 A. Garrido House Plan...... 130

4-23 A. Garrido House Elevation...... 131

4-24 The Alexander-Garrido House from Charlotte Street, looking Northeast...... 132

4-25 Alexander-Garrido House, Exterior Looking Southeast...... 133

4-26 Alexander-Garrido House, Exterior Looking Northwest...... 134

4-27 Plan of Excavation (North is Right)...... 142

4-28 Plan of Excavation (North is Left)...... 143

4-29 Drawing, B7L4 Post Evidence...... 144

4-30 Plan of Gonzalez and De Hita houses...... 145

4-31 De Hita site prior to construction, with the Avero House on the right...... 146

4-32 De Hita House (left) and Gonzalez House (right) on St. George Street...... 147

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ACHP Advisory Council of Historic Preservation

CAD Computer-aided drafting

DOI US Department of the Interior

DOT US Department of Transportation

FDOS Florida Department of State

Florida State of Florida

FSU Florida State University

GRA Governmental Reorganization Act of 1968 (Florida)

HABS Historic American Building Survey

HAER Historic American Engineering Report

HB Florida House Bill

HSA Historic Sites Act of 1935

HSAPB Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board (formerly SAHRPC)

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1970

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

NPS National Park Service

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

SAHRPC St. Augustine Historic Restoration and Preservation Commission

SAHS St. Augustine Historical Society

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

SIS Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties

UF University of Florida

US United States of America

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Historic Preservation

EXPLORING THE ORIGINS OF TODAY’S HISTORIC ST. AUGUSTINE: POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTIONS

Kaitlin Dorn

May 2017

Chair: Morris Hylton III Cochair: Kristin Larsen Major: Historic Preservation

The historic City of St. Augustine as it exists today is largely a creation of the twentieth-century. For example, as part of larger master plans, two organizations –St.

Augustine Historical Society and St. Augustine Historic Restoration and Preservation

Commission undertook a series of reconstructions of Spanish and British Colonial era structures. This thesis documents and examines reconstructions that took place in St.

Augustine, Florida during the mid-twentieth century and evaluates them as potential historical and cultural resources including an assessment of their integrity. The St.

Augustine case studies provide insight into best practices for reconstruction during that period and just before the adoption of the National Historic Preservation Act and the development of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Documenting and examining the post-war period of reconstructions in the City of St. Augustine, help us understand the evolving attitudes toward reconstructions.

The St. Augustine Historical Society redeveloped the Oldest House Complex, south of the Plaza. The former St. Augustine Historic Restoration and Preservation

Commission redeveloped the St. George Street corridor. This thesis analyzes two case

studies from each organization, focusing on the first and last reconstruction projects, examining stakeholders, goals and objectives, processes or strategies, implementation tools, funding, interpretation, impacts on tourism, impacts to the urban environment, and provides a framework for ranking the integrity of each project. The conclusion discusses whether the reconstructions were completed authentically or not. The reconstructions in

St. Augustine have achieved significance in their own right as part of the mid-twentieth century “restoration” project.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

St. Augustine, Florida was founded in 1565. It is the “oldest continuously occupied city of Europe origin on the contiguous North American continent, North of

Mexico,” (Chatelain 1939, 372; Gannon 2003; Gordon 2002, 1; National Register of

Historic Places 1986). The early origin of the city is evident through paintings, photographs, maps, letters, and other archival documents. Remnants of the Spanish colonial era include the Castillo de San Marcos, Fort Matanzas, the cathedral, and other civic and governmental buildings located on the central plaza established by the Law of the Indies1 (National Historic Landmark 1970). These historic buildings are recognized as significant on the local, state, and national levels. Other significant structures survive from later periods including the former Ponce de Leon Hotel constructed by railroad magnate and hotelier Henry Flagler.

Understanding that the city’s cultural resources needed protection, concerned citizens formed a scientific and historical society that morphed from protecting the natural environment to historical objects, documents, and eventually historic buildings.

Special attention was given to the Castillo de San Marcos, cathedral, and the oldest house, among others. The historical society acquired the buildings creating the first example of private stewardship of historic buildings. In 1935, the Historic Sites Act initiated the transfer of certain sites including the Castillo de San Marcos ownership from the historical society to the federal government, just as the City of St. Augustine began to realize the historical society’s increased revenue from tourism. The transfer

1 The Crown of Spain authorized the Royal Ordinances Concerning the Laying Out of New Towns, commonly referred to as the Laws of the Indies in 1573.

significantly reduced the society’s income, which led to a greater need for the society to promote and benefit from the interpretation of the Oldest House to visitors

The oldest house museum helped promote the concept of heritage tourism. It also led to more scrutiny of historic facts and a goal of higher-level authenticity in restorations and interpretation of the City’s history. During the 1930s, the Mayor of St.

Augustine recruited Verne Chatelain, the historian for the National Park Service heavily involved in researching Colonial Williamsburg, to analyze the historical program in St.

Augustine. Chatelain wrote a historical program plan for the city, but preservation efforts came to a halt during the Second World War. The approaching 400th Commemoration

Celebration in 1965 further spurred interest in heritage tourism and restoration. The

State of Florida authorized a local commission, St. Augustine Historical Restoration and

Preservation Commission (SAHRPC), to aid in the commemoration efforts. Along with preservation and restoration efforts, multiple vanished buildings were reconstructed in

St. Augustine. The State of Florida was not the only interested party; in fact, several private sector groups also reconstructed buildings.

The reconstructed buildings are quickly approaching the 50-year threshold for eligibility for listing on the local, state and national registers. The documentation and evaluation of these reconstructions provides insight into preservation practice during the mid-twentieth century, specifically approaches to reconstruction, the act or process of depicting, by means of new construction, the form, features, and detailing of a noon- surviving site, landscape, building, structure or object for the purposes of replicating its appearance at a specific period of time and on its historic location(Grimmer and Weeks

1995, 167-8), and addressing issues of authenticity and integrity. Authenticity, “known to

be real and genuine and not a copy,”(Oxford Learner's Dictionarya, "authentic," 1)and integrity, “the authenticity of a property’s identity, evidenced by the survival of physical characteristics that existed during the property’s prehistoric or historic period. Historic integrity is the composite of seven qualities: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association,” (U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park

Service, National Register of Historic Places 1997, 4) are key concepts that have guided preservation standards and guidelines in the Western world.

In St. Augustine, the crisis of authenticity plays a large role in defining the significance of these reconstructed buildings. While the buildings themselves represent an earlier time, they are built using newer construction materials and building designs.

Instead of reconstructing these “colonial” buildings with wood or coquina using veras, a

Spanish unit of measure, most of these reconstructed buildings were built using concrete blocks and standard US imperial units of measure. Of the four treatments of historic properties, reconstruction projects are scrutinized the most. Reconstructions are expensive, time-consuming and require extensive research; however, the reconstruction projects generate income and capture a moment in history that would otherwise be lost.

Reconstructions are often highly scrutinized to ensure there is enough documentation to justify reconstruction. Reconstruction as a treatment is an important preservation strategy, but is often overlooked.

The concept of reconstructing vanished historic buildings is a highly debatable conversation. In certain cases, reconstruction projects can generate revenue, however, certain projects can be costly. Preservationists that support reconstructions tend to commit more time to research construction materials and methods and apply the

research into more authentic projects. However, preservationists that oppose reconstructions spend most of their time finding reasons not to reconstruct buildings than focusing on researching authentic building methods. Authentic reconstruction projects provide an experiential educational experience. Conjectural reconstruction projects tend to confuse people. The four debatable areas both support and undermine reconstruction projects; this topic will be discussed in further detail in the literature review.

The Colonial core of St. Augustine stretches three-quarters of a mile. Within this area, many groups and individuals are actively preserving the city’s historic buildings, including the St. Augustine Historical Society and the St. Augustine Historic

Preservation and Restoration Commission (later called the Historic St Augustine

Preservation Board). The St. Augustine Historical Society is a private membership- driven organization and the St. Augustine Historic Preservation and Restoration

Commission is a State entity. The St. Augustine Historic Preservation and Restoration

Commission restored and reconstructed buildings along North St. George Street (north node), roughly 35 buildings. The St. Augustine Historical Society restored and reconstructed the Oldest House Complex (south node), roughly four buildings. The 35 reconstructions in the St. Augustine Historic District are mapped in Figure 1-1. This thesis documents and examines four case studies: Manuel de Herrera House, 257

Charlotte Street; Salcedo House, 42 St. George Street; Alexander-Garrido House, 269

Charlotte Street; and De Hita House, 39 St. George Street.

Both organizations developed restoration plans, before the passage of the

National Historic Preservation Act (1966) and Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the

Treatment of Historic Properties (1970s). Therefore, both organizations had to conceive their own guidelines and policies for their development plans. If neither sector was subject to federal laws and policies, how do we retroactively judge the authenticity of the development plans? Who were the stakeholders, or key decision makers, for establishing and implementing these development plans? What were the goals and objectives of each development plan? Which processes or strategies were used to arrive at the prescribed developments plans? Which tools were used to implement the development plans? What projects were completed from the developments plans? How were these projects funded? How were these projects interpreted to visitors? What were impacts on tourism from these projects? What were the overall effects to the urban environment? What changed?

This thesis intends to organize two main ideas. First, this thesis acknowledges that most of the reconstructions are not authentically reconstructed to the Colonial eras they represent. This thesis documents and examines reconstructions that took place in

St. Augustine, Florida during the mid-twentieth century and evaluates them as potential historical and cultural resources including an assessment of their integrity. Second, this thesis argues that despite the conjectural character of the reconstructions, the reconstructions are significant in their own right. The St. Augustine case studies provide insight into best practices for reconstruction during that period and just before the adoption of the National Historic Preservation Act and the development of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.

Table 1-1. Timeline Date Activity 1513 Discovery of Florida 1565 Founding of the City of St. Augustine, start of First Spanish Period 1763 Start of British Period 1784 Start of Second Spanish Period 1821 Establishment of Territory of Florida 1824 Establishment of the State of Florida 1845 Start of Civil War in the United States 1865 End of Civil War in the United States 1870s Henry Flagler rediscovers the City of St. Augustine 1883 Establishment of the St. Augustine Institute of Science and Historical Society 1917 The United States enters into the First World War 1918 The First World War ends 1935 Passage of the Historic Sites Act 1936 Establishment of the Carnegie Institute’s St. Augustine Historical Program 1937 Formation of the St. Augustine Historical Preservation and Restoration Association; Florida House Bill was passed to protect and fund preservation efforts in St. Augustine 1941 The United States enters into the Second World War 1945 The Second World War ends 1953 Name change from St. Augustine Institute of Science and Historical Society to the St. Augustine Historical Society 1955 St. Augustine Historical Society establishes a Development Plan; Manuel de Herrera House reconstructed by SAHS 1958 Establishment of a Special Advisory Committee 1959 Establishment of the St. Augustine Historic Restoration and Preservation Commission; Florida House Bill was passed to protect and fund preservation efforts in St. Augustine 1962 Establishment of St. Augustine Restoration, Inc., a non-profit arm to the St. Augustine Historic Restoration and Preservation Commission; Albert Manucy publishes The Houses of St. Augustine, 1565-1821; Salcedo House reconstructed by SAHRPC 1966 Passage of the National Historic Preservation Act; Alexander-Garrido House reconstructed by SAHS 1968 Name change from St. Augustine Historic Restoration and Preservation Commission to Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board 1977 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards are published 1979 De Hita House reconstructed by HSAPB 1995 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards are revised 1997 State legislature ended the Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board

Figure 1-1. Reconstructions in the St. Augustine Historic District.

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

This thesis looks at early twentieth century restoration projects that inspired St.

Augustine and Served as a model for best practices at the time, Colonial Williamsburg,

Old Sturbridge Village, and Plimoth Plantation. This thesis looks at how reconstructions are defined and what role they play in the National Historic Preservation Act and the development of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. This thesis provides insight for why reconstructions are difficult to justify. Next, this thesis provides examples of how preservation professionals approach reconstruction since the late twentieth century.

This chapter also provides a short history of St. Augustine focusing on preservation efforts after Henry Flagler rediscovered and redeveloped the city. Finally, this chapter provides Florida Master Site File information on all four case studies in this thesis, the

Manuel de Herrera House, Salcedo House, Alexander-Garrido House, and the De Hita

House.

Before this thesis examines early twentieth century restorations projects that inspired and served as models to St. Augustine, this thesis defines and provides information about policy regarding reconstructions. Reconstructions are reproductions based upon surviving examples and research and are built on an original location.

“Reconstruction describes the re-creation of vanished buildings on their original site as a surrogate in the original context. The reconstructed building acts as the tangible, three-dimensional surrogate of the original structure, its physical form being established by archaeological, archival, and literary evidence” (Fitch 1982, 187 & 189). In order to justify a reconstruction, documentation should include archaeological remains, written descriptions, photographs, and measured drawings, among other materials. These

projects require the paramount authenticity in all phases of research and construction.

The reconstruction should never be presented as an original structure when interpreting history.

The definition of architectural reconstruction is interpreted in many ways because the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties is vague. Common elements in the definition include reproducing a building using the original scale, floor plans, elevations, materials, location through archaeological investigation, and identifying the new structure as a reconstruction through interpretive signage. The reconstruction project’s justification is the public’s understanding of history through the use of reproducing the environment. Therefore, education and interpretation are two fundamental objectives and justify reconstructions. The economic value of a reconstruction is also considered. The benefits of tourist income should outweigh the cost of the extensive research and building the structure. The debate on whether or not to reconstruct will persist because individual, public, and professional opinions vary so greatly.

The Historic Sites Act of 1935 (HSA) led to the establishment of the Historic

American Building Survey (HABS) and Historic American Engineering Record (HAER), surveys through the National Park Service, under the direction of the Secretary of

Interior. The HSA declares, “It is hereby declared that it is a national policy to preserve for public use historic sites, buildings, and objects of national significance for the inspiration and benefit of the people of the United States,” (United States, National

Center for Cultural Resources (U.S.), and National Conference of State Historic

Preservation Officers 2006, 12). It also establishes the National Park System Advisory

Board, which provides technical assistance for restoration, reconstruction, rehabilitation, preservation and maintenance of historic properties(United States, National Center for

Cultural Resources (U.S.), and National Conference of State Historic Preservation

Officers 2006, 13). Up to this point, there had been no official protection of historic sites; this is the first time historic preservation received federal endorsement.

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties changed its definition of reconstruction in 1995 (Dickinson 1983). Previously, the definition stated, “the act or process of reproducing by new construction the exact form and detail of a vanished building, structure, or object, or any part thereof, as it appeared at a specific period of time” (Dickinson 1983). The definition has changed to articulate,

“the act or process of depicting, by means of new construction, the form, features, and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, building, structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic location”

(Dickinson 1983). Due to the lack of authenticity, reconstructed buildings are generally not eligible to be included on the National Register of Historic Places unless the reconstruction is an integral part of a larger master plan (Tyler 2009, 96).

Early Twentieth Century Projects

Public education is one of the elements that help justify a reconstruction project.

Making history accessible and more accepting to the public is the overwhelming objective of outdoor living history museums. According to Laura Abing’s dissertation on

Old Sturbridge Village, an institutional history of a cultural artifact, “by applying novel approaches to its already innovative concept of presenting living history through a restored or reconstructed setting, the outdoor history museum made learning history more appealing” (Abing 1997, xii-xiii). Even the definition of “living history” can be

interpreted multiple ways. According to Megan Mateer (2006), “the phrase ‘living history’ can have different meanings depending on where the emphasis is put, either living history or living history. The first refers to history that is brought alive, the second history is lived” (2). Multiple examples of outdoor living history museums exist; however,

Colonial Williamsburg in Virginia, Old Sturbridge Village and Plimoth Plantation in

Massachusetts were three significant projects that served as inspiration to St. Augustine in Florida’s restoration program.

Colonial Williamsburg, VA (1926)

One of the first and certainly the most well known reconstruction projects is

Colonial Williamsburg. In the 1920s, when the United States was at a crossroads of innovation in transportation, housing and other industries, a dilemma arose: many people were at odds with new, “modern” construction and vehicles that filled parking lots. William A. R. Goodwin was able to convince John D. Rockefeller that amidst of the clash between growth and beauty, he could save one entire historic community.

Colonial Williamsburg “was a symbolic encounter between the original popular romantic phases of preservation and the new age of professionalism and planning” (Hosmer

1980, 21).

At the height of the Great Depression, great minds and deep wallets went to work in Williamsburg. Channing Hall served as council president during the early days of the restoration, becoming mayor in 1934 and serving until 1947 (Tuttle II 2011). He supported the Goodwin-Rockefeller vision and oversaw the modernization of city government during his thirteen years in office. Almost all the civic leaders of the era supported the radical transformation of the town and executed an overhaul of city

government. Colonial Williamsburg’s public-private partnership became the model for future reconstruction projects.

Over 500 buildings encompassing nearly 175 acres were reconstructed at

Colonial Williamsburg. The cutoff date for the restoration was established early on as

1775, just before the war of independence began. Technically, this town interpreting one year before the American War of Independence is “Colonial.” More than 100 colonial buildings survived, but most were restored to their 1775 conditions. The buildings use a mixture of preservation, restoration and reconstruction treatments.

Using a hypothetical approach, Williamsburg claims authenticity through extensive archaeological, architectural and historical research. The first major reconstruction project was the Governor’s Palace. Thomas Jefferson was the second British governor to occupy the palace. Fortunately, Jefferson was an obsessive note taker. He sketched measured drawings of the building when the British forces threatened the town (Brown

III and Chappell 2004, 53). Archaeological, architectural and historical evidence made the reconstruction of the palace possible.

No one knew what the rest of the buildings looked like until a researcher at

Bodleian Library at Oxford discovered an engraving that depicted the facades of three buildings (Fitch 1982, 95). Therefore, most of the reconstructed buildings’ designs are hypothetical. According to Marley R. Brown III and Edward A. Chappell (2004), “now, as in the past, Williamsburg’s scholars view themselves as better able to document past physical environments and bring them back through restoration and reconstruction than were their predecessors” (51). It seems that preservation professionals at Colonial

Williamsburg have learned from their experiences and strive to be more authentic.

Even though, Colonial Williamsburg is the “textbook” example of early restoration in the United States, it is undergoing recent criticism by preservation experts. It is attacked for its “elitist” depiction of early America (Mateer 2006, 22). Multiple Victorian

Era buildings were demolished in order to adhere to the 1775 cutoff period. This act of demolition removed significant historic fabric. These “latter” buildings could have been moved to a different location. Instead, the narrow scope of the restoration program erased its Victorian Era history. More recently, criticism for the lack of cultural diversity has spurred a new interpretation of the town that includes slavery. This new program, according to some, has failed miserably (Mateer 2006, 22).

Old Sturbridge Village, MA (1946)

Albert “A.B.” Wells, owner of the American Optical Company, conceived the

Sturbridge Village concept in the 1930s with his two brothers, J. Cheney and Channing.

A.B. Wells’ father-in-law, architect Daniel H. Burnham’s, “make big plans” quote is an apt description for the Old Sturbridge Village project. A.B. Wells and his two brothers were passionate collectors of historic objects. In fact, A.B. Wells was preoccupied with everyday tools and devices used in pre-industrial America (Abing 1997, viii). The recreation of Quinabaug Village was funded through the family essentially because A.B.

Wells needed a place to house his collection of historic objects.

Once the idea of recreating a village to store their historic objects was conceived, they purchased David Wight’s old farm in Sturbridge, a roughly 200-acre parcel of land.

This living history community strives to recreate a sense of life in rural, nineteenth- century New England during the transition from an agrarian to an industrializing economy (Abing 1997, xviii). In September of 1938, “the great hurricane” washed away

two years of landscaping and construction work ("Early History of Sturbridge Village," n.d.), leading the staff to rebuild with hurricane lumber.

As an active leader in Quinabaug Village, George Wells, A.B. Wells’ son, was acquainted with one of the Rockefellers, who suggested they hire the Boston architecture firm that John D. Rockefeller, Jr., employed to design Colonial Williamsburg

(Abing 1997, 32). However, the drawings were too much like Williamsburg and not the rural pre-industrial village that A.B. Wells had envisioned. A.B. Wells was not concerned with architectural authenticity. However, most of the objects used and educational programs that were created were completely authentic and extensively researched, for example, the everyday tools and devices used in pre-industrial America (Abing 1997, viii). George Watson, A.B. Wells’ draftsman, oversaw all the building projects – reconstructions, restorations and re-erections. By 1941, the Fitch House, the Miner

Grant Store, and the Richardson House were in place, and the Gristmill had been reconstructed.

The attack on Pearl Harbor that prompted America’s involvement in the Second

World War, halted the project for about five years, but afterward, active leadership of the museum passed into the hands of the next generation. Ruth Wells, A.B. Wells’ granddaughter, became Acting Director of the Village. This site was originally referred to as Quinabaug Village, but in 1946, changed the name to Old Sturbridge Village ("Early

History of Old Sturbridge Village," n.d.). Opening day was on June 8, 1946 ("Early

History of Old Sturbridge Village," n.d.).

Plimoth Plantation, MA (1947)

After World War II, Henry (Harry) Hornblower II, a Bostonian, founded Plimoth

Plantation. He was an avid amateur archaeologist. As a student at Harvard, Harry

studied Colonial history and became interested in historical archaeology. Growing up,

Harry was fascinated by the Colonial site of Plimoth, where his family estate was located. By 1947, Harry urged the Pilgrim Society to reconstruct the Pilgrim village of

1627 while participating as a trustee of the Pilgrim Society of Plymouth. Harry was selected to head a committee to undertake the reconstruction. The Plimoth Plantation project was supported by an initial $20,000 donation by Harry’s father to conduct scientific research of Plimoth’s history (Gomes 1985, 158). Plimoth Plantation remains a privately operated, non-profit museum.

According to Harry Hornblower II scholar, Peter Gomes (1985), “What began as a boyish enthusiasm, sustained by a passionate personality and professional competence of a very high order, became a scholarly and commercial enterprise larger than any one imagination or personality,” (159). Certainly as a wealthy, private individual, Hornblower’s Plimoth Plantation resembles Rockefeller’s Colonial

Williamsburg.

Plimoth Plantation differs from Colonial Williamsburg and Old Sturbridge Village in that everything was a reconstruction. All buildings and objects were facsimiles. “In all, nineteen houses were planned for reconstruction based on the description of the village by Governor William Bradford,” (Mateer 2006, 83). The re-creation of Plimoth Plantation to the date of 1627 is “seven years after the first landing when the security of the settlement was relatively assured,” (Mateer 2006, 84). The first structure reconstructed was the prototype of the “first house” and later, the fort-meetinghouse.

Another difference from Colonial Williamsburg and Old Sturbridge Village is that

Plimoth Plantation was not reconstructed on the original site or over its archaeological

remains (Mateer 2006). The original site was the modern location of the town’s cemetery. In 1957, Plimoth Plantation moved three miles away to a larger plot of land, where the entire village from 1627 could be reconstructed (Schnee 2011, 5). Hattie

Hornblower donated a 50-acre plot of land increasing the size of the plantation to over

200 acres. In 1957, the reconstruction of the Mayflower II, which sailed across the

Atlantic, attracted worldwide attention.

The Thanksgiving Day Holiday is the most popular event at Plimoth Plantation.

However, it is criticized for presenting “an overly sanitized, neat and tidy approach to representing the past,” (Mateer 2006, 86). Like Colonial Williamsburg, Plimoth

Plantation started including a more diverse historic interpretation with the rise of the

1960s social history shift. This includes re-creating well-documented events. The

“Pilgrim Story” was removed as the most significant interpretation. Instead, the Plimoth

Plantation archaeological program houses two collections: the Native American,

Wampanoag Archaeology, and the Pilgrim Colonial Archaeology. Although Plimoth

Plantation gives visitors a sense of an understanding of life in the original village in the seventeenth century, the clothing, buildings, nor the location is original.

