William Howard Taft An Administrative History

Unlike many historic properties which come into the ownership of the National Park Service, the Taft home had been radically altered from its appearance at the time of its greatest historical significance. The condition of the home was further complicated by the 1964 "restoration" of the front facade that had been carried out under the auspices of the Memorial Association. The problem faced by the National Park Service staff was to determine the appearance of the building during the birth and residency of William Howard Taft. The answer lay behind the many later additions and partitions that had been erected. The architectural investigative process, therefore, required that the National Park Service staff be willing to tear apart portions of the house in the search for clues. The destructive nature of the investigations was necessary in order to trace the changes wrought by the property's many occupants. By the time the architectural investigations were completed, the interior lay in considerable ruin.

The two story square brick building with basement purchased by Alphonso Taft in June 1851 was altered within a few months of purchase. A three story 41 x 23 foot brick elI was commenced in September 1851. This addition contained bedrooms on the upper stories and a kitchen and dining room on the ground floor. During the following year, carpenters and painters completed the interior work and painting. Additional work in 1851-52 provided for interior plumbing and hot water. When Alphonso's second wife, Louise, moved into the house in early 1854, she set about refurnishing the house. However, she did not make major changes to the exterior or interior except for occasional repapering and repainting. [1]

The second major change to the Taft home while still in Taft ownership occurred after the fire of April 4, 1877. The fire destroyed the roof and gutted the entire second story. Rebuilding the house involved raising the upper story to a height of eleven feet and placing a galvinized iron cornice around the roof line. The windows at the second floor were lengthened and capped with wooden heads. A bay window was added to the south elevation. Other changes were made to rooms on the other floors as well, such as laying black walnut floor boards in the dining room. The rooms on the second floor were repapered and repainted. The parlor was given new frescoes and paint. The heating system was refurbished and rehabilitated. In 1878, Louise Taft placed a new mantle by Heinrich Fry in the parlor and a Rogers mantle in the library.

During the years when Alphonso Taft served as United States Minister to Austria—Hungary and later Russia, the house was repainted and repapered to suit the various tenants. Similar alterations were made to the interior finishes of the house for tenants after Alphonso Taft's death and when Louise Taft had taken up residence in Massachusetts. When Louise Taft sold the property in 1899, its appearance then was different from that of the period from 1857 to 1874, between the birth of William Howard Taft and his departure for Yale.

The next owners of the house, the Thompsons, made several changes to the house. One was the replacement of the original porch with a full-width porch. Another was the removal of the two-story wooden piazza in the angle between the original house and the ell addition and its replacement by a single-story conservatory. The next owner, the Ruffners, changed the uses of the rooms, especially on the first floor, and placed a wooden addition onto the north elevation of the house. By the time Bellinger purchased the house in 1940, the 1851 addition was already showing structural damage. He converted the house into at least seven apartments, three on each of the upper floors and one on the ground floor. In the conversion, he claimed that he had "stabilized the house" and undertaken the conversion in such a way that the "original formation of the house" was unspoiled. [2]

The 1964 restoration shortened or closed up several of the windows on all elevations and restored the original roofline of the house. The 1964 work substituted a brick parapet in place of the Taft period wood panelled parapet. The restored porch posts were not chamfered, while the Taft period ones were. The jigsaw decoration on the original house was more robust and had a deeper frieze than on the 1964 version. In addition, the basement windows on the north side of the Taft period house were not restored in 1964. In fact, they were closed up. The 1964 front door was an eight-panel "colonial" type rather than the original four vertical panel type with a three-light transom. The entrance steps rebuilt in 1964 were of limestone and brick, a combination that later architects found questionable. The observation platform was restored in 1964, although the observatory railing of 1964 was not of the same design as the railing of the Taft period. When the roof of the house was lowered to its original level, the stairs to the attic were removed, thereby obliterating evidence of the previous opening under these stairs.

When the National Park Service staff studied the house in preparation for the 1968 "Study of Alternatives," the house was described as painted in grey. The rear of the house was unpainted and in bad repair. Bellinger's first floor apartment was in a habitable state, but the rest of the house was described as being in poor condition. A recent fire had damaged the roof over the rear addition. [3] The 1970 master plan reiterated the poor condition of the house.

