William Howard Taft An Administrative History

The development of a master plan for the Taft National Historic Site was a process wrapped in controversy from the time of the issuance of the first master plan in 1970. Almost as soon as it was read by the National Park Service historical architects and historians who undertook specialized research studies in the early 1970s, the first master plan was condemned. The process of preparing a revised master plan began in earnest in 1974. While the major parties agreed to a compromise master plan in 1978, the final version of the plan was not published until 1981. Even then, controversy continued.

To an outsider, the years devoted to preparing a new master plan for the Taft home can be viewed as an exercise that only a governmental bureaucracy could invent to keep its professional staff occupied. But, in practice, the bureau argued that funds could not be intelligently spent on the development, refurnishing, and interpretation of the property until a plan had been formulated. Otherwise, costly mistakes could be made and valuable information could be lost in the process.

The succession of events that make up the story of the site's master plan dispels any notion that the National Park Service is "monolithic" in its professional approach to history and historic resources. Rather, the bureau is populated by historians, historical architects, interpretive specialists, and other professionals whose experience and points of view cover the spectrum of possibilities. This range of professional opinion accounts for the lack of consensus that plagued the planning process.

The essential obstacle in the master plan effort was the lack of sufficient information upon which to base decisions. When the effort to develop a new master plan was launched in 1974, four key reports had been completed and approved: the historical data report prepared by Historian Edwin C. Bearss, the architectural data report by Architect Norman M. Souder, and the two archeological studies prepared by Major Charles Ross McCollough. As the process proceeded, members of the master plan team had difficulty relating the historical record to the building fabric. The architectural study performed by Souder focused on what he could see on the surface of the interior. His investigations did not involve stripping away walls to determine what elements dated from Taft's boyhood period and what dated from later periods. In the absence of a more thorough investigation of the building's fabric, members of the study team thought that recommendations on which rooms to restore were speculative. The lack of a thorough furnishings study was an impediment to resolving questions about which rooms could be refurnished.

The preparation of the master plan in the 1970s also was affected by the recently passed National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the indecision on the part of the National Park Service on how to incorporate its provisions into the master planning process. In the early years, federal agencies groped for guidance on standards for environmental impact analyses. Some environmental impact statements were a few pages in length, while others were book-length. Analyses of environmental impacts required the consideration of a range of alternatives. At times, alternatives presented were not feasible under any circumstances. They were subjected to analysis anyway.

At the same time, the National Park Service's own policies regarding the treatment of historic resources were evolving. Where one level of historical documentation was considered sufficient for restoration and refurnishing in the early 1970s, the same level was considered insufficient in the latter part of that decade. The clash of the new and the old policies was played out during the seven-year effort toward a new master plan for the Taft National Historic Site.

The situation was further complicated by the various centers of decision-making of the National Park Service. The bureau is set up so that all interested parties can interact in the process. These parties included the Washington Office, the Midwest Regional Office, and the Taft National Historic Site. The specialized professional staff, once located in Washington, Philadelphia, and San Francisco, were reorganized. The curatorial and exhibit staff resided in Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, site of a major National Park Service presence. Much of the architectural historical, and interpretive staff was shifted to the Denver Service Center. In theory, the Denver Service Center undertakes consulting services for the regions much in the same way that a contractor serves a client. However, in practice, the scheduling of work often is thrown off by shifting priorities. Thus, it was sometimes the case with the Taft National Historic Site that the master plan delays could be ascribed to the assignment of relevant staff to other, more pressing projects.

Despite the difficulties encountered by the National Park Service in resolving the varying points of view in the master planning process, the exercise was similar in substance to that experienced by organizations and agencies responsible for historic buildings throughout the nation. The difference between the National Park Service's approach and that of other administrative bodies was one of form. Few other organizations or agencies have developed such a sophisticated system for conducting research studies and for devising plans. All organizations and agencies face common problems of a property's purpose and message, how the property can be restored and furnished to convey this message, and the need to rethink the presentation of the house as new information emerges or as preservation practice evolves. Because there is no one approach to presenting a historic house that will endure forever, it is not surprising then that highly respected historical organizations, such as Colonial Williamsburg, periodically restudy their historic buildings and revamp restoration and interior furnishings.