Reconstructions continue to occur. Reconstructions are no longer defined as a preservation activity in federal law, but it remains a treatment for historic properties according to the Secretary of Interior’s Standards. The guidelines for reconstruction projects are relatively vague compared to the three other treatments, restoration, rehabilitation, and preservation. It seems as if exhaustive and extensive research is no longer enough documentation to justify a reconstruction project. Research includes documentary and physical evidence, which encompasses archaeological, architectural,

historical, photographic and geographic examination. Reconstructions are rarely able to justify their significance. They are expensive endeavors because they include so many more measures of documentation to prove their existence. Reconstructions are held to a higher level of scrutiny by preservationists, especially during this current trend for sustainability. They are newly constructed buildings simulating vanished buildings.

Therefore, experiments for reconstructing historic places have produced alternative solutions for interpreting significant, vanished sites.

(Re-)defining Reconstruction

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) was signed into law on October

15, 1966. The NHPA puts forth four basic activities that comprise the federal preservation program: identification of historic and cultural resources; evaluation and registration of resources that meet the evaluation criteria for determining significance; protection of resources; and encouragement of preservation activities at the state and local levels of government. In addition, State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO) were established to fulfill this mandate. In Florida, the SHPO is also the Director of the

Division of Historical Resources. This division prepares the State Historic Preservation

Plan, distributes grants-in-aid for preservation and survey projects, and assists local governments and preservation organizations, among other activities (United States,

National Center for Cultural Resources (U.S.), and National Conference of State

Historic Preservation Officers 2006, 35-99).

The NHPA also coordinates federal efforts with those of other sectors in the preservation spectrum. The Advisory Council of Historic Preservation (ACHP) is responsible for consulting with other federal agencies regarding the possible effects of

their actions. Because NHPA is dependent on interaction with other federal agencies, it is also subject to other laws such as Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation

Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. The NHPA became the basic federal statute for historic preservation, and remains so today. All federal agencies are required to complete the Section 106 review process that the ACHP advises.

The United States of 2016 is vastly different nation from 1966. The focus of the future is that the “why” of preservation matters just as much as the “what” and “how,”

(Preservation50 2016). Commemorating 50 years of the National Historic Preservation

Act is an opportunity to set goals for the future of America’s preservation movement.

Goals include building a coalition, leveraging lessons learned, telling preservation’s story, educating policymakers, and developing leaders. The ACHP engaged the public with an invitation to submit specific suggestions for policy and implementation strategies to shape the future of the program. Policy changes take a long period of time to be adopted and take affect; it is critical that the public stay engaged and informed.

Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties

The Secretary of the Interior is responsible for establishing standards and treatments of historic properties (SIS) for all national preservation programs under departmental authority and for advising federal agencies on the preservation of historic properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The standards pertain to historic buildings of all materials, construction types, sizes, and occupancy and encompass the exterior and the interior of historic buildings. The SIS that follow were originally published in 1977 and revised in 1995 as part of Department of the Interior regulations. The SIS defines the differences among the four treatments: preservation, rehabilitation, restoration and reconstruction.

According to the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic

Properties, there are four defined treatments in the hierarchical order of most authentic, least invasive to least authentic, most invasive: preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction. The first treatment is preservation, which is defined as “the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of an historic property” (Grimmer and Weeks 1995, 16). The second treatment, rehabilitation or adaptive use, is defined as “the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values” (Grimmer and Weeks 1995, 61). Preservation and rehabilitation focus on the historic character of the site through authentic materials, features, finishes, spaces, and spatial relationships.

The last two treatments have less focus on the authenticity of historic characteristics. The third treatment is restoration, which “is defined as the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period” (Grimmer and Weeks 1995, 116). The last treatment is reconstruction, which, “is defined as the act or process of depicting, by means of new construction, the form, features, and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, building, structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic location” (Grimmer and Weeks 1995, 165).

Reconstructions are costly, time-consuming, and less authentic, therefore, are rarely justified.

Absent from the language used in NHPA, is the term, “reconstruction.” The

Historic Sites Act addresses the concept of reconstructions. The Secretary of Interior shall have the following powers and perform the following duties and functions (United

States, National Center for Cultural Resources (U.S.), and National Conference of State

Historic Preservation Officers 2006):

 Section 2(f) restore, reconstruct, rehabilitate, preserve, and maintain historic or prehistoric sites, buildings, objects, and properties of national or archaeological significance and where deemed desirable establish and maintain museums in connection therewith.(13)

 Section 2(i) when the Secretary determines that it would be administratively burdensome to restore, reconstruct, operate, or maintain a particular historic or archaeologic site, building or property donated to the United States through the National Park Service, he may cause the same to be done organizing a corporation for that purpose under the laws of the District of Columbia or any State. (14)

 Section 4(b) when deemed necessary, technical advisory committees may be established to act in an advisory capacity in connection with the restoration or reconstruction of any historic or prehistoric building or structure.(18)

In fact, in the NHPA, the definition of “preservation” or “historic preservation,” specifically excludes the term “reconstruction.” The definition:

includes identification, evaluation, recordation, documentation, curation, acquisition, protection, management, rehabilitation, restoration, stabilization, maintenance, research, interpretation, conservation, and education and training regarding the foregoing activities, or any combination of the foregoing activities. (79)

Can we draw the conclusion that reconstructions were generally an accepted form of historic preservation up to 1966? If so, why are reconstructions no longer defined in the NHPA as “preservation,” and why do they it continue to be defined in the

Secretary of the Interior’s treatments for historic properties: preservation, rehabilitation, restoration and reconstruction?

The Debate: To Reconstruct or Not to Reconstruct?

Reconstruction of historic sites is rarely justified. Historically, wealthy individuals and private sector organizations have taken the lead on reconstruction projects. The

National Park Service has also participated in reconstruction projects, but has always had more conservative policies than the private sector. However, the arguments of theory, interpretation, economics, and political value are heavily debated among those who support and oppose reconstructions (Ries 2008, 6). For this exercise, those who support reconstructions are among those who see the benefits of experiential education and tourism income and those who oppose reconstructions are among those who see the detriments of providing visitors with a false history and see the research and construction as too expensive. Before we probe deeper into the debate itself, the following is a definition of authenticity.

Authenticity

According to the Oxford Learner’s Dictionary (online), authentic is defined as “1. known to be real and genuine and not a copy; 2. true and accurate; 3. made to be exactly the same as the original” (1).

The preamble to the Venice Charter (1964), in reference to historic monuments, says, “It is our duty to hand them on in the full richness of their authenticity.” (ICOMOS

1965, 1; Jerome 2008, 3; Starn 2002, 1). The Nara Document on Authenticity helped us understand the importance of cultural diversity regarding “judgments about values attributed to cultural properties as well as the credibility of related information sources may differ from culture to culture, and even within the same culture,” (ICOMOS 2007;

Stovel 2008, 10). The World Heritage Convention’s Operational Guidelines (2015) state that in order to be designed, cultural properties must meet the test of authenticity,

truthfully and credibly expressed through a variety of attributes including “form and design, materials and substance, use and function, traditions, techniques and management systems, location and setting, language and other forms of intangible heritage, spirit and feeling, and other internal and external factors” (80).

Moving from an international scale to national scale, the term “authenticity,” resides in policy. The National Historic Preservation Act (1966) refers to authenticity in terms of renovation of a National Museum of the Building Arts, that such renovation shall “preserve, enhance, and restore the distinctive and historically authentic architectural character of the site…” (United States, National Center for Cultural

Resources (U.S.), and National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers

2006, 85). In order to be designated on the National Register of Historic Places, a property must meet the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, which examines a property’s age, integrity, and significance. Historic properties must possess integrity of

“location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association” (U.S.

Department of the Interior, National Park Service). In this context, “integrity” reads remarkably similar to the World Heritage Convention Operational Guidelines test for authenticity.

In terms of authenticity related to reconstructions, Venice Charter, Article 9:

The process of restoration is a highly specialized operation. Its aim is to preserve and reveal the aesthetic and historic value of the monument and is based on respect for original material and authentic documents. It must stop at the point where conjecture begins. (2)

According to the World Heritage Convention Operational Guidelines (2015):

In relation to authenticity, the reconstruction of archaeological remains or historic buildings or districts is justifiable only in exceptional circumstances.

Reconstruction is acceptable only on the basis of complete and detailed documentation and to no extent conjecture. (18)

The National Register Criteria for Evaluation defines four criteria for evaluation of significance, but also includes seven criteria considerations for significance, including,

“A reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived” (1).

In some of the definitions and policies relating to authenticity and reconstructions, the term conjecture is mentioned. Conjecture is almost the opposite of authenticity.

According to the Oxford Learner’s Dictionary (online), conjecture is defined as “1. an opinion or idea that is not based on definitive knowledge and is formed by guessing; 2. the forming of an opinion or idea that is not based on definitive knowledge,” (1).

Reasons to Support Reconstruction

Those who support reconstruction state the following reasons for their views: education and interpretation, heritage tourism, value of a site, and because heritage is a right to future generations (Holland 2011, 60).

Reconstruction projects are in the unique situation of preserving historic building materials and techniques. Reconstruction projects serve as a learning platform for historic preservation specialists and tradesmen during both the research phases and the construction phases. There are many aspects of the reconstructed building that can be interpreted for visitors including finishes, objects, circulation, tour guides / written material. Reconstructed buildings should include interpretative information about the reconstruction process as well as the period of significance of the building. Visitors

expect interpretation of historic sites to be authentic and interactive; this is an opportunity to make learning about history enjoyable for visitors.

Heritage tourism contributes to economic development. People who visit cultural sites often spend more time and money, not only at the specific site, but also within the same area. For example, someone visiting St. Augustine from out of town might stay in a hotel, dine at local restaurants or shop at local grocery stores, and spend money on other local activities (i.e. shopping, events). Heritage tourism as an economic sector can increase the need for tourism-related jobs in accommodations, dining, shopping, and transportation. The historic site entrance fee as well as the money spent on other activities benefit the local economy. In order to establish a heritage tourism economy, a locale must have heritage resources for visitors to enjoy. If a resource is vanished, but the significance still attracts people to visit, a reconstruction could provide a site for visitors to enjoy.

The site of a significant resource is significant in its own right. If a significant event occurred within a building on a specific site, and the building no longer exists, how can we celebrate the significant event without the building? There are two similar

Criteria Considerations in the National Register Criteria for Evaluation: reconstructed and relocated resources. For interest sake, let’s compare the two in terms of aspects of integrity. Reconstructed resources often lack design, materials and workmanship as aspects of integrity. Reconstructed resources can claim aspects of integrity including location, setting, feeling, and association. On the other hand, relocated resources often lack location, setting and association aspects of integrity. Relocated resources can claim aspects of integrity including design, materials, workmanship and feeling.

Reconstructions are adding to a site, while relocations are being subtracted from the site. A resource’s site and location matter just as much as design, materials, and workmanship.

One reason we protect historic resources from destruction is because heritage is a right for future generations. Historic resources provide evidence that people lived, events occurred, architecture was designed, and buildings were crafted. Reconstructed buildings contribute to our built environment and our understanding of cultural heritage.

If we lost the Eiffel Tower, some people would want to rebuild it, so they could pass that cultural memory to the next generation. Some might want to rebuild on the site. When we lose significant sites, we can forget them more easily if there is no replacement.

Reasons to Oppose Reconstructions

Those who oppose reconstruction state the following reasons for their views: fear of false history, economics, to protect archeological sites from destruction, because of the old adage that it’s “better to preserve than repair, better to repair than restore, and better to restore than rebuild” (Holland 2011, 60-1).

The evidence and documentation required to reconstruct a building authentically are intensive and relate to National Register aspects of integrity. Maps and the presence of archaeological remains can verify the integrity of the site’s location, archaeological remains and legal documents including chain of title can verify the integrity of building materials. Photographs and architectural drawings can verify the integrity of the design, materials, workmanship, and setting. If a researcher is missing any one of these items, there is a higher probability of guessing, which leads to conjecture. Conjectural reconstructions can cause confusion for visitors, leading to disappointment with the site and distrust for other historic sites.

Excavation of archaeological sites provide evidence of historic resources; however, the physical act of excavation can destroy the archaeological site. The archaeological remains are the only surviving authentic materials left of the vanished building. A preservationist needs to understand that documenting and finding evidence of a building through excavation destroys an archaeological site and should be mitigated. According to the Venice Charter (1964), “All reconstruction work should however be ruled out “a priori.” Only anastylosis, that is to say, the reassembling of existing but dismembered parts can be permitted. The material used for integration should always be recognizable and its use should be that least that will ensure the conservation of a monument and the reinstatement of its form” (Article 15).

Reconstructions cost money, that money which could have been funneled into maintenance, adaptive use, and restoration projects. There is a small pool of money through public and private funds for which many organizations compete with each other.

Restoration projects are the most glamorous as people can clearly see before the tower was removed and after it was restored. Maintenance is the least glamorous, but most urgently needed in most cases. Adaptive use projects seem to pay for themselves through private developer/owners and financial incentives such as income tax credits and ad valorem property tax exemptions. To many professionals, reconstructions are new construction, draining funds away from the small pool.

Some preservation professionals incorrectly interpret the Secretary of the

Interior’s Standards as “it is better to preserve than repair, better to repair than restore, and better to restore than rebuild,” (Ries 2008, 5). The Standards are outlined in hierarchical order: preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction.

Reconstructions should be the last treatment to apply to a historic site and should be limited to exceptionally significant resources. The reconstruction should be based on the accurate duplication of historic features, be clearly identifiable as a contemporary re- creation, and use designs that were never executed historically. Those that oppose reconstructions believe that unless solid evidence and documentation exist, they should not be allowed due to the risk of conjecture.

Late Twentieth Century Projects

After the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act and the development of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, preservation professionals shied away from reconstruction projects. However, reconstructions continued to occur with different approaches than examples from the early twentieth century. One reconstruction approach involves preserving an archaeological site in-situ with conjectural framing to interpret the form of a building, for example, the Benjamin Franklin House. Another approach involves a best-guess reconstruction, focusing on traditional building methods as an educational tool, for example St. Mary’s City Chapel. Last, a virtual approach to reconstruction can help document buildings that are in danger or have been lost to conflict or climate change. Reconstruction approaches in the late twentieth century differ greatly from early twentieth century.

Benjamin Franklin House, PA (1976)

During the US bicentennial, preservationists focused on the founding fathers’ homes and other significant buildings associated with the formation of the nation. For example, Franklin Court, the site of Benjamin Franklin’s House in Pennsylvania, was considered a significant structure of the American Revolution. However, the building was no longer extant. The question of whether to reconstruct or not was heavily

debated among preservationists. A team of designers, engineers, and archaeologists set out to establish, through extensive research, how the building once looked. The research failed to turn up any visual material to be able to reconstruct the building.

However, the desire to interpret the site for visitors was so great, Archaeologists proposed a revolutionary solution “to preserve the archaeological remains in-situ with areas exposed with interpretive signage for visitors,” (Matero 2010, 2). The building was re-created through painting the floor plan and providing a metal “ghost” frame that conjecturally interpreted the form of the building. This solution welcomes praise from a variety of architectural critics. James Marston-Fitch (1982), the “father” of preservation education, proclaimed, “the combination of cognitive and sensuously perceptible information makes for a brilliant interpretation of the morphological development of the site – a more stimulating re-creation of the vanished houses than any actual reconstruction” (304).

St. Mary’s City – 1667 Brick Chapel (2007)

This building was the founding place of the Roman Catholic Church in English

America. The masonry building was a replacement to a wood frame building that burned down in 1645. The Chapel served the Catholic community from 1667 to 1704. The royal governor ordered the building locked and never used again for religious purposes. The

Jesuits dismantled the building and the bricks were salvaged to construct a nearby building. The chapel site and cemetery land remained agricultural fields. Local lore identified the field as the location of the chapel. In 1938, an architectural historian, H.

Chandlee Forman explored the site and found that the chapel’s floor plan was in the shape of a Latin cross. In 1981, the land was acquired by the State of Maryland for the

Historic St. Mary’s City museum. In 1984, the foundations were partially demarcated

and signage was installed for visitors. By 1988, excavations of the site began. In 1996,

Mesick-Cohen-Wilson-Baker Architects were hired to research and prepare a design for the reconstructed chapel ("Reconstructing the Brick Chapel of 1667," n.d.).

While the appearance of the building is conjecturally based on scholarly research, the building materials and techniques were as authentic as possible.

Specialists in seventeenth century masonry, mortar and timber were consulted for this project. The clay for the bricks were harvested on-site from an artifact-free zone. The bricks were shaped and fired in a kiln ready to be used in the construction. The mortar analysis concluded that oyster shells were the source of lime and a special oyster shell salvage project began. Masonry work began in 2002 and was finished in 2007. The timber roof trusses were installed during the winter of 2006. Seventeenth century scaffolding, tested by engineers and brought up to OSHA standards, was used throughout the project. Gerard Lynch, world-class expert in masonry, was consulted. He recommended that the reconstruction project team “color wash” the brick and “pencil” the groove in the mortar joint. On the façade, the brick was rendered to look like stone

("Reconstructing the Brick Chapel of 1667," n.d.).

Virtual Reconstruction

Sharply contrasting with physical reconstructions are virtual reconstructions of historic sites by the means of computer-aided simulation. Computer aided graphic programs debuted in the 1980s, and offered a new way of reconstructing historic sites.

This solution provides a less costly and equally educational alternative to physically reconstructing the site. Even though the virtual reality lacks the experiential qualities of a physical reconstruction, critics of reconstruction argue that most reconstruction projects lack the full experience of filth and vermin that existed anyway. Therefore,

preservationists welcome this alternative solution for interpreting non-extant sites. Like theories that are modified over time, the virtual reconstruction is easily altered to depict new ideas. Virtual reality provides the visitor a visual representation of a vanished site.

Therefore, the long debate of whether to reconstruct or not continues to exist.

St. Augustine

In order to understand why buildings in St. Augustine were reconstructed, it is important to know the city’s background and history. St. Augustine is the oldest continuously occupied city of European origins on the North American continent north of

Mexico (Chatelain 1939, 372; Gannon 2003; Gordon 2002, 1; National Register of

Historic Places 1986). In fact, St. Augustine was going through its second urban renewal as the Pilgrims settled Plymouth in 1608 (Chatelain n.d., 1). The city’s founding and history would not be complete without quickly addressing the discovery of Florida and the laws that defined the layout of the town, which later became a National Historic

Landmark. Learning about St. Augustine early preservation practices is also significant.

Finally, a discussion of the first reconstruction in St. Augustine is important for comprehending the other reconstructions.

History

St. Augustine’s heritage is unique. Michael Gannon, Distinguished Service

Professor of History, credits George R. Fairbanks as the first modern Florida historian to write about St. Augustine (Gannon 2003, 4). In his 1871 book, History of Florida from its

Discovery by Ponce de Leon, in 1512, to the close of the Florida war, in 1842,

Fairbanks explains that after receiving commission, Ponce de Leon did not step ashore

Florida until 1512 (Fairbanks 1975, 14). However, in his own book, Gannon (2003) states “the most recent estimate, based on his landfall south of Cape Canaveral, at or

near Melbourne Beach. The date was Eastertime of 1513, and he named the place La

Florida – ‘The Flowery Land’” (4). St. Augustine was founded on the main land just north of the existing city in 1565. Roughly one year later, the settlement moved to Anastasia

Island, due to poor relations with the native population and the French. St. Augustine was moved back to the mainland in 1572-73 coinciding with the Royal Ordinances

Concerning the Laying Out of New Towns. St. Augustine was primarily a presidio. “St.

Augustine was, as Spain planned that it should be, the principle defense for the empire on the Atlantic coast of North America” (Chatelain n.d., 5) with three parallel defense lines and the Castillo de San Marcos.

Spanish towns in the new world, such as Santa Fe, Havana, Mexico City, Merida, and Lima, were planned with centrally located squares (Chatelain n.d., 6). St.

Augustine, planned by the royal cedula of 1573, gave specific instructions regarding

“street plans and plazas, position of churches, public buildings, private residences, tree- planting, gardens, sewerage, and sanitation” (Chatelain n.d., 8). The Crown of Spain authorized the Royal Ordinances Concerning the Laying Out of New Towns, commonly referred to as the Laws of the Indies in 1573. This document formally set forth regulations for Spanish town planning in the New World. Zelia Nuttall, a pioneering figure in her recognition of archaic (pre-Aztec) culture in Mexico, was a prolific writer during her career as an archaeologist. She wrote about and translated the Royal

Ordinances. She points out that town planning established the importance for beauty, health and functionality. The main square proportions and size were of upmost importance. It acted as the nucleus of every town from which “four main streets, also lined with arcades, were to extend from the middle of each of the sides of the square,

while two minor streets were to converge at each of its corners” (Nuttall 1922, 744).

Streets faced the cardinal directions of North, East, South and West and were conveniently sheltered from the four cardinal winds. The main square was to be used for recreational purposes and “be surrounded by stately public buildings, shops, and commercial houses only lined with an arcade” (Nuttall 1922, 744).

These features along with the street grid layout survived. The street grid in St.

Augustine holds true to the Crown’s ordinances, and the same layout exists today, making it a nationally significant historical resource. It is listed as a National Historic

Landmark. National Historic Landmarks are nationally significant historic places designated by the Secretary of Interior for exceptional value or quality in illustrating the heritage of the United States. The town plan of St. Augustine is included on the National

Register of Historic Places, America’s official list of cultural resources worthy of preservation and is governed by the United States Department of the Interior, National

Park Service. This nomination began in the 1980s, but the preservation of St. Augustine started much earlier.

The First Spanish Period, 1565 to 1763; the British Period, 1763-1784; and the

Second Spanish Period, 1784-1821 colonial periods add layers of significance to St.

Augustine’s history. The dates from 1565 to 1763 are referred to as the “First Spanish

Period.” Over the course of fifty years after Ponce de Leon’s discovery, the Spanish government launched at least six attempts to settle Florida and failed. A year and a half after the French built Fort Caroline the Spanish founded St. Augustine (Gordon 2002,

23). According to Verne Chatelain, historian for the Carnegie Institute and historical consultant for St. Augustine, Captain Pedro Menendez de Aviles, by authority of the

Spanish Crown, established a city at the mouth of the St. John’s River on September 8,

1565. The colony geographically included the land from the Gulf of Mexico, north to the

St. Lawrence River and West to the Mississippi River and its tributaries (Chatelain n.d.,

372). In 1702, North Carolina attacked St. Augustine and most of the buildings were destroyed (Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board 1971, 4). Manucy (1962) pointed out that during the 1702 siege, the Spanish destroyed all their houses within musket shot (750 feet) of the fort (1962, 8-9). The second colonial period, from 1763 to 1784, is known as, “British Occupancy.” Conflict with Great Britain had always been a problem for the Spanish. Great Britain managed to seize control over Cuba, making the Spanish position in the Caribbean very vulnerable. In exchange for Cuba, Spain traded Florida to

Great Britain. Just after the Spanish government re-occupied St. Augustine, from 1784 to 1821, the city entered into the “Second Spanish Period.” In 1821, Florida became a

Territory of the United States and finally, Florida became a state in 1845.

Flagler Legacy

At the conclusion of the Civil War, in 1865, St. Augustine was a 300-year-old city

(Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board 1971, 3). In the 1870s, Henry Flagler, one of

John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company’s partners, first visited the city during the winter as a wealthy retreat from the cold for the health and with his wife, fell in love with the ancient city (Graham 2004, 11). This ancient city would be a destination that winter visitors to Jacksonville could visit. Instead of interrupting the existing town plan, Flagler spent a great deal of money on infilling the swampy lands adjacent to the historic town.

Flagler built two magnificent hotels the Ponce de Leon and the Alcazar and purchased the Casa Monica providing a triangle of luxurious hotels for wealthy visitors steps away from the ancient city. Flagler’s interests may have included tourism because visitors

would spend money at the hotels and on the train fare to visit St. Augustine. In fact,

Flagler’s decision to buy cheap land, build adjacent to the ancient city and not destroy any of the historic fabric is one of the first historic preservation efforts in St. Augustine.

Flagler brought St. Augustine to the attention of interested historians and tourists, but it also led to the modernization of the ancient city. New construction, at the time, was seen as improvement (Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board 1971, 4). In addition to modernization, St. Augustine was devastated by fires in 1887 and 1914 that wiped out most the old section of town, between the city gates and the plaza (Historic St.