The first professional architectural investigation of the house was made in late 1971 by National Park Service Historical Architect Hugh Miller. He observed that the 1964 restoration, while executed to resemble the appearance of the house during William Howard Taft's boyhood, was "incomplete and not entirely accurate." The 1851 addition exhibited serious structural cracking, a condition he thought would require a concrete footing and grouting. At that time, Miller reported, "the architectural repercussions of restoration for the house museum would not be serious since the post-Taft addition and alterations should be removed as part of the structural rehabilitation of the house and the interior finish of the Taft period seems to be modest." [4]

By 1971, Architect Norman M. Souder of the Denver Service Center was assigned to prepare the architectural data section of the historic structure report, the companion to Edwin C. Bearss's historical data report. As issued in 1973, Souder's report dealt primarily with a detailed description of the existing conditions of the property and a discussion of the proposed restoration of the house to the 1851-1877 period. The report also presented a detailed photographic document of the house as it appeared in 1972 and commentary in each accompanying caption. Among Souder's recommendations was the removal of the Fry mantel in the parlor, purchased by Louise Taft in 1878, because it post-dated the 1877 cut-off period for the National Park Service interpretation of the property. Souder's configuration of the first floor during the historical period showed the south parlor sections separated by partitions, the nursery at the rear of the 1851 wing, and the dining room in the 1851 wing closest to the wall of the pre-1851 house.

Souder characterized his report as being more extensive than the "usual Historic Structures Reports for comparable structures." [5] This opinion was not shared by his successor Anthony Crosby, also of the Denver Service Center, who noted that the report had been "based on minimal fabric investigation conducted during a short period of time. . . . He assumed that a complete restoration was possible because he mistook many architectural features for the 1857-1874 period when they were in fact from the period after the fire in 1877." [6] Crosby's own investigations followed those of Gordie Whittington, a Denver Service Center exhibit specialist, who in 1977 investigated the seven rooms on the first floor then intended for restoration.

In the course of his investigations, Crosby revealed that the parlor rooms 101 and 102 constituted a single room during most of the historic period, although the room had originally been divided into two rooms by a partition with large swinging doors. [7] The partition was probably removed before 1857 when a mirror was hung over the piano between the two doors in the parlor. Crosby also determined the original configuration of the first floor of the 1851 addition. Now the nursery was placed between two small rooms that abutted the east wall of the pre-1851 structure and two closets opening onto room 109, the bedroom/sitting room. This floor configuration was discovered by an investigation of the "ghosts" still visible on floors, ceilings, and walls. Crosby had no doubt that the entire east end of the 1851 wing, room 109, was one large room until the twentieth century. [8]

Although Crosby's recommendations for partial restoration did not exactly conform to the plans as detailed in the 1981 master plan (for example Crosby's room 104 is devoted to exhibit space while in the 1981 master plan, room 104 is designated for refurnishing), it represented a great leap forward from the 1973 architectural study. The original configuration of the rooms, especially those on the first floor, was established, as were the probable wall finishes.

As the architectural investigations and master plan inched toward resolution in 1978, the Denver Service Center provided an estimate of the restoration of the Taft National Historic Site. The projected total development cost was set at $3,153,000. (The 1981 Master Plan revised this amount to $3,985,000, of which $1,024,000 was devoted to the visitor contact station. Other costs included $331,000 for structural stabilization, $438,000 for the restoration of the exterior and grounds, $1,200,000 for interior restoration, and $253,000 for furnishings.)

In order to implement the work at this level, the authorization level for the site had to be raised above the $318,000 amount in the 1969 legislation. [9] In the end, the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 provided for a new ceiling of only $1,888,000. The spending level was lowered because as Robert Taft, Jr., reported, "[Senator] Hatfield got in a position where, because of sponsoring other amendments and the general Committee situation, he did not feel this was wise at this time, although he is in our corner." Robert Taft, Jr., thought that the balance might be forthcoming the following year. [10]

While in theory restoration work could not begin until the completion of the architectural investigations, human and natural forces conspired to allow for development work to commence. In 1974, after intense lobbying on the part of Charles Taft, $58,500 was made available to stabilize the house after plans and specifications prepared by Cincinnati architect William J. Miller. Completed in a matter of months, Miller's historic structures and site report encompassed a study of the land surrounding the site, a boundary survey, a discussion of the interior restoration of the house, a structural evaluation of the house, and a survey of existing conditions. Stabilization work, undertaken by the Fred L. Schille Co. of Cincinnati in the summer of 1974, addressed the property's most critical problems. Much of the foundation walls of the original block, including the north, south, and west (except for the porch), was encased in concrete. The brick of the original block was tuckpointed and painted, the west boundary wall and fence were restored, and the domestic water service was replaced. In addition, the rear wing was encased in a temporary plywood shell. The encasement stayed up until 1982. The location of the windows in the east wing was painted on the plywood so that viewers could get a sense of the appearance of that portion of the house.

