To demolish, or not demolish. That is the question being pondered by officials at Gettysburg National Military Park over their empty Cyclorama building.
Originally, park officials were planning to tear down the structure, which became somewhat obsolete after the Cyclorama painting -- an elaborate depiction of Pickett's Charge up Cemetery Ridge -- was moved to the park's new visitor center. But then a federal court ordered the park to consider other alternatives for the building, which was built on North Cemetery Ridge in 1962 and is eligible for listing on the National Register.
There will be two open houses for the public to weigh in on this decision as the park moves forward with an environmental assessment examining the building's future. The meetings -- to be held in the classroom at the park Museum and Visitor Center, 1195 Baltimore Pike, Gettysburg -- are scheduled for September 16 and 17. The first session will be on September 16 at 7:00 p.m. Another session will be held on September 17, from 2:00 to 5:00 p.m.
Information about the planning process soon will be available for review at this site.
The Cyclorama building was designed by noted architect Richard Neutra and was constructed on an area of the Gettysburg battlefield where major battle action occurred.
In 1999, the NPS approved a General Management Plan for Gettysburg NMP that called for (among numerous other actions) the demolition of the Cyclorama building so as to provide for the long-term preservation of the Cyclorama painting (a National Historic Object) and the rehabilitation of the historic landscapes of the battlefield.
During the general management planning process the Park Service consulted with the Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Officer, the President’s Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, numerous interested parties, and the public. The Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Officer and the President’s Advisory Council on Historic Preservation both approved the demolition of the building in order to rehabilitate the 1863 battlefield, as did the majority of the public comments received.
The current planning process will consider a range of alternatives including: keeping the building in its current site and "mothballing" it; reusing the building in its current site; relocating the building to a new site; and demolishing the building to return the area to its appearance at the time of the fighting of this pivotal Civil War battle in July 1863.
"We respectfully request the public’s thoughtful evaluation and comments on these questions: 1) What are the planning issues we should be thinking about?; 2) What are the alternatives we should be considering?; 3) What are the important impacts we should be evaluating?" said Gettysburg Superintendent Bob Kirby. "Comments would be most useful if we can receive them by October 1, 2010,"
Comments may be submitted by regular mail to: Superintendent, Gettysburg National Military Park, 1195 Baltimore Pike, Suite 100, Gettysburg, PA 17325; via the Internet at www.nps.gov/gett, click on "Management" and then click on "Public Involvement" or at parkplanning.nps.gov; e-mail us or by fax to 717/ 334-1891, attn: Cyclorama building.
For more information or questions concerning the planning process, please contact park management assistant Katie Lawhon at 717/ 334-1124 x 3121.
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
Maybe I missed something - but what were the arguments for keeping the building? Some building built in the 60's to hold a painting since removed hardly seems historic - especially in relation to the ground it is sitting on.
The building was built to house the cyclorama? The painting is now gone. I've been in the building and fail to see where it qualifies for any sort of historic standing. Tear it down.
I feel that the history of the place far out weighs the architectural history of the building. The grounds and adjacent parking lots should be restored to the 1863 appearance of Ziegler's Grove. If a group wants the building then THEY should pay for the moving of it not the tax payers.
First time I saw that building I wondered why a holding tank from a wastewater treatment facility had been placed on the battlefield.
The only historic thing is the land, not the building. Tear it down.
“Renovate the building and install several hundred slot machines………… Give the new Casino some Competition” ;o))
How many dollars would it bring to NPS?
Semper Fi
Larry
Although the idea of preserving the building is a valid one and deserves some debate I feel that the core issue should be the restoration of the battlefield to its 1863 condition. Standing on the battlefield and being able to visualize those days in July of 1863 would be much more satisying with fewer obstructions.
Let me get this right: demolition has been held up because the Cyclorama Building "is eligible for listing on the National Register". Under this rationale if a building has been around long enough, that should outweigh the reason for Gettysburg National Military Park. If this is the case, some monstrosity could be built today at Gettysburg and have National Register eligibility if it stays around long enough and, as such, we should change the name of of Gettysburg NMP to Old Building National Historic site.
Gettysburg NMP exists for visitors to understand what went on there during the Battle of Gettysburg. The building that housed the cyclorama no longer fulfills that purpose. Having an unnecessary building there, regardless of whether it is eligible for National Register listing, detracts from the reason that there is a Gettysburg NMP.
The building should be demolished, unless a preservation group wishes to move the building at that group's expense. Said group should be given a finite time period with which to accompany that goal -- no excuses and no extensions.
The building should be torn down. It does not add to the surrounding land, but detracts from it. I disagree that just because a building is old that it should hold an historic significance. Sometimes things are just old and need to be disposed of.
Hold an auction for the building, with the caveat that the winning bidder will be obligated to move the building to another location by a date certain. If there is no preservation group or individual able and willing to take on the challenge/opportunity, then it should be torn down as planned. This moves the process along but gives interested parties an opportunity to save it, albeit in another location.