Augustine Preservation Board 1971, 4).

St. Augustine Historical Society

In 1883 Dr. DeWitt Webb and a group of young people interested in archaeology and kindred subjects founded the St. Augustine Institute of Science (Graham 1985, 1).

Henry M. Flagler donated space for the collections in the Alcazar Hotel (Graham 1985,

4). For seventy years, the Society’s focus and names weaved back and forth among science, literature, and history. In 1953, the Society changed its name to the Historical

Society. In 1911, the Society saved Fort Matanzas from destruction. By that time, the

Society also collected enough objects from the Vedder Museum and other places to lease the Sanchez House and hire W. J. Harris as curator of the museum the next year.

Unfortunately, the April 2, 1914 fire destroyed the Vedder and Sanchez buildings along with a large portion of the central town along St. George Street and the bay front.

After the fire, the Society began to explore the possibility of acquiring a room in

Fort Marion, the Castillo de San Marcos, to house a new collection. The War

Department allowed the Society to use the room for their collection, but also gave permission to the Society to provide tours to visitors. Soon after, the Society became

the custodian of the Fort. In 1917, Chauncey Depew became the Society’s second president after Dr. Webb’s death. Depew is credited for persuading the War Department to allow the Society to take charge of the Fort (Graham 1985, 12).

George Reddington, owner of the St. Augustine Alligator Farm offered to sell the house on St. Francis Street, known as the Oldest House in America. This led to an investigation of three properties, the Don Toledo House, Reddington’s Geronimo-

Alvarez House, and James Dodge’s Old Curiosity Shop, claiming to be the “oldest house.” Unable to pronounce any of the properties as the “oldest,” the Society decided to purchase the property in 1918, which included the Tovar House. “With these two important historical sites under its control, the Society entered the most successful financial period in its history,” (Graham 1985, 12). Straying away from being a group for the study of history, the Society became a business enterprise.

Charles B. Reynolds became a loud critic of the Society, which threw the society into turmoil. The Society began to focus on authenticating the Oldest House, which faced criticism as a “fraud.” The question of which building was actually the oldest remained. In 1923, the Society decided to hire Emily Wilson as a research historian and librarian to authenticate the Oldest House. Two of her early discoveries were the maps of Juan de la Puente (1764) and Mariano de la Rocque (1788). Based on her research, she was able to date the Oldest House back to 1571 (Graham 1985, 13).

The Society flourished in the 1920s until 1929, when the nation experienced the

Great Depression. “Indeed, the Society monopolized two of the best sources of income in town,” (Graham 1985, 15) which were interpreting the Castillo de San Marcos and the

Oldest House. In 1930s, the nation experienced the Great Depression. In order to gain

revenue, the City of St. Augustine tried putting the Society’s properties on the tax lists.

When the Society refused, the city decided to try to gain control over the Fort. In 1933,

Congress passed the Historic Sites Act, transferring many historic sites and structures from the War Department to the National Park Service. Fort Matanzas and Marion were declared National Monuments by presidential action in 1934. In 1935, the two sites were transferred from Society stewardship to the National Park Service. “In the years after the transfer, the Society and the National Park Service have maintained a cooperative relationship. For example, two of the Castillo’s National Park Service historians, Albert

Manucy and Luis Arana, have served as directors of the Society” (Graham 1985, 16).

In 1930, Walter B. Fraser, local businessperson and politician concerned about

St. Augustine’s authenticity, initiated the City of St. Augustine’s Historical Fact Finding

Committee. The Society purchased the two rival oldest house buildings in order to eliminate competition from the Geronimo-Alvarez House. In 1931, the Society passed up a chance to purchase the Oldest Wooden Schoolhouse. W. J. Harris urged the society to purchase the building, but the property ended up purchased by someone else, then sold to Fraser. It turned into a big competitor for the Society. According to Dr.

Thomas Graham’s research on the subject, “the Society’s efforts to fight Fraser’s impositions on truth were compromised by the very fact that the Society itself operated an attraction vulnerable to criticism” (Graham 1985, 18).

Carnegie Institute: St. Augustine Historical Program

On February 27, 1936, Walter B. Fraser, Mayor of St. Augustine, presented a resolution to the City Commission of St. Augustine. “The resolution called for the appointment of not more than 25 citizens to investigate the possibility of making the old

Spanish port of St. Augustine into a restricted area for the protection of the old narrow

streets and the quaint balconied houses,” (Brewer 1970, 62). He brought in the

Carnegie Institution and “on October 26, 1936, an initial meeting was held of this group in Washington” (Brewer 1970, 63). Two sub-committees were formed: the Fact Finding

Survey of Historical Materials and the Development of the Historical Resources.

Mayor Fraser recruited Dr. Verne E. Chatelain, of the Carnegie Institute of

Washington, to St. Augustine because of the successful preservation efforts at Colonial

Williamsburg . Chatelain held the first National Committee meeting in October 1936 and

“commenced his operation on November 15, 1936,” in Washington and “on December

7, 1936 he arrived in St. Augustine” (Brewer 1970, 63; Chatelain 1939, 373). Chatelain conducted a second National Committee meeting on March 2 1937 at the end of the

Preliminary Survey, when the two subcommittees of the National Committee submitted their reports. “A historical planning committee was formed on March 17, 1937” and “on

May 7, 1937, the St. Augustine Historical Preservation and Restoration Association, a non-profit corporation,” was formed (Brewer 1970, 65). On March 23, 1937, the City

Commission pledged $2,500 for the program (Brewer 1970, 65).

On May 12, 1937, “a bill was introduced in the Florida House of Representatives by H. R. Sanders and J. H. Turner” that put St. Augustine in the spotlight as a special historic area and on the same day, “Senator Peter Kendrick introduced a bill in the

Florida Senate calling for an appropriation of $50,000 for the St. Augustine Historical

Preservation and Restoration Association,” and “both the special act granting the county power of eminent domain and the general act granting the $50,000 were signed into law by the Governor on June 9, 1937” (Brewer 1970, 65-6; Chatelain 1939, 373).

Finally, the legislature by the Charter Amendment Act gave the community the authority to control and refine its general physical environment through zoning measures in the interest of a more harmonious setting for its outstanding historic sites.

“As an agency of local import the St. Augustine Preservation and Restoration

Association was organized to deal with the purely civic problems of planning, financing, and administering the historic sites program in the city. This is an incorporated quasi- public body, and is in reality an arm of the municipal government developed to carry out the purely local aspects of the St. Augustine Program” (Chatelain 1939, 373). In the progressive steps of setting up the Program, the Carnegie Institution has cooperated in an advisory capacity.

A series of “case histories” were conducted, archaeological studies asserted the

“exact locations of sites and remains, and to determine all manner of facts regarding construction, materials, and other characteristics” (Chatelain 1939, 374). “’Case histories’ are represented in the files by historical maps showing the condition of the site at different periods or dates, pictures illustrating as many stages or periods as possible, historical notes regarding the origin, development by stages of growth or change, or special events in connection therewith, architectural studies describing the physical structure as to class, period, and details of construction, and finally engineering notes and recent photographs showing the present or nearly present condition” (Chatelain

1939, 374).

After an extensive research project, a large volume of historical documentation was compiled from multiple local, state, federal, and private collections. A collection of early St. Augustine pictures and maps include 400 to 500 pictures and 125 maps, in

addition, 150 architectural photographs taken by Miss Frances B. Johnston (Chatelain

1939, 376). Also included in the Historic Report were archaeological and architectural studies of fifty to sixty outstanding historic sites. “Archaeological investigations produced unbelievably rich finds in both architectural sites and artifactual materials,” (Manucy

1944, 354). Architectural analysis of the elements of what might be called the St.

Augustine type of architecture also had been started, though there was a need to set up a project that will have its purpose the consideration of St. Augustine construction against a background of general Spanish and other architectural influences.

The project initially resolved into two preliminary activities: (1) the compiling of rudimentary historical facts, and (2) the development of a tentative master-plan for the activities of the program, based on the findings of fact-compliers. The tentative plan was completed and submitted for endorsement to an advisory committee composed of nationally recognized scholars and headed by Dr. Merriam. Next it was approved by referendum by the citizens of St. Augustine, whose interests, of course, were directly affected by the zoning and preservation measures proposed by the plan (Manucy 1944,

353; Chatelain n.d.).

1. There are multiple periods of significance that should be preserved and interpreted, especially the First Spanish Period (10).

2. Do not turn the community into a museum. St. Augustine is a living city and should not be “frozen,” (10).

3. Three distinct regions include: (a) resources within the presidio; (b) resources lying between the Cubo and Fort Mosa lines; (c) Anastasia Island (10).

The first major reconstruction project was the Old City Gates. This included the reconstruction of the inner line of defense, north of the city, stretching from Matanzas

Bay to the San Sebastian River. The entrance to the city through this line was by the

ancient city gates and already the coquina moat bridge has been uncovered and partially restored. The next step was “digging out of the moat and along this line the redevelopment of the high earthen defense work topped with palisade, planted with

Spanish bayonets, and intercepted at intervals by redoubts mounted with guns,”

(Beeson 1937, 115).

The plan continued onward after the completion of the city gates to St. George

Street. It was “cleared of inharmonious conditions, leaving only such historic buildings as the old schoolhouse, the old curiosity shop and the Spanish inn” (Beeson 1937, 116).

Buildings along old St. George Street were reconstructed as the first houses that comprised this settlement, along with gardens and patios. According to Beeson (1937),

“In treating historic buildings and sites reconstruction will of course be based on the evidence of historical fact alone,” (117). In 1938, the Carnegie Institute purchased the

Llambias House and immediately deeded it in trust to the City of St. Augustine and the building was repaired in cooperation with the St. Augustine Historical Society, (Brewer

1970, 66).

Economic conditions of World War II brought about a hiatus in the work of the

St. Augustine Historical Program. Its historical and archaeological collection had been placed in the custody of the St. Augustine Historical Society for safekeeping until work can be resumed, and is available in the library of that organization for study (Manucy

1944, 354). “It should not be concluded that the Program is finished. To the contrary, numerous institutions and individuals not officially connected with the project are yet contributing in one way or another to the work of the Program (Manucy 1944, 353).

Although the Carnegie initiative produced drastic effects on the town, St.

Augustine was never fully restored in its entirety like Colonial Williamsburg. St.

Augustine looked to Verne Chatelaine, the Carnegie Institute’s representative in St.

Augustine for advice for their preservation program. The results of the Carnegie

Institute’s work in St. Augustine produced three significant elements: Chatelaine’s book, Defenses of Spanish Florida, the purchase of the Llambias House and the groundwork for the 1960’s restoration program.

Llambias House

The first building to undergo major restoration work through public-private partnership was the Llambias House. In 1938, the Carnegie Institution purchased the property, while the SAHS supplied $2,500 to complete the purchase (Graham 1985, 19;

Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board 1971, 7). Ownership of the building was vested in the City of St. Augustine, and with the demise of the Carnegie effort, custody of it passed to the Society. From 1938 to 1940, Dr. Chatelain and his staff prepared a basic historical plan. Three important areas covered in the report include a discussion about the amount of time needed to properly research the city, a zoning ordinance, and funding. World War II, delayed the project, but in February 1952, the project resumed when the trustees of the Llambias House passed a resolution to use $5,000 of state funding for the project and the additional $45,000 for the Association to use (Historic St.

Augustine Preservation Board 1971, 7). Work on this major project began in 1952, under the noted architect Stuart Barnette, and completed in November of 1954(Brewer

1970, 68). In 1955, the Llambias House project was complete and the St. Augustine

Historical Society assumed the full responsibility for the house. The final dedication ceremony took place on January 1, 1955.

Oldest House

The St. Augustine Historical Society hired archaeologists to determine the date of construction of the Oldest House. In 1954, John W. Griffin, archaeologist, determined that the area’s earliest habitation was from the early-to-mid-1600’s and that the house was constructed after 1702. In 1958, Hale G. Smith, Florida State University archaeologist, concluded that the building was constructed between 1680 and 1710

(Graham 1985, 23). During this time, the Oldest House, Webb Building, and Tovar

House were becoming museums. Between 1953 and 1956 the Society, in cooperation with the National Park Service, developed a $10,000 exhibit encompassing 400 years of

St. Augustine history to place on the first floor of the Webb Building. In 1959 an exhibit focusing on the archaeology, which had been done on the site, was opened in the Tovar

House (Graham 1985, 25). The Oldest House underwent a complete transformation with its first restoration in 1925 and the second restoration and reconstruction in 1959.

In 1970, the Oldest House was recognized as a National Historic Landmark and placed on the National Register of Historic Places.

St. Augustine Historical Society: Development Plan of 1955

In early 1953, President David R. Dunham appointed a committee to think about ways to advance for the St. Augustine Historical Society ("St. Augustine Historical

Society, Minute Books," 1953). This committee proposed the following: Define St.

Augustine’s place in history; re-emphasize the purpose of the Society, and define its sphere of operations; analyze present resources and operations; define basic policies of operation and development; and suggest avenues of development which will more fully achieve the purpose of the Society. One result of the committee’s work is the

Development Plan for the St. Augustine Historical Society, of which the “descriptions of

operations” and “general analysis of problems” are parts one and two. This

Development Plan also includes a suggested realignment of organization, suggested physical development, and suggested programs for research and interpretation

(Manucy 1955).

Albert Manucy wrote the St. Augustine Historical Society’s Development Plan based on the information gathered from 1953 to1954. This Development Plan defined the lines of work in which the Society is, or should be engaged; suggested more definite assignments of responsibility; pointed to the need for close cooperation between various branches; and spread the workload in order to enlist more active participation from the membership and thereby produce more effective results. Under the Board’s authority, three operational divisions were suggested: a Division of Operations, to comprise business operations, development of sites and buildings, and membership operations; a Division of History, to comprise research and interpretation activities; and a Division of Plans and Public Relations, to coordinate the work of the other two

Divisions into a general program for the Society. The Division of Operations has three committees: Finance Committee, Property Committee, and Membership Committee.

The Division of History has three committees: Research Committee, Interpretation

Committee, and Publications Committee. The Division of Plans and Public Relations has Planning Policy, Public Relations Policy, and Planning Duties Committees (Manucy

1955, 50-1).

Part Four of the Development Plan, Physical Development, includes construction or modification of buildings, facilities, and utilities. Any features that affect the appearance and operation of property are involved, such as roads, parking areas,

walks, gardens, and plantings. The furnishing of a historic room is a physical development; so is the construction of a museum building, or a storage shed for garden tools. The means that the Society may use in its physical development program are also set forth: maintain a library and museum; preserve, mark, and restore historic sites and buildings; and conduct programs, which may prove useful in furthering its objectives in order to preserve and restore the atmosphere of past time. For planning purposes, it appears practical to separate the Society’s holdings into neighborhood units: Oldest

House Area; Curiosity Shop, Triay and Fornells Houses; Fort Mooss [sic] Site;

Oglethorpe Battery Site; and Ferry Site (Manucy 1955, 1-4).

The suggested theme of development for the Oldest House Area is “Homes through the Centuries.” This area includes historic house museums as well as the operational facilities of the Society. It is, therefore, the center of our program.

Consideration should be given to emphasis of the Oldest House as a 17th century home, to the House of the Cannonball as an 18th century home, and to the Llambias

House as a residence of the later colonial and territorial period. If sufficient data can be unearthed, construction of a replica of a 16th century hut may be justified as an exhibit, as might also be an Indian hut (Manucy 1955, 2).

The Development Plan identified that operational facilities were required:

Administrative Offices, the need is for efficient work space for administrative and research officers of the Society, with files for current business records. The space may be, as at present, part of the library facility, but partitioned off for privacy; Library, the library will continue to grow, and the space now in use for library should eventually be made available for museum space. A new library structure, with auditorium space, is

indicated. Students should design it in line with the policy that while the library is primarily a tool for use. Allowance should also be made for administrative office space;

Auditorium, with seating capacity of about 200 people would seem to fill foreseeable needs for ordinary program meetings, as well as periodic showing of films to visitors, and similar uses. It may be designed as part of the library building. A temporary auditorium, larger than present facilities may be needed before the permanent structure;

Warehouse, “since not more than 10 to 20 percent of the Society’s collection can be effectively used at one time in the museum exhibits,” (Manucy 1955, 3-4) the remaining material and study collections require safe and efficient storage; and Workshop and

Laboratory, facilities are required for preparation of museum exhibits, for maintenance work, for preservation treatment of museum objects, and for treatment of excavated objects. This is an early justification for reconstructing the Manuel de Herrera House, a case study in this thesis.

Development of the Oldest House Area may be carried out in four steps. Phase

One is a general plan for orderly and effective development of the area, in line with the selected theme, to include the historic buildings, museums, signs and markers, environs and approaches. Phase Two includes construction of essential operational structures. In the order of priority, these may be 1) warehouse, 2) laboratory-workshop, 3) offices, and

4) library and auditorium. Phase Three involves the restoration of key historic buildings.

This work should be undertaken only after extremely careful study. It would attempt to restore colonial lines of historic buildings. Phase Four is the development of neighborhood “atmosphere”, by 1) treatment of areas controlled by the Society; 2) cooperation with property owners in environs to achieve an attractive neighborhood

appearance; and 3) encouragement of other agencies and individuals in maintaining clean, attractive approaches (Manucy 1955, revised 1963, p. 2).

According to the Development Plan, architectural research was a responsibility of the Society. Until the Development Plan, local buildings had never been thoroughly recorded and studied. Manucy believed that best practices for architectural research could be improved through knowledge of the components of local historical architecture.

He thought there was a need for a comprehensive survey of historic sites and buildings, with information about the basic characteristics of local buildings so that the knowledge may be applied to the fields of preservation, restoration, and historical construction. The lack of such research and illustrations are some reasons why the redevelopment of the

Oldest House Complex hadn’t already occurred.

In 1955, the St. Augustine Historical Society’s Board of Directors adopted the

Development Plan. The Development Plan helped the Society form a vision, goals, and strategies for the redevelopment of the Oldest House Complex. The Society adhered to the Development Plan until the completion of the Oldest House Complex. The Society’s narrow scope of the Oldest House Complex differs greatly from the larger scope of the

St. Augustine Historic Restoration and Preservation Commission’s for the city as a whole. The Commission focused their efforts along the St. George Street corridor. In order to complete their vision, several steps were taken, including securing a House Bill to protect the city and provide funding for the redevelopment projects.

Special Advisory Committee: St. Augustine Restoration Plan of 1958

The citizens that formed the Special Advisory Committee “visited many other restoration projects such as Williamsburg, Old Sturbridge Village, and others to obtain their methods and way of operation,” (Brewer 1970, 70). The Committee believed that

St. Augustine thought the city, as the first great colonial center in North America, merited the same consideration that was given to communities such as Williamsburg.

The Williamsburg Restoration served as inspiration and a model, and was one of the strongest arguments for completing the St. Augustine program. Because St. Augustine is older than Colonial Williamsburg, it was thought that St. Augustine was much more significant in term of “primary cultural and institutional beginnings than that of any other community in the United States of America” (Special Advisory Committee and Board of

Parks and Historic Memorials 1959, 8, 8).

In 1958, Governor LeRoy Collins recruited a group of St. Augustine citizens to go to Tallahassee to present a restoration program for historic St. Augustine. Under the direction of the governor and the Florida Board of Parks and Historic Memorials, the committee reported on the preservation and historical value of St. Augustine. The committee reported that “St. Augustine is significant to Florida and the nation, this program is especially significant because the 400th anniversary of city’s founding is approaching in 1965” (Special Advisory Committee and Board of Parks and Historic

Memorials 1959). Immediately after the committee presented the restoration program in

Tallahassee, board members were appointed who created a special advisory committee that studied the revitalization program, and the advisory committee adopted a program of necessary steps to achieve a Master Plan for the restoration of St. Augustine. After

12 years of research, the St. Augustine Historic Program in cooperation with the

Carnegie Institute could finally take action.

The St. Augustine Historic Restoration and Preservation Commission’s Master

Plan included objectives from the Carnegie Historical Program with a few additions. The

first objective was that the First Spanish Period is the most significant and the city will interpret this period. The second objective stated that the city should not become a

“dead museum” or “the Old Spanish Quarter.” The third objective was to reconstruct to the First Spanish Period fortification lines and redoubts, old homes and gardens, and wharves and ships. The fourth objective was to proceed with the project slow and steady. The fifth objective was to acquire other sites near to St. Augustine, with particular emphasis on the Spanish occupation of Florida (Special Advisory Committee and Board of Parks and Historic Memorials 1959, 20-1).

The first step was establishing a permanent organization to oversee the program.

It was recommended that an official agency of the State of Florida, a St. Augustine

Historical Commission, be established consisting of seven members including a chairman appointed by the Governor. The Commission was empowered with the authority to carry out the work of the restoration, and that, for such purpose, it was authorized to receive and expend public funds for its use. Further, the Commission was authorized to “negotiate and contract with governments and their branches, corporate bodies, and with private persons who may be able and who may offer and agree to finance, and/or to carry out particular phases of the Restoration” (Special Advisory

Committee and Board of Parks and Historic Memorials 1959, 22). In addition, the

Commission was authorized to handle funds for the purposes of the Restoration. The

Commission offered paid positions such as Executive Director and staff members, and they held regular meetings.

St. Augustine Historic Preservation and Restoration Commission of 1959

In June 1959, House Bill 774 was signed by the Governor establishing the St.

Augustine Historical Restoration and Preservation Commission and granting “$150,000

to commence operation,” (Brewer 1970, 69). The St. Augustine Historical Restoration and Preservation Commission was expected to manage historic and archaeological resources that possess unique state and national importance, and

acquire, restore, preserve, maintain, reconstruct, reproduce and operate for the use, benefit, education, recreation, enjoyment, and general welfare of the people of this state and nation certain ancient or historic landmarks, sites, cemeteries, graves, military works, monuments, locations, remains, buildings, and other objects of historical or antiquarian interest of the City of St. Augustine, Florida and surrounding territory.(Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board 1971, 7)

The first meeting was held on September 10, 1959 and by November 1959, the

Commission retained Earle Williams Newton as a consultant (Brewer 1970, 70).

According to a publication by the St. Augustine Historic Restoration and Preservation

Commission, St. Augustine fell into disrepair over a period of 400 years. Only a clearly formulated plan “beginning in a neighborhood but aimed at the whole city – designed to restore systematically existing buildings and reconstruct those that have disappeared,” could stop the obliteration of St. Augustine (St. Augustine Historical Restoration and

Preservation Commission 1961, 6). The first step was to improve the language of zoning laws; new construction should complement the appearance of the First Spanish

Period restoration efforts, and the Master Plan (St. Augustine Historical Restoration and

Preservation Commission 1961, 10). The second step was the establishment of a research program including documentary history, archaeology, cartography, and architecture.

The Commission identified a few authentic structures including the Castillo de

San Marcos, the “Oldest House,” the Llambias House, and the “Avero Complex.” The

Avero Complex was the starting point for the Commission. Within the Avero Complex, the Commission chose the Arrivas House as the first restoration project because of its

proximity to the fort and the availability of archival documentation (St. Augustine

Historical Restoration and Preservation Commission 1961, 14). The Arrivas House was the first step in completing the Avero Complex. The Commission believed that once the reconstruction of the Avero Complex was complete, it could serve as a representative example of the entire restoration project (St. Augustine Historical Restoration and

Preservation Commission 1961, 22).

The Commission designated a few special districts with incentives to carry out the Master Plan. For example, the Oldest House Complex, under the management of the St. Augustine Historical Society, was designated as a “Rehabilitation Area.” It was proposed that Oldest House area be redeveloped through a cooperative program with existing landowners using tax concessions. The Commission also designated business streets, where high-value business properties were expected to remain for some time.

These businesses were expected to cater to local citizens, as was already identified as such in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. In addition, smaller businesses that catered to visitors were encouraged to remain within the historic area (St. Augustine Historical

Restoration and Preservation Commission 1961, 22). The Commission worked with various entities to achieve this long range Master Plan.

Initially, the Master Plan focused on the northern portion of the city, with plans to expand to the central and southern portions after an estimated period of 20 years (St.

