Talk:Architects of the National Park Service

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

sorting by NPS regions[edit]

The list of works (all currently NRHP-listed ones) is now sorted mostly by state, with some clusters "Georgia and Tennessee", "Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.". There are NPS-built parkways and other areas that span state lines. Maybe it will make sense to group by NPS regions. --doncram 10:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regional lists would be too long. Only two sites cross state lines I think? Another organizational structure would be park by park as in the NPS rustic article. Article is about architects but none are named. Some of the individuals have articles that can be linked. Found a few names by jumping to articles on several sites. Cbl62 (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do want to start adding some names, for sure. C.T. Vint is one, who is given credit for some projects along with other "NPS" architects. Want to identify some key individuals in the landscaping, in the other areas. Later, gotta run. --doncram 15:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work on it too. This one looks like a good topic. Cbl62 (talk) 16:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New sorting, with specific National Park areas identified, seems good. Only awkwardness that I note is that Yellowstone shows up twice, once in Montana and once in Wyoming; perhaps those states should be covered together in a group having just one Yellowstone item. --doncram 16:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Limitation on article[edit]

I've thought of some wrinkles that need to be considered on this article.

  • First, I've noticed that some of the entries refer to work by landscape architects. I don't have a problem with that, as it's my understanding that landscape architects are still architects. I don't propose changing anything on account of this issue, except that there should probably be some mention of that in the introduction.
  • Second, it looks like a number of the cabins and some of the other works were based on standard NPS plans. It's unclear whether the original NPS plans were created by NPS architects or not. Not sure how to deal with that issue.
  • Third, I see a problem with including entries from the NRIS database that simply refer to the "NPS" or the "National Park Service," without specifying whether the involvement was in building, engineering, or design. Specific thoughts on this below:
  • The list is sourced solely to the NRIS database. Many of the listings simply refer to the NPS design or planning groups. That's pretty strong evidence that someone from NPS was involved in the design. Other listings simply refer to "NPS" or "National Park Service." In those cases, the database attribution information could simply be an indication that the Park Service built (as opposed to designed) something.
  • Wright Brothers National Memorial is an example, and the article on that memorial states that the design was by a New York architectural firm, Rodgers and Poor. The new article that you have created is about the "architects" of the NPS. That being the case, and since the NPS did not design the work, sites like the Wright Brothers Memorial really don't belong in a list of "works" by the "achitects" of the NPS.
  • Further examples: Cabrillo National Monument monument is a statute created by sculptor Alvaro de Bree for the Portuguese Government in 1939 and donated to the U.S. government. The adjacent lighthouse was built in the 19th century before the NPS existed. The site also includes structures built by the military and later turned over to the NPS. No indication that architects of the NPS designed anything. Yosemite Valley Bridges were reportedly designed by "George D. Whittle of the San Francisco District Office of the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads for the National Park Service." Cbl62 (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the listings that refer generically to "NPS" or "National Park Service" are probably similar to the Wright Memorial -- designed by an outside architect, but built (presumably) by NPS. Given the focus of the article, such works really don't belong.
  • My suggestion would be to pare the list back to entries where there is evidence that NPS personnel actually did the design work. Entries referring to design or plan groups would constitute such evidence. Generic reference to NPS would not be enough, and those would be removed until there's some evidence that NPS personnel were involved in the design. Let me know if you agree. If not, let me know what standard you would propse to eliminate works that were built, but not designed by NPS.
  • I agree that paring back to those items where NPS architects are involved is eventually needed. However let's not be too quick. For example Cabin Creek Ranger Residence and Dormitory, credited to (National Park Service) in fact was co-designed by NPS landscape architect Harold G. Fowler, which is found in its article happily, but might only have been findable within its NRHP nom doc. I happen to have visited and photographed that one, by the way. I would like to try to develop the info about every item here, e.g. for the Alaska ones start their articles and read their NRHP nom docs. Let's not rush to remove items. I currently think that the NPS role in most of these is as designer as well as in many cases builder. I think it is going to be unusual to find an outside designer as you did for one mentioned above. --doncram 22:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fourth, you may run into an issue on this article similar to the one that arose withAfD debate about Architects of the United States Forest Service. Specifically, some might propose deletion as a random collection of information. To overcome that, there should be secondary sources discussing the architects of the NPS or otherwise treating that grouping as a distinct group. Given the importance of National Park Service rustic architecture, I suspect secondary sources are out there. The sooner those sources are included, the less likely it is that someone will seek to delete this article. Cbl62 (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's hope that the individuals involved will hold off. The decision to Keep that article should be an indication that this article is also valid. No good purpose would be served by their starting an AFD. It would be a f***ing waste of many editors time again. The topic is valid. There is work to be done to develop the material here, of course, but no credit should be given to doubt about the topic. --doncram 22:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the topic is notable, though I do think "Architecture of the National Park Service" is a more appropriate title. Some (myself included) had suggested a similar name change for the Forest Service piece. Such a name change would also solve the issue that arises when