The earthquake measuring 5.1 on the Richter scale that shook Cincinnati and the Taft home on July 27, 1980, provided a strong incentive to devote funds to the stabilization of the property. Without the earthquake, the initiation of development work on the property might have slipped to fiscal year 1983. However, because the Denver Service Center staff thought the house to be "in serious jeopardy unless corrective actions are taken soon," the Denver Service Center recommended emergency funding of $100,000 to stabilize the structure. In the meantime, the Denver Service Center asked for $15,000 to accomplish a series of temporary measures, such as caulking cracks around the main entry to prevent the seepage of moisture, shoring and bracing the 1851 wing, sheathing room 106 (the nursery) to prevent bricks from falling, and replacing the lintel over the east opening of the south wall of room 106. These measures were considered a "baling wire and bubble gum" effort. Another natural phenomenon such as an earthquake, a heavy load of snow, or excessive ground moisture would lead to "major damage or destruction." [11] The staff of the Denver Service Center later clarified the extent of resources needed by stating that even with a $100,000 stabilization job, the east wing might still be lost with further earth tremors or a heavy snow. [12]

The emergency stabilization work, which began in December 1980, used wood shoring for structural strengthening and styrofoam, white okum, and tape to treat the cracks, depending on their size. "Permanent work" was scheduled for the summer of 1981. [13] During much of early 1981, the Denver Service Center was engaged in preparing drawings for the permanent stabilization of the 1851 wing.

The completion of the master plan and the imminent development work necessary to stabilize the house pushed the Taft National Historic Site to a higher point on the list of funding priorities for the Midwest Regional Office. During February 18 and 19, 1981, the regional directors met with National Park Service Director Russell E. Dickenson about servicewide priority construction projects. During the meeting, the Interior Department's emphasis on health and safety was discussed as a possible criterion that would guide decisions about funding. When the group considered the Taft National Historic Site, it did not qualify under this criterion. When the group moved on to the architectural significance of the properties, a Washington Office staff person present at the meeting stated that the Taft Home was not significant architecturally and retained little original fabric. In the limited scope of the discussion at the meeting, the Taft property did not meet the criteria for priority funding and was removed from the servicewide construction budget. [14] The nature of the discussion caught Midwest Regional Director J. L. Dunning by surprise. He did not have a ready response to the criteria by which the Taft site was measured.

As a result of the meeting, Dickenson issued a summary of the changes to the servicewide priority construction listing to all regional directors. The Taft site was included in this listing. Under the heading of "action," was inserted, "Delete altogether. Reevaluate plans for this area, including the possibility of closing the area." [15]

In response to this possibility, the Midwest Region prepared a report on the Taft National Historic Site, outlining the legislative history of the property and presenting four management alternatives. The alternatives ranged from mothballing the Taft home until the budget situation improved to completing the development of the site as described in the 1981 master plan, the price tag for which was set at $5,000,000. The Midwest Regional Office recommended a middle ground, "confine the exterior treatment of the house to stabilization and painting without changing the roofline or other architectural treatments outlined in the approved master plan. Adapt the interior for administrative and interpretive purposes with some furnished spaces and some spaces used for exhibitry." [16] The Midwest Regional Office recommended continued development on a lesser scale than suggested in the master plan and stretched out over several years. The report reminded Dickenson that the structure's integrity and amount of historic fabric were largely immaterial to the intent of the Congress in establishing the site.

The report persuaded Director Dickenson to accept the Midwest Regional Office's recommendations. On December 17, 1982, he wrote to Robert Taft, Jr., that $160,000 was being spent on the current phase of work. Another $150,000 to $175,000 was proposed for fiscal year 1984. Beyond that, the National Park Service planned to spend approximately $100,000 per year to complete the interior. As Dickenson stated, "We have found that this phasing of restoration over a period of years gives us an opportunity to work with the conditions of the historic structure. This approach at William Howard Taft Birthplace will provide the most cost effective method of accomplishing the restoration on a manageable schedule." [17]

It might be noted that in the 1981 annual report for the Taft National Historic Site, Superintendent Maxine Boyd claimed that upon arriving in her new position late in that year, no development funds had been programmed. She went on to write that only after she discussed the situation with the Regional Director, was $300,000 programmed and the Denver Service Center staff dispatched to the site to make measurements for the final drawings. [18] In actuality, the decision had been made to proceed with development several months before her arrival.

