HD24 - Report of the Joint Subcommittee to Examine the Cost and Feasibility of Relocating the Museum and White House of the Confederacy


    Executive Summary:
    Joint Subcommittee to Examine the Cost and Feasibility of Relocating the Museum and White House of the Confederacy

    Introduction

    During the 2005 session of the General Assembly, Delegate Bill Janis sponsored HJ 747, to create a special joint subcommittee of the House and Senate to study the cost and feasibility of relocating the Museum and White House of the Confederacy.

    The joint subcommittee, consisting of eight legislative members and three citizen members, met four times during the 2005 interim. Delegate R. Lee Ware, Jr. served as chairman of the subcommittee and Senator Benjamin J. Lambert, III served as vice-chairman. Other members of the subcommittee included Delegates William R. Janis, R. Steven Landes, Ryan T. McDougle, and Franklin P. Hall; Senators Charles R. Hawkins and Thomas K. Norment, Jr.; and Mr. Donald C. Gehring of Virginia Commonwealth University, Dr. Walter R.T. Witschey, Director of the Science Museum of Virginia, and S. Waite Rawls, III, Executive Director of the Museum and White House of the Confederacy.

    First Meeting

    The subcommittee met for the first time on July 22, 2005. During the meeting S. Waite Rawls, Executive Director of the White House and Museum of the Confederacy, presented the members with an overview of the problems facing the Museum at its current location. The White House, first occupied in 1812, once stood alone atop a hill in Richmond's Court End. When Jefferson Davis lived there during the Civil War, the mansion overlooked the Shockoe Valley, Church Hill, and Capitol Square. Now, the once prominent location is enclosed by the high-rise buildings of the Medical Center complex and the magnificent views that once existed are completely obstructed.

    Mr. Rawls said that development in the area has also detracted from the overall experience at the Museum as evidenced by common complaints by visitors expressing difficulty finding the facility, parking their vehicle, and hearing tour guides over the noise from nearby construction projects and MedEvac helicopters. As the Medical College of Virginia campus continues to expand in accordance with the VCU 2020 master site plan, the location of the Museum and White House will become more inconvenient to visitors in the future.

    Mr. Rawls reported that the Museum's visitation has declined from approximately 75,000 per year in 1993 to the current annual visitation of approximately 55,000. At the current rate of decline, the Museum will soon require significant funding from the state to remain in operation.

    Mr. Rawls concluded the presentation by submitting three options for the subcommittee to consider: The Museum and White House could remain at its current location at the corner of 12th and East Clay streets, the Museum could be relocated while leaving the White House in its current location, or both the Museum and the White House could be relocated. Following Mr. Rawl's presentation, several members of the subcommittee and interested members of the public took a tour of the Museum and the White House.

    Second Meeting

    During the second meeting on August 29, 2005, the subcommittee heard several presentations addressing the educational and historical significance of the White House and Museum of the Confederacy as well as the impact of relocation and the feasibility of alleviating certain problems facing the Museum and White House at its current location.

    Kathleen Kilpatrick, Director of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, spoke as an advocate for the preservation of the White House. Although sympathetic to the Museum's difficulties in its present location in the Clay Street corridor, Ms. Kilpatrick noted that the situation is not unique to the Museum or to the City of Richmond. In fact, several historic landmarks in other American cities have faced the challenges that arise from modern urban development. Examples include the Paul Revere House in Boston, the Babe Ruth Museum in Baltimore, the Betsy Ross House in Philadelphia, the Walt Whitman Birthplace on Long Island, and the Alamo in San Antonio.

    Ms. Kilpatrick also explained that the White House of the Confederacy is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and the Virginia Landmarks Register. In addition, the White House is one of 117 Virginia properties to have been designated by the Secretary of the Interior as a National Historic Landmark. Given the historical significance of the White House, which has stood in its current location since 1812, Ms. Kilpatrick concluded that the Museum should sort out the problems it faces in its current downtown location rather than pursuing a relocation that could compromise the historic integrity of the structure.

    Next, Cynthia MacLeod, Superintendent of the Richmond National Battlefield Park and Maggie L. Walker National Historic Site, suggested that "the proposed cure of moving the structure would be a treatment sure to cause even more harm to the White House of the Confederacy."

