As the expression goes "I should have such a problem". Firstly I would avoid it and not buy such a property. I don't want to live in a museum, even though I love working in them. But lets pretend. If like Christopher Lloyd I inherited Great Dixter partially designed by Lutyens, I would follow his example and keep the Lutyens hardscaping and furnishings and do as I like with mummy and daddy's Edwardian planting scheme. Where (or who) would Lloyd be today if he had stuck completely with history?

If I should have the great tragedy of buying Hestercombe or Upton Grey I would keep to the GJ plans. On a large estate though there is always something left over. I would make like Marie Antoinette with her "Le Hameau" and design and build at least one private retreat of my own design.

Sharon

That's a tough one. I think I would also avoid buying something with so much historic value that I couldn't feel free to make it my own.
If I inherited it, well, assuming there was enough money included in the inheritance to restore and maintain it, yes, I'd restore.
My place is old, tho not on the register, and any gardens that were here have been gone for a long time, so the changes I'm making will only undo things that were done in the last 50 years or so. Even so, I struggled with some decisions to remove trees that didn't fit in with my plans.
Jo

Oh no!!!! I've just bought Dumbarton Oaks (Is this Garden Monopoly?). Mrs. Bliss and Beatrix Farrand have not left an inch unplanned. They had 50 years to do it all and get it just the way they wanted it. Mrs. Bliss even left a record of future plans. Now I can restore the garden to what it was when she died and try to acheive what she wanted it to become. Yes I would do it. It would be a great adventure of both research and gardening and a worthy cause. A tribute to both women, especially Farrand who disassemled her own garden when she realized that she couldn't provide for its continuity after her death. Considering that Dumbarton Oaks is surrounded by urban Washington DC I won't be able to get space for my own "Le Hameau". So if I can't buy the neighbouring property I will have to buy a place in the country to have a garden of my own for respite from the Bliss/Farrand museum.

Sharon

Jo, if while doing some historic research on your home you discovered that it was one of the family residences of Fredrick Law Olmsted what would you do? Let us assume that you discovered this before you started your landscaping (or maybe after?). Let's also assume that there was as extremely detailed a planting plan left for it as for his client properties. Olmsted developed such a dislike for Victorian bedding plants that he did not allow flowers in any of his designs, only flowering trees and shrubs.

What an interesting question. Hmmm--I wouldn't buy such a property...but if my long-lost crazy-rich uncle LEFT me an Olmstead designed landscape...AND the money to re-do/restore it...then I would do so. BUT--I would probably sneak huge urns and pots STUFFED with colorful annuals/perennials and scented flowers. Can't help it, I'm a color and scent slut. But in containers near the veranda I think they would be acceptable--particularly since they wouldn't be a PERMANENT addition.

melanie

Sharon, I think if I had the detailed drawings, I'd have to restore. Unless I really hated the design for some reason, and then I'd put them away to be brought out when it was time to sell. How's that for non-committal.
Speaking of committal, I'm told by the neighbors that Mary Jane Ward, who wrote "Snake Pit" used to live in my house. A little Prozac with your NPK?
Jo

Funny you should mention Beatrix Farrand. I just got back from a few days in Bar Harbor ME. I visited Farrand's last house and garden, Garland Farm, which has just been bought by a group which wants to restore both. They are quite small so the project is very doable. The group is led by the wonderful landscape architect, Patrick Chasse, and is well worth any dollar or two you might spare.

After years of reading about Beatrix Farrand, I do not believe she dismantled her family's place, Reef Point, garden, house and all, because she couldn't leave an endowment. It's too long a story for here but I think she felt a lot of anger about some important life experiences and that is the source of some of the curious things she did. We were told at Garland Farm that her will stated that, if her caretaking couple predeceased her, Garland Farm was to be dismantled. Fortunately, they outlived her.

I am still mulling over my own answer to the question posed by this thread. Initially, I must say that I think I could never live within the bounds of someone else's vision. Much as I would be tempted, I don't think I could buy a garden which demanded restoration. Stay tuned for what someone else actually did when presented with this dilemma.

Hi Ginny I have only read one biography of Beatrix Farrand, and the book on Dumbarton Oaks and that was last year. I'm not sure even which garden I was referring to when I mentioned the dismantling (damn those multiple residences) I'll have to look it up again. I found Farrand quite an interesting personality. If you could recommend any other books or articles about Farrand I would appreciate it.

Sharon

I am sorry to delay a reply. I have had company and now am going away for the week. Will reply more fully when I return.

Ginny, I had a chance to reread the last chapter of Jane Brown's biography of Farrand. I see what you meant about the anger and the life experiences. Let me now clarify. When I wrote:

"...Farrand who disassemled her own garden when she realized that she couldn't provide for its continuity after her death."

I didn't just mean the money. The continuity would have required reliable stewardship as well. She was no longer in a psychological state to keep working on establishing Reef Point as a study centre and she didn't have the confidence in anyone else to carry it on. She preferred to dismantle it herself rather than risk an uncertain future.

Sharon

hmmmm-strikes me as somehow selfish. "I can't guarantee that the gardens will stay true to my vision--so I'll take it apart. BUT--that doesn't allow for someone to even TRY! Or to discover and restore... Haven't read the book--did Farrand have control "issues?" Is this akin to a man who attempts to kill his wife, because if he can't have her, no one shall? I realize that's hyperbbolic--but wonder if it all stems from the same wellhead...or FOUNTAINHEAD if you like.

Just tossing it out there!

melanie

No Melanie it is the bitterness of an under appreciated artist who looses her emotional support system. Within in a relatively short period of time Farrand's mother, aunt (Edith Wharton) and husband died. She was very close to these three people and felt their loss deeply. She was the first female American Landscape Architect at a time when women were not allowed into professional firms so she made her career on her own. Later in life when she donated part of her garden library to her alma mater Smith College, some of the volumes eighteenth and nineteenth century first editions, they valued the books at $1.00 a copy. No eastern institutions offered to take on her garden and she did invest a considerable amount of her own money to set it up as a study centre. After her husband died she didn't have the psychological will to carry on with such a large project. University of California offered to take her papers and her remaining library. Unfortunately the garden in Maine was too far away for them to take that too. John Rockefeller took a large number of the plants to his Maine estate. I wouldn't call Farrand selfish. I would say that she was psychologically defeated.

Sharon

Ah. That makes more sense--I didn't have the historical context. How sad.

melanie