Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Library Research Report Series — 1199
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Library
Williamsburg, Virginia
1990
The landscape reconstruction and subsequent design revisions made to this property over the course of nearly fifty (50) years span a significant period in the continuing development of American landscape preservation philosophy. Changes from the original reconstruction in 1942-3 have occurred due to a combination of factors, ranging from the natural influences of weather and subsequent growth, to a change in perceptions about the initial approach and design interpretation taken by the earlier pioneers in the historic landscape preservation field.
When the shift in use from serving as a private residence for a life tenant to that of functioning as a guest house for Raleigh Tavern Society Members occurred in late 1986, the character of the site and landscape had already changed since its initial re-construction in 1942-3. Though the basic physical layout and site features remained essentially as designed by my predecessors, the passage of time had wrought substantial changes to the tree and shrub plantings within the garden.
The ultimate form of the initial design of this garden had its genesis in the mind of Mr. Arthur A. Shurcliff, FASLA, (1870-1957) who served as the first active landscape architect in 2 a consultant capacity to the architectural firm of Perry, Shaw and Hepburn of Boston from 1927 until 1942. In the months before Pearl Harbor, Mr. Shurcliff was beginning to advance in age and was in need of an assistant in Williamsburg. This need was answered when Mr. Alden Hopkins, FASLA, (1905-1960) was hired in late 1941. He had been with Colonial Williamsburg for only a short while when the Barraud garden was being archaeologically excavated in the summer of 1941, prior to a full re-construction.
Mr. Hopkins executed the drawings under Mr. Shurcliff's direct supervision in 1942. Later revisions to the plans in 1946 and 1947 were done primarily by Mr. Hopkins alone, with some advice and guidance of Mr. Shurcliff, who, by that time had retired but was acting strictly in an advisory capacity as a consultant, and who continued in this manner until his death in 1957.
Thus, the resulting character and layout which remains today represents a garden whose design has been transitional ever since its initial reconstruction over forty years ago. It was a site which first experienced a "changing of the guard" in its designers, by its being worked upon by the master landscape architect and his young apprentice who would soon eventually succeed him. It was revised again later by the maturing young landscape architect, who apparently gave considerable thought to constant refinements in order to improve the design and its logic and appearance.
3The design of the pre-existing site features also reflected the restoration and interpretive philosophy of that earlier era; which had been substantially preserved over the years, and could be characterized more accurately as a "Colonial Revival" landscape re-creation. Therefore, with the need to revise the site's design in order to respond to the significant change in use of the house and kitchen, the opportunity presented itself in 1987 to also reflect more contemporary ideas about site usage and landscape design as they have been suggested to us via forty (40) additional years of study and the application of increasingly sophisticated archaeological and research techniques.
A description of the initial and subsequent work done on this site can be accomplished by discussing site layout and boundary information, general design characteristics, grading of the site, paving designs, planting design features, and the specific elements revised or eliminated in the 1987-88 renovation of the property.
The lot on the northwest corner of Francis and Botetourt Streets is shown on the Frenchman's Map of 1782 with indication of a house and kitchen. The existing west property line of today is not upon the original western limit of lot #18. This original property line probably included the Privy as its 4 westernmost limit, running from there to Francis Street parallel to Botetourt Street. At some later date additions were made to the property and the original, existing terrace laid out to aid in the grading. This leveling was probably done due to the deep ravine to the west of the property which formerly extended nearly to Francis Street early in the eighteenth century. It was apparently at least partially open until about 1770 and was probably completely filled in by about 1780. Even though filled, the remaining difference in elevation still required a terrace to make a suitable transition. The presence of numerous brick drains flowing in the direction of the ravine as revealed by archaeology, proves that this ravine was an important means of drainage then as it is today, though a culvert handles storm water today. The north boundary, abutting Brick House Tavern, was quite definitely set by the archaeological discovery of wall foundations. Surviving insurance plans indicated no outbuildings. However, in a letter of February 14, 1817 there is the following reference to the garden and outbuildings, " ... except the west side, there is not a post, rail, or pole on the lot used as a garden: and that the buildings and the enclosures about them, are very defective and much less valuable then when you left them."
From the archaeological studies and excavations we do know that there once existed a series of outbuildings, elaborate drains, pavements and marl walks. The walks and marl surfaces presented a very complete and definite pattern in relation to the 5 outbuildings and garden area. By a close relationship to the walks and the geometric pattern they produced, my predecessors were able to discern a probable design for the layout of the garden and various divisions of functional spaces on the lot.