Augustine Historical Restoration and Preservation Commission 1961, 26, 26). Within the central portion of the city, a greater number of existing buildings are identified for retention. Within the southern portion of city, reconstructed buildings were proposed along the main thoroughfare leading to the Oldest House Complex. Owners of existing

residential dwellings within this section were encouraged to adapt the architecture of their homes to the colonial periods. Areas to the west were predominately Catholic educational properties and were proposed to remain devoted to that use indefinitely,”

(City of St. Augustine, "Historic Preservation"). The Commission redeveloped the city parallel to architectural research efforts. In some cases, the Commission authorized the following activity: “Where historical data as to their original form is not complete, reasonably representative structures may be reconstructed, and sympathetic uses found for them,” (St. Augustine Historical Restoration and Preservation Commission

1961, 30, 30).

St. Augustine Restoration, Inc.

In 1962, a non-profit foundation called St. Augustine Restoration, Inc. was established to receive private donations to further finance the local projects. Within the first ten years of operation, the Commission and St. Augustine Restoration, Inc. spent over $2,000,000 by acquiring 34 properties and redeveloping 29 buildings (Adams and

[et al.] 1980, 41-2; Brewer 1970, 1; Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board 1971, 9).

The main beneficiaries of this funding were archaeologists, historians, and a permanent construction crew. Archaeological investigations made it possible to verify the locations of the original foundations and houses. Historical research professionals employed by the SAHRPC often overlapped with those working with the National Park Service and the St. Augustine Historical Society. Early in the program the Commission identified the need for a permanent construction crew, trained in single-splitting and hand-hewn lumber. According to the Commission, “in all of the buildings, whether restored or reconstructed, our Commission has made it a point to insure authenticity in construction as well as architecture” (Brewer 1970, 71-2).

The Preservation Movement of the 1960s

The St. Augustine Historical Society endorsed the establishment of the St.

Augustine Historic Restoration and Preservation Commission and even offered its library and services to the Commission. As the Commission began its activities, the

Society lent its support in various ways. Dr. Hale Smith, who had been employed as archaeological consultant, was housed free of charge in one of the society’s rental properties. In addition, the Historical Society donated $1,000 to help acquire the Arrivas

House, which served as the Commission’s headquarters. The Society also allowed the preservation organization to pick through its back lot for surplus coquina stone, which could be used in restoring the Arrivas House.

Although the Society’s relationship with the Commission was always cordial, there were ambivalent feelings about the Commission’s Master Plan. Some members felt that the Society was not getting enough credit for the help it was giving to the

Commission. A more serious concern was the way in which the preservation-restoration program was trending. Most of the work was being done on north St. George Street, and the title “the restored area” was being used to designate that part of town. Carver

Harris, who served on the Historical Society’s Board of Directors pointed out that the

“restored area” was at the north end of town, far from the Oldest House. “We are going to be in a bad way, he warned, if all the development were north of the plaza and the tourists stayed in that part of town,” (Graham 1985, 28-9).

The Society started having financial difficulties in the 1960s. In 1962, Board member J. Tyler Van Campen, summarized his analysis of the problem. He blamed the lack of visitors on competition with the “restored area,” which duplicated the Oldest

House with period houses of its own, and also on the general increase in non-historical

attractions in town. His recommended solution was to cut staff, increase advertisements of the Oldest House, set up a museum in the Parades-Dodge House on north St.

George Street, and to ask for help from the state Historic St. Augustine Preservation

Board (Graham 1985, 30).

Case Studies

This thesis documents and analyzes the first and last reconstructions completed by the St. Augustine Historical Society and the St. Augustine Historic Restoration and

Preservation Commission. The two reconstructions completed by the St. Augustine

Historical Society are the Manuel de Herrera House and the Alexander-Garrido House.

The two reconstructions completed by the St. Augustine Historic Restoration and

Preservation Commission are the Salcedo House and the De Hita House. The following architectural descriptions and historical narratives are adapted from each building’s

Florida Master Site File.

Manuel de Herrera House

In 1955, the St. Augustine Historical Society reconstructed the Manuel de

Herrera House located at 257 Charlotte Street. The building is located in one of the oldest sections St. Augustine and is one of the first historic reconstructions completed in

St. Augustine. This one and one-half story building features concrete block walls with a stucco finish, open porch with chamfered posts and beaded porch railing, and wooden shutters that accent the windows.

The building represents a house listed in the 1788 Rocque map as “a masonry house, in fair condition, owned by Don Manuel de Herrera.” The house disappeared on maps between 1893 and 1899, after which time the property was owned by Charles B.

Mickler, and later the Horace Lindsley Family. In 1946, the society purchased the property from James S. Lindsley. The Historical Society adapted this building as a warehouse and museum lab.

Salcedo House

In 1962, the St. Augustine Historic Restoration and Preservation Commission reconstructed the Jose Salcedo House located at 42 St. George Street. Typical of colonial structures, this two-story Spanish Colonial Style building is set on the street line with a gate opening into the yard. The entrance to the house is from the southern patio.

This form of construction is known as the St. Augustine Plan. A wooden wrap-around balcony with chambered posts extends above the street on the east side and over an open patio on the south. The concrete block wall is covered by stucco (except on the east side). A detached masonry kitchen and a frame smokehouse are situated behind the main structure and a well is contained on the original site.

This historic reconstruction represents a coquina house listed on the 1784

Puente map as belonging to Joquin Blanco. After the British Period, it passed through the hands of Captain Rainsford to Don Pedro Jose de Salcedo, a Captain of Artillery.

For a brief time in the 1790s, the house served as the residence of General Jorge

Biassou, a Black Haitian revolutionary leader who retired to St. Augustine after fighting the Spanish in Santo Domingo. The historic reproduction is based on the appearance of the house during Salcedo’s ownership. (National Register of Historic Places 1986, as amended).

Alexander-Garrido House

In 1966, the St. Augustine Historical Society reconstructed the Salcedo House.

This one-story “L” shaped building Spanish Colonial style building is flush to the street

with an entrance to the yard through a gate. A one-story open porch extends from the south side. Wooden rejas decorate the street side windows and copper downspouts carry water from the flat roof. The Rocque map shows two outbuildings, numbers 247 and 248, north of a larger structure built by Alexander as his residence. The existing structure is described as representing the rectangular structure numbered 247; however, it more nearly resembles the “L” shaped building closer to the main house.

The earlier Puente map lists two tabby houses (numbers 334 and 333) as belonging to

Francisco de Leon and Rocque Peyerya.

The property was included in the British land grant to William Alexander, a member of the trading firm of Panton, Leslie, and Company. Alexander sold to Don

Juan O'Donovan after the return of the Spanish in 1784. The 1790 Quesada list describes the property as belonging to Miguel O'Reilly, an Irish priest who died in 1812.

The property was inherited by O'Reilly's brother and sold two years later to Antonio

Alvarez. In 1821, Eliza Lee purchased the house and retained the property until 1838 when Miguel Garrido became owner. The Garrido family lived there until 1865 when the property was conveyed to Mary Roddy whose heirs sold to the African American

Methodist Episcopal Church in the same year. In 1957, the Historical Society purchased the property and the frame house, built by Roddy or the church, was razed for the reconstruction of the Alexander-Garrido House.

De Hita House

In 1979, the Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board reconstructed the De Hita

House. This building has concrete block masonry walls covered with stucco. The building has a hip roof covered with wood shingles. It has an open loggia and tabby concrete floors, plastered interior walls, exposed beam ceilings and central heat.

The De Hita House is a reconstruction of a building that was originally constructed about 1740 and served as a dwelling for a Spanish soldier attached to the garrison at the Castillo de San Marcos. The Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board purchased the lot with funds provided through a grant from the Florida Bicentennial

Commission, whose executive director, Dr. William R. Adams, was later appointed director of the Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board (National Register of Historic

Places 1986). The De Hita House has been used for museum interpretation since it was reconstructed.

This literature review documented early twentieth century restoration projects that served as models for the St. Augustine program; defined and redefined key terms including reconstruction, authenticity, and integrity; outlined reasons to support and oppose reconstruction projects; documented late twentieth century approaches to reconstruction projects; outlined the history of St. Augustine and defined a new period of significance focusing on development and master plans created during the mid- twentieth century; and offered information about the case studies this thesis examines.

The following chapter outlines the research methods that this thesis utilizes to document and examine these reconstructions.

CHAPTER 3 RESEACH METHODS

Many historic preservation professionals have not viewed reconstructions favorably. Since the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act in 1966, however, some professional perceptions of authenticity have evolved, changing attitudes toward reconstructions. Some reconstruction projects have now achieved historical significance as examples of preservation thinking at mid-twentieth century. This chapter outlines the research framework employed to analyze the postwar reconstructions that helped transform the built environment of historic St. Augustine, Florida.

This study approaches the research problem utilizing a qualitative research design, which is a “means for exploring and understanding the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem,” (Creswell 2009, 4). “A case study is an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident,” (Yin 2009, 18). This case study strategy allows the researcher to explore the reconstruction processes completed by the St. Augustine Historical Society and the St. Augustine Historic Restoration and Preservation Commission. The cases are bounded by time and activity, and the researcher collected detailed information using a variety of collection methods over a sustained period of time (Creswell 2009,

13).

The research was completed on-site in the City of St. Augustine and off-site utilizing the University of Florida’s Digital Collection. The researcher collected data by examining documentation in the form of archival records, direct observations, and physical artifacts. Examples of these sources of evidence include newspapers, minutes

of meetings, official reports, letters, and unpublished research notes (Creswell 2009,

180; Yin 2009, 101-3). This qualitative research built patterns, categories, and themes from the bottom up, by organizing the data into increasingly more abstract units of information. The process focuses on the meaning that the case studies hold about the issue of reconstruction. Throughout the process, the questions changed, the forms of data collection shifted, and the sites visited were modified. The study is organized around identifying the historical context of the reconstructions.

The purpose of this case study analysis is to document and examine reconstructions that took place in St. Augustine, Florida during the mid-twentieth century and evaluates them as potential historical and cultural resources including an assessment of their integrity. The case studies include the first and last reconstruction projects completed by two organizations: St. Augustine Historical Society and St.

Augustine Historic Restoration and Preservation Commission.

Methodology

Strategies of Inquiry

This is a qualitative, case study analysis that explores processes, events, and activities in mid-twentieth century St. Augustine. Cases are bounded by time and activity, and the researcher collected detailed information using a variety of data collection procedures over a sustained period of time (Stake, 1995). The use of case studies is appropriate for this thesis because it is a recognized strategy of inquiry in qualitative research. Also, qualitative research is exploratory and is useful when the researcher does not know the significant variables to examine.

Bounding the Study

This thesis analyzes four case studies in St. Augustine, Florida. There are 34 documented reconstructions in St. Augustine undertaken by two major organizations: the St. Augustine Historical Society and the St. Augustine Historic Restoration

Commission. The St. Augustine Historic Restoration and Preservation Commission completed 31 reconstructions and the St. Augustine Historical Society completed four reconstructions. This thesis documents and assesses four of the reconstructions – the first and last reconstructions by each organization. The first and last reconstructions were chosen to explore the two organizations approaches to reconstruction, how these approaches may have evolved over time, and whether there were differences in executions both within each organization and between one another. The placement of the reconstructions helped spur redevelopment and create nodes – or areas – of activity for heritage tourism. Initial research suggests the organizations created two nodes, the

Oldest House Area and the San Agustin Antiguo. The Oldest House Area includes four reconstructions over a period of 11 years, from 1955 to 1966. The Spanish Quarter includes at least eight reconstructions over the period of 16 years, from 1963 to 1979.

This thesis will not cover all reconstructions in these two specific nodes.

These selected sites are the Manuel de Herrera House (1955) and the

Alexander-Garrido House (1966); and two reconstructions completed by the St.

Augustine Historic Restoration and Preservation Commission: the Salcedo House

(1962) and the De Hita House (1979). The research setting took place in the City of St.

Augustine.

Data Collection Strategies

This thesis collects data through observations, documents, and visual materials.

The observations are where the observer is a participant and the role of the researcher is known. The researcher can record information as it occurs, however, private information may be observed that the researcher cannot report (Creswell 2009, 179).

Most of the data was collected through public and private documents. Public documents include minutes of meetings and newspaper articles and private documents include journals, diaries, and letters. Document collection enabled the researcher to access information conveniently and represent data that is thoughtful. Some prospective challenges with collecting documents are that perceptions are different with every researcher, information may be hard to find, and materials may be incomplete. In this thesis, visual materials include photographs, maps, and drawings of buildings. This type of data is a method to convey information that directly shares the reality of the researcher. However, the data may be difficult to interpret. These methodologies will inform a discussion about the evolving attitudes towards reconstructions.

Data Recording Procedures

A list of Qualitative Data Collection Approaches Observations Gather field notes by conducting an observation as an observer Documents Analyze public documents (e.g., memos, minutes, records, archival material) Examine autobiographies and biographies Visual Materials Examine physical trace evidence Examine photographs

Data Analysis and Interpretation

Data analysis is an ongoing process involving continual reflection about the data.

Qualitative data analysis occurs concurrently with gathering data, interpreting, and

writing reports. Data analysis involves collecting open-ended data, based on asking general questions. Case study research involves a detailed description of the buildings that were reconstructed, followed by analysis of the data for themes. First, the researcher organized and prepared the data for analysis. Second, the researcher read through the data to obtain a general sense of the information and to reflect on its overall meaning. Third, the researcher began a detailed analysis with a coding process. Coding included reading the documents and listing categories and subcategories of themes.

Fourth, the researcher generated descriptions of the buildings reconstructed and categories or themes for analysis. Fifth, the researcher advanced how the description and themes will be represented in the qualitative narrative. Finally, the researcher interpreted the data, asking, “what were the lessons learned?” (Creswell, pp. 183-90).

Verification

The researcher upholds qualitative validity by checking for accuracy of the findings by employing certain procedures. In order to employ qualitative reliability, the researcher approached each case study consistently, by checking transcripts and double checking for code drifts. Validity strategies utilized in this case study analysis include triangulating data through observations, documentation, and visual collection to build coherent justification for themes. Other validity strategies include rich, thick descriptions to convey findings, clarifying bias the researcher brings to the study, and spending a prolonged time in the field. The intent of qualitative research is not to generalize findings to sites, because the value of the research lies in the particular description and themes developed in context of specific sites.

Reporting the Findings

Using a qualitative strategy of inquiry, these results may also provide an in-depth analysis of four cases. Therefore, the results were presented in a descriptive, narrative form rather than as a scientific report.

Method

Research Question

How did reconstructions that took place in St. Augustine, Florida during the mid- twentieth century address authenticity and integrity – key concepts informing preservation standards and guidelines for reconstruction during the period just before the adoption of the National Historic Preservation Act and the development of the

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards? Should these reconstructions be considered historical and cultural resources?

Criteria for Analysis

Multiple criteria were developed to assess how each reconstruction contributed to the redevelopment of historic St. Augustine. Criteria include: stakeholders, goals and objectives, processes and strategies, tools for implementation, funding, interpretation, impacts on tourism, and effects to the urban environment. Together, this information provides the framework employed to analyze the postwar reconstructions that helped transform the built environment in historic St. Augustine at mid-twentieth century.

Stakeholders

This criterion will identify all of the stakeholders involved with each reconstruction project. This thesis will categorize and summarize the stakeholders. A table will be provided with a complete list. Are projects managed more efficiently when there are less stakeholders? Are there any benefits with having additional stakeholders outside the

organization? What were the responsibilities of these stakeholders? Were they key decision makers?

Goals and objectives

This criterion examines why each reconstruction project was chosen. Goals are usually long term and may not be strictly measurable or tangible (Peterson, Jaret, and

Schenck 2014). Each organization had development plans that outline goals. Were these goals cited when proposing the reconstruction projects? Were the goals used to justify the projects to stakeholders? Objectives are usually short term and are measurable and tangible through effort or actions intended to attain, target, purpose, or accomplish (Peterson, Jaret, and Schenck 2014). Each reconstruction project can be considered as an objective, however. How long did the projects take? What were the intentions of each project? Were the projects completed satisfactorily?

Processes and strategies

This criterion examines the research involved to try to understand how each building looked before it disappeared. First, what is the chain of ownership of the property? Was it listed on any maps? For example, there are several historical maps of

St. Augustine, however two are the most widely used to gain information about the

Spanish Colonial period: the Juan Jose Elixio de la Puente map and key of 1764, was put together within three months of Florida being transferred from Spain to Great Britain.

It is a symbolic map, but it recorded every property owner, materials and use of the building. This map is a critical component to understanding the city and its buildings before British occupation. The Mariano de la Rocque map and key of 1788, is similar to

the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps,2 but it gives more information: a general floor plan of each building, and a brief description of the use, owner and materials in the building.

This research also includes information about when and/or why the building vanished.

Tools for implementation

This criterion examines how each project was acquired, executed, and designed.

How and why was each property acquired? Was acquiring the property in keeping with goals from an organization’s development plan? What existed on the property before the reconstruction was completed? Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, and other tax record maps locate the buildings and identify some building materials. Were any buildings demolished to make room for the reconstruction? Did the organization that authorized the reconstruction also authorize the demolition of existing buildings? The minutes to the meetings will be considered in answering this question. Were traditional building methods and materials used to develop the project? If not, what methods and materials were used?

Funding

This criterion examines how each reconstruction project was funded. Who paid for the project? If an organization paid for the project, was the organization public or private? How did the organization generate the income to support the project? If private donors paid for the project, what was their motivation behind the donation: were they impressed by the vision presented to them, did they have an emotional connection to the project, or did they simply want to support the overall goal of the redevelopment of

2 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps were originally intended to assess fire insurance liability in urbanized areas. The maps provide detailed information about buildings, such as building materials, number of stories, and building use.

historic St. Augustine? Were there any broader reasons why anyone or any organization would spend money to reconstruct vanished buildings? Were there upcoming events that solidified a united vision for historic St. Augustine?

Interpretation

This criterion examines how the reconstruction project was interpreted. The interpretation of the reconstruction includes the overall date that the building should be constructed. Why was this date chosen? How does this reconstruction represent a building from the date defined? Were historic building materials used to reconstruct the building? Were traditional building techniques used to reconstruct the building? Was the interior of the reconstruction interpreted to represent a historical date? Were there any interpretation programs developed to explain the history of the building? Was interpretative signage created to explain the history of the building?

Impacts on tourism

This criterion examines the reconstruction project’s impact on tourism. Was tourism a consideration for authorizing the project? Was there no mention of the impact of tourism when the project was authorized? Sources that could help explain the impact of tourism include the minutes to the meetings from the organizations and newspaper articles. Was the reconstructed structure part of a property that was used for tourism?

For example, not all buildings that were reconstructed were open to the public; however, some buildings were used in storage capacities. Did the reconstruction have an indirect effect on tourism? Was the impact on tourism more related to the effect to the urban environment? Did the reconstructed buildings have no effect on tourism?

Impacts to the urban environment

This criterion examines how the reconstructed building changed the look of the neighborhood. Did the reconstruction follow any architectural guidelines to ensure that the building is in keeping with historic St. Augustine architecture? Albert Manucy is the author to The Houses of St. Augustine: Notes on the Architecture, written in 1962 after he visited Spain to document typical architecture from the areas in Spain from where the original colonists came from. His book also includes suggestions on how houses in

St. Augustine incorporated environmental factors such as breezes into the micro-site planning (Manucy 1962).

Integrity ranking

This criterion applies Criteria Consideration E: Reconstructed Properties from the

National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Was the reconstruction accurate? Was the reconstruction completed in a suitable environment? Was the reconstruction part of a master plan? Was the reconstruction the last surviving property of a type? If the reconstructions are older than 50 years, does the reconstruction attain its own significance for what it reveals about the period in which it was built, rather than the historic period it was intended to depict? The following table utilizes the framework for

Criterion Consideration E: Reconstructed Properties from the National Register

Bulletin, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. The ranking will be based on a “yes” or “no” point system. For questions 1-5, a “yes” will provide one (1) point and a “no” will provide no (0) point. For question 5, one point may be given for each Criterion for Significance, for a total of four (4) points. Question 6 will only be answered if the property is older than 50 years; one point may be given for each aspect of integrity, for a total of seven (7) points. Follow Table 3-1 as an example.

Evidence

This criterion visually depicts forms of evidence including archaeological data, architectural data, and visual/photographic evidence of the appearance of the building.

Archaeological evidence includes excavation figures and/or photographs, when available. Architectural evidence includes sketches, renderings, and drawings of the building, when available. Visual/photographic evidence includes colonial/historic, post- reconstruction, and contemporary images, when available. The purpose of this evidence is two-fold. First, it will show the forms of evidence that were available at the time of the reconstructions to the organizations managing the reconstructions. Second, the evidence provides some proof of integrity of the reconstructions from the mid-century redevelopment era. The evidence supports the case that these reconstructions are significant examples of mid-century preservation efforts in St. Augustine.

Chapter 4 will examine the Stakeholders, Goals and Objectives, Processes and

Strategies, Tools for Implementation, Funding, Interpretation, Impacts on Tourism,

Impacts to the Urban Environment, provide the available evidence to support the reconstruction of the Manuel de Herrera House, the Alexander-Garrido House, the

Salcedo House, and the De Hita House. Evidence, where available, is provided for future researchers to form their own opinions of the reconstructions. After each case study has been examined, there will be an assessment of each case study’s integrity and will be ranked using the above table.

Table 3-1. Ranking Sample Applying Criteria Consideration E: Sub-criteria Yes No Reconstructed Properties 1. Accuracy Is there archaeological data? Is there architectural data? Is there historical data? Is there evidence of appearance? Was the building reconstructed the same as the above evidence? 2. Suitable Environment Is the physical context provided by the historic district? Is there an interpretive scheme, if the historic district is used for interpretive purposes? 3. Restoration Master Is the reconstruction an essential Plans component to a historic district? Is the reconstruction part of an overall restoration plan for an entire district? 4. Last Surviving Property Is the property the only one in the of a type district with which a particular important activity or event has been historically associated? Is there another property with the same associative values that has survived? 5. Criteria for Significance Does the property qualify under any of for reconstructions the Criteria (e.g. Event, Person, older than 50 years Design/Construction, Information Potential)? 6. Integrity Does the Property demonstrate a composite of seven aspects of integrity (e.g. location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, association)?

* Table is based on information available to researcher during this examination.

CHAPTER 4 OUTCOMES

This thesis analyzes four mid-twentieth century reconstructions in St. Augustine,

Florida. There are two major organizations that contributed to 35 reconstructions in St.

Augustine: the St. Augustine Historical Society and the St. Augustine Historic

Restoration and Preservation Commission. The St. Augustine Historic Restoration and

Preservation Commission completed 31 reconstructions and the St. Augustine Historical

Society completed four reconstructions. This thesis will cover four of the reconstruction projects. The selected sites examined are the first and last reconstructions completed by the St. Augustine Historical Society and the St. Augustine Historic Preservation and

Restoration Commission. The selected sites completed by the St. Augustine Historical

Society are the Manuel de Herrera House (1955) and the Alexander-Garrido House

(1966). The selected sites completed by the St. Augustine Historic Restoration and

Preservation Commission are the Salcedo House (1962) and the De Hita House (1979).

The first reconstruction projects from both organizations were completed before the

National Historic Preservation Act and the development of the Secretary of the Interior’s

Standards. The last reconstructions from both groups were completed during and after the National Historic Preservation Act.

Don Manuel de Herrera House

The Manuel de Herrera House was the first reconstruction project in St.

Augustine and was undertaken by the St. Augustine Historical Society (SAHS) in 1955.

This project was completed before the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act

(NHPA) and the development of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. In addition, this building was reconstructed before Albert Manucy visited Spain on the Fulbright

Scholarship and wrote the Houses of St. Augustine in 1962, which established the framework for design elements of colonial-era buildings in St. Augustine. The Manuel de

Herrera House was reconstructed to accommodate a library and was later adapted into a private residence. The SAHS formed a Planning Division to manage the project. The research phase included chain of title, an archaeological excavation, and tax list data analysis. The SAHS hired F. A. Hollingsworth to provide design services. The total cost of the project was $13,000, which was supplied by the SAHS budget. When the project was complete, the SAHS installed a plaque, interpreting the history to tourists. The building was initially used as a storage and library facility to the SAHS and did not directly impact tourism. The lot was determined blighted and the building on the lot was demolished in order to reconstruct the Manuel de Herrera House, the building was designed to fit the mass and scale of the neighborhood. The following information examines eight criteria for analysis.