In the late 1960s, when the Taft National Historic Site "study of alternatives" and the 1970 master plan were being formulated, the term " restoration'' was one that was widely accepted without serious thought as to what it encompassed. The 1968 alternatives study recommended "a plan of development under which the house and grounds would be restored." [1] The assumption of restoration and refurnishing was conveyed by the Interior Department to the appropriate House and Senate committees and was an underlying justification for the development funds authorized for the property.

The 1970 master plan also included "restoration" as one of the objectives of the National Park Service in developing the site. However, in this plan, the term was used much more loosely. As the report stated, the bureau should "restore the exterior of the William Howard Taft house, limiting interior restoration to that needed to support effective interpretation and suggest the 19th century decor." [2] In the specifics, the plan recommended restoration of rooms according to the interpretive objectives rather than to the availability of sufficient information to support restoration. The plan called for the restoration of the hall, south parlor, dining room, and first floor bedroom. The north parlors would be "restored in period style to serve adaptive use. They will be the location of an audio-visual facility." [3]

For the second floor, the 1970 plan recommended that it be "fully preserved and selectively restored." The south rooms would be "restored in period style for adaptive use as a meeting and social gathering area." The north section would be "similarly restored to accommodate an appropriate library facility, furnished in the manner of the period of the house's interpretation." For the rear wing, the 1970 plan suggested administrative uses and a small kitchen facility. The plan went on to prescribe that if future research revealed that one of the second floor rooms served as the Tafts' bedroom, consideration might be given to fully restoring and historically furnishing that room. No mentioned was made of where the displaced functions would be located. [4] On the ground floor, the plan suggested restrooms and curatorial, maintenance, and storage spaces in the rear wing, to the east of the mechanical and boiler rooms under the main section of the house.

According to the 1970 plan, the interpretation of the property could be handled primarily through a series of audiovisual facilities. "Because of the low-key but substantial character of the subject's life . . . more than one audio-visual program should exist." [5] The plan also presented a general scheme whereby sixteen parking spaces would be provided on the adjoining Cross property with access provided by a ramped drive leading to and from Auburn Avenue, down the 25-foot drop from street level.

The first serious questions about the 1970 master plan were raised by Historical Architect Hugh C. Miller and Historian Edwin C. Bearss, both of the Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation. Miller and Bearss thought that the scope of the historically furnished rooms could be enlarged because surviving records and letters provided a good source of documentary evidence. Bearss wrote, "Available documents as to Taft lifestyles, furnishings, and room arrangements point toward the restoration and refurnishing of the entire first floor and the basement rooms built in 1851 as a historic house museum." Based on this observation, Bearss recommended that the site's general development plan be changed. [6] Miller raised the question of the feasibility of using the second floor for public gatherings given the structural condition of the house and the lack of a fireproof stair. The impending demolition of the structure on the Cross property, as recommended in the 1970 plan, was also questioned. [7] A photograph of the building on the Cross property had not been included in the 1970 master plan. When Miller and Bearss saw the building, they noted that it dated from the 1880s and contributed to the character of the historic Mt. Auburn area. The property might be useful for National Park Services offices and for visitor services.