The location and arrangement of the walks, pavements, foundations, terraces, etc. found by the archaeological survey of 1941 determined quite definitely the design and uses of the different parts of the lot. There appeared to be three (3) probable divisions of usage for the entire area. Typically, excavations indicated the usual eighteenth-century type allocation of work space. The house and its kitchen, being so closely bound by constant traffic, are usually considered as one complete working unit with no fence line or division between them. Also included in this space was the well, for it was a closely associated utility item in a dooryard. The surrounding fences form logical enclosure lines from building to building. Along Botetourt Street on the property line was re-constructed a 4'6" height "legal" enclosing fence connecting the building corners. In the 1942-3 reconstruction a 4'1" interior fence height was used to connect the northwest corner of the house to the smokehouse to separate the "door or workyard" area from the kitchen and ornamental gardens. The lower height used for the interior fence was employed to enhance views of one space to the 6 others and to visually distinguish them from exterior property line enclosures. Along this fence line, two (2) gates were placed where there was some indication from a walk location revealed by archaeology, or astride the most direct line of communication between areas. In this west fence line of the door or workyard the south gate was determined by the ancient walk locations and the former north gate by the projected center line of the kitchen door which would have been the most direct line of approach to what was formerly thought to be the kitchen garden. This north gate and the section of fence extending from the well to the smokehouse were removed during site revisions made in 1987-8 for reasons which will be more fully explained in detail later in this report.
At this point in the report, it seems appropriate to elaborate upon my earlier reference to a change in perceptions today about site usage and the character of the gardens of the eighteenth century. Our ideas in this regard are quite a bit different today than those held by my distinguished predecessors due to nearly fifty (50) years of additional research and study; not only within Colonial Williamsburg, but at other similar historic sites in the nearby region. The views and opinions concerning gardens and site usage of my predecessors were influenced, to a great degree, by the entire cultural idealization of the past which characterized the early years of the American historic preservation movement. Therefore, their interpretations tended to emphasize beauty over function, 7 ornateness over simplicity, and gave little thought or emphasis to issues such as the occupation, social and economic status of the eighteenth century owners, the size of their households, and whether the garden re-constructions; proposed were consistent and plausible results of such historical documentation. Clearly, a more decorative, ornamental garden interpretation was favored in early reconstructions over a simpler, utilitarian garden approach on known middle or even lower class dwelling house sites. Today, we call this stylistic approach of conjectural historicism as "Colonial Revival" garden design, and its continued preservation and study contributes to a greater understanding of the forces and motivations which led to the re-creation of historic sites like Colonial Williamsburg.
By comparison, contemporary views about site design, layout, and interpretation of evidence have, as their basis, an almost burning desire for intellectual honesty and historical accuracy. This, in turn, has been made possible by improved methods of scientific research methodically applied over the intervening years to ferret out elusive facts about eighteenth century life and practices. Archaeologists, in particular, have also greatly contributed to this trend via the development of highly sophisticated techniques to enable the discovery of the most elusive minutiae about eighteenth century gardening habits previously undreamed of by my predecessors.
So, to return to the specifics of the Barraud property, archaeological excavations revealed a very complete marl pathway 8 system in the garden to the west of the house. Mr. Shurcliff and Mr. Hopkins believed that only a small portion of that layout was given over to a kitchen garden, while the rest of the layout must surely have been an ornamental garden. Because of these interpretations of the evidence, their resulting design is more ornamental than utilitarian in character and appearance.
The area that my predecessors thought was the kitchen garden was the small rear garden area adjacent to the privy and smokehouse. They believed this was so due to its relationship to the service or work area and supporting outbuildings. It was initially planted as a kitchen-type garden, but was eventually converted into a grassed area with flower borders at its edges along the fences for ease of maintenance.
The larger area to the west of the house was reasoned to be an ornamental garden because of the path system that was excavated, and because it seemed the most logical place for a garden to be placed as viewed from the house or by travelers along the public way (Francis Street).