    Ms. MacLeod cited the National Historic Landmark guidelines: "Because national significance is embodied in locations and settings as well as in the properties themselves, moving a property usually destroys the relationships between the property and its surroundings and usually destroys associations with historic events and persons." Relocation, Ms. MacLeod concluded, would jeopardize the structure's designation as a National Historic Landmark. She further predicted that if its designation were lost, it could not be regained.

    In addition, Ms. MacLeod pointed out that the Museum's current visitation is comparable with visitation numbers at the Tredegar visitor center -- another of Richmond's downtown Civil War sites -- and concluded that relocation will not guarantee the financial viability of the Museum and White House.

    Edwin J. Slipek, Professor of architectural history at Virginia Commonwealth University and teacher of architectural history at the Maggie L. Walker Governor's School, then presented the subcommittee with the possibility of re-opening East Clay Street to link Court End historical sites with the Richmond Convention Center. Mr. Slipek envisioned a "world class historical corridor" linking several of downtown Richmond's historic sites. Urging a comprehensive approach to the Museum's situation, Mr. Slipek proposed that revitalization of the Clay Street corridor combined with additional parking facilities and marketing would increase visitation at the Museum and alleviate its financial problems.

    Walter R.T. Witschey, Ph.D., Director of the Science Museum of Virginia, presented a "Vision for the Boulevard" prepared by the American Society of Landscape Architects, Virginia Chapter, and Museums on the Boulevard. Specifically, Dr. Witschey focused on the Museum District in which the Virginia Historical Society, Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, the Science Museum of Virginia, and the Children's Museum of Richmond are located. Although there is little available property near the Science Museum of Virginia, Dr. Witschey suggested that should the Museum relocate, the Boulevard Museum District could be a good new location in light of ample parking in the area and the proximity of other museums.

    Presentations concluded with Robert H. Lamb, Esq., a member of the law firm of Wright & Law in Washington, D.C., who has several family ties to the Museum and White House and urged the subcommittee to explore the alternatives to moving the White House. In particular, Mr. Lamb encouraged the subcommittee to give thoughtful attention to Mr. Slipek's proposal to revitalize the Clay Street corridor and create additional parking facilities. Mr. Lamb further noted that the White House is inextricably linked to the land on which it currently sits by the momentous events that took place both in the house itself and the surrounding property.

    The subcommittee concluded its second meeting by allowing time for public comment. Those who spoke recognized the historical significance of the site on which the White House currently sits but were divided on whether the structure should remain in that location in light of the problems associated with it. The Henrico County Historical Society informed the subcommittee that its board voted to recommend that the White House remain in its current location.

    Third Meeting

    The third meeting, held on September 26, 2005, included several presentations addressing the specific costs and feasibility of moving the White House structure and relocating the Museum. First, Donald C. Gehring, Vice-President for Government Relations and Health Policy at Virginia Commonwealth University and the VCU Health System, spoke to the subcommittee about VCU's relationship with the Museum and how that relationship has developed during their years as neighbors.

    Mr. Gehring first noted that the VCU Health System provides financial support to the Museum. Until the year 2100, the Health System has agreed to provide steam and parking to the Museum. Currently, these services are valued at approximately $79,000 per year. The Health System has also agreed to pay the Museum up to $100,000 per year during the construction phase of the Critical Care Hospital project (January 3, 2005 to December 13, 2007). The first payment of $25,000 was made to the Museum in June 2005.

    Mr. Gehring also noted several derivative benefits to the Museum from the Health System in general and from construction of the new Critical Care Hospital in particular. Mr. Gehring suggested that VCU's presence in the area increases security along the Clay Street corridor and provides visitorship to the Museum from patients' families and friends. Moreover, a $900,000 post-construction budget will likely allow for improvements to Clay Street and adjoining sidewalks, increased lighting and landscaping, and enhanced visitor access to the museum complex.

    Next, Jim Matyko of Expert House Movers, Inc. in Virginia Beach and Daniel DeYoung of DJG, Inc. in Williamsburg, presented many of the details involved in moving the White House structure. To prepare for the move, the front entry, east balcony, and rear portico of the house must be removed. The structure would then be lifted approximately six feet and 40 dollies would be installed to support the structural load. After securing the house on a mobile foundation, it would be transported to its new destination in one piece.