Following the Miller and Bearss visit of late 1971, a rising chorus of objections to the 1970 master plan engulfed planning activities of the next two years. In early 1973, Robert M. Utley, Director of the Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation, recommended that a new study of the resource be undertaken, adding "without such a study, we fear that the development of Taft will result in an operational disaster in which the intrinsic value of [the] Taft House will be destroyed." [8] Birdsell characterized the 1970 master plan as "completed and approved before any in-house research was undertaken, and as a result the plan has proved to be premature, shallow, and incomplete." [9]

The anticipated need to revise the site's master plan was provided by the Department of the Interior as a reason for not beginning development work in 1973. However, the various documents required appeared excessive in the eyes of the Taft family. When Senator Robert A. Taft, Jr., wrote to Interior Secretary Rogers C. B. Morton complaining about the delay in development, he stated:

I can appreciate that the Environmental Impact Statement, Master Plan and Resource Management Plan may be pre-requisite for starting the restoration and development. With an old single family residence and the small surrounding grounds involved, however, it is hard to conceive how any of these should present any difficulty of major importance. Meanwhile, part of the building is falling down or about to. [10]

In response to Robert Taft's letter, Regional Director Chester L. Brooks assured him that the reports represented "an essential and orderly programming process which, subject to fiscal constraints and the Bicentennial Program, will form the basis of the highly technical and complex restoration of the William Howard Taft National Historic Site." Although time-consuming, the effort promised "optimum results." [11]

By early 1974, the staffs at the Midwest Regional Office, the Ohio Group, and the Taft National Historic Site prevailed upon the Denver Service Center to begin work on a new master plan in fiscal year 1975. The planning process as outlined by the Denver Service Center was called the "environmental assessment process." This process called for four steps: 1) the statement of the problem(s), 2) the description of the environment, alternatives, and 4) consultation and coordination. For each alternative under 3), the process would give consideration to the alternative actions, "the environmental impact generated by each, mitigating measures inherent in each alternative, unavoidable adverse effects, short-term long-term relationships, and irreversible-irretrievable commitment of park resources." [12] Members of the Denver Service Center staff, headed by Daniel Wenk, Team Captain, made trips to Cincinnati in late 1974 and 1975 to gather information for the master plan. They were joined by professional staff from the Washington Office and the Midwest Regional Office. The professional visits were followed by meetings with the public and city officials.

By April 1975, a draft environmental assessment report had been produced by the Denver Service Center. A meeting of the relevant staff from Denver and Omaha took place in Omaha in May 1975. During this meeting, those attending reflected a disagreement as to basic tenets and how to proceed. Some thought that the 1970 master plan was valid. Others were unsure as to what elements should be included in the document. Donald A. Purse, Associate Manager of the Denver Service Center, thought his staff had been "on track until it hit this office [Midwest Regional Office]." The possible inclusion of Historical Architect Miller on the planning team was questioned because the site was a "park with only one structure, not many like in Yellowstone, for instance." The outcome of the meeting was that the Denver Service Center agreed to start over, even though it faced the loss of people and positions through the creation of the Alaska Task Force. The Denver Service Center also agreed that a new historic structures report would be delayed "until at least such time as we know where we are headed." [13]

The lack of coordination between the various planning documents was pointed out by Utley, who thought that the historic structure report should be completed before the master plan and interpretive prospectus were prepared in final form. [14] In addition, the first phase of a furnishings plan, conducted by contractor Sarah Olson, had been initiated in early 1975. Nevertheless, the master planning team continued to meet and discuss alternatives for the treatment of the property.

The draft environmental assessment, printed for public dissemination in early 1976, presented six alternatives for development. They included: A) no action, B) partial restoration with emphasis on architectural presentation, C) partial restoration with emphasis on furnishings, D) partial restoration with emphasis on interpretation, E) partial restoration with emphasis on management objectives, and F) complete, authentic restoration and refurnishing.

The first option, Alternative A, proposed to leave the property as it stood in 1974 with offices and vacant rooms on the first floor, maintenance spaces and vacant rooms on the second floor, and storage areas and vacant rooms on the ground floor. All visitors were expected to arrive by foot and no extra accommodations were provided. Although the alternative was thoroughly analyzed for its impacts and effects, it was not feasible given the congressional mandate to develop the property for visitor use and the expectations of the Cincinnati community for upgrading the site.