it's not clear if a structure was built or designed by NPS, and would also allow for inclusion of many NPS masterpieces (like Old Faithful Inn) that were designed by outside architects. Cbl62 (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a test, I examined all the nom forms I could find for the Alaska locations. Most of them indicate they were built by the NPS with architect either "Unknown" or "Unknown (probably none)." I've added those notations to the list. I saw your note above about leaving them all in place for now. I'm not sure that's the way to go. Right now, the article includes inaccurate information affirmatively saying that these are works of NPS architects. I think the better course (for accuracy/integrity reasons) is to add locations once there's evidence it was designed by an NPS architect, rather than deleting once it's shown that it wasn't. Cbl62 (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please bear with me. You are way ahead of where i am yet. I did expect that most items in this list would be works designed by architects of the NPS. Let me process through the Alaska ones. I am still creating articles there, and indeed the last one i created was built but not designed by the NPS. But, maybe Alaska is different, being so remote, maybe there is just an intention to build a log cabin any which way there, while in the lower 48 there is more conscious attention to applying NPS design principles. So maybe Alaska is not a random sample on the content of this work-in-progress. Please let this go a bit slowly.
I don't know if you might have noticed, but this article is the last one needed out of approximately one zillion NRHP architect-builder-engineer articles in a list of 907 needed ones that I have been working on. I saved this one fully intending to spend plenty of time on it. There are worthwhile tangents to address, such as Harold G. Fowler, where I could use your professional skill. I expect there will be multiple spin-offs like that, as there were for architects of the National Forest Service during the period of development of that article. There's a lot of possible good content that can be developed in related articles and in this article.
About whether this should be about "Architecture of..." or "Architects of...", I wonder if both topic could be developed. I am open. I do happen to be coming from an interest and perspective about covering architects and builders and engineers of NRHP-listed works, and I have not been coming from the perspective of writing about all of the architecture. Not sure there has to be an either-or conflict. Am open to more flexibility here, too, if this is not subject of attack by hate-mongering jackals.
I do assume that there are groups of NPS architects who deserve recognition in an article about them, like was the case for NFS architects. I am less sure about the need for a list of works built by the NPS, to be split out possibly, but maybe that is valid too, i am really not sure. Coming in, I expected almost all of these would prove to be designed by NPS architects. That is my experience with items on this list that i have personally visited, like for items on the list of NFS architect-designed places. How about changing the top language as needed to describe the reality of the content, and setting aside works proven to have been built by the NPS but not designed by its architects. With intent to either split off the built-only works later. Gimme some time here. On this article differently than many others started by me, I want to work to develop all, to follow up all the tangents, to keep coming back. This is not going to be done in a day or two or a week. --doncram 00:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't realize you were near the end of your NRHP architect "to do" list. Congratulations! I do think this has been quite a worthwhile effort. I also agree that some of the redlinked NPS architects appear to be notable enough to have their own articles. From what I read, Merel Sager appears to have been particularly important. My occasional criticisms and suggestions are never meant to cast doubt on how valuable I think your efforts have been. I'm going on vacation for 10 days starting tomorrow, so that should give you plenty of time to plug away at the list. In the end, though, if the article remains focused on "Architects of the NPS", it would be inappropriate to keep listing properties where there is no evidence that an NPS architect was involved. Cbl62 (talk) 03:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I am indeed plugging along, and have so far started the missing Alaska NRHP articles and considered a few others. One difficult-to-address issue is coming up, that the architecture of some of the NPS items may not be highlighted in their nomination documents, because the places are clearly notable on some other grounds, while a place may indeed be NPS architect-designed. It will take some effort to learn more about many of these situations and to clarify the architecture relevance. For example, in Alaska, there are numerous log cabins built or used by the National Park Service as part of 1920s and 1930s patrolling of park areas to fight poachers. The park rangers patrolled by dog sleds during that time, before helicopter patrolling began (in 1939?). The activity is historically interesting and the log cabin complexes with dog houses/cages are interesting historic artifacts. The one pager nomination forms sometimes seem to indicate nothing is special about the architecture, while in fact there may be something special. The Lower Toklat one is an example. Editor Acroterion put in mention that the design follows one originated by the NPS in Yosemite; the nomination doc does not mention that. To me, the pictures of some of these cabins show some clear "architectural design" going on, that these are more than mere log cabins for shelter. And one document NOT mentioning architectural design can just be a sign of different focus, or lack of awareness by one writer, and is not entirely strong evidence that conscious NPS design was not present. So, anyhow, I want to find out from Acroterion or otherwise more about the conscious design involved, and not eliminate consideration of these too quickly.
Also, I currently think that there is merit to have an article on Architects of the NPS which credits the in-house cumulative thinking, and also there is merit to having an article on Architecture of the National Park Service which also credits outside architects which you point out are important. And possibly there is role for "National Park Service structures listed on the National Register" list-article, which would include structures merely built by the NPS or built by CCC but on National Park Service administered lands. However, I think working ahead on this list with special aim to describe in-house architects' roles is the best first way forward. Other versions could be split or built later. --doncram 12:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