The lower terrace, now the wildflower and bulb garden was probably at one time also a vegetable garden. In most typical eighteenth century terraced gardens there is evidence to suggest that flowers and ornamental planting frequently occurred near the house or living area on the uppermost level while the lower levels were planted mainly with vegetables. Mr. Shurcliff and Mr. Hopkins assumed this situation must have occurred on this site, and it may have, indeed. However, we cannot be certain of 9 this without additional, detailed archaeology. In any event, as the eighteenth century years passed and the garden was abandoned, the area was overgrown with trees. Mr. Shurcliff designed a turf ramp as a connection between the two levels. Since archaeological studies revealed no indications of steps on this bank, he assumed that the transition was by means of a ramp similar to those found in the Robert Carter garden on Palace Green. The original Shurcliff design for the lower grove included a mount, with seating, on axis with the main east-west walk extending from service courtyard, through the ornamental garden, to the bulb garden, and grove. By adding a thick back-up planting, the intent had been for the mount to serve as a terminating focal point when viewed from the service yard area. Apparently, the scheme was at least partially carried out due to the current remains of a small mound of earth in the bulb garden where the mount was intended to be sited. The reason(s) why this feature was never fully executed is unknown, but the former life tenant, Mrs. Ryland, was largely responsible for planting and nurturing the natural-styled bulb garden. Perhaps it was she who decided that the mount did not fit the context of "her" garden, and directed that its construction be halted after only minimal work had been accomplished. Whatever the circumstances may have been, she developed a truly lovely garden which continues to have tremendous appeal to our visitors. Because it is unique among Colonial Williamsburg's many gardens, the preservation and continued maintenance of this bulb garden remains an important 10 element in the physical layout and appearance of the site.
The main house, in the southeast corner of this lot, had been built upon the highest point not only of the lot, but of the block as well. During the intervening two centuries the surrounding surface had been built up so that in most places the topsoil was found to an extraordinary depth. In the garden area to the west of the house the marl walks were discovered just a few inches below the lawn surface, and yet below this grade the soil was of good garden loam for a foot or more. The greater part of this surface naturally drained to the north and west toward the old ravine which formerly was in the center of Block 10. There an ancient drain had carried the surface drainage under the leveled Duke of Gloucester Street and into the stream leading to nearby Queen's Creek. The remains of a terrace or bank 60' west of the house and parallel to the west facade were easily discernible on the ground. This was found by a topographical survey to have a fall of 2' to the west. The terrace was leveled and redeveloped to a 2' drop in a slope of 5' (see plan L-2). As there was no evidence of steps, either brick or wood at any place on this bank, a turf ramp was used as a feature common in eighteenth-century gardens for access from upper to lower garden. one ramp in the center serves as a continuation of the central garden walk. To the north and south along the fence lines, similar ramps were constructed for ease of 11 circulation and possible eighteenth-century cart service for upper gardens and privy.
The Francis Street fence line grading presented some problems which were solved by allowing the top elevation of two panels to slope parallel with the terrace ramp. Above and below this slope the fence grade runs with the general slope from house to terrace and terrace to property line fence. Along both streets a great deal of grading was necessary between paved way and fence line to remove the soil accumulation of many years. Along Botetourt Street the sidewalk was lowered considerably so that the grade returned to its probable appearance before the hidden concrete walk slab and its addition of topping brick had been laid. A slight slope from fence line to sidewalk to a bank along and parallel to the street with a quick drop to a gutter was laid out along both streets. On the Francis Street side, soil removed in this regrading work revealed several old paper mulberry stumps below the then-existing finished grade which had once served as a street tree planting in the nineteenth century. These stumps were removed to facilitate the new, lower grades which were necessary to promote storm water runoff. The roof water drip has been collected in perimeter brick gutters around the house and kitchen, and taken by modern, underground piping to a drop inlet box at the corner of Francis and Botetourt Streets, where it enters the storm sewer system along Francis Street, to enter the old culvert under Block 10, as mentioned earlier in the report.
A study of the archaeological excavations and drawings provided Mr. Shurcliff and Mr. Hopkins with a good basis upon which to develop the kitchen yard paving. An odd brick arrangement was found in a good many patches closely connected with the kitchen and house. This pattern placed the bricks in running bond fashion without a bonding joint. Excavations revealed that a walk of this bond with an edging of brick on the end once connected the kitchen door and main house. There also appeared to have been paving around the back door and bulkhead of the house. This was all apparently developed in a uniform pattern. To the west of the kitchen and in line with the present large stable-type door a considerable area of paving, regular in pattern, seemed to point to this section as having been a work space for the forge or shop. This was replaced by Mr. Hopkins for use as a laundry drying and work space. Much of this paving has been subsequently expanded in the most recently completed renovations to the courtyard and gardens. The reasons for this will be explained later in the section of the report dealing more specifically with the 1987-88 landscape renovations.
The area between the well and kitchen commonly would have received heavy usage so that from the beginning it would have had an extra strong pavement or much replacement by bats or large brick fragments. On the well's west wall frontage, in the former enclosure Mr. Hopkins designed to lead from the garden, a 13 similar paved surface was located. This was laid indicating another area of hard usage with much replacement in the way of odds and ends of stone and brick. Most of the stones were later removed as the probability of non-locally available stone being present in Williamsburg in the eighteenth century in quantities suggested by such usage is remote.