Nothing is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places simply because it is old. It has to have historic significance in order to be eligible. The Cyclorama Building has significance in two ways: it is an architecturally important building because its architect, Richard Neutra, was a notable Modernist architect and he considered the building to be the best example of his work; and it is important as an example of NPS Mission 66 development, a period when putting visitor centers right in the middle of the action, so to speak, was the thing to do.
That said, not all historically significant buildings, even those listed in the National Register, have to be preserved. Thorough documentation of the building through the Historic American Buildings Survey might be an appropriate course of action that would acknowledge the importance of the building while allowing for its demolition and restoration of the battlefield.
Can I, a s a foreigner, but committed Civil War enthusiast make a contribution? The value of the building is a matter for architectural historians. As a military historian I do not feel qualified to comment one way or the other. As a military historian I cannot see any argument for retaining the building on the current site. If the building is to be retained solely on it's architectural merit - and there may be good reasons for that - then the actual location of the building is not significant; anyone who wants to visit it can be mnade aware (though they surely shouild not need to be made aware) that the building was, origanlly, located on Gettysburg battlefield.
Architiectural historians should, by all means, endeavour to presserve the building if it is atrisitcially significant, but not on any part of the battlefield. We have a similar problem here is Scotland. In the 1960s a vast and hideous structure was built at the site of one of the three actions of the Battle of Bannockburn. Much as the NTS (owners of the site) would like to have it demolished, it has 'A listed' status, so it is impossible to get rid of - though, possibly unlike the Neutra building - it has no archtiectural merit whatsoever. If the Neutra building is allowed to remain 'in situ' despite having lost its function (housing the cyclorama) it will be a white lelphant and the longer it stands there, the harder it will be to get rid of.
Dear Catherine: this decrepit and poorly engineered building is by no means Richard Neutra's best work.
Neutra is best known for domestic buildings; he built private houses. That is what his reputation is built on, and why he is known, insofar as he is known. People tried to say this building is distinctive because it is one of his few public buildings, compared to his private homes.
A major push was made in the past to certify this building as worthy to be a National Historic Landmark, again arguing it as a rare example of a Neutra public building. The Secretary's Advisory Council on National Parks and Monuments rejected those arguments. Neutra should have stuck with houses, something he knew.
The building was so poorly designed that it failed in its main purpose, protecting the Cyclorama. Amazingly, it was too small to properly stretch the canvas to its original shape, so the painting began to crack, and if you walked around it, everyday you saw new pieces of paint scattered beneath like dandruff. Appalling.
I am not opposed in principle to celebrity architects, nor to modern and inventive architecture. But this building was poorly sited and failed in the key obsession of modern architecture: function. It never worked.
But the merits of the Neutra building, even if you do not agree with this assessment of the Cyclorama building, are not what this fight is about. This fight is just about fighting, it is about men trying to get even with each other, and throwing every weapon or rationalization they can at each other to be as destructive as possible. Originally, it even seemed as if some of the pro-Neutra partisans would have been happy to tear down the building if only they had won the contract. But, they didn't. As Tallyrand said: "they never learn, and they never forget. . ." There is no doubt that the previous superintendent made himself the issue or the target, but he was right to try to rethink the core interpretive message at Gettysburg: the meaning not the tactics of the war, and the value of the hollowed ground.
Time to let these silly fights go.
Y'all know that the ground is not to be restored to its "1863 condition" right? The NPS has revealed drawings for the site that show retention of the Rosensteel parking lot for more than 40 buses and some number of cars as well.
Looks like a big tuna can, put it in the recyclables and set it on the curb.
The building is too far gone to restore. HVAC system would have to be completely replaced a great expense. It should be torn down and recycled as far as possible. Restore the site to battlefield condition.
Also, after spending a full day at the park, I did not find one significant memorial to the civilians who were wounded, killed, or risked their lives to save and care for the wounded and dying on both sides. It would be fitting to create a memorial to them, and list their names. War is not glorious, though often it is a terrible necessity that takes its toll on the innocent as well as the combatants.
The ground the building sits on is historic. The painting it once housed is historic. The building is not. Just tear it down and move on. We have wasted enough time fighting over this piece of junk. Spending money to make the structure able to be used again would be on the edge of stupid. Being forced to do so would be idiotic. It is now an obsolete moldy,crumbling, rusting, flaking of probably lead paint on to the battlefield and its visitors. The money needed to make this building safe and healthy to be in would be in the millions.
There are more important projects like operating, restoring and keeping the battlefield in a condition that honors those who fell there and the cause for which they fought. But we have to spending it on lawyers and court fees to fight a ridiculous lawsuit.
Sorry Mr. Neutra you father's building must come down.
Not sure why this is even an issue. The building is functionally obsolete, and looks like it belongs at a sewage treatment plant, not a civil war battlefield.
Please tear this building down. It is a hideous modern intrusion into the Gettysburg landscape that detracts from the 1863 landscape appearance. Someone mentioned an auction. The "Neutra" group was given the option to buy it for one dollar and move the building. They declined. That group couldn't raise enough money to even move it three feet. With no monetary outpouring from the Architectual Preservation crowd, it would seem that the whole legal process was a needless waste of time and tax-payers' money. Can't wait for the building to be demolished.