Stakeholders

The stakeholders involved with the reconstruction of the Manuel de Herrera

House include groups at large and individuals. The groups involved include the St.

Augustine Historical Society Board of Directors, staff, and members. According to the

SAHS minutes of meetings, there were at least 13 people who were involved within the

SAHS Board of Directors. There were two staff and two members directly involved.

Certain individuals that stand out are those who provided professional service, Mr. E. B.

Warren and Mr. F. A. Hollingsworth, and tenants, Miss Evelyn McKinley and Miss

Newhard. Project management and funding were sponsored by the same organization, which may have made communication more efficient. According to the Development

Plan, there is a specific hierarchy and process for decision making. One aspect to

consider is that there may have been verbal communication and agreements that are undocumented.

Table 4-1. List of Stakeholders for the Manuel de Herrera House Stakeholder group Individuals SAHS Board of Directors Honorable David R. Dunham, President Mr. Milton E. Bacon Mrs. Otis E. Barnes Mr. J. P. Davis, Chairman of Property Committee Mr. Hiram Faver Mr. Griffin, Operations Committee Mr. Carver Harris, Business Manager, Planning Committee Mrs. Kettner Mr. Lawson Mr. Albert Manucy, Chairman of Planning Committee Mr. Pellicer, Treasurer Mr. Van Campen, Planning Committee Mr. W. J. Winter SAHS Staff Mrs. Dorris Wiles, Historian Mr. John W. Griffin, former state archaeologist SAHS Members Miss Mary C. Twitty Mr. B. O. Crinchlow, Jr. Professional Services E. B. Warren, sketches Mr. F. A. Hollingsworth, architect Tenants / Owners Miss Evelyn McKinley Miss Newhard

* Table is based on information available to researcher during this examination.

Goals and Objectives

The building provided storage space for the museum collections. At the time, storage space included the top floor and attic of the House of Cannonball, and two units in a garage apartment. The materials that were stored in this building were in danger of destruction due to poor organization and mismanagement. According to the SAHS

Minute Books, modern museums exhibit about 10 percent of their collections; the other

90 percent is safely stored away, which identified a need for storage. Additionally, the

SAHS acquired new collections, including the Isabel Ross Collection from the Buffalo

Historical Society, and planned to acquire more in the future. Concurrently, the SAHS planned to dispose of any useless or irrelevant materials and reorganize the Oldest

House Museum. The Planning Division estimated that 20,000 cubic feet of storage would be needed for current and future uses. The Planning Division also proposed building a small workshop space behind the storage space.

The Planning Division’s proposal included a statement that the new storage building would help eliminate slums near to the Oldest House. For years the SAHS had in mind to improve the setting of the Oldest House by eliminating the “slum houses” owned by the Society on Charlotte Street and building – either for rent or for sale – houses in the St. Augustine tradition of architecture. The SAHS believed that the construction of the warehouse would be a step toward this objective. “At least it would remove one of the eyesore firetraps in this vicinity” ("St. Augustine Historical Society,

Minute Books," June 2, 1954)

Processes or Strategies

The Planning Division recommended that research be completed before the final plans could be worked out. Mrs. Barnes studied the structures formerly on the property and the location of the balconied house that was on the site previously, was determined.

The plot was cleared archaeologically in order to furnish all possible information about previous structures on the warehouse site, and to recover historic objects. The Planning

Division requested Board of Directors to consider the proposal and authorize the

Planning Division to proceed with detailed plans. These plans involved: documentary research on physical descriptions of buildings on Lots 9, 10, and 11; archaeological clearance of the building site, which included exploratory trenches and the complete

excavation of parts of the property; and architectural plans of the proposed buildings, with cost estimates ( "St. Augustine Historical Society, Minute Books," June 2, 1954).

Implementation Tools

After two years of abstract research, the SAHS purchased the property of Lot 9 of Block 27 in 1948. The historic house that sat on this property disappeared after 1893.

Within the next fifty years, a wood frame building was built on this property. The reconstruction was based on a building listed on the 1763 Puente and 1788 Rocque maps, 1790 and 1803 tax lists, 1886 photograph, and 1893 Sanborn map. The Planning

Division recommended to the Board of Directors to evict the present tenants on lot 7 and to dismantle the existing wood frame structure. Fred Stone proposed and agreed to tear down the wooden building known as No. 257 Charlotte Street, located on SAHS property. Mr. Stone claimed the responsibility of disposing the building materials, cleaning the site, and liability covered by Workmen’s Compensation Insurance. David R.

Dunham, President of the SAHS, accepted Fred Stone’s proposal (Stone N.d.).

In June 1954, John W. Griffin excavated the site. The test pit was two square feet and located just inside of the existing tin fence on the west edge of the lot, with undercutting carrying to the edge of the street. Mr. Griffin found considerable amounts of disturbed coquina and broken tabby, along with other artifacts that do not date this test pit during either First Spanish or English periods. In conclusion, “Test A failed to discover any traces of a foundation, although the debris encountered appeared to come from a house such as we are seeking,” (Griffin 1954).

The SAHS compiled information from tax list data, maps, and photographs, to recreate the architectural plans for this building. The tax list data gave information about the dimensions of the building in veras, an nineteenth century unit of measure, these

dimensions were converted into feet and inches. The tax list data also gave information about buildings materials including the exterior as masonry and the interior as frame.

The tax list data indicated that this building had six posts. No second story was indicated in the tax list data, but it was possible that the second story was added between 1803 and 1893. The Puente and Rocque maps located the building in space.

The Sanborn maps also gave information about the building materials, the dimensions, and the number of stories.

F. A. Hollingsworth was hired to create architectural drawings for the proposed warehouse. In January 1955, the St. Augustine Board of Directors authorized the construction of the museum laboratory and workshop (February 9, 1955 "Museum

Laboratory"). The St. Augustine Historical Society Board of Directors hired Mr. Stone as the foreman of the job and completed the carpentry, and Mr. Solana completed the masonry (“St. Augustine Historical Society, Minute Books,” January 21, 1955).

A historic photograph circa 1876 showed the building with a balcony facing

Charlotte Street, to the south. A later historic photograph from c. 1893 showed the building, in poor condition, without a balcony facing Charlotte Street, to the south.

Instead this photograph shows the ghost lines of a balcony that does not span the entire depth of the building facing east and stairs sloping down toward the north. The drawings provided by F. A. Hollingsworth and field observations confirm that the balcony’s orientation is to the east and that the balcony spans the entire depth of the building. The

Hollingsworth drawings and field observation also note that the reconstructed building was built in the same two-story, three-bay style with three dormer windows on the second floor.

Funding

Mr. Carver Harris estimated that the entire cost of the project would run approximately $7,500, because the warehouse was constructed as a shell of a house and also weatherproof. The warehouse was built with cement blocks and the workshop was a frame building ("St. Augustine Historical Society, Minute Books," May 18, 1954).

The total cost of $13,304.40 was noted in the St. Augustine Historical Society minutes on July 12, 1955 ("St. Augustine Historical Society, Minute Books," July 12, 1955). All funding for this building came from the St. Augustine Historical Society budget.

In 1962, the St. Augustine Historical Society discussed the possibility of adapting the Museum Lab building into a livable property. The proposed changes were estimated to be about $10,000 ("St. Augustine Historical Society, Minute Books," February 13,

1962). Mr. Drysdale suggested that the Society keep the building for its original storage purposes. In 1963, the topic was on the agenda again. Mr. Harris estimated that the cost of remodeling the museum lab into two apartments would be $3,500. The SAHS borrowed money from the Security Federal Savings and Loan over a period of five years. The rental income was estimated to be $100 per month ("St. Augustine Historical

Society, Minute Books," October 14, 1963). In 1954, the building was sold for $20,600

("St. Augustine Historical Society, Minute Books," March 9, 1964). This income helped fund a reconstruction located on Marine Street, also within the Oldest House area.

Interpretation

The design of the building was in keeping with local historic architecture and the building was fireproof. The Planning Division recommended a concrete block structure with stucco on the exterior. Windows were iron grilled. The interior was not finished, no plumbing was required, lighting was added, and wooden shelving and stacks were

added. The workshop was a one-story frame, 20 foot by 20 foot. It needed no interior finishes. It had electric and plumbing, including a toilet, washbowl, and sink. It was recommended that the designer look to the future, since the society’s collection may outgrow the space and therefore the building needed to be capable of adaptation for other purposes, such as residences ("St. Augustine Historical Society, Minute Books,"

September 22, 1961).

In March 1955, Albert Manucy from the Planning Division wrote a memorandum to the Board of Directors with a proposal. He proposed naming the building as the

Museum Laboratory of the St. Augustine Historical Society or Laboratorio Museo de la

Sociedad Historica de San Agustin. A Bronze plaque on the building reads: “This building is similar in appearance to a Spanish house near this site, erected in 1955 by the St. Augustine Historical Society.” ("St. Augustine Historical Society, Minute Books,"

March 11, 1955)

Impacts on Tourism

This building had an indirect impact on tourism. This building served as storage for the Oldest House Museum, which was open to the public. This building was built twenty years after the passage of the Historic Sites Act by Congress in 1935, which transferred the right of stewardship of the Castillo de San Marcos from the St. Augustine

Historical Society to the National Park Service. When this occurred, the St. Augustine

Historical Society had to expand their presence in the Oldest House area as a historic node in the City of St. Augustine. This building contributes to the Oldest House Area

Development Plan. Between 1961 and 1962, this building was granted tax-exempt status. In 1963, this building was adapted to generate residential rental income, and

was later sold in 1964 ("St. Augustine Historical Society, Minute Books," March 9,

1964).

Impacts to the Urban Environment

This building was the first reconstruction project completed by the St. Augustine

Historical Society. Although the original building on this site was historic, it did not interpret the colonial era and the building was considered a slum. The tenants were evicted and the house was dismantled. The SAHS considered the removal of the “slum” house as an improvement to the neighborhood. The SAHS reconstructed the Manuel de

Herrera House in keeping with the local historic architecture and aesthetics of the neighborhood. In addition, the mass and scale are in keeping with the other preservation projects by the St. Augustine Historical Society and the buildings in the immediate vicinity.

Integrity Ranking

The reconstruction of the Manuel de Herrera House scored 14 out of 22 possible points (63.63%) for applying Criteria Consideration E and evaluating the potential

Criteria of Significance. The St. Augustine Historical Society scored three out of five points for accuracy including the ability to extract archaeological data, historical data, and evidence of the historic appearance. However, the SAHS was not able to locate architectural data and did not reconstruct the building based on evidence of the historic appearance. The Manuel de Herrera house scored two out of two points, reconstructing in a suitable environment. Regarding the Restoration Master Plans, it scored one out of two points, because it is unknown whether the reconstruction was an essential component to a historic district. It is clear that the reconstruction was part of a master plan. In terms of being the last surviving property of a type, the reconstruction scored 0

out of 2 points because there are other examples of this type of building. The Manuel de

Herrera House qualifies for the National Register under Criteria A: Events, as it contributes to the preservation efforts during the mid-twentieth century. Lastly, the

Manuel de Herrera house retains all seven aspects of integrity.

Table 4-2. Ranking for the Manuel de Herrera House Applying Criteria Consideration E: Sub-criteria Yes No Reconstructed Properties 1. Accuracy Is there archaeological data? X Is there architectural data? X Is there historical data? X Is there evidence of appearance? X Was the building reconstructed based X on the above evidence? 2. Suitable Environment Is the physical context provided by the X historic district? Is there an interpretive scheme, if the X historic district is used for interpretive purposes? 3. Restoration Master Is the reconstruction an essential X Plans component to a historic district? Is the reconstruction part of an overall X restoration plan for an entire district? 4. Last Surviving Property Is the property the only one in the X of a type district with which a particular important activity or event has been historically associated? Is there another property with the same X associative values that has survived? 5. Criteria for Significance Does the property qualify under any of 1 for reconstructions the Criteria (e.g. Event, Person, older than 50 years Design/Construction, Information Potential)? 6. Integrity Does the Property demonstrate a 7 composite of seven aspects of integrity (e.g. location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, association)?

* Table is based on information available to researcher during this examination.

Figure 4-1. F. A. Hollingsworth. Elevation Drawings of the Museum Storage Building. 1954. St. Augustine, Florida, St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library. Source: Hollingsworth, F. A. Elevation Drawings of the Museum Storage Building. Architectural drawing. St. Augustine Historical Society Flat Files, 39-3-14a. St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library. St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library, St. Augustine, Florida. Image courtesy of St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library.

Figure 4-2. F. A. Hollingsworth. First Floor Plan, Foundation Plan, Section, and Details of the Museum Storage Building. 1954. St. Augustine, Florida, St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library. Source: Hollingsworth, F. A. First Floor, Foundation Plan, Section, and Details of the Museum Storage Building. Architectural drawing. St. Augustine Historical Society Flat Files, 39-3-13a. St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library. St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library, St. Augustine, Florida. Image courtesy of St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library.

Figure 4-3. F. A. Hollingsworth. Second Floor Plan, Elevation, and Details of the Museum Storage Building. 1954. St. Augustine, Florida, St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library. Source: Hollingsworth, F. A. Second Floor Plan, Elevation Drawings, and Details of the Museum Storage Building. Architectural drawing. St. Augustine Historical Society Flat Files, 39-3-13b. St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library. St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library, St. Augustine, Florida. Image courtesy of St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library.

Figure 4-4. F. A. Hollingsworth. Perspective Drawing of the Museum Storage Building. 1954. St. Augustine, Florida, St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library. Source: Hollingsworth, F. A. Perspective Drawing of the Museum Storage Building. Architectural drawing. St. Augustine Historical Society Flat Files, 39-3-14b. St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library. St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library, St. Augustine, Florida. Image courtesy of St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library.

Figure 4-5. F. A. Hollingsworth. Floor Plan, Foundation, Section, and Elevation of the Museum Lab Building. 1954. St. Augustine, Florida, St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library. Source: Hollingsworth, F. A. Floor Plan, Foundation, Section, and Details of the Museum Storage Building. Architectural drawing. St. Augustine Historical Society Flat Files, 39-3-13. St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library. St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library, St. Augustine, Florida. Image courtesy of St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library.

Figure 4-6. E. A. Warren. Sketch Drawing of the Don Manuel de Herrera House. N.d. St. Augustine, Florida, St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library. Source: Warren, E. A. [Drawing of the Manuel De Herrera House]. drawing. Vertical File, Colonial file, 257 Charlotte Street - S.A.H.S. - Manuel de Herrera House (Block 27, Lot 9). Manuel de Herrera House. St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library, St. Augustine, FL. Image courtesy of St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library.

Figure 4-7. Manuel de Herrera House. Ca. 1876. St. Augustine, Florida, St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library. Source: [Photo of the Manuel De Herrera House]. Ca. 1876. Photograph. St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library, Colonial St. Augustine Photographs, Charlotte Street: Manuel de Herrera House #257. Manuel de Herrera House. St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library, St. Augustine, FL. Photo courtesy of St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library.

Figure 4-8. Manuel de Herrera House. Ca. 1893. St. Augustine, Florida, St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library. Source: [Photo of the Manuel De Herrera House]. Ca. 1893. Photograph. St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library, Colonial St. Augustine Photographs, Charlotte Street: Manuel de Herrera House #257. Manuel de Herrera House. St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library, St. Augustine, FL. Photo courtesy of St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library.

Figure 4-9. Kaitlin Dorn. Manuel de Herrera House, Museum Storage Building, Exterior. March 2012. St. Augustine, Florida. Source: Dorn, Kaitlin. Manuel De Herrera House, Museum Storage Building. 2012. Photograph. Photo courtesy of Author.

100

Figure 4-10. Kaitlin Dorn. Manuel de Herrera House, Museum Lab Building, Exterior. March 2012. St. Augustine, Florida. Source: Dorn, Kaitlin. Manuel De Herrera House, Museum Lab Building. 2012. Photograph. Photo courtesy of Author.

101

Salcedo House

The Salcedo House was the first reconstruction project completed by the St.

Augustine Historic Restoration and Preservation Commission (SAHRPC) in 1962. This project was completed before the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act

(NHPA) and the development of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. In addition, this building was reconstructed the same year that Albert Manucy published the Houses of St. Augustine. The SAHRPC selected the Salcedo House to reconstruct because the lot was adjacent to the Avero Complex and because the lot was vacant. The SAHRPC members managed the project. The research phase included a historical report, an archaeological excavation, and chain of ownership report. The Salcedo House was reconstructed without photographic or visual evidence. Funding was provided by the

State after a House Bill was passed to protect St. Augustine and set aside funding for preservation-related projects. The house was interpreted as a typical building from the

Second Spanish Period. When the project was complete, the SAHRPC installed a plaque, interpreting the history to tourists. The building was initially used as a candy shop with a private residence on the second floor. The candy shop directly impacted tourism. The building was reconstructed on a lot that had been vacant for decades. The mass and scale were designed to fit the neighborhood. The following information examines eight criteria for analysis.

Stakeholders

The stakeholder groups involved with the reconstruction of the Salcedo House include the St. Augustine Historic Restoration and Preservation Commission and staff.

At least two individuals provided professional expertise, W. E. Puckett and Douglas

Picht. It is unknown whether there are additional stakeholders, but quite possibly,

102

departments of the State of Florida were involved since the SAHRPC projects were under state legislation and funding. If that is true, then there would be some distance between these groups, a local group provided expertise and a state group making decisions based on that expertise and releasing funds for projects. Some governmental processes require some degree of paperwork and additional time. Most likely, communication between the local and state groups took more time, due to postal service communication. This could mean that most of the decisions and communication were well documented.

Table 4-3. List of Stakeholders for the Salcedo House Stakeholder group Individuals SAHRPC Earle W. Newton, Director SAHRPC Overton G. Ganong, Historian / Acting Director Rita O’Brien Marion E. Randolph Robert Gold Robert Steinbach, Archaeologist Bradley Brewer, Director SAHRPC John W. Griffin, Director SAHRPC SAHS Staff Bob James, Public Relations John Melzer, Historian Miss Ruth Kent, Assistant Historian Dr. Carleton Calkin, Curator Miss Joyce Harman, Historian Joyce E. Harman, Historian Hale G. Smith, Archaeologist Local Government City of St. Augustine St. Johns County Professional Services W.E. Puckett, sketches Douglas Picht, consultant

* Table is based on information available to researcher during this examination.

Goals and Objectives

In 1959, the State approved significant funding for the acquisition and restoration of buildings in St. Augustine. The SAHRPC’s goal was to recreate the colonial appearance of the city along St. George Street, near to the Castillo de San Marcos and

103

the city gates. After completing the Avero Complex restoration, the Historic St.

Augustine Historical Restoration and Preservation Commission choose to acquire the adjacent property and complete the next project, which happened to be their first reconstruction.

Processes or Strategies

Since the lot was vacant, there was no need to demolish existing structures. The project started with a thorough cartographic investigation, in which the 1788 Rocque map confirmed the existence of a building during the Second Spanish Period. Next, an archaeological excavation by Hale G. Smith, identified the location, layout, and building materials of the Salcedo House (Smith August 20, 1960, 10-11, 12). After the location of the foundation was confirmed, the SAHRPC announced the proposed reconstruction.

Before reconstructing the building, the SAHRPC authorized Joyce Harman to complete historic research (Harman 1974). The design of this building was not based on visual or photographic evidence; it was based on Albert Manucy’s, The Houses of St. Augustine, which provided the framework for the design of buildings in the city.

Implementation Tools

According to Ms. Harman’s historic research, the buildings on B12, Lot 22, changed hands several times. In 1763, when the Spanish evacuated St. Augustine,

Alfonsa de la Rosa, daughter of Victoriano and Maria Francesca Avero, left her property in the care of Jesse Fish. This property, along with others, consolidated into Grant No.

3, were granted to Captain Andrew Rainsford. In 1770, this property was sold to

Thomas Stone. In 1783, this property was sold to Leonard Cecil and then to Robert

Johnston. In 1784, when Florida was transferred back to Spain, Don Pedro Jose

Salcedo, Captain and Commander of a Military Detachment, purchased the property

104

with the promise to return the property to Robert Johnston Florida fell to the English, effective for one year. This property included three deteriorated houses of masonry and wood fronting St. George Street (Harman 1974).

By 1788, the Rocque map showed House 44 as a two-story masonry house in good condition. This masonry house had stairs, balcony, courtyard, kitchen, henhouse, and other outbuildings, and a small orchard or garden patch. For a brief time in the

1790s, the house served as the residence of General Jorge Biassou, a Black Haitian revolutionary leader who retired to St. Augustine after fighting the Spanish in Santo

Domingo. In 1795, Salcedo died, leaving no will, during which, the house was rented. In

1805, the house and property were sold at a public auction to Pablo Sabate (Harman

1974).

In Summer 1960, Hale G. Smith and five students conducted archaeological investigations of the Arrivas House and preliminary surveys of Block 12, Lots 22, 23, and 24 for the SAHRPC. Lots 22, 23, and 24 were designated as the Parking Lot Area upon initial excavations. The trench exposed sections of walls, floors, and footings of five houses. House 1 was a two-room house with a porch built with stuccoed tabby walls and tabby floor. It is estimated that House 1 was built between 1650-1700 and was most likely the second of these three houses. House 2 was a ripio (whole shell) walled house and was the first of these three houses. House 3 was also a ripio (whole shell) walled house and was the last of these three houses. All three houses had a tabby floor. House 4 was on Lot 24. The de la Rocque 44 house was on Lot 22 and part of Lot 23. According to de la Rocque’s map, this house was composed of three rooms and a loggia area. The walls of the two rooms nearest the street and the loggia were

105

partially excavated, but the back room was not located. The walls were constructed of shaped coquina blocks and the floor was constructed of tabby. This structure was destroyed by a fire and was not rebuilt (Smith August 20, 1960, 10-11, 12).

According to the St. Augustine Record, the house is expected to bear at least 75 per cent resemblance to the original structure that stood on the site, even though no photographs or visual evidence is available (February 25, 1962 "Work Continues on

Restoration Project"). Earle W. Newton was quoted, “Marianno de la Rocque’s map is so accurate that we can even see the placement of the rooms, the patio and the balcony of the house, all of which is confirmed by the archaeology,” (February 25, 1962

"Work Continues on Restoration Project").

The building was reconstructed without photographic or visual evidence. The cartographic information provided the location, general floor plan, and number of stories of the building. The archaeological investigation confirmed the location, floor plan, and building materials. Manucy’s St. Augustine Plan provided guidance on the shape of the building including the elevation, roof form, and balconies and loggias (Manucy 1962).

The building is a two-story coquina masonry structure with a one-story frame addition. It has a gable roof with wood shingles. It has a wood frame balcony over St. George

Street. There is a loggia along the south wall of the building. (February 25, 1962 "Work

Continues on Restoration Project").

Funding

The total cost of this reconstruction is unknown. Funding for the reconstruction of the Salcedo House most likely came from funding made available by the 1959 House

Bill. This funding made it possible for the SAHRPC to acquire the property, conduct archaeological and historic research, and reconstruct the building. According to the St.

106

Augustine Record, the start of the project was delayed two months while additional land was acquired. After archaeological investigation, it was found that the foundation spilled over into Lot 23. The SAHRPC decided that in order to reconstruct the Salcedo House, they would need to also acquire the adjacent property. It is unknown whether a building existed on the adjacent property or if the SAHRPC had to demolish a building to reconstruct the Salcedo House. State approval for funding was required for the acquisition of the adjacent property (February 25, 1962 "Work Continues on Restoration

Project").

Interpretation

The house, typical of the Second Spanish Period 1784-1821, was built on the foundations of a coquina house listed on the 1788 Rocque map as belonging to Don

Pedro Jose de Salcedo. The historic reproduction was based on the appearance of the house during Salcedo’s ownership. There is a plaque on the exterior of the building with very little information about the building’s historical or architectural significance("The

Avero Complex Description," N.d.). The plaque does not indicate that this building is a reconstruction.