items where merely NPS indicated[edit]

East Entrance Residence
  • Lower Toklat one, of Alaska, mentioned above
  • East Entrance Residence of Zion, in Utah, is another one where merely "NPS" was indicated in the Architect/Builder/Engineer field, but according to Acroterion-edited article, it is in fact of National Park Service Rustic style and was designed by the NPS branch of plans and design, or to something of that effect. I don't see the exact sourcing for that, though I believe Acroterion is correct. I am comfortable modifying the entry in the list-article to say that, without specific source, as I think it should not be controversial. --doncram 22:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources[edit]

There are a series of books using the title, "An architectural guidebook to the national parks: ____" that cover these sites by region. These would likely be helpful source material. Cbl62 (talk) 18:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't yet found my way to those. Also there is on-line book by Laura Soulliere Harrison: "Architecture in the Parks: A National Historic Landmark Theme Study, an online book on NPS history by Harrison. --doncram 01:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

removed items[edit]

Let this section be for items removed from the list of works in the article, which can be discussed here. It may be that some NPS role as an architect with respect to some of these may become understood, and the item could be restored to the article. It also be useful to consider these for use in some other type of list-article, say of National Register of Historic Places listings administered by the National Park Service.

The original list of works in the article was of places having NPS or National Park Service identified in the Architect/Builder/Engineer field within NRIS database. Note it may be useful to report back to the National Register, that the NPS mention seems to be an error in their NRIS database, if it is established that there really is no architect/builder/engineer role for some of these. --doncram 17:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed items

Chattanooga, TN (National Park Service), NRHP-listed[1]