    Assuming that the White House were moved from its current location to an area behind the Science Museum of Virginia, the movers projected that it would take approximately two weeks to transport the house to its new location. Approximately 60 light poles and traffic poles, three sets of power lines, and several trees obstructing the route would need to be moved. Once the White House arrives at its new location, a new foundation would be constructed at the site; a new basement floor slab would be installed; the front entry, east balcony, and rear portico would be reconstructed; and landscaping and finishing touches to the internal structure would be completed. The total cost estimate of the move is $4,765,000.

    Given the projected cost of relocating the White House structure, the subcommittee asked Paul Van Lenten, Legislative Fiscal Analyst for the House Appropriations Committee, to present an overview of non-state agency grants and methods for seeking non-state agency appropriations. After outlining the statutory requirements for the issuance of non-state agency grants found in the Code of Virginia and the Appropriation Act, Mr. Van Lenten noted that $34.1 million has been appropriated for non-state agencies for fiscal year 2006, of which $25.6 million is allocated for capital projects and $8.6 million will be used for operating grants. Should the subcommittee decide to seek an appropriation for the Museum it could do so by either requesting that funds be included in the Governor's introduced budged or by submission of a budget amendment by a General Assembly member.

    Waite Rawles, Executive Director of The Museum of the Confederacy, then presented the subcommittee with a summary of the financial and operating forecasts of the Museum of the Confederacy. When the Museum's audited figures are completed, they are expected to show a loss of over $600,000 for the fiscal year ending on June 30, 2005.

    Mr. Rawles explained that the Museum faces three options: 1) Keep both the Museum and the White House at their current site, 2) build a new museum at another location but leave the White House on site, or 3) build a new museum at another location and relocate the White House at that location.

    Turning to the first option, Mr. Rawles projected that the number of visitors will continue to decline markedly, putting further financial pressures on the institution and casting doubt on its survivability. The forecast for keeping both the Museum and White House in place is an annual deficit of over $750,000.

    He said that should the Museum decide to exercise option 2, building a new museum at another location but leaving the White House on site, visitation at the White House is expected to decline significantly and synergies between the Museum and the White House will be reduced. However, more space would be available for the Museum to expand and the creation of an on-site Center for Civil War Studies would be possible. This option would incur the highest level of future operating expenses in the long run and is forecasted to produce an annual deficit of over $800,000.

    If both the White House and Museum were moved to another site, Mr. Rawles predicts that they could obtain financial self-sufficiency. If this option is chosen, the White House would leave its original location and would lose its National Historic Landmark designation. However, visitation is expected to increase to as much as 90,000 people per year and access to the Museum would be greatly facilitated. In addition, a new museum building would allow for enhanced program delivery and exhibit space. Although significant costs would be associated with building a new museum building, additional revenues are projected due to the expansion of educational and outreach programs.

    Dr. Walter R.T. Witschey, Director of the Science Museum of Virginia, spoke to the subcommittee as a designee of Richmond Mayor L. Douglas Wilder. Dr. Witschey told the members that there is no available city property near the Museum for its use. He also indicated that the city is in discussions with VCU regarding the possibility of providing parking for the Museum at a garage located at 10th and Broad streets. The current site of the Public Safety Building is also a possible option for creating a parking facility.

    The City of Richmond also has a signage program for cultural attractions in which the Museum of the Confederacy participates. Dr. Witschey noted that additions and revisions to the city's signage are continual and that improvements in signage will be forthcoming.

    Dr. Witschey explained that the city's position on a possible relocation of the Museum and White House of the Confederacy is consistent with the Richmond Downtown Master Plan as adopted by the Richmond City Planning Commission and approved by the Richmond City Council in 2004.

    The goal of the Master Plan for historic resources is to facilitate the preservation, rehabilitation, and adaptive reuse of the valuable Downtown architectural and urban heritage. In addition, the plan seeks to implement a comprehensive on- and off-street parking management plan and to fully implement a unified way-finding system, including gateway, parking, and attraction signage. The 1997 Master Plan recommended that Clay Street be converted to two-way traffic and the city continues to support the re-opening of Clay Street as well as the creation of a Court End Historic District. The city's policy relating to historic districts promotes the stabilization and rehabilitation of such districts and discourages demolition.