The second option, Alternative B, set out to preserve and restore the architectural features considered to be historically significant. The features deemed to be significant included an amalgam of elements from various periods of the house including the Fry mantle, the 1877 rear stairs, the original main stairs, and the ca 1877 east window in the parlor. Because house tours accompanied this alternative, expanded visitor accommodations were provided. It is unclear why this alternative was suggested given the report's own opinion that the features were from various periods, did not exist in any natural evolutionary relationship to the house, and would not be historically correct.

The third option, Alternative C, emphasized historic furnishings. It suggested partial restoration of the house and grounds and the refurnishing of selected rooms to depict their appearances prior to the 1877 fire. The first floor rooms would be furnished with period antiques or reproductions based on historical research. Increased visitor use through house tours required a visitor contact station and development of the grounds. The report admitted to the unlikelihood that this alternative would ever be pursued. On one hand, the report stated that five rooms would be accurately refurnished to reflect Taft's boyhood home. On the other hand, the only known furnishings that dated from that period were a few portraits.

The fourth option, Alternative D, called for active interpretation of the property with partial restoration and furnishing the property with a few known period pieces. In this scheme, the rooms on the first floor were devoted to exhibits, audiovisual programs, and a sales area. One section of the first floor told the Taft family story through "Taft artifacts." Another room dealt with William Howard Taft's public career. An environmental education program for school groups was envisioned for the ground floor. According to the report, this alternative provided for the "greatest possible scope for an active interpretive program." [15]

The fifth option, Alternative E, served as a reaffirmation of the management objectives for the site that were approved in 1974. This option called for the partial restoration of the house and grounds and the refurnishing of seven rooms on the first and ground floors. Alternative E represented a combination of some elements from Alternatives C and D. The exterior and interior would be restored to its appearance during the time it was occupied by William Howard Taft. A furnishings plan would be based on a furnishings study. An environmental education program would be operated from the property and made available to all students in Cincinnati. The interpretive objective included a living history program whereby costumed guides related the story of the Taft family's life in the house. An audiovisual program, located on the first floor, addressed Taft's national career. A visitor contact station, also a feature of Alternative C, handled museum exhibits on the Taft family and the Mt. Auburn neighborhood.

The last option, Alternative F, called for a complete, authentic restoration and refurnishing of the property to the years 1851 to 1877. This option included the restoration of architectural features and all room configurations on all three floors as far as they could be determined and the refurnishing of the entire house with period pieces and reproductions. This option also called for the eventual restoration of the grounds attached to the Taft home during the period 1851 to 1877. Because it called for the complete restoration of the house, this option required an enlarged visitor center to hold the park offices and a research library. The report admitted to this option's slim claim to feasibility by noting that restoration and refurnishing of several spaces and elements would be conjectural or questionable.

With all of the options, the 1976 draft master plan was based on the assumption that the rear wing consisted of a dining room on the first floor adjacent to the wall of the original block and a nursery to the rear of the first floor wing. The plan also assumed that the kitchen was located on the ground floor beneath the nursery and that the room between the kitchen and the ground floor of the original block was a billiard room. (It was later determined that the dining room and kitchen were on the ground floor, with the kitchen closest to the wall of the original block. The nursery was located on the first floor closest to the wall of the original block.)

Given the alternatives presented in the 1976 version, only two were remotely feasible: Alternative D, focusing on using the house as a vehicle for interpretive exhibits and programs, and Alternative E, which proposed some restored and refurnished rooms and interpretive programs more dependent on costumed interpreters than on exhibits.

In order to solicit public opinion, Superintendent Licari prepared a flyer that summarized the key points of the draft plan. Recipients of the flyer were invited to attend public meetings on the plan or to send in their comments to the Taft National Historic Site. From the wide dissemination of the flyer to affected organizations and institutions in the Mt. Auburn area as well as the rest of Cincinnati, Licari seemed intent on gathering substantial public input on the document.