cbl62 note: "rmv chickamauga - no evidence of design work by NPS architects on Civil War battlefield; implausible as well since NPS architects didn't exist til c. 1918"
Well, there is a Lookout Mountain Battlefield Visitors Center and a Chickamauga Battlefield Visitors Center on the NPS map of the park; I wonder if the visitor centers or other structures could be what are NRHP-listed, like CCC structures at many archeological sites or parks. The NRHP nomination document should be clear about this possibility, i would hope. --doncram 17:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence currently of any visitor center designed by an NPS being one of the listed sites. Absent that, this should not be on the list. Merely "wondering" whether such a structure might exist, be designed by an NPS architect, and be part of the reason for the listing does not cut it. If actual evidence is found, it can be re-inserted, but no evidence cited at this time. Cbl62 (talk) 05:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To follow up after a long delay, the NRHP nomination document, or rather a 1986 "additional documentation" prepared by Edward E. Tinney / Park Historian, Chickamauga § Chattanooga NMP and by Lenard E. Brown / Regional Historian, Southeast Region, NPS, documents that the NPS after 1933 and its predecessor Park Commission did design contributing resources of the park. E.g. about the Ochs observatory museum, "In recognition of his contributions to the preservation of the battlefield, the Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park, utilizing CCC labor, constructed the Adolph S. Ochs observatory-museum at Point Park in 1939 with funds raised by the citizens' group; the building was dedicated November 12, 1940. Built of local stone laid in random courses, the two-story U-shaped building blends with its location on a promontory of the mountain. The first floor housed comfort station facilities, heating and cooling equipment, and storage areas. The second floor contained a small museum with a parapeted terrace providing an observation point. A circular walkway with stone steps and detailing was also built that connected the original carriage drive at Point Park to the Ochs observatory-museum. The design and materials are indicative of NPS rustic architecture of the Depression era. Elements of the structure such as the use of local stone, horizontal lines, and the laying of stone to avoid a machine-like appearance characterize the NPS rustic style. 52"
The document is available online at NRHP additional documentation. Various preceding pages, and then Page 42, cover contributing resources including Park Commission-designed works, and from 1933 on National Park Service works, many constructed by CCC labor. There are also non-contributing works such as "the visitor center at Point Park" and utility buildings designed by the National Park Service (pages 45-46) which lack integrity or are otherwise deficient. So the visitor center guess was wrong, but roads and other works are NPS and predecessor works that are important. I believe this one is highly significant for the NPS in sorting out what it would do in military parks. Supporting works like roads that make a park work, are important elements of architectural design for a park, more in the sense of landscaping than in traditional building works. This one has buildings, too.
Based on this, I expect to develop in the Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park article and then to restore mention to this list-article of NPS works. I did and do appreciate your concern, Cbl62, that documentation be provided, given our uncertain interpretation of cryptic NRIS mentions of the NPS, but this is one more item where it is turning out the cryptic mention did in fact mean NPS architectural involvement. Hence I think it was valid to call for keeping mention of these here at the Talk page, at least, rather than merely deleting not-immediately-well-documented items. --doncram 04:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have now reviewed the additional documentation you cited, but I don't reach the same conclusion. The documentation confirms that the park was opened in the 1890s, and that the vast majority of the structures and all of the roads were designed before the NPS was even created. (Structures built in the 19th century under the auspices of the Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park Commission do not belong in this article, which is about architects of the NPS. There were no NPS architects until c. 1919, and NPS did not take over this property until 1933.) The only structures expressly attributed to NPS design are non-contributing stuctures: "The National Park Service designed the utility buildings as service structures with little architectural merit and planned to keep them hidden from public view. The complex does not constitute a part of the commemorative program at the park, and the design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association aspects of integrity have been compromised by continuing alterations." It appears that the only contributing structures built during the period when the NPS architects even existed (i.e., after 1918) consist of several retaining walls (possibly culverts and bridges) and five structures built in the 1930s - Administration Building/ Visitors Center (1936), Point Park Rangers Quarters (1933), Point Park Comfort Station (1933), Ochs Observatory-Museum (1939), and the DeLong Reservation Entry Gates (1937). Even as to these, however, I do not see anything indicating that any of these structures were designed by NPS architects. The closest hint is a statement about the Ochs Observatory-Museum: "The design and materials are indicative of NPS rustic architecture of the Depression era." Of course, this is far from a factual assertion that NPS architects designed the building, as not all buildings in the NPS rustic style were designed by NPS architects. We have seen a number of examples where private architects designed structures in the parks in the NPS rustic style. Bear in mind this is not an article about the Architecture of the National Parks, NPS rustic architecture, or the Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park Commission. This article is narrowly focused on a specific group of people -- in-house architects who were employed by the NPS. I see no clear (or even unclear) evidence that NPS in-house architects designed any of the contributing structures. Cbl62 (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Based on your comment, including your further attention to the distinction between Park Commission vs. NPS that I was explicitly not separating in my last comment, I tend to agree. Note (to others who may find their way here) I said I would develop in the linked article first, with expectation that I would later re-insert the item into this list, and was not simply re-inserting it... I would have chance to further consider the source material. I did previously myself recognize that the Park Commission vs. NPS roles needed to be clarified (and planned to do that in the article development) and I did myself recognize--maybe I should have said it explicitly--that it could turn out in the process of developing NPS coverage there, that NPS involvement would not prove significant enough to include into this. It is possible that I would have pretty much come to your same reading of the source, or I might have considered the Park Commission to be an NPS-predecessor worth covering and come back here wanting further discussion. Actually, now, given your considered view and an arbitration case that has been requested, I probably won't develop that article at all, besides simply adding this source (just now done), so I won't expect to come back here for further discussion on this one at all. Thank you for taking the time to consider that long and complicated source. Someone could use it to add a lot to that article. --doncram 20:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
cbl62 note: ": rmv fort stanwix; only evidence available shows that NPS "built" reproduction of Rev War for in 1970s; that sturcture not listed; and no evidence of any involvement by NPS architects"
So this would seem to be an error in NRIS, that NPS is identified as architect/builder/engineer. --doncram 17:54, 17 October 2012 on (UTC)
NRHP inventory/nomination document for Fort Stanwix, with correspondence, does seem to clarify that there is a maintenance building but no NPS-designed or other structures worth designation there, and that the fort is a 1970s reconstruction, and that the NRHP listing is as a place or site, not at all for any archeological site aspects or any other traditional NRHP-eligible artifacts. This is an unusual case, IMHO. It seems that NPS should not be noted as architect/builder/engineer; this is an error I will now note at wp:NRIS info issues NY. --doncram 18:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
cbl62 note: The Washington monument in Boonsboro was designed in 1827, almost a century before NPS formed. Rebuilt by CCC, but not designed by NPS
The NRHP nomination document available by [searching at the maryland Inventory of Historic Properties] indicates that a plaque at the monument states ".... Rebuilt 1936 to original design by Civilian Conservation Corps directed by the National Park Service and the State Department of Forestry." The document a couple pages later states that "Between 1934 and 1936 the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) in cooperation with the Regional Architect, Orrin M. Bullock, Jr., of the National Park Service, The State Park Emergency Conservation Work Program, and the Maryland State Department of Forestry, restored the monument. Mr. George..." CCC superindentent.... [2]
Since there was a specific NPS architect directing the reconstruction, I think this is indeed arguably a work that can belong in a list of works by NPS architects. I am not sure it is like other items in the current list of works, though, and the extent of architectural design is not described and may have been pretty low (because they were reconstructing to the original design). So I am not now arguing that this has to be returned. It seems NRIS was not grossly, not at all, in error, anyhow, to identify NPS within Architect/Builder/Engineer field. This could be included in a list of NPS built works, I suppose, but again not with NPS being primary as builder. --doncram 20:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about the "architects" of the NPS. Properties that were merely built by the NPS do not belong in this article. The structure was designed in 1827; NPS involvement in rebuilding to the original design does not make this a work of NPS architects. Cbl62 (talk) 05:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "Acadia National Park MPS" document, which unfortunately seems not available on-line, would clarify the role of the NPS in that district. The new NRHP article based only upon the NRIS information, does not give adequate information. I don't think one document NOT mentioning/developing the NPS's role is strong evidence against NPS significant role; the NRIS mention (which is a coding based upon NRHP nomination document being processed) is positive indication in favor of significant NPS role. Getting the MPS document and the direct NRHP nomination document would resolve. --doncram 02:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The documentation on Schoodic indicates that the site's significance derives from its natural beauty and structures built by the U.S. Navy long before the land was ceded to the NPS. The article is about NPS architects. Absent actual evidence a designated property being designed by an NPS architect, this has no place in the list. The NRIS information by itself does not specify whether role was as builder, engineer, or architect, and is not enough to support inclusion on a list of works by NPS architects. Cbl62 (talk) 05:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the NRHP document provides evidence, at pages 33, 43, 50, and probably more, of significant involvement of the National Park Service in designing and creating a National Military Park. It involved the NPS reconstructing the McLean House. It involved the NPS choosing a road plan, in 1973-74, that restored roads looking compatible with the historic scene. At page 50, we read