    The subcommittee concluded its third meeting with a presentation from Juanita Parry, Chairman of the City of Richmond Commission of Architectural Review. Ms. Parry spoke to the subcommittee about the Commission's role in approving the relocation of structures located within a City Old and Historic District. According to the Richmond Old and Historic Districts Handbook and Design Review Guidelines, "[t]he relocation of buildings or structures within a City Old and Historic District is subject to approval by the Commission of Architectural Review."

    Ms. Parry explained that the White House of the Confederacy is located within a City Old and Historic District and that the relocation of the structure would therefore be subject to the Commission's review.

    In reviewing requests for relocation the Commission must consider four criteria: Whether the proposed relocation would have a detrimental effect on structural soundness; whether the proposed relocation would have a detrimental effect on other historic sites, buildings or structures in an Old and Historic District; whether the new site provides surroundings compatible with the architectural character of the relocated building or structure; and whether the new site is located within a City Old and Historic District.

    Fourth Meeting

    The final meeting, held on November 21, consisted of two formal presentations that were followed by an hour-long public hearing. Citizens were allowed three minutes each to express their views to members of the subcommittee and nineteen people took the opportunity to do so.

    First, William Martin, Executive Director of the Valentine Richmond History Center, explained that the challenges facing the Museum and White House of the Confederacy are not unique to that institution. Rather, all the museums in the Court End area are dealing with the issues that have plagued the White House and Museum of the Confederacy; namely, a growing and changing neighborhood, a decrease in funding, and a decline in visitation. In the past five years, Richmond area museums have experienced a 32% decline in visitation. Given that all museums in the Court End area are facing the problems discussed during the study, Mr. Martin suggested that the subcommittee should recommend an appropriation to support all the museums in the Capitol area.

    Next, Elizabeth S. Kostelny, Executive Director of APVA Preservation Virginia, stressed that the Richmond historic community needs to work together to find innovative solutions to their familiar challenges. In particular, Ms. Kostelny suggested that Court End museums could issue block tickets that would be good for admission to any area museum and that re-opening Clay Street would provide easier access to the area's historic sites. Ms. Kostelny further suggested that a study of historic landmarks and museums in the Capitol area should be initiated to address issues facing historic resources in the entire area.

    After the presentations, the meeting progressed to a public hearing in which nineteen citizens expressed their thoughts on a potential move of the White House and Museum of the Confederacy. The overwhelming majority of speakers opposed the relocation because of the negative effects it would have on the historical significance of the White House structure. Several people stressed that historical treasures should be preserved and that further study is needed to determine whether a move is absolutely necessary to keep the White House and the Museum's collections and educational services available to the public. On the other hand, some speakers thought that relocation, while regrettable, is the only viable long-term option for preserving the Museum and White House of the Confederacy.

    After hearing about the issues facing the Museum and White House of the Confederacy from numerous experts and concerned citizens, the subcommittee considered the testimony presented in the course of the study and deliberated on its final recommendations. All members of the subcommittee agreed that preservation of the Commonwealth's historic resources is essential to maintaining cultural identity and that as a state rich in history, Virginia should aggressively promote its historic treasures. The subcommittee agreed that administrators of museums and historic sites should work together to preserve and promote the unique history and educational experiences that they offer.

    Conclusion

    Although the subcommittee recognized that the Museum and White House of the Confederacy faces a number of difficulties at its current location, the members did not reach a consensus as to whether the Museum and White House should be relocated and made no recommendation on that issue to the Board of Trustees of the Museum and White House of the Confederacy. The subcommittee did, however, recommend that the Chairman communicate to the Chairman of House Appropriations and the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee a request that they identify sufficient funds for the Museum. In addition, the subcommittee recommended that the Commonwealth of Virginia, through the Department of Tourism and in consultation and cooperation with the City of Richmond and the Historic Richmond Foundation, create strategies to market and promote the Museum and White House of the Confederacy and other historic assets in Richmond.

    [No report to follow.]