Impacts on Tourism

The Salcedo House had an indirect impact on tourism. The building was rented out as a candy shop and the second floor was rented out as a private residence.

Tourists most likely visited the shop without the benefit that interpretation in the form of a historic house museum can provide. It is likely that tourists enjoyed visiting the building for sweets and not for the significance or background of the building. The rental revenue from the candy shop and residence most likely provided income to the Historic

107

St. Augustine Restoration and Preservation Commission, which they were able to use for other projects.

Impacts to the Urban Environment

The Salcedo House was the first building to be reconstructed by the St.

Augustine Historical Restoration and Preservation Commission. The majority of the site was a vacant parking lot for many years it is unknown whether a building existed on the adjacent property that was acquired to reconstruct the Salcedo House. This building filled a void along St. George Street. As the first reconstruction along this corridor, the

Salcedo House can be considered as the first effort in creating the “Northern Node,” the area along St. George Street between the City Gates and the plaza. The building design was not based on visual or photographic evidence, the design was based on Albert

Manucy’s, The Houses of St. Augustine, and therefore fit in with the neighborhood look that the SAHRPC was trying to achieve for this area of the city.

Integrity Ranking

The reconstruction of the Salcedo House scored 13 out of 22 possible points

(59.09%) for applying Criteria Consideration E and evaluating the potential Criteria of

Significance. The St. Augustine Historic Restoration and Preservation Commission scored two out of five points for accuracy including the ability to extract archaeological and historical data. However, the SAHRPC was not able to find evidence of the historic appearance, locate architectural data and did not reconstruct the building based on evidence of the historic appearance. The Salcedo House house scored two out of two points, reconstructing in a suitable environment. Regarding the Restoration Master

Plans, it scored one out of two points, because it is unknown whether the reconstruction was essential component to a historic district. It is clear that the reconstruction was part

108

of a master plan. In terms of being the last surviving property of a type, the reconstruction scored 0 out of 2 points because there are other examples of this type of building. The Salcedo House qualifies for the National Register under Criteria A:

Events, as it contributes to the preservation efforts during the mid-twentieth century.

Lastly, the Salcedo house retains all seven aspects of integrity.

Table 4-4. Ranking for the Salcedo House Applying Criteria Consideration E: Sub-criteria Yes No Reconstructed Properties 1. Accuracy Is there archaeological data? X Is there architectural data? X Is there historical data? X Is there evidence of appearance? X Was the building reconstructed the X same as the above evidence? 2. Suitable Environment Is the physical context provided by the X historic district? Is there an interpretive scheme, if the X historic district is used for interpretive purposes? 3. Restoration Master Is the reconstruction an essential X Plans component to a historic district? Is the reconstruction part of an overall X restoration plan for an entire district? 4. Last Surviving Property Is the property the only one in the X of a type district with which a particular important activity or event has been historically associated? Is there another property with the same X associative values that has survived? 5. Criteria for Significance Does the property qualify under any of 1 for reconstructions the Criteria (e.g. Event, Person, older than 50 years Design/Construction, Information Potential)? 6. Integrity Does the Property demonstrate a 7 composite of seven aspects of integrity (e.g. location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, association)?

* Table is based on information available to researcher during this examination.

109

Figure 4-11. Bob Steinbach conducting archaeological excavations. 1962. St. Augustine, Florida, University of Florida Government House Research Library. Source: St. Augustine Restoration, Inc. Bob Steinbach (Foreground, Center) Conducting Archaeological Excavations, Exposing Foundational Piers of Prior Structure on Salcedo House Lot, Looking Southeast, 1962.1962 Photograph. Salcedo House (Progress Photographs, Book No. 1). Salcedo House. State of Florida - Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board. UFHSA Government House Research Collections, St. Augustine, FL. http://ufdc.ufl.edu.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/USACH00498/00036 (accessed December 10, 2016). Photo courtesy of University of Florida Government House Research Collections.

110

Figure 4-12. Archaeological excavations at Salcedo House. 1962. St. Augustine, Florida, University of Florida Government House Research Library. Source: St. Augustine Restoration, Inc. Archaeological Excavations at Salcedo House, Exposing the Foundations of an Earlier Structure.1962 Photograph. Salcedo House (Progress Photographs, Book No. 1). Salcedo House. State of Florida - Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board. UFHSA Government House Research Collections, St. Augustine, FL. http://ufdc.ufl.edu.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/USACH00498/00006 (accessed December 10, 2016). Photo courtesy of the University of Florida Government House Research Library.

111

Figure 4-13. Archaeological excavation showing a coquina well on the Salcedo House. 1961. St. Augustine, Florida, University of Florida Government House Research Library. Source: St. Augustine Restoration, Inc. Archaeological Excavation Showing a Coquina Well on the Salcedo House Lot.1961 Photograph. Salcedo House (Progress Photographs, Book No. 1). Salcedo House. State of Florida - Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board. UFHSA Government House Research Collections, St. Augustine, FL. http://ufdc.ufl.edu.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/USACH00498/00005 (accessed December 10, 2016). Photo courtesy of University of Florida Government House Research Library.

112

Figure 4-14. W. E. Puckett. Artist's Rendering of a possible reconstruction of the Salcedo House. N.d. St. Augustine, Florida, University of Florida Government House Research Library. Source: Puckett, W. E. [Artist's Rendering of the Reconstruction of the Salcedo House].n.d. Mixed Material. Salcedo House, Miscellaneous Items From "Misc. Graphics" Drawer. Salcedo House. State of Florida - Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board. UFHSA Government House Research Collections, St. Augustine, FL. http://ufdc.ufl.edu.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/USACH00075/00001 (accessed December 10, 2016). Courtesy of University of Florida Government House Research Library.

113

Figure 4-15. W. E. Puckett. Artist's rendering of the reconstruction of the Salcedo House. N.d. St. Augustine, Florida, University of Florida Government House Research Library. Source: Puckett, W. E. [Artist's Rendering of a Possible Reconstruction of the Salcedo House and Kitchen].n.d. Mixed Material. Salcedo House, Miscellaneous Items From "Misc. Graphics" Drawer. Salcedo House. State of Florida - Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board. UFHSA Government House Research Collections, St. Augustine, FL. http://ufdc.ufl.edu.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/USACH00074/00001 (accessed December 10, 2016). Photo courtesy of University of Florida Government House Research Library.

114

Figure 4-16. Original sketch of the courtyard of the Salcedo House, looking West. N.d. St. Augustine, Florida, University of Florida Government House Research Library. Source: St. Augustine Restoration, Inc. [Original Sketch of the Courtyard of the Salcedo House Showing the Loggia, Looking West Toward the Salcedo Kitchen]. Mixed Material. Salcedo House; Salcedo Kitchen, Miscellaneous Items From "Illustrations" Drawer. Salcedo House. State of Florida - Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board. UFHSA Government House Research Collections, St. Augustine, FL. http://ufdc.ufl.edu.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/USACH00068/00001 (accessed December 10, 2016). Photo courtesy of University of Florida Government House Research Library.

115

Figure 4-17. Construction of Salcedo House, looking Southwest. 1962. St. Augustine, Florida, University of Florida Government House Research Library. Source: St. Augustine Restoration, Inc. Construction of Salcedo House, Second Floor (Complete) and Balcony from St. George Street, Looking Southwest.1962 Photograph. Salcedo House (Progress Photographs, Book No. 1). Salcedo House. State of Florida - Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board. UFHSA Government House Research Collections, St. Augustine, FL. http://ufdc.ufl.edu.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/USACH00498/00013 (accessed December 10, 2016). Photo courtesy of University of Florida Government House Research Library.

116

Figure 4-18. Salcedo House from St. George Street, looking Southwest. 1961. St. Augustine, Florida, University of Florida Government House Research Library. Source: St. Augustine Restoration, Inc. Salcedo House from St. George Street, Looking Southwest.1961 Photograph. Salcedo House (Progress Photographs, Book No. 1). Salcedo House. State of Florida - Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board. UFHSA Government House Research Collections, St. Augustine, FL. http://ufdc.ufl.edu.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/USACH00498/00004 (accessed December 10, 2016). Photo courtesy of University of Florida Government House Research Library.

117

Alexander-Garrido House

The Alexander-Garrido House was the last reconstruction project completed by the St. Augustine Historical Society (SAHS) in 1966. This project was completed the same year as the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and before the development of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. This building was reconstructed after Albert Manucy wrote and published the Houses of St. Augustine.

The Alexander-Garrido House was reconstructed as a private residence to provide rental income to the SAHS. The SAHS Planning Division managed the project. The research phase included chain of title, an archaeological excavation, and historic map and tax list data analysis. The SAHS compensated Mr. Jordan for his design services.

L. J. Shugart, a native craftsman who learned his skills from his father, constructed the rejas. The total cost of the project was $7,000, which was supplied by the SAHS budget.

When the project was complete, the SAHS installed a plaque, interpreting the history to tourists. There are two impacts to tourism: this building was an archaeological excavation site, which provided a place of interest to tourists, and some traditional building techniques were used to reconstruct the building. The existing building on the lot was in poor condition and dismantled in order to reconstruct the Alexander-Garrido

House. The building was designed to fit the mass and scale of the neighborhood. The following information examines eight criteria for analysis.

Stakeholders

The stakeholders involved with the reconstruction of the Manuel de Herrera

House include groups at large and individuals. The groups involved include the St.

Augustine Historical Society Board of Directors and staff. According to the SAHS minutes of meetings, there were at least five Board of Director members and one staff

118

person involved with this project. Certain individuals that stand out are those who provided professional service include Dr. Hale Smith, Robert Steinbach, Albert Manucy,

William Jordan, and Leonard J. Schugart. Tenants include the St. Augustine Historic

Restoration and Preservation Commission’s archaeological department, Frederick deCoste, and the Rogges. Since the building housed the SAHRPC archaeological department, there may have been some overlap between the two organizations. Project management and funding were sponsored by the same organization, which may have made communication more efficient. One aspect to consider is that there may have been verbal communication and agreements that are undocumented.

Table 4-5. List of Stakeholders for the Alexander-Garrido House Stakeholder group Individuals SAHS Board of Directors Honorable David R. Dunham, President Mr. Hiram Faver Mr. Drysdale, Chair of the Property Committee Mr. Albert Manucy, Chairman of Planning Committee Mr. Carver Harris, Business Manager, Planning Committee SAHS Staff Mrs. Dorris Wiles, Historian Professional Services Dr. Hale Smith, Archaeologist Robert Steinbach, Archaeologist of the SAHRPC Albert Manucy, Architect William Jordan, Interior Architecture Leonard J. Shugart, rejas, native craftsman who learned old skills from his father Tenants / Owners Archaeological Department of the SAHRPC Frederik deCoste, a Society member and local author The Rogges, a retired couple looking for housing

* Table is based on information available to researcher during this examination.

Goals and Objectives

The purchase of this property was desirable because it adhered to the Society’s long-range development plan for this area. In 1956, Mr. Faver believed that the Society should acquire as much property as possible in the old section of town because it put

119

the Society in a better position to expect financial assistance for reconstruction and restoration projects. In the early 1960s, the St. Augustine Historical Society wanted to offer tourism options to stay competitive with the St. Augustine Historical Restoration and Preservation Commission ("St. Augustine Historical Society, Minute Books," May

13, 1963).

The existing property, before the reconstruction, generated rental income. In

1957, it rented for $28 per month ("St. Augustine Historical Society, Minute Books,"

January 8, 1957). However, three years later, the house rented for $22.50 per month, and then became vacant. Mr. Drysdale, chairman of the property committee, noted that the building was in poor condition, estimated that it would cost a minimum of $2,000 to put it back in rentable condition, and suggested that the Board consider dismantling the building and having the property cleared ("St. Augustine Historical Society, Minute

Books," February 9, 1960). The Board voted to dismantle the building and clear the property; however, within six months, the building had not been dismantled ("St.

Augustine Historical Society, Minute Books," June 13, 1960). In 1962, the building was occupied by the Archaeological Department of the St. Augustine Historical Restoration and Preservation Commission, who agreed to repaint the interior, for a period of six weeks during the Florida Anthropological Society’s First Annual Dig ("St. Augustine

Historical Society, Minute Books," June 12, 1962).

Processes or Strategies

Dr. Smith did half of the archaeology, and after dismantling the existing building, the Society finished the excavation. In early 1965, the Society proposed working with

Robert Steinbach from the St. Augustine Historic Restoration and Preservation

Commission to complete the excavation ("St. Augustine Historical Society, Minute

120

Books," January 11, 1965). Six months later, Mr. Harris reminded the Board of the excavation and reconstruction opportunity on lot 12. Robert Steinbach agreed to complete the excavation and the existing house was razed. Mr. Harris also suggested that the Board approve the use of the unused coquina for the reconstruction ("St.

Augustine Historical Society, Minute Books," July 12, 1965).

Mr. Harris displayed a plan drawn by Mr. Jordan of the Restoration staff for a little house proposed to be built on lot 12. It was a bachelor’s apartment with one large room and a kitchen, bath, and clothes closet, for rental purposes. The Board agreed that this building would be a fine addition to the street and would eventually bring added revenue to the Society. The Board approved the request for bids for construction ("St. Augustine

Historical Society, Minute Books," September 13, 1965). The proposed building dimensions were 18 by 32 foot. Mr. Harris sold the coquina to Mr. and Mrs. R. P.

Solano, because he thought the coquina should be left exposed to tourists, and if it went onto a building it would have to be stuccoed ("St. Augustine Historical Society, Minute

Books," January 10, 1966).

Implementation Tools

Doris Wiles, historian for the St. Augustine Historical Society, conducted research regarding the chain of ownership of the property. The 1764 de la Puente map listed two houses that might have been on this lot and lot 13 adjoining it on the south.

No. 333 was a tabby house on a narrow lot facing Charlotte Street and belonging to

Rocque Payerya. No. 334, just south of it, was also on a narrow lot and belonged to

Francisco de Leon. Both were sold by Puente to Jesse Fish. Between 1777 and 1865, the property changed hands multiple times. The Garrido family retained the property until 1865 when the heirs sold to Mary Roddy, whose heirs in turn sold it in 1876 to the

121

trustees of the African American Methodist Episcopal Church (Buhrman 1966). It is not known if the razed frame house was built by Mrs. Roddy or by the church. It is listed in

1905 as the African Methodist Episcopal parsonage. After being sold in 1925 for $3,000, it was owned in succession by Mrs. George Gary-Lee, Allice Poullain Archer, Jesse

Quigley and Mrs. Carrie Bell Smathers, an African American seamstress, whose heirs sold it in 1949 to Eli Bennet and wife (Buhrman May 19, 1966). In 1957, the St.

Augustine Historical Society acquired the property for $5,000, from the Bennetts ("St.

Augustine Historical Society, Minute Books," January 8, 1957).

During the First Annual Dig, the Florida Anthropological Society partnered with

Florida State University and Nos. 267, 269 and 271 Charlotte Street were excavated.

No. 267 Charlotte Street had a coquina structure located on the lot. The true nature of this building was not revealed through the excavations. The excavation yielded a structure width of 9.70 feet with one-foot wide walls. Walls A through E gave insight as to the location of some of the walls, uncovered building materials, and defined wall thicknesses. It was hypothesized that because of the similarities to No. 269 Charlotte

Street, it was possible that the structural remains are from one house. Especially, considering that the length of 9.70 seems too narrow. In addition, the structural remains at No. 267 Charlotte could be part of a loggia to a particularly large house. The evidence indicated that the house was built between 1700 and 1725. Further excavation was recommended(Smith 1963, 9-23).

The Puente Map lists two tabby houses that might have been on this lot and on

13, which adjoins it to the south. No. 333 was a tabby house on a narrow lot 6 ½ by 30 varas, facing Charlotte Street belonging to Rocque Peyerya. No. 334, just south of it,

122

was also on a narrow lot, and belonged to Francisco de Leon. Both were sold by Puente to Jesse Fish. The Rocque Map lists a masonry house, its walls in fair condition, without door or windows, owned by Don Juan O’Donovan, on lot No. 247. The map shows a plain rectangular building. It may have been one of the outbuildings described in William

Alexander’s advertisement in the East Florida Gazette, March 1, 1783. The 1790

Quesada list describes the building as No. 190(Buhrman 1966).

The one-story reconstruction was intended to represent a structure north of the larger Alexander House. It does not strictly conform to the shape or location of the structures known on the Rocque Map. The “L” shaped building is flush to the street with an entrance to the yard from a gate. Albert Manucy and William Jordan collaborated together with the design of this building. The flat roof and copper downspouts were designed by Mr. Manucy, historian with the National Park Service, who saw similar ones during his travels as part of a Fulbright Scholarship in Northern Spain. Mr. Manucy incorporated an architectural detail called a reja, or a protective window covering, into the design of the building. L. J. Shugart, a native craftsman who learned his skills from his father, constructed the rejas. William Jordan, staff member of the St. Augustine

Historical Restoration Commission, developed the interior(Buhrman 1966).

Funding

When reconstructing the Alexander-Garrido House was first suggested, the cost estimate was between $3,000-4,000. The estimated income generated from the rental of the property was $35-40 per month ("St. Augustine Historical Society, Minute Books,"

July 12, 1965). The Board approved planning and building the small house on lot 12 for

$4,000 ("St. Augustine Historical Society, Minute Books," August 9, 1965). By

September 1965, the cost increased to $6,000 ("St. Augustine Historical Society, Minute

123

Books," September 13, 1965). One month later, the final figures to construct the little house proposed on lot 12, the cost increased again to $7,000 on a firm bid ("St.

Augustine Historical Society, Minute Books," October 11, 1965). Mr. Harris suggested that the rental income pay off the difference between the proceeds from the lot 10 sale and the bid for lot 12. The estimated rental income was between $50-55 per month. By

November 1965, the firm bid for the construction of the building was $7,644.34 ("St.

Augustine Historical Society, Minute Books," November 8, 1965).

Interpretation

This building represented a building from the British Colonial Period. However, the shape and location of the building do not strictly conform to the Rocque Map of

1788. Most of the design of this building was conjectural. The bulk of the interpretation of the building was focused mainly on the archaeological remains of the building. The

Society specifically stated in their minutes that they wanted to display something that would peak the interest of tourists ("St. Augustine Historical Society, Minute Books,"

June 10, 1963).

Impacts on Tourism

This reconstruction did have some impact on tourism. First, the lot was an active archaeological excavation site, and second, some traditional building techniques were used to reconstruct the building. This project interpreted to the public. According to the

SAHS Minutes Books from April 21, 1959, Mr. Manucy explained the advantages of investigating the Charlotte Street lots, “so that if any foundations are located they can be stabilized and left exposed for the visitors’ inspection,” ("St. Augustine Historical

Society, Minute Books," April 21, 1959). The St. Augustine Historical Society recognized

124

that tourists visiting the Oldest House Museum either passed by the archaeological site, or they learned about it at the museum.

Impacts to the Urban Environment

This building was the last reconstruction project completed by the St. Augustine

Historical Society. The design was in keeping with the aesthetics of the neighborhood.

However, the mass and scale are significantly smaller in comparison to the other preservation projects by the St. Augustine Historical Society and the buildings in the immediate vicinity. This building was an important addition to the city’s growing number of buildings that add to its colonial atmosphere. Mr. Frederik deCoste, a member of the

Society and author of True Tales of Old St. Augustine, moved in when the house was completed ("St. Augustine Historical Society, Minute Books," April 12, 1966, April 18,

1966).

Integrity Ranking

The reconstruction of the Alexander-Garrido House scored 13 out of 22 possible points (59.09%) for applying Criteria Consideration E and evaluating the potential

Criteria of Significance. The St. Augustine Historical Society scored two out of five points for accuracy including the ability to extract archaeological and historical data.

However, the SAHS was not able to find evidence of the historic appearance, locate architectural data and did not reconstruct the building based on evidence of the historic appearance. The Alexander-Garrido house scored two out of two points, reconstructing in a suitable environment. Regarding the Restoration Master Plans, it scored one out of two points, because it is unknown whether the reconstruction was essential component to a historic district. It is clear that the reconstruction was part of a master plan. In terms of being the last surviving property of a type, the reconstruction scored 0 out of 2 points

125

because there are other examples of this type of building. The Alexander-Garrido

House qualifies for the National Register under Criteria A: Events, as it contributes to the preservation efforts during the mid-twentieth century. Lastly, the Alexander-Garrido house retains all seven aspects of integrity.

Table 4-6. Ranking for the Alexander-Garrido House Applying Criteria Consideration E: Sub-criteria Yes No Reconstructed Properties 1. Accuracy Is there archaeological data? X Is there architectural data? X Is there historical data? X Is there evidence of appearance? X Was the building reconstructed the X same as the above evidence? 2. Suitable Environment Is the physical context provided by the X historic district? Is there an interpretive scheme, if the X historic district is used for interpretive purposes? 3. Restoration Master Is the reconstruction an essential X Plans component to a historic district? Is the reconstruction part of an overall X restoration plan for an entire district? 4. Last Surviving Property Is the property the only one in the X of a type district with which a particular important activity or event has been historically associated? Is there another property with the same X associative values that has survived? 5. Criteria for Significance Does the property qualify under any of for reconstructions the Criteria (e.g. Event, Person, older than 50 years Design/Construction, Information Potential)? 6. Integrity Does the Property demonstrate a composite of seven aspects of integrity (e.g. location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, association)?

* Table is based on information available to researcher during this examination.

126

Figure 4-19. Alexander-Garrido House exposed foundations. Ca. 1962. St. Augustine, Florida, St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library. Source: [Photo of the Alexander-Garrido House - Archaeological Excavation]. c. 1962. photograph. St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library, Colonial St. Augustine Photographs, Charlotte Street: Alexander-Garrido #267. Alexander-Garrido House. St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library, St. Augustine, FL. Photo courtesy of St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library.

127

Figure 4-20. Excavation from Hale Smith’s excavation. 1962. St. Augustine, Florida, St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library. Source: Smith, Hale G. 1963. St. Augustine Colonial Archaeology, Florida State University Summer Field Session, 1962. Florida Anthropologist XVI (1): 9-23. Image courtesy of St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library.

128

Figure 4-21. W. L. Jordan. A. Garrido Foundation Plan. N.d. St. Augustine, Florida, St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library. Source: Jordan, William L. A. Garrido Foundation Plan. Architectural drawing. St. Augustine Historical Society Flat Files, 39-2-12. St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library. St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library, St. Augustine, Florida. Image courtesy of St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library.

129

Figure 4-22. W. L. Jordan. A. Garrido House Plan. N.d. St. Augustine, Florida, St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library. Source: Jordan, William L. A. Garrido House Plan. Architectural drawing. St. Augustine Historical Society Flat Files, 39-2-12. St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library. St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library, St. Augustine, Florida. Image courtesy of St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library.

130

Figure 4-23. W. L. Jordan. A. Garrido House Elevation. N.d. St. Augustine, Florida, St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library. Source: Jordan, William L. A. Garrido House Elevation. Architectural drawing. St. Augustine Historical Society Flat Files, 39-2-12. St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library. St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library, St. Augustine, Florida. Image courtesy of St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library.

131

Figure 4-24. The Alexander-Garrido House from Charlotte Street, looking Northeast. Ca. 1966. St. Augustine, Florida, University of Florida Government House Research Library. Source: St. Augustine Restoration, Inc. The Alexander-Garrido House from Charlotte Street, Looking Northeast. ca. 1966. Architectural drawing. Alexander Garrido House, Large Block and Lot Photos. De Hita House. State of Florida - Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board. UFHSA Government House Research Collections, St. Augustine, FL. http://ufdc.ufl.edu.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/USACH00430/00001 (accessed December 10, 2016). Photo courtesy of University of Florida Government House Research Library.

132

Figure 4-25. Kaitlin Dorn. Alexander-Garrido House, Exterior Looking Southeast. March 2012. St. Augustine, Florida. Source: Dorn, Kaitlin. Alexander-Garrido House, Exterior Looking Southeast. 2012. Photograph. Photo courtesy of Author.

133

Figure 4-26. Kaitlin Dorn. Alexander-Garrido House, Exterior Looking Northwest. March 2012. St. Augustine, Florida. Source: Dorn, Kaitlin. Alexander-Garrido House, Exterior Looking Northwest. 2012. Photograph. Photo courtesy of Author.