"The collaborative effort, a model historic research program, resulted in plans to reconstruct the McLean House. The final report, "Collaborative Justification for Reconstruction of the McLean House at Appomattox," was, in the words of historian of the preservation movement Charles B. Hosmer, Jr., "the first joint document of this kind ever prepared," and in the view of ParkService professionals, it represented "a peak of professional competence never before equaled."8

Although the implementation of the project was delayed by World War II, the Park Service had embarked on one of the major American conservation efforts of the mid-twentieth century the restoration of the village of Appomattox Court House and its ultimate interpretation as not only the symbolic scene of the end of the Civil War, but also as a representation of rural Virginia of the mid-nineteenth century.

This fact, in turn, establishes the third Area of Significance, "Architecture" (the practical art of designing and constructing buildings and structures to serve human needs). As stated by Regional Historical Landscape Architect Reed Engle in Section 7, above....

and I'll stop there.
So I think this NMP is indeed a work of the National Park Service, and needs to be restored and developed within this list-article (and also at the NMP article itself). --doncram 02:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in what you've cited states that an NPS architect designed any structure or significant feature supporting the historic designation. The fact that NPS rebuilt the McLean House doesn't suffice. There's nothing to indicate that the rebuilt house was designed by an NPS architect (and presumably it was rebuilt to match the original design). Absent such evidence, this item does not belong on a list about NPS architects. Cbl62 (talk) 05:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fort Matanzas visitors center item, removed by cbl62 to link to a National Monument article not covering the visitors center; separate article created by doncram, link restored by doncram
I didn't remove this item from the list. I merely linked to the pre-existing article on the Fort Matanzas National Monument. Not sure why a separate article is needed on the visitor center; seems that a discussion of the visitor would more readily belong in the existing article. Cbl62 (talk) 05:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c "National Register Information System". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. July 9, 2010.
  2. ^ Parish, Mrs. Preston, National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination: Washington Monument, January 31, 1972, Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties

More on items where no solid evidence of NPS architect involvement[edit]

With a few exceptions, I've left the article largely intact over the past 10 days. Don't see any indication that you've tried to verify involvement by an NPS architect on remaining items on the list that are attributed solely to NPS or National Park Service. Absent such verification and evidence, those should be removed. The default should be to delete unless there is actual evidence of involvement by an NPS architect. As discussed above, the NRIS database references are not enough, as those could merely indicate involvement as a builder. Cbl62 (talk) 05:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cbl62. I have done some significant editing related to this article, in some cases by developing linked articles or creating new ones. Our related-article edits in recent 30 days should show as RECENT CHANGES: Recent changes to articles currently linked from the main page here and Recent changes to removed items and other articles linked from this Talk page. (trying to set that up now). This is going to take some time to identify NPS architecture present or not, for this many cases where there is little developed about the NPS architecture so far in the corresponding articles, and no articles at all developed in many cases. From your quick reviews identified above, with my responses above, I think it is clear that quick reviews will get some cases wrong. My interest is developing the whole set of related articles, not cutting to a limited set too quickly.
Would you please address these removals by you, by making entries in the removed items section above. I have tried to request to you by several edit summaries to this Talk page that you may not have seen, that you do so. I do expect that numerous items where it is not immediately clear what is the NPS architecture involvement, will eventually achieve that clarity, and want to discuss every one. It would be more convenient if we would cooperate and state here on the Talk page, rather than in edit summaries, what is known about each individual case. Could you please go back and address these recent removals? I have already edited from your edit summaries on several items above, and I think it costs me more time in constructing what you removed, than the time it would take you initially. Or, I may address those new removals by you, but would you please agree to handle others more compatibly, here? Also I expect that removed items would naturally go to some other list; I believe it is useful to keep together and increase the information on all the NPS items for now, okay? --doncram 12:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram -- As we've discussed, the "Works" list needs to be pared back to items which are the works of NPS architects. That's what the article is about. On October 11, you noted your agreement with the need for such paring back, but asked for time to work through the issue rather than having numerous items removed on a blanket basis. I have held off on making blanket removals to allow you time to do the work you had suggested. Having waited 11 days, the proposed work hasn't been done. Accordingly, I've begun removing items where the available documentation provides no support for the notion that it is a work of NPS architects. Wanting to still allow you time to work through these issues, I've been removing items with a scalpel after reviewing the documentation, rather than removing them wholesale. However, the current "Works" list remains very problematic. If evidence is not presented to show that these items are actually works of NPS architects, a wider removal will be needed. Hopefully, you can take the time to show that such items are actually works of NPS architects. You also noted above that you may later want to create other lists of NPS properties listed on the NRHP -- If that is your goal, that should not be done as a "work in progress" in this article. Such a list could be developed in your user space. As I remove items, I have tried to use edit summaries explaining the rationale. If you disagree with any removals, I'm happy to reconsider. Just let me know. Cbl62 (talk) 14:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was worried about massive deletions happening too quickly where the actual status wasn't properly known, and/or where a large group of items should be moved to some other list. I was just asking to identify the items here, at a Talk page, which is a fine place to do that, it does not need to be in User space. Anyhow, glad to see not a huge amount of further deletions, that it has not since been a huge deal, that the original creation based on NRIS data seems to have mostly identified NPS-designed works.
I have plugged along in related articles. I just happen to have deleted Olympus Guard Station, myself, from here, after creating its article and finding it was designed by Architects of the U.S. Forest Service instead (so i added it to that article instead). Apparently Olympus National Park(?) was USFS territory first, and was taken over by the NPS in about 1938. By dates of other ONP articles, their structures would be post-1938 and within NPS range. --doncram 02:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Banneker[edit]