Despite the efforts to gain the views of the public, the National Park Service staff retained the upper hand in the discussion. The struggle over the next few years pitted those who favored some restoration and refurnishing against those who supported the use of the house primarily for interpretive exhibits and programs because of the insufficiency of documentary evidence to support restoration and refurnishing. The former group had a powerful argument on its side: congressional intent as expressed in the creation of the William Howard Taft National Historic Site in 1969. The 1968 master plan which served as the basis for the Interior Department's support of the legislation called for restoration and refurnishing. The Interior Department cited this report in its correspondence with both the House and Senate Interior and Insular Affairs committees. The report from the House of Representatives in 1969 stated that the authorized funds would be devoted to the restoration and refurnishing of the Taft home. [16] The latter group argued that the recommendations for restoration and refurnishing violated the National Park Service' policy which stated that such actions be taken only with no conjecture or with minimum conjecture.

As an immediate response to the 1976 draft master plan, the City Planning Commission and the Cincinnati City Council supported alternative E (rather than F) because the latter would require Hamilton County to relinquish part of its property in order to restore the parcel of land on which the original house was built. Historical Architect Miller voted for alternative D with certain modifications, as "the only alternative that recognizes the character of historic resources of William Howard Taft NHS and the limitations of physical space that these place on the management of the site." [17]

After extensive professional and public review, the Denver Service Center recommended Alternative E, although it recognized support for aspects of Alternative D. [18] By early 1977, a revised draft master plan for the Taft National Historic Site was produced. The plan stated that seven rooms--the hall, the parlor, parlor chamber, dining room, nursery, kitchen, and billiard room--would be completely refurnished to reflect their appearance during Taft's boyhood years from 1851 to 1877. The first floor library and bedroom would be adaptively restored with reproduction wallpaper or painted in colors used in the historic period. The second floor would be adaptively restored to include staff and public meeting rooms, a library, and administrative space for park staff. The recommendations in the draft master plan were made while the Denver Service Center architects were continuing their architectural investigations and the furnishing studies undertaken by the Harpers Ferry Center were still incomplete.

The Taft National Historic Site draft master plan was reviewed in March 1977 as part of a National Park Service training program. The class of twenty-seven met at the Mather Training Center and was divided into six groups. Each group was asked to critique the draft master plan based on the historical data report prepared by Historian Bearss in 1972, the environmental assessment, and the statement for management. The groups opted for Alternatives D or E and disagreed with many elements of the draft master plan and with the views of other groups. As one of the participants, Historian Marcella Sherfy of the Washington Office wrote, "Taft proved to be an unusually good study to use. It presents many dilemmas that can or should be seen as policy-founded decisions." [19]

In a strongly worded letter, National Park Service Chief Historical Architect Henry A. Judd opposed the draft master plan. Judd questioned the treatment of the seven rooms to be refurnished, the treatment of the first floor library and bedroom, and the use of the second floor for public meetings. "The plan assumes the necessity to furnish the house as a house museum to interpret Taft and his importance to the nation--despite the altered house and lack of original furnishings." To Judd and his staff, the plan appeared to be predicated on traditional National Park Service assumptions that were inappropriate and unnecessary at the Taft site.

As the plan mentioned, one set of planning mistakes has been made at Taft already. We are now trying to avoid a second. But in considering the contrast between the needs or policy requirements applicable to the site and the development proposed, we believe this plan to be even more objectionable. [20]

In short, Judd thought that the report's recommendations fell short of applicable standards, particularly as they affected sound care of the resource. "Our office has become more familiar with William Howard Taft, officially and coincidentally, than we have with some other historic areas. Hence, our knowledge of the resource and of the gaps in data presented here comes from sources other than this document." [21]

On June 23-24, 1977 the Taft National Historic Site planning team met in Cincinnati along with Miller and the staff at the site, which was now supervised by Whitaker. The participants agreed to disagree. The Associate Regional Director for Planning and Resource Preservation in Omaha, John Kawamoto, stated, "because we could not resolve the restoration questions, resolution would have to be achieved at a higher organizational level. The Denver Service Center was directed to proceed with the preparation of construction drawings for the Taft House restoration." [22] As Miller described the situation, "Our meeting broke up with all parties being frustrated by the inadequacies of the planning process and the conflicts over proposed use and development as they affect policy." [23]