134

De Hita House

The De Hita House was the last reconstruction project completed in 1979 by the

Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board (HSAPB), formerly known as the St.

Augustine Historic Restoration and Preservation Commission. This project was completed after the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the development of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. In addition, this building was reconstructed after Albert Manucy published the Houses of St. Augustine. The SAHRPC reconstructed the De Hita House to carry out the HSAPB’s mission and to provide an interpretative/educational facility. The SAHRPC members managed the project. Lea

Wells was selected to be the architect for the reconstruction. It is unclear if photographic or visual evidence was used to reconstruct the De Hita House. Funding was provided by the State, a Bi-centennial Commission grant with HSAPB and City of St. Augustine cash matches. When the project was complete, the SAHRPC installed a plaque, interpreting the history to tourists. The De Hita House was interpreted as a “common” building from the First Spanish Colonial Period. This “common” or “typical” building was an educational facility for school groups to learn about eighteenth century Florida. The De

Hita House was reconstructed on a lot that had been vacant for decades. The mass and scale of the building was deliberately designed to fit in with the neighborhood. The following information examines eight criteria for analysis.

Stakeholders

The stakeholder groups involved with the reconstruction of the Salcedo House include the St. Augustine Historic Restoration and Preservation Commission and staff, two departments within the State of Florida, the Florida Board of Trustees, the

Bicentennial Commission, local government, and St. Augustine Restoration, Inc. At

135

least two individuals provided professional services, Dr. Kathleen Deagan and Ms. Lea

Wells. In this case, the local groups provided expertise and several groups provided funds. Because there were multiple people that provided funds, there was, most likely, more paperwork and application processes than if the project was managed and funded by one entity. Most likely, communication between the local experts and other groups took more time, due to postal service communication. This could mean that most of the decisions and communication were well documented.

Table 4-7. List of Stakeholders for the De Hita House Stakeholder group Individuals National Park Service FL Departments Department of Natural Resources, Division of Resource Management, Bureau of State Lands Department of General Services, Division of Building Construction & Property Management, Bureau of Construction FL Board of Trustees Bicentennial Commission William R. Adams, Executive Director of Florida Local Government City of St. Augustine St. Johns County HSAPB Overton G. Ganong, Historian / Acting Director Robert Steinbach, Director, Research & Development Joseph H. Bentley Bradley Brewer, Director SAHRPC Thomas G. Ledford Robert W. Harper Rita O’Brien Janis Guerrero Joe Harvey John W. Griffin, Director SAHRPC St. Augustine Restoration Foundation, Inc. Professional Services Kathleen Deagan, Archaeologist, Florida State University Lea Wells, AIA, Architect, St. Augustine

* Table is based on information available to researcher during this examination.

136

Goals and Objectives

The purposes of this reconstruction were that it contributed to the reconstruction of a portion of the colonial town, it enhanced the visual environment of the San Augustin

Antiguo, and it enabled the Board to undertake an effective educational program. This property was a key parcel in the implementation of the Board’s master plan because of its location (Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board July 14, 1976). The De Hita

House and Gonzalez House were completed concurrently and immediately adjacent to each other, but they are both considered to be separate and independent buildings and the De Hita House was completed after the Gonzalez House by a matter of weeks.

Processes or Strategies

Since the lot was vacant, there was no need to demolish existing structures. The project began with an archaeological excavation by Dr. Kathleen Deagan, Florida State

University, and a historical report by Dr. Overton Ganong, Historic St. Augustine

Preservation Board. The purpose for reconstructing the De Hita House was to provide an educational facility for school children(Ganong May 31, 1977). After successful fundraising, the Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board entered into a lease agreement with the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund and State of Florida Department of State. The list of stakeholders including the City of St.

Augustine / St. Johns County, Bicentennial Commission of Florida, State of Florida

Department of State, and Florida State University most likely added extra time and constraints to this project.

Implementation Tools

According to Dr. Ganong’s historical research, lot 4, which contained the De Hita

House, had at least four different buildings on site since 1763. Geronimo de Hita, who

137

served in the cavalry company and married into a prominent Creole family in St.

Augustine, owned a tabby structure on this lot (Puente, Juan Joseph Elixio de la 1768).

Geronimo de Hita’s tabby house vanished in about 1778, and the lot was vacant for many decades. For much of the time, the lot was incorporated into the property immediately to the north. Cartographic evidence revealed two late nineteenth century structures, one and possibly both of them dwellings. From approximately 1916 to 1951, the lot housed the Dixie Highway Hotel. The lot remained vacant until the Board acquired the property(Ganong March 28, 1975).

In Spring 1975, Dr. Kathleen Deagan and her field school from Florida State

University completed an archaeological excavation of the site. Their work revealed the foundations of the Gonzalez and De Hita houses. According the report, there was a difference in building materials of the De Hita House. Dr. Deagan proposed that the

Geronimo de Hita would have preferred coquina to tabby because of its strength and that gradual home expansion was very common in colonial St. Augustine. She concluded that the two houses [De Hita and Gonzalez] were built before 1763 (Deagan

1975).

In 1977, Lea Wells was selected to be the architect for the De Hita House reconstruction. Wells specified concrete forms and footings, concrete slab with tabby topping, oyster shell tabby walls, and shingle roof. This building also included an HVAC system and indoor plumbing, which were not typical during the First Spanish Colonial

Period. The floor plan was most likely based on archaeological information. It is unknown whether there is documentation regarding the elevations and/or roof form of the building (Wells n.d.b; Wells n.d.a; Pierce August 4, 1978).

138

Funding

Funding for the De Hita House was phased. The foundation stabilization cost a total of $1,827.00, with a $913.50 match from the City of St. Augustine / St. Johns

County Annual appropriation and a $913.50 request from an unidentified entity, but most likely the Bicentennial Commission of Florida(Ganong n.d.). The grant to reconstruct the De Hita House consisted of $6,000.00 from the Bicentennial

Commission of Florida, with a $12,000.00 cash match from the City of St. Augustine and a $6,425.00 in-kind match from the Historic St. Augustine Preservation

Board(Ganong May 31, 1977). The total project cost was $31,500.00 and received approval from the State of Florida, Department of General Services, Division of Building

Construction & Property Management, Bureau of Construction(Brown April 7, 1977).

The project was expected to be completed by June 30, 1977; however, in fall 1979, the

Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board needed a budget increase of $17,998.00 for a total project cost of $49,065.00, which was approved by State of Florida, Department of

General Services, Division of Building Construction & Property Management, Bureau of

Construction(Steinbach September 27, 1979; Brown November 14, 1979).

Interpretation

The house, a two-cell, common-plan structure typical of the period 1720-1763, was built of tabby (oyster-shell concrete) on the original foundations of the eighteenth century home of Geronimo de Hita, a member of one of St. Augustine’s most prominent criollo families. The De Hita and Gonzalez houses were slated for partial reconstruction to illustrate eighteenth-century building materials and techniques (Historic St. Augustine

Preservation Board July 14, 1976).

139

Impacts on Tourism

Tourism was not the primary objective for this particular reconstruction. In fact, this “common” or “typical” building was supposed to be an educational facility for school groups to learn about eighteenth century Florida, without interfering with normal visitation(Ganong May 31, 1977).

Impacts to the Urban Environment

The De Hita and Gonzalez Houses were the last two buildings along St. George

Street to be reconstructed by the Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board. It is unknown whether the Board planned to reconstruct additional buildings. Interestingly, this lot had been vacant from 1778-1916 and again from 1951-1979. The reconstruction of the De Hita House filled in a vacant lot, creating a complete corridor. Completing the corridor may have been the final touch to creating the “Northern Node.” In terms of setting, the De Hita House reconstruction fulfilled its purpose to interpret the node from the period 1720-1763.

Integrity Ranking

The reconstruction of the De Hita House scored 5 out of 14 possible points

(35.71%) for applying Criteria Consideration E and evaluating the potential Criteria of

Significance. The St. Augustine Historic Restoration and Preservation Commission scored two out of five points for accuracy including the ability to extract archaeological and historical data. However, the SAHRPC was not able to find evidence of the historic appearance, locate architectural data and did not reconstruct the building based on evidence of the historic appearance. The De Hita House scored two out of two points, reconstructing in a suitable environment. Regarding the Restoration Master Plans, it scored one out of two points, because it is unknown whether the reconstruction was

140

essential component to a historic district. It is clear that the reconstruction was part of a master plan. In terms of being the last surviving property of a type, the reconstruction scored 0 out of 2 points because there are other examples of this type of building. The

De Hita House does not meet the age requirements to qualify for the National Register.

Currently, the De Hita house retains all seven aspects of integrity.

Table 4-8. Ranking for the De Hita House Applying Criteria Consideration E: Sub-criteria Yes No Reconstructed Properties 1. Accuracy Is there archaeological data? X Is there architectural data? X Is there historical data? X Is there evidence of appearance? X Was the building reconstructed the X same as the above evidence? 2. Suitable Environment Is the physical context provided by the X historic district? Is there an interpretive scheme, if the X historic district is used for interpretive purposes? 3. Restoration Master Is the reconstruction an essential X Plans component to a historic district? Is the reconstruction part of an overall X restoration plan for an entire district? 4. Last Surviving Property Is the property the only one in the X of a type district with which a particular important activity or event has been historically associated? Is there another property with the same X associative values that has survived? 5. Criteria for Significance Does the property qualify under any of 1 for reconstructions the Criteria (e.g. Event, Person, older than 50 years Design/Construction, Information Potential)? 6. Integrity Does the Property demonstrate a 7 composite of seven aspects of integrity (e.g. location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, association)?

* Table is based on information available to researcher during this examination.

141

Figure 4-27. K. A. Deagan. Plan of Excavation (North is Right). 1975. St. Augustine, Florida, University of Florida Government House Research Library. Source: Deagan, Kathleen A. Plan of Excavation De Hita Site Spring 1975. 1975. Research notes. Historic St. Augustine: Block 7 - Lot 4. De Hita House. State of Florida - Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board. UFHSA Government House Research Collections, St. Augustine, FL. http://ufdc.ufl.edu.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/UF00090508/00027 (accessed August 13, 2016). Image courtesy of University of Florida Government House Research Library.

142

Figure 4-28. K. A. Deagan. Plan of Excavation (North is Left). 1975. St. Augustine, Florida, University of Florida Government House Research Library. Source: Deagan, Kathleen A. Plan of Excavation De Hita Site Spring 1975. 1975. Research notes. Historic St. Augustine: Block 7 - Lot 4. De Hita House. State of Florida - Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board. UFHSA Government House Research Collections, St. Augustine, FL. http://ufdc.ufl.edu.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/UF00090508/00027 (accessed August 13, 2016). Image courtesy of University of Florida Government House Research Library.

143

Figure 4-29. R. Steinbach. Drawing, B7L4 Post Evidence. 1977. St. Augustine, Florida, University of Florida Government House Research Library. Source: Steinbach, Robert H. B7L4 Post Evidence De Hita House. March 28, 1977. Site plan / drawing. Historic St. Augustine: Block 7 - Lot 4. De Hita House. State of Florida - Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board. UFHSA Government House Research Collections, St. Augustine, FL. http://ufdc.ufl.edu.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/UF00090508/00017 (accessed August 13, 2016). Image courtesy of University of Florida Government House Research Library.

144

Figure 4-30. L. Wells. Plan of Gonzalez and De Hita houses. N.d. St. Augustine, Florida, University of Florida Government House Research Library. Source: Wells, Lea. Section D-D' -Restrooms 3/8" = 1'-0". n.d. Architectural drawing. Historic St. Augustine. De Hita House. State of Florida - Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board. UFHSA Government House Research Collections, St. Augustine, FL. http://ufdc.ufl.edu.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/UF00090508/00023 (accessed August 13, 2016). Image courtesy of University of Florida Government House Research Library.

145

Figure 4-31. De Hita site prior to construction, with the Avero House on the right. N.d. St. Augustine, Florida, University of Florida Government House Research Library. Source: St. Augustine Restoration, Inc. Fence Surrounding the Gonzalez-De Hita Site Prior to Construction with the Avero House on the Right. Photograph. Gonzalez House (HSAPB Block and Lot Cards). De Hita House. State of Florida - Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board. UFHSA Government House Research Collections, St. Augustine, FL. http://ufdc.ufl.edu.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/USACH00549/00004; (accessed December 10, 2016). Courtesy of University of Florida Government House Research Library.

146

Figure 4-32. De Hita House (left) and Gonzalez House (right) on St. George Street. 1983. St. Augustine, Florida, University of Florida Government House Research Library. Source: St. Augustine Restoration, Inc. De Hita House (Left) and Gonzalez House (Right) on St. George Street. 1983. Photograph. Gonzalez House (HSAPB Block and Lot Cards). De Hita House. State of Florida - Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board. UFHSA Government House Research Collections, St. Augustine, FL. http://ufdc.ufl.edu.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/USACH00549/00011 (accessed August 13, 2016). Photo courtesy of University of Florida Government House Research Library.

147

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION

This thesis documented and examined reconstructions that took place in St.

Augustine, Florida during the mid-twentieth century and evaluated them as potential historical and cultural resources. This thesis also included assessments of integrity for each case study. The Literature Review described the history of US reconstruction projects, identifies the policies and guidelines for the professional practice of historic preservation in the US, describes new techniques since the passage of the National historic Preservation Act and the development of the Secretary of the Interior’s

Standards, and introduces the four case studies with information available on the

Florida Master Site File. After studying these topics, this thesis identified a research question and strategy for inquiry.

The Research Methods identified the research question, identified four case studies to describe how the St. Augustine Historical Society and the St. Augustine

Historic Restoration and Preservation Commission redeveloped the city. Further, this chapter defined the criteria for analysis: Stakeholders, Goals and Objectives, Processes and Strategies, Tools for Implementation, Funding, Interpretation, Impacts on Tourism,

Impacts to the Urban Environment, provide the available evidence to support the reconstruction of the four case studies. The Outcomes examined the criteria for analysis in detail and each case study’s integrity was ranked. This thesis concludes with an assessments of the reconstructions applying Criteria Consideration E: Reconstructions, integrity at the mid-twentieth century, Cirteria for Significance A: Events, and finally integrity as the reconstructions meet the 50-year age requirement for listing on the

National Register of Historic Places.

148

Assessments

Criterion Consideration E: Reconstructions

This assessment is based on the National Register Bulletin, How to Apply the

National Register Criteria for Evaluation. A reconstructed property is eligible when it is accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan and when no other building or structure with the same associations have survived. Although reconstructions were based on archaeological and historical documentation, there is no proof of the visual appearance of the buildings.

One case study did obtain visual evidence through photographs; however, the architectural design did not execute the documented appearance. Regarding the suitability of the environment, the case studies fit into the physical context of a historic district and were part of an interpretive scheme. Many of the reconstructions represent different periods significant to St. Augustine’s history. The master plans created by the

St. Augustine Historical Society and the St. Augustine Historic Restoration and

Preservation Commission emphasize a restoration plan for an entire historic district.

The reconstructed buildings are considered non-contributing to the historic district. It is not clear if the property is the only one in the district with which a particular important activity or event has been historically associated. It is unclear whether any other property with the same associative values has survived. Based on the information examined for each of the case studies, none of the case studies meet the requirements for Criteria Consideration E.

Integrity at Mid-twentieth Century

The mid-twentieth century reconstructions in St. Augustine can be evaluated by examining seven aspects of integrity. Some experts argue that the decision-makers

149

conducted thorough and commendable research. Other experts believe key decision makers took great liberties with research. The aspects of integrity most scrutinized are location, design, materials, and workmanship. The decision makers were successful when it comes to setting, feeling, and association. Clearly, decision-makers of both of the two nodes did not have sufficient evidence through historical documentation to reconstruct exact replicas.

Locations of these reconstructed buildings are based on cartographic and archaeological evidence. Cartographic evidence is based on maps drawn by Puente, an accountant, who created a map very quickly when the City of St. Augustine changed hands from Spain to England; and Mariano de la Rocque, an engineer, who created a map after the City changed hands back to Spain. What were the qualifications of an accountant to draw an accurate map of the city, especially during a short period of stress? Depending on the type of engineering, it seems that Rocque, an engineer, would be more qualified for the job of drawing a map of the city. Setting aside a call to question of the qualifications of the two cartographers, those involved utilized archaeological investigation to assist in determining the location of these vanished buildings. During the 1950s and 1960s restoration period, decision-makers employed the expertise of archaeologists and students to located the remains of buildings. There was a great degree of spot archaeological investigation, because the city as a whole could not dig up to expose all remains.

Design was based on a book written by Albert Manucy about his architectural investigation in northern Spain, especially in Aviles, from where much of the Spanish property owners emigrated. Manucy also had historic paintings and photographs to

150

draw conclusions. However, with a lack of contemporary architectural drawings, there is room for conjecture based on similar architecture style of a similar period. Did Manucy also study architecture in other similar Spanish colonial sites and settlements? For instance, there must have been climate-based adaptations to the colonial buildings in

St. Augustine and other Spanish colonial sites and settlements. Also, consider the difference in the system of measurement employed by the Spanish during the colonial period and the system of measurements employed by decision-makers during the restoration period. Did the decision-makers achieve a direct conversion from the

Spanish colonial system of measurement, varas, to the mid-century system of measurement? During this period, the American system of measurement converted from actual to nominal dimensions. The system of measurement and necessary conversion affects the scale of the city and how the buildings interact along corridors and within each node. In addition, there have been recent intrusions that are not sympathetic to the scale.

Materials used during the Spanish colonial and mid-century periods are different.

As post-World War II architecture is becoming historically significant in its own right, it is becoming more evident that the many materials from the era were manufactured and often experimental or not fully tested. During my research, I did not find any evidence that the decision-makers conducted building materials analyses or specified original building materials. During the Spanish colonial period, the foundations and walls were made from using tabby or coquina, finished with stucco. During the mid-Century period, the foundations were made from poured concrete and the walls from concrete block, finished with stucco. Early builders also used local species of wood from nearby mills.

151

During the mid-twentieth century period, builders may have used local species of wood from nearby mills or from local hardware stores stocked with lumber from across the country. These contemporary wood materials were sold using nominal dimensions, not actual dimensions. Little historic evidence exists regarding roofs and windows. Most mid-Century buildings have flat or low-sloped roofs. During the mid-Century period, modern glass was installed in windows.

Workmanship during the Spanish colonial and mid-twentieth century periods are vastly different. Workmanship includes techniques and technologies. During the

Spanish colonial period, buildings were built with local labor and craftspeople. Builders used traditional techniques and technologies to build both the high-style and vernacular

Spanish colonial buildings. The Castillo de San Marcos, Cathedral, and Government

House are examples of high-style architecture in St. Augustine during the Spanish colonial period. Most other buildings are considered to be vernacular. During the mid- century period, the building industry was less labor-intensive and there were more resources available. The reconstructed buildings are very much representative of mid- century techniques and technologies. There are examples of individual buildings and entire cities that have employed traditional building techniques and technologies in their reconstructions as an educational tool. In St. Augustine, decision-makers did not even consider utilizing traditional building techniques and technologies.

The setting still follows the original choreography of the Laws of the Indies. The

City of St. Augustine town layout is a National Historic Landmark. The elements of the

Laws of the Indies are still evident in the placement of the Castillo, Cathedral, the

Government House, and the street grid pattern that radiates orthogonally in cardinal

152

directions from the plaza located adjacent to the ocean. An aspect of setting that has changed is the architectural evolution of the city over the course of 450 years. During the mid-Century period of restoration and prior, decision-makers have demolished buildings representing different eras to retain the setting of the Spanish colonial period.

The wall that surrounded the city was demolished long before the mid-Century restoration efforts. Immediately adjacent to the walls of the city are Victorian era buildings including the Flagler hotels and Lincolnville, Abbott Tract, Fullerwood, Model

Land Company, Nelmar Terrace, and North City Historic Districts.

The feeling of the City of St. Augustine as a colonial city is still intact. Planners have taken great care to create code language that limits the height of buildings to be no taller than the Cathedral. The scale of “modern” buildings in both Spanish colonial area and its surrounding historic districts are sympathetic to the historic character of the city as a whole. There are some portions of the city where the scale is considerably different from what you would expect, for example along St. George Street, there are modern buildings near the gate and the street widens closer to the plaza. Tourists and specialists alike can wander throughout the city and feel as though they are walking in a

Spanish colonial city. In my opinion, the node south of the plaza including the Oldest

House neighborhood feels more like a Spanish colonial city than the node to the north of the plaza including the Spanish Quarter.

Association of buildings with their historical significance is largely evident through interpretation. There are several buildings within the nodes north and south of the plaza that have extensive opportunities for interpretation via historic house museums with tours and living history areas with interpreters dressed in period clothing, teaching

153

visitors about general St. Augustine history and the colonial periods and building- specific history about the people who lived and owned the buildings and about the nuances of trades and activities that the buildings were used for. A suggestion would be to add more information about the restoration period in the 1950s through 1970s, to not confuse people enjoying the city about what’s truly original and what was reconstructed to look original.

Criteria for Significance

Most of the reconstructions completed by the St. Augustine Historical Society and St. Augustine Historic Restoration and Preservation Commission have met the 50- year age requirement for attaining its own significance for what it reveals about the period in which it was built, rather than the historic period it was intended to depict.

Therefore, the reconstructed buildings qualify for listing on the National Register under

Criteria A: Events, particularly a pattern of events or a historic trend that made a significant contribution to the development of a community. The reconstructed buildings are associated with the redevelopment of the city during the mid-twentieth century. They are significant examples of best practices for reconstruction and restoration master planning just before the adoption of the National Historic Preservation Act and the development of Secretary of the Interior’s Standards at the mid-twentieth century.

Integrity at the 50-year Age Mark

All four of the case studies retain aspects of integrity including location, design, materials, workmanship, setting, feeling, and association. All of the case studies remain on the location of the reconstruction. All of the case studies retain design integrity; no major alterations have changed the character of any building. The setting remains the same as it was at the mid-twentieth century. The feeling of a redeveloped city is evident

154

by a grouping of reconstructed buildings unmarred by intrusions and located on its original site evokes a sense of a recreated colonial city. The reconstructed buildings have remained intact since the mid-twentieth century and retain its quality of association with the redevelopment period. It is unknown to what treatment these buildings receive through maintenance and repairs. It is likely that these reconstructions retain materials and workmanship. Materials and workmanship as aspects of integrity have confused preservation professionals and stewards of these colonial reconstructions. Maintenance and repairs, for example, are of major concern. Should these buildings be maintained and repaired with the same materials that would be expected during the colonial periods or materials used to reconstruct the buildings during the mid-twentieth century? Since these buildings are mid-century reconstructions, any maintenance or repair work should adhere to mid-century materials and building methods.

Suggestions for Future Research

The most important next step for future research would be to document and assess all reconstructions in St. Augustine. There are 35 known reconstructions throughout the city. A future researcher should document each reconstructions looking at the criteria for analysis used in this thesis: stakeholders, goals and objectives, processes or strategies, tools for implementation, funding, interpretation, impacts to tourism, and impacts to the urban environment. Next, the researcher should assess the reconstruction on its merits to be listed on the National Register. The process in this thesis first looked at Criterion for Consideration E: Reconstructions. This criterion looks at accuracy, environmental suitability, contribution to a historic district, contribution to a master plan, and whether the building is the only surviving building of a type. The second step would be to assess the reconstruction’s significance and integrity for listing

155

under Criteria A: Events. Most of the reconstructions, that meet the age requirement, would likely be eligible for their contribution to a pattern of development that occurred as a preservation effort during the mid-twentieth century.

Another idea would be to look at how preservation professionals in St. Augustine viewed and interacted with each other. A trend found in this thesis is that there were overlapping stakeholders, meaning there were several people that worked with multiple groups including the St. Augustine Historical Society, St. Augustine Historic Restoration and Preservation Commission, and the National Parks Service, to name a few. Another trend found in this thesis were indications of mutual support and competition. The

Society was concerned that if they did not develop the Oldest House area, they would lose all the tourists to the Northern portion. In the Northern part of the city, the SAHRPC developed multiple residential buildings opened to the public as a living history museum complex. Another idea would be to look at whether the groups in St. Augustine were competing with other groups nationally. The City of St. Augustine’s preservationists wanted to complete a cohesive restoration project similar to Williamsburg. However,

Williamsburg had one clear vision that was sold to one famous financial backer. St.

