I received the following note from Mary Roberts:
February 8, 2008 Dear Martin House Volunteer,
Because you are a member of the Martin House “family,” I wanted you to know about a sad, but necessary, decision that has been made.
Recent events—both natural and manmade—have forced the issue of the ultimate disposition of the two mature ginkgo trees (ginkgo biloba) located just south of the Martin House porte cochere, flanking the driveway.
One of these trees was already identified as a problematic landscape feature during Phase II of the Martin House restoration, when it was discovered that a very large root from the tree had grown through the foundation on the south side of the house. This was an obvious indication that the tree was planted too close to the foundation to allow for maturation of its root system in a way that would not threaten the built environment.
The disastrous, early season snowstorm of October 13, 2006, caused significant damage to both trees (limb breakage), leaving them in a weakened state.
The scope of work in the Phase IV restoration of the Martin House site includes replacement of the historic driveway and sidewalks on the south side of the Martin House. In order to complete this approved restoration work, it was determined by the contractor that the reinstallation of the driveway and sidewalk leading to the house from the drive, along with related curbs and drainage, will require cutting the roots of the trees, which, in their estimation, would lead to the death of the trees. This work brings the issue of the trees’ condition and disposition to the fore.
To assess the situation, the MHRC and Hamilton Houston Lownie Architects consulted experts, including two highly-regarded arborists and a respected landscape architect. These professionals were generally in agreement in their evaluations of the trees’ condition and prospects, and their findings have been summarized as follows:
- The trees have been subject to many years of wild growth, with little or no proactive maintenance.
- This resulted in problematic features such as codependent stems becoming dual trunks in the mature trees, causing a major weakness at the crotch.
- The trees were planted too close to the foundation of the house (6’ as opposed to the ideal 20’ to 30’ from the foundation). This combined with the decade-long intrusion of impervious landscape elements such as blacktop has compromised the natural root development—and therefore overall health—of the trees.
- The October 2006 storm caused further damage to the already weakened trees.
- The work required to complete site work elements in this area in Phase IV will cause irreparable harm to the trees’ root systems and will ultimately kill both trees.
- Proceeding with the restoration work with the trees in place (in the hope that they might somehow survive) would increase the risk of limbs breaking and causing injury to visitors or damage to property.
After careful consideration of all the available evidence, including the sentimental value of the two ginkgo trees, all parties (the MHRC, HHL Architects and the State Historic Preservation Office) concur that the best and only responsible course of action is to remove both trees from the site.
The entire landscape of the historic complex will be restored to its year of significance (to be determined) following the completion of a Cultural Landscape Report; this restoration will include replacement of all plant species—such as the ginkgos—deemed historically appropriate by the report.
We recognize the unfortunate aspects of losing any mature trees from the Martin House site, but feel that removal of both ginkgos is acceptable and necessary because the completion of restoration of the built environment of the Martin House—impossible without this removal—is more central to the critical path of the MHRC’s mission than the conservation of these landscape elements at this juncture.
Wright’s general regard for trees as organic elements of nature subject to time, the elements and architecture also supports the removal—and later replanting—of these trees that are in marginal health and threaten the buildings they are meant to complement. The ages of the trees will be documented when they are removed, and their removal is scheduled within the week.
Please know that this decision was not lightly made and that we respect all things related to Wright’s work and nature. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. I welcome any response.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Roberts
Executive Director
.JPG)