You added some detail to the entry regarding Banneker Rec Center. What source indicates that it was a design of an NPS architect? The NRHP inventory documentation available here does not appear to support that assertion. It notes that the NPS acquired the property in the early 1930s but does not state that the structure was designed by an NPS architect. To the contrary, it states: "Although constructed during the Depression, inquiry at both the Cartographic Center, National Archives, and at the National Park Service, has failed to locate original plans documenting the relationship of this building to various Depression-era Federal building programs." Cbl62 (talk) 06:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not removed this item yet. I'll give you some time to take a closer look, but if there's no actual evidence that the building was designed by an NPS architect, the entry needs to be removed. Can you take a look and respond in the next day or two? Cbl62 (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had seen that "no designs found" mention but thot, from that document i think, that nonetheless it was pretty clear in my reading that the Dept. of the Interior's parks division (named something differently for awhile, which became the NPS) was responsible for building the Banneker center. And that it was not a good design. It is certainly not a positive example; i don't want to load the list to only report positives if there are design failures too. But i agree it is not unambiguously clear that NPS rather than the D.C. Dept of Rec. designed the building. (And I concede upfront that my language "not a shining moment" was way too informal to stay as written.)
Here it is, moved out:
Colonial Revival work by the National Park Service which was somewhat a design failure, having low trusses that prevented use of the facilty for basketball, for example. Not a shining moment for the NPS, which was stuck in a conflicting role vs. the Washington, D.C. Department of Recreation, over desegregation. Building is significant for being a focal point of development of black community, and being desegregated in 1954, not for its architecture.[2]
References
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference nris was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Friedlander, Bernice; Bowers, Martha: Louis Berger & Associates, Inc., Washington, D.C. (1984-08-31). "National Register of Historic Places Inventory — Nomination Form: Banneker Recreation Center". United States Department of the Interior: National Park Service. Archived from the original (pdf) on 2012-09-11. Retrieved 2012-09-11.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
    3. Thanks. I think you made the right call in removing it. Cbl62 (talk) 12:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    reversion in article, let's talk okay[edit]