Augustine, however, had multiple visions, multiple interested parties, multiple financial backers to redevelop the city. Multiple people created multiple nodes.

One suggestion for future research is to examine whether the buildings described as “blighted” were officially deemed so under the Urban Renewal program. There is specific mention of demolishing buildings that are considered to be slums or blight. For example, The SAHS demolished an African American “slum” to build the Museum

Laboratory and Workshop and demolished an African American church to build the

156

Alexander-Garrido House. If these buildings were officially deemed blighted under the

Urban Renewal program, to what extent were blighted areas associated with pre-Civil

Right Era? Were these blighted areas merely a tool to encourage segregation?

Lastly, comparisons should be made among colonial sites within the United

States and among Spanish colonial sites throughout the Americas and Caribbean.

Some colonial sites within the United States could include British, Spanish, and French colonial sites and settlements. Cultural differences, including governance, faith, cuisine, and language are not comparable. Just like the French Quarter in New Orleans, St.

Augustine should be considered its own unique development that contributes to United

States history and we should celebrate those differences. Comparing St. Augustine to other Spanish colonial sites throughout the Americas and Caribbean could include an assessment of integrity regarding the Laws of the Indies. Research should focus on

Cuba as the closest major port city in the Americas. In addition, it would be interesting to discover the standards for cultural heritage conservation in these other historic

Spanish colonies. Certainly language skills are critical. Also, visiting and spending time in these other sites would add depth to the research because perhaps there are major cultural differences that have evolved after the colonial period.

157

158

LIST OF REFERENCES

[Copy of Architectural Drawing of Gonzalea and De Hita Houses]. Architectural drawing. Historic St. Augustine: Block 7 - Lot 3. De Hita House. State of Florida - Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board. UFHSA Government House Research Collections, St. Augustine, FL. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00090507/00022 (accessed December 10, 2016).

Museum Laboratory. 1955. Escribano 1 (2): p. 2.

The Avero Complex Description. n.d. Historic marker text. Salcedo House (Progress Photographs, Book No. 1). St. Augustine Restoration, Inc. University of Florida Digital Collection, Government House Library, St. Augustine, Florida. St. Augustine Restoration, Inc. (accessed January 13, 2017).

Work Continues on Restoration Project. February 25, 1962.The St. Augustine Record.

Abing, Laura E. 1997. Old Sturbridge Village: An Institutional History of a Cultural Artifact. PhD diss., Marquette University. http://search.proquest.com/docview/304350471?accountid=10920 (accessed November 13, 2011).

Adams, William R. and [et al.]. 1980. Historic Sites and Buildings Survey of St. Augustine, Florida, edited by William R. Adams. http://uf.catalog.fcla.edu/permalink.jsp?20UF000526931 (accessed February 23, 2011).

Beeson, Eleanor. 1937. The St. Augustine Historical Restoration. The Florida Historical Quarterly 16 (2): pp. 110-118. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30138275 (accessed November 23, 2011).

Brewer, Bradley G. 1970. A Synopsis of Restoration. Escribano 7 (2): p. 62-73.

Brown III, Marley R. and Edward A. Chappell. 2004. "Archaeological Authenticity and Reconstruction at Colonial Williamsburg." In The Reconstructed Past: Reconstructions in the Public Interpretation of Archaeology and History, edited by John H. Jameson Jr., 47-64. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Brown, Ronald M. [Letter to Christine W. Speer Re Budget Increase]. November 14, 1979. Correspondence. Historic St. Augustine: Block 7 - Lot 4. De Hita House. State of Florida - Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board. UFHSA Government House Research Collections, St. Augustine, FL. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00090508/00046 (accessed August 13, 2016).

Brown, Thomas R. [Letter of Approval from Thomas R. Brown Re Gonzalez/Dehita Reconstruction]. April 7, 1977. Financial / tax record. Historic St. Augustine: Block 7

159

- Lot 4. De Hita House. State of Florida - Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board. UFHSA Government House Research Collections, St. Augustine, FL. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00090508/00011 (accessed August 13, 2016).

Buhrman, Margaret. 1966. Alexander-Garrido House Completed Historical Society Adds to Reconstruction. St. Augustine Record. May 19.

Chatelain, Verne E. n.d. Historic St. Augustine. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institute.

———. 1939. The St. Augustine Historical Program. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington.

City of St. Augustine. Historic Preservation. City of St. Augustine. http://www.citystaug.com/document_center/PlanningBuilding/HistoricPreservation/A rchitecturalGuidelinesHistoricPreservationAGHP.pdf (accessed January 23, 2012).

City of St. Augustine Planning and Building Department. n.d. Reconstructions in the St. Augustine Historic District. Vol. not to scale. St. Augustine, Florida: City of St. Augustine.

Creswell, John W. 2009. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Deagan, Kathleen A. Plan of Excavation De Hita Site Spring 1975. 1975. Research notes. Historic St. Augustine: Block 7 - Lot 4. De Hita House. State of Florida - Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board. UFHSA Government House Research Collections, St. Augustine, FL. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00090508/00027 (accessed August 13, 2016).

Dickinson, Russell E. Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines [as Amended and Annotated]. National Park Service. https://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/arch_stnds_10.htm (accessed February 13, 2012).

Dorn, Kaitlin. Alexander-Garrido House, Exterior Looking Northwest. 2012a. Photograph.

———. Alexander-Garrido House, Exterior Looking Southeast. 2012b. Photograph.

———. Manuel De Herrera House, Museum Lab Building. 2012c. Photograph.

———. Manuel De Herrera House, Museum Storage Building. 2012d. Photograph.

Fairbanks, George R. 1975. History and Antiquities of St. Augustine, Florida, edited by Michael V. Gannon. Facsimile reproduction of the 1858 ed. Gainesville, FL:

160

University Press of Florida. http://uf.catalog.fcla.edu/permalink.jsp?20000003586 (accessed October 11, 2011).

Fitch, James Marston. 1982. Historic Preservation: Curatorial Management of the Built World. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Gannon, Michael. 2003. Florida: A Short History. Rev. ed. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

Ganong, Overton G. [Letter to William R. Adams Re Reconstruction of Geronimo De Hita House]. May 31, 1977. Correspondence. Historic St. Augustine: Block 7 - Lot 4. De Hita House. State of Florida - Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board. UFHSA Government House Research Collections, St. Augustine, FL. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00090508/00050 (accessed August 13, 2016).

———. Historical Report on Lot 4, Block 7 in the City of St. Augustine, with Chain of Title Appended. March 28, 1975. Report. Historic St. Augustine: Block 7 - Lot 4. De Hita House. State of Florida - Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board. UFHSA Government House Research Collections, St. Augustine, FL. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00090508/00003 (accessed August 13, 2016).

———. Preliminary Project Proposal / Application Foundation Stablization deHita / Gonzalez Site. n.d. Application / form. Historic St. Augustine: Block 7 - Lot 4. De Hita House. State of Florida - Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board. UFHSA Government House Research Collections, St. Augustine, FL. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00090508/00007 (accessed August 13, 2016).

Gomes, Peter J. 1985. Henry Hornblower II. Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society 97: pp. 157-160. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25080951 (accessed December 19, 2011).

Gordon, Elsbeth K. 2002. Florida's Colonial Architectural Heritage. The Florida Heritage Series. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.

Graham, Thomas. 2004. Flagler's St. Augustine Hotels: The Ponce De Leon, the Alcazar, and the Casa Monica. Sarasota, FL: Pineapple Press.

———. 1985. St. Augustine Historical Society 1883-1983. The Florida Historical Quarterly 64 (1): 1-31. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30149904 (accessed October 13, 2011).

Griffin, John W. Archaeological Field Notes Lot 9, Block 27 Test A. 1954. Field Notes. Vertical File, Colonial File, 257 Charlotte Street - Manuel de Herrera House (BLK 27, Lot 9). Manuel de Herrera House. St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library, St. Augustine, FL. (accessed March 20, 2011).

161

Grimmer, Anne E. and Kay D. Weeks. 1995. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties: With Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnership, Heritage Preservation Services (accessed 20 Oct. 2011).

Harman, Joyce. B12 L22 Salcedo House Study. 1974. Correspondence. Historic St. Augustine: Block 12 Lot 22 Salcedo House Study. Salcedo House. State of Florida - Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board. UFHSA Government House Research Collections, St. Augustine, FL. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00096027/00002 (accessed December 10, 2016).

Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board. 1971. Guide Book. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of State. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00000568/00001?search=guidebook+=1971 (accessed August 16, 2011).

———. Statement of Historical Significance. July 14, 1976. Report. Historic St. Augustine: Block 7 - Lot 4. De Hita House. State of Florida - Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board. UFHSA Government House Research Collections, St. Augustine, FL. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00090508/00001 (accessed August 13 2016).

Historic St. Mary's City. Reconstructing the Brick Chapel of 1667. Historic St. Mary’s City. http://www.hsmcdigshistory.org/pdf/Chapel-Reconstruction.pdf (accessed January 8, 2017).

Holland, Alyssa G. 2011. The Reconstruction of Historical Buildings a Visitor and Historical Site Study. Master's thesis, Virginia Commonwealth University (accessed November 13, 2011).

Hollingsworth, F. A. Elevation Drawings of the Museum Storage Building. a. Architectural drawing. St. Augustine Historical Society Flat Files, 39-3-14a. St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library. St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library, St. Augustine, Florida.

———. First Floor, Foundation Plan, Section, and Details of the Museum Storage Building. b. Architectural drawing. St. Augustine Historical Society Flat Files, 39-3- 13a. St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library. St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library, St. Augustine, Florida.

———. Floor Plan, Foundation, Section, and Details of the Museum Storage Building. c. Architectural drawing. St. Augustine Historical Society Flat Files, 39-3-13. St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library. St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library, St. Augustine, Florida.

162

———. Perspective Drawing of the Museum Storage Building. d. Architectural drawing. St. Augustine Historical Society Flat Files, 39-3-14b. St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library. St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library, St. Augustine, Florida.

———. Second Floor Plan, Elevation Drawings, and Details of the Museum Storage Building. e. Architectural drawing. St. Augustine Historical Society Flat Files, 39-3- 13b. St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library. St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library, St. Augustine, Florida.

Hosmer, Charles B., Jr. 1980. Preservation Comes of Age: From Williamsburg to the National Trust, 1926-1949. Bulletin of the Association for Preservation Technology 12 (3): pp. 20-27. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1493780 (accessed December 19, 2011).

ICOMOS. International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (the Venice Chater 1964). https://www.icomos.org/charters/venice_e.pdf (accessed January 29, 2017).

———. The Nara Document on Authenticity. http://whc.unesco.org/events/gt- zimbabwe/nara.htm (accessed January 29, 2017).

Jerome, Pamela. 2008. An Introduction to Authenticity in Preservation. APT Bulletin 39 (2/3): pp. 3-7. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25433945 (accessed January 29, 2017).

Jordan, William L. A. Garrido Foundation Plan. a. Architectural drawing. St. Augustine Historical Society Flat Files, 39-2-12. St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library. St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library, St. Augustine, Florida.

———. A. Garrido House Elevation. b. Architectural drawing. St. Augustine Historical Society Flat Files, 39-2-12. St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library. St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library, St. Augustine, Florida.

———. A. Garrido House Plan. c. Architectural drawing. St. Augustine Historical Society Flat Files, 39-2-12. St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library. St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library, St. Augustine, Florida.

Manucy, Albert C. Development Plan for the St. Augustine Historical Society. 1955. Minute books. St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library, Administrative Collection, Minute Books. St. Augustine Historical Society. St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library, St. Augustine, Florida. (accessed August 2012).

———. 1962. The Houses of St. Augustine: Notes on the Architecture from 1565 to 1821, edited by Floridiana Collection, St. Augustine Historical Society. St. Augustine, FL: St. Augustine Historical Society.

163

———. 1944. A Review of the St. Augustine Historical Program. The Hispanic American Historical Review 24 (2): pp. 352-356. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2507856 (accessed December 12, 2011).

Mateer, Megan. 2006. Living History as Performance: An Analysis of the Manner in which Historical Narrative is Developed through Performance. PhD diss., Bowling Green State University. http://search.proquest.com/docview/305354713?accountid=10920 (accessed November 13, 2011).

Matero, Frank. Ben's House: Designing History at Franklin Court, Philadelphia. Archaeological Institute of America. AIA Site Preservation Program. Heritage, Conservation, and Archaeology. http://www.archaeological.org/pdfs/sitepreservation/Matero_2010_v.6.pdf (accessed February 18, 2012).

National Historic Landmark. 1970. St. Augustine Town Plan Historic District: St. Augustine, St. John's County, Florida, National Historic Landmark #70000847. http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NHLS/Text/70000847.pdf (accessed October 23, 2011).

National Register of Historic Places. 1986. St. Augustine Town Plan Historic District: St. Augustine, St. John's County, Florida, National Register #70000847. http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/70000847.pdf (accessed October 23, 2011).

Nuttall, Zelia. 1922. Royal Ordinances Concerning the Laying Out of New Towns. The Hispanic American Historical Review 5 (2): 249-254. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2506027 (accessed December 12, 2011).

Old Sturbridge Village. Early History of Old Sturbridge Village. http://www.osv.org/museum/history.html (accessed February 18, 2012).

Oxford Learner's Dictionary. Authentic. http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/authentic?q=authent ic (accessed January 29, 2017).

———. Conjecture. http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/conjecture_1?q=con jecture (accessed January 29, 2017).

Peterson, Steven D., Peter Jaret, and Barbara Findlay Schenck. 2014. "Defining Your Business Purpose and Structure." In Business Plans Kit for Dummies®, edited by Steven D. Peterson, Peter Jaret and Barbara Findlay Schenck. 4th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

164

Pierce, Mary I. Purchase Order to Lea Wells Re DeHita/Gonzalez Houses. August 4, 1978. Financial / tax record. Historic St. Augustine: Block 7 - Lot 4. De Hita House. State of Florida - Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board. UFHSA Government House Research Collections, St. Augustine, FL. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00090508/00041 (accessed August 13, 2016).

Preservation50. Future Public Policy. http://preservation50.org/future-public-policy/# (accessed January 29, 2017).

Puckett, W. E. [Artist's Rendering of a Possible Reconstruction of the Salcedo House and Kitchen]. n.d.a. Mixed Material. Salcedo House, Miscellaneous Items From "Misc. Graphics" Drawer. Salcedo House. State of Florida - Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board. UFHSA Government House Research Collections, St. Augustine, FL. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/USACH00074/00001 (accessed December 10, 2016).

———. [Artist's Rendering of the Reconstruction of the Salcedo House]. n.d.b. Mixed Material. Salcedo House, Miscellaneous Items From "Misc. Graphics" Drawer. Salcedo House. State of Florida - Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board. UFHSA Government House Research Collections, St. Augustine, FL. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/USACH00075/00001 (accessed December 10, 2016).

Puente, Juan Joseph Elixio de la. 1768. Plano Del Presidio San Agustin De La Florida, edited by Elixio de la Puente, Juan Joseph.

Ries, Elizabeth S. 2008. Preserving the Imagined Past: Reconstructions and the National Park Service. Certificate, University of Maryland.

Schnee, Clara Silverstein. 2011. One Nation, Two Founding Stories: A Study of Public History at Jamestown and Plymouth. Master's thesis, University of Massachusetts Boston. http://search.proquest.com/docview/890163538?accountid=10920 (accessed November 13, 2011).

Smith, Hale G. Final Report of Archaeological Investigations of the Arrivas House and a Preliminary Survey of Block 12, Lots 22, 23, and 24. August 20, 1960. Report. B12- L22. Salcedo House. State of Florida - Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board. UFHSA Government House Research Collections, St. Augustine, FL. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00087026/00001 (accessed December 10, 2016).

———. 1963. St. Augustine Colonial Archaeology, Florida State University Summer Field Session, 1962. Florida Anthropologist XVI (1): 9-23.

Special Advisory Committee and Board of Parks and Historic Memorials. 1959. The St. Augustine Restoration Plan. St. Augustine, FL.

165

St. Augustine Historical Restoration and Preservation Commission. 1961. The Restoration of Saint Augustine, Oldest City in the United States. St. Augustine, FL. http://uf.catalog.fcla.edu/permalink.jsp?20UF000133941 (accessed August 18, 2011).

St. Augustine Historical Society. Minute Books. Minute books. Administrative Collection, Minute Books. St. Augustine Historical Society. St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library, St. Augustine, Florida. (accessed August 2012).

———. St. Augustine Historical Society Vertical Files, Charlotte Street: Alexander- Garrido House #267. c. 1962. Photograph. St. Augustine Historical Society. St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library, St. Augustine, Florida.

———. St. Augustine Historical Society Vertical Files, Charlotte Street: Manuel De Herrera House. c. 1876. Photograph. St. Augustine Historical Society. St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library, St. Augustine, Florida.

———. St. Augustine Historical Society Vertical Files, Charlotte Street: Manuel De Herrera House. c. 1893. Photograph. St. Augustine Historical Society. St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library, St. Augustine, Florida.

St. Augustine Restoration, Inc. [Original Sketch of the Courtyard of the Salcedo House Showing the Loggia, Looking West Toward the Salcedo Kitchen]. a. Mixed Material. Salcedo House; Salcedo Kitchen, Miscellaneous Items From "Illustrations" Drawer. Salcedo House. State of Florida - Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board. UFHSA Government House Research Collections, St. Augustine, FL. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/USACH00068/00001 (accessed December 10, 2016).

———. The Alexander-Garrido House from Charlotte Street, Looking Northeast. ca. 1966. Architectural drawing. Alexander Garrido House, Large Block and Lot Photos. De Hita House. State of Florida - Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board. UFHSA Government House Research Collections, St. Augustine, FL. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/USACH00430/00001 (accessed December 10, 2016).

———. Archaeological Excavation Showing a Coquina Well on the Salcedo House Lot. 1961a. Photograph. Salcedo House (Progress Photographs, Book No. 1). Salcedo House. State of Florida - Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board. UFHSA Government House Research Collections, St. Augustine, FL. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/USACH00498/00005 (accessed December 10, 2016).

———. Archaeological Excavations at Salcedo House, Exposing the Foundations of an Earlier Structure. 1962a. Photograph. Salcedo House (Progress Photographs, Book No. 1). Salcedo House. State of Florida - Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board. UFHSA Government House Research Collections, St. Augustine, FL. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/USACH00498/00006 (accessed December 10, 2016).

166

———. Bob Steinbach (Foreground, Center) Conducting Archaeological Excavations, Exposing Foundational Piers of Prior Structure on Salcedo House Lot, Looking Southeast, 1962. 1962b. Photograph. Salcedo House (Progress Photographs, Book No. 1). Salcedo House. State of Florida - Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board. UFHSA Government House Research Collections, St. Augustine, FL. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/USACH00498/00036 (accessed December 10, 2016).

———. Construction of Salcedo House, Second Floor (Complete) and Balcony from St. George Street, Looking Southwest. 1962c. Photograph. Salcedo House (Progress Photographs, Book No. 1). Salcedo House. State of Florida - Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board. UFHSA Government House Research Collections, St. Augustine, FL. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/USACH00498/00013 (accessed December 10, 2016).

———. Fence Surrounding the Gonzalez-De Hita Site Prior to Construction with the Avero House on the Right. b. Photograph. Gonzalez House (HSAPB Block and Lot Cards). De Hita House. State of Florida - Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board. UFHSA Government House Research Collections, St. Augustine, FL. http://ufdc.ufl.edu.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/USACH00549/00004; (accessed December 10, 2016).

———. De Hita House (Left) and Gonzalez House (Right) on St. George Street. 1983. Photograph. Gonzalez House (HSAPB Block and Lot Cards). De Hita House. State of Florida - Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board. UFHSA Government House Research Collections, St. Augustine, FL. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/USACH00549/00011 (accessed August 13, 2016).

———. Salcedo House from St. George Street, Looking Southwest. 1961b. Photograph. Salcedo House (Progress Photographs, Book No. 1). Salcedo House. State of Florida - Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board. UFHSA Government House Research Collections, St. Augustine, FL. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/USACH00498/00004 (accessed December 10, 2016).

Starn, Randolph. 2002. Authenticity and Historic Preservation: Towards an Authentic History. History of the Human Sciences 15 (1): 1-16. doi:10.1177/0952695102015001070.

Steinbach, Robert H. B7L4 Post Evidence De Hita House. March 28, 1977. Site plan / drawing. Historic St. Augustine: Block 7 - Lot 4. De Hita House. State of Florida - Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board. UFHSA Government House Research Collections, St. Augustine, FL. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00090508/00017 (accessed August 13, 2016).

———. Letter to Dennis Brooks Re De Hite & Gonzalez House (Project no. DOS 0504) Appropriation Code 2-455-0503. September 27, 1979. Correspondence. Historic St. Augustine: Block 7 - Lot 4. De Hita House. State of Florida - Historic St. Augustine

167

Preservation Board. UFHSA Government House Research Collections, St. Augustine, FL. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00090508/00048 (accessed August 13, 2016).

Stone, Fred. [Letter to David Dunham]. N.d. Correspondence. Vertical File, Colonial File, 257 Charlotte Street - Manuel de Herrera House (BLK 27, Lot 9). Manuel de Herrera House. St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library, St. Augustine, FL. (accessed March 20, 2011).

Stovel, Herb. 2008. Origins and Influence of the Nara Document on Authenticity. APT Bulletin 39 (2/3): pp. 9-17. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25433946 (accessed December 5, 2011).

Tuttle II, Jackson C. From Oligarchy to Democracy: Governing Virginia's First City. City of Williamsburg: History of City Government. http://www.williamsburgva.gov/Index.aspx?page=125 (accessed January 23, 2012).

Tyler, Norman. 2009. Historic Preservation: An Introduction to its History, Principles, and Practice, edited by Ted Ligibel, Ilene R. Tyler. 2nd ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Parks Service. https://www.nps.gov/Nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/nrb15_2.htm (accessed January 29, 2017).

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places. 1997. National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Completing the National Register of Historic Places Forms: Part A - how to Complete the National Register Registration Form.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. http://whc.unesco.org/en/publications/ (accessed January 29, 2017).

United States, National Center for Cultural Resources (U.S.), and National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers. 2006. Federal Historic Preservation Laws: The Official Compilation of U.S. Cultural Heritage Statutes. Washington, DC: Cultural Resources, National Park Service, U.S. Dept. of the Interior; For sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. G.P.O.

Warren, E. B. Sketch Drawing of the Don Manuel De Herrera House. n.d. Architectural drawing. St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library. St. Augustine Historical Society Research Library, St. Augustine, Florida.

Wells, Lea. Schedule of Values. n.d.a. Financial / tax record. Historic St. Augustine: Block 7 - Lot 4. De Hita House. State of Florida - Historic St. Augustine

168

Preservation Board. UFHSA Government House Research Collections, St. Augustine, FL. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00090508/00043 (accessed August 13, 2016).

———. Section D-D' -Restrooms 3/8" = 1'-0". n.d.b. Architectural drawing. Historic St. Augustine. De Hita House. State of Florida - Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board. UFHSA Government House Research Collections, St. Augustine, FL. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00090508/00023 (accessed August 13, 2016).

Yin, Robert K. 2012. Applications of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

———. 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 4th ed. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

169

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Kaitlin Dorn was born in Evanston, Illinois, grew up in Palatine, Illinois. After graduating from Buffalo Grove High School, she started her undergraduate degree in architectural studies at Southern Illinois University- Carbondale. She graduated with a

Bachelor of Science in architectural studies and a Bachelor of Arts in history. She began her graduate coursework with the Preservation Institute: Nantucket, after which she spent two years in Gainesville, Florida taking graduate coursework and working. After participating in the Global Heritage Studio: Indonesia, she volunteered with AmeriCorps

VISTA – Hawaiian Community Assets. She lived in St. Augustine for two years. She currently lives in Colorado. After taking a few breaks, Ms. Dorn decided that she needed to finish because higher education is the most important experience she should finish for herself.

170