Over the months following the planning impasse, tempers cooled, negotiations continued in written correspondence, and the architectural investigations proceeded. The planning team met again on May 10-11, 1978, and hammered out a compromise with which all felt they could live. For this meeting Judd replaced Miller as the team historical architect. Judd agreed that sufficient data was available for the restoration of all of the first floor, except for the first floor bedrooms, as well as the following rooms on the ground floor: the kitchen, dining room, and downstairs hall. [24] (After further research, the ground floor rooms were dropped from the list of rooms to be restored and refurnished.) It was agreed that because more information was needed before decisions could be made regarding furnishings, development would be phased. In view of this compromise, most attendees thought that a modified Alternative E was selected. However, James W. Schaack, Chief of Interpretation at the Midwest Regional Office, went away from the meeting with the understanding that alternative D had been selected. [25]

A new draft master plan was drawn up in August 1979 that reflected the May 11, 1978, agreement. This draft was then circulated to the public for comment. Unlike the effort in 1976 to solicit public response with flyers and public meetings, the effort at this juncture was limited. Copies of the plan were mailed out. The site staff waited for written responses to be received.

As the revised draft master plan was being reviewed by the public in late 1979 and 1980, Superintendent Whitaker suggested that more rooms could be restored and refurnished than had been agreed to at the 1978 meeting or that rooms ought to be restored or used for exhibits based on anticipated traffic patterns through the house. Midwest Region Associate Regional Director Kawamoto reviewed the long and frustrating planning process for Whitaker concluding that, "It is our further belief that we have made the best deal we can hope to make with Washington as far as architectural restoration and refurnishing are concerned. This being the case, we recommend that the Washington Office position on the rooms to be refurnished be accepted." [26]

The public comments that reached the staff at the Taft National Historic Site in 1980 were for-the most part supportive. However, Professor Roger Daniels of the Department of History at the University of Cincinnati recommended a more fully developed historical context for the life and times of William Howard Taft and the city. After noting that the master plan team members were from Denver, Washington, and Omaha, he also suggested that some members from the local historical community be involved in the project. He also questioned the location of the reports cited in the bibliography as being only in Denver. [27] The executive director of the Christ Hospital, Alexander Harmon, made several corrections to the discussion of the neighboring institutions. [28]

Apparently fatigued by the entire subject, Whitaker reported to Regional Director of the Midwest Regional Office that, "Comments were sparse (only 8 responses), and all were positive as far as the general plan was concerned. I, therefore, recommend approval of the plan with the attached minor (editorial) changes." [29]

The preparation of the report for publication was assigned to Roberta Seibel, a trained zoologist and a National Park Service interpreter who joined the Denver Service Center staff in 1978. Her work on editing the report and carrying the report through the approval stages was conducted at the same time that she was also assigned to prepare the general master plan for the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, a project considered to be "high priority."

The master plan for the Taft National Historic Site was approved in January 1981 and published in April 1981. The plan recommended that the Taft house and grounds be restored to their appearance between 1851, the year Alphonso Taft purchased the property, and 1877, the year of the fire. Four rooms intended for restoration and refurnishing included the library/sitting room, the front hall, the parlor, and the nursery, all on the first floor. The remaining two rooms on the first floor would be used for exhibit/interpretive purposes. The ground floor rooms would be used for curatorial, storage, and administrative space. The second floor would be "adaptively restored" as administrative rooms and a public meeting room/library.

With the publication of the master plan, all parties likely were relieved that the process had, at last, reached a conclusion. However, completion of the plan did not dispel a gnawing feeling of dissatisfaction with the results. As with many compromises, it was received reluctantly and without enthusiasm by the parties involved.