    Hi Cbl62, I just noticed more edits in the article and have chosen to revert back 2 edits of yours, to the last edit of yours prior to changing some description in the article. Can we have a conversation, please, perhaps off-line; i'll try emailing you later, or you could email me about talking off-line. I am concerned that you are imposing editing criteria that could/would be sensible later, too soon. The current/restored description in the article states that works following are where NPS or National Park Service is indicated as architect, builder, engineer. This is accurate. As you and I both note, there will be cases where the indication turns out to be in error (although it is sourced) and where the NPS involvement is not as architect. It is what many items in the list are, now, though. I deliberately put that statement in to be descriptive, towards taking the urgent edge out having to remove every item where the NPS role is not yet clearly distinguished. For one example, Alaska cabins where there is Architect unknown indicated in one source (actually the NRHP nom doc), perhaps, but editor Acroterion has asserted NPS design has been applied. My intent/wish is for the article to be developed to cover architects of the NPS and their works, and to split off other topics; I do want to get to the point of changing the description as you did. But to be accurate about what this is, currently, it includes many items where NPS or National Park Service is indicated as architect, builder, or engineer. Let's not argue about anything unnecessarily, I hope. --doncram 14:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    If you want to develop other sorts of lists, that should be done in your user space. That desire does not support inclusion of information in this article that does not belong. If a work is not the work of an NPS architect, it should be removed from this article. Cbl62 (talk) 15:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    National Register of Historic Places listings in Mount Rainier National Park[edit]

    Somehow, the database search you used to start the article omitted sites from Mt. Rainier National Park. The registered properties are listed at National Register of Historic Places listings in Mount Rainier National Park and include some important works designed by Vint and others. I've added a few, but that section needs to be fleshed out; many sites still missing. Cbl62 (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I see that Gobbler's Knob Fire Lookout and others have no mention of the National Park Service as architect/builder/engineer in their corresponding NRIS data, which is why my NRIS search did not yield any of these. They may all have in common mpsub=[Mt. Rainier National Park MPS. Editor Acroterion put "National Park Service" into the governing_body= field of the NRHP infobox when developing articles, based on his judgment (which seems fine) not on what NRIS provides (which was merely "Federal"). I don't know how to systematically catch such omissions, besides we just notice there are clusters of missing data.
    I have not undertaken to search on "vint" and the other named architects in this Architects of the NPS article, for their works for this article, which could naturally belong. (I have added some architect-specific search results to some named architect-specific articles though.) In some cases both "vint" or equivalent and "NPS" will be given in the NRIS architect/builder/engineer field, so those would be included here already, but this list so far omits "vint" or equivalent named architect only identifications, though they could belong. The list started with places having NPS or National Park Service in their a/b/e field, towards giving credit to the more anonymous NPS architects working in groups, not getting individual credits otherwise. I sent an email by the way. --doncram 23:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I cross-checked a few of the other national parks. It appears that listings from Carlsbad Caverns and Devils Tower were also omitted. Some from Grand Canyon may also be omitted. You may want to go through the complete listings for Mt. Rainier and Grand Canyon to see if others are omitted. Cbl62 (talk) 00:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    section about RDAs?[edit]

    I knew of the St. Croix Recreational Demonstration Area in Minnesota previously, but I started into creating the needed Virginia articles on 4 RDA historic districts without any real understanding of the Recreational Demonstration Area program. The main article on the program, started and developed a lot by Ruhrfisch, explains there were 46 of these, and the NPS designed stuff that CCC and WPA built. Seems like a topic to cover in a paragraph or section in this article. For the big organization of this article, would it make sense to organize it by NPS role in design of national parks (and list the national parks), NPS role in design of national monuments (and list those), NPS role in developing military parks (and cover Appomattox there), NPS role in design of RDAs (and list those)? I think there are different design challenges for military parks vs. RDAs vs. natural national parks. Rather than organizing by states. Just wondering.

    Anyhow I'll plug along on the four Virginia articles a bit, starting them as separate articles tho open to their being combined if that makes sense, and would welcome your editing help. --doncram 01:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    External links modified[edit]

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just modified 3 external links on Architects of the National Park Service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

    When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

    This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

    • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

    Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    External links modified[edit]

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just modified 5 external links on Architects of the National Park Service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

    When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

    This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

    • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

    Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Architects_of_the_National_Park_Service&oldid=1198922944"