While the National Park Service had found a way to fund development work in the amount of $300,000 from the fiscal year 1982 Park Restoration and Improvement Program (PRIP), the Midwest Region in late 1981 continued to urge Director Dickenson to include the Taft National Historic Site in the five-year construction fund. Regional Director J. L. Dunning quoted a section from a memorandum from the recently appointed superintendent at the site to the effect that Charles P. Taft had lost faith in the National Park Service and did not believe that the house would be restored in his lifetime. [19]

In the end, the exterior restoration work proceeded at a rapid pace. The expenditures per year were as follows: $255,100 in 1982, $291,400 in 1983, and $300,100 in 1984. [20] The total of $846,600 over a period of three years was made possible through the Midwest Regional Office which had pressed for funds soon after the 1980 earthquake. Once the restoration was started, the rapid pace was sustained at high levels through the succeeding years through the tenacity of Superintendent Boyd who made personal appeals through all levels of the National Park Service bureaucracy.

During 1982, structural stabilization was carried out on the 1851 wing and the non-historic front porch was replaced with a temporary one Stabilization of the wing included the construction of a new foundation on the east elevation of the wing, construction of reinforced foundations enclosing the other walls of the wing, and stabilization of the 1851 floors with joists and plywood subflooring. A month later, stabilization work was extended to include refurnishing windows, repointing brickwork, removing the non-historic solarium, and restoring the piazza. The construction work was carried out by the R. J. Beishel Building Company of Cincinnati.

In the process of the construction work, the plywood cocoon was removed from the rear wing. After construction work commenced, Superintendent Boyd requested that restroom facilities be built on the ground floor because all other facilities in the building were cut off. In light of the continuing tours through the house, the facilities were included in that year's construction program. Soon after, staff at the Midwest Regional Office determined that the building, a construction site, ought to be off limits to everyone except the construction crew and supervisor. In December 1982, the building was closed to the Taft site staff and visitors.

Construction work in 1983 included the painting, cleaning, repairing of the exterior walls; installation of the windows in both sections of the house; the replacement of the lintels in the original block; reinforcement of the interior ground floor walls of the original block; and the rebuilding of the chimneys. The contract for this work was awarded to Brener Building Maintenance Company of Arlington, Virginia, which subcontracted with Cincinnati firms to accomplish the work. Only a portion of the work was completed. In December 1983, the National Park Service terminated the contract because of an inability to resolve differences with the contractor. In response, the Brener firm filed a claim against the National Park Service, charging that the bureau's plans and specifications were not well designed, faulty, and ambiguous. [21]

The third phase of work was carried out in 1984. This phase involved replacement of the roof; rebuilding the eaves and cornices; reconstruction of the front porch, carriage porch, and piazza; installation of windows and doors; providing underground utilities to the building; foundation waterproofing and drainage; and exterior painting. The construction work for this phase was contracted to R. J. Beischel of Cincinnati, the same firm that undertook construction work in 1982. The change in the exterior paint color, from white to a "blazing" yellow, was based on an analysis of paint samples taken from the house. The change startled many onlookers and made them take notice of the property for the first time.

In 1985, a contract was awarded to Wilson and Associates of Cincinnati, which teamed up with Studio Four, Inc. of Philadelphia, to prepare drawings for the interior restoration and adaptive use, including the electrical, heating, ventilating, and climatic control systems. Funds were also committed to the completion of the historic furnishings plan by the Harpers Ferry Center.

The three years of intensive development resulted in a restored exterior and reinforced interior structural members. Work left to be executed included the installation of mechanical, electrical, fire, and intrusion alarm systems. In addition, the ground floor was scheduled to be adapted for administrative purposes, part of the first floor refurnished, and the second floor adapted to administrative and meeting uses. In 1985, the cost of completing the last phase of work was projected at $1,677,000. [22]

Another source of funds for the restoration of the home and the refurnishing of the approved rooms is the Friends of the William Howard Taft Birthplace. In the organization's "Gifts Catalogue," items pertaining to the completion of the site's development are listed, such as underground electrical service costing $5,500, plumbing costing $16,000, reproduction Brussels carpeting for the parlor costing $5,000, and the restoration of the carriage drive costing $25,800.

The restoration of the Taft home followed nearly as difficult a path as the development of the master plan because, to a large degree, it was dependent on the plan's recommendations. The confluence of events in 1980 (the earthquake and the specter of a collapsed structure and the completion of the master plan) contributed to the final breakthrough in the development deadlock. While Charles P. Taft died on June 25, 1983, and did not live to see the Taft house restored and open for public visitation, he was likely heartened by the sudden rush of development activity and could rest assured that his long-held dream had taken a giant step toward reality.