According to the archaeological research, the central east-west garden walk was marl similar to all the others in that area. Fragments were found, however, of a much earlier walk paving which indicated a brick or stone walk in the garden at some earlier period. For modern usage and appearance Mr. Hopkins chose to specify a brick running bond walk through the garden. This follows exactly the line of the eighteenth-century excavated marl walk.
Centered along the north flower garden fence, Mr. Hopkins also placed a 5' x 10' paved terrace, flush with the turf panel to form a foundation or platform for two garden benches. This was laid in a simple basket weave pattern.
Before the front steps and portico an arrangement of ancient stone fragments and brick intermixed repeats in a fashion the regular pavement of the portico floor, yet introduces some brick from the sidewalk as though it were an interweaving of the two surfaces.
The sidewalks installed were of a common running bond brick with leads to the street, and along Francis Street, where travel is light, walks of marl replaced the pre-existing gravel 14 footpath.
Within this yard there was but one tree which could be used to advantage in Mr. Hopkins' new scheme of reconstruction. This, a beech plum, happened to grow in such a location against the smokehouse that its shape and spring bloom would add greatly to the scene.
With surrounding buildings and a medium-sized pecan to the north beyond the wall, Mr. Hopkins felt that there was no need for special planting to create a further sense of enclosure.
Several special trees are used in this yard for definite purposes. To the north of the house, balanced on either side of the rear porch were planted two (2) wahoo elms. They were chosen by Mr. Hopkins for their tall, slender form to allow sufficient light and air beneath to permit shrub growth as well as pleasant shade upon the porch. At the northwest corner of the house a dogwood was planted which leans out over the flower garden above the walk to soften the corner and intermix house and garden planting so that they overlap.
Originally, Mr. Hopkins located several plants in the 15 kitchen yard for the accent of some particular spot. Over the years, many of these accent plantings grew so large that they began to intrude upon the space, so some were subsequently removed. Some plantings also died due to the effects of several severe winters. An espaliered fringe tree against the broad kitchen chimney was soon overshadowed by the growth of a large red horse chestnut tree nearly beside it, and was not doing well as a result. It was later removed. A fig planted close by the kitchen soon grew too large and was later removed, as well. Remaining boxwood and ground covers have been retained and have survived the years reasonably well, as well as other shrubs such as a Bladdernut which was chosen for its foliage and flowering effect.
None.
Buildings or trees on all sides with the existing grove and its overhanging red mulberry and hackberry were regarded by Mr. Hopkins as sufficient enclosure for this space.
The four ironwood originally indicated for the square area directly in front of the smokehouse and privy were chosen by Mr. Hopkins with several points in mind, according to his records, all of which this particular species tree seemed to satisfy; 1.) a medium-sized, slender, arching tree, 2.) a light, quick-growing 16 foliage, 3.) a disease-free species, 4.) an interesting winter condition. The tall arching growth was thought to permit a good view of the two outbuildings as seen from Francis Street. The broom for service yard atmosphere, and the elderberry for the kitchen garden to the west of the trees would have been easily seen. Flanking the western portion of the east-west divisional fence were three large woody althea which were relocated in this lot. They once served the definite design purpose of providing background for this portion of the west panel as seen from the flower garden so that the eye would be focused, instead, on the view between the crape myrtles to the east, the more important point of the two panels in the design. The narrow space in the kitchen garden between marl walk and south fence was originally filled with daylillies. These tall, stalked flowers were placed in this spot to show well above the fence and because the foliage made a good appearance at most times of the year. The effects of the passage time have changed much of the plantings described above as part of the original design by Mr. Hopkins. The four ironwood trees were removed years ago, and the shrub althea are also gone. The area formerly planted with daylillies now contains seasonal bulbs and other plants to provide for changing colors and textures in this rear garden area. The four crape myrtle trees flourished and grew to very large size until the severe freeze during the winter of 1982 killed them (as well as many other plants) back to the ground. Their dead limbs and trunks were cut off at grade level the following spring. 17 However, the root stock apparently survived and soon were sending forth sucker growth from the stumps. Today, these hardy survivors are making a remarkable comeback and, hopefully, will eventually grow back to their former size and prominence in the ornamental garden's design.
Within the former kitchen garden area there originally was no special accent material planted. The boxwood shrubs at the western end were apparent later additions to the design to provide a backdrop or visual termination for the space. A garden bench was added there probably about the same time, as neither of these features appear on Mr. Hopkins' plan drawings dating back to the spring of 1942. Boxwood shrubs placed rather curiously at the eastern end of the gardens' grassed panel were removed in 1987 when the fence separating this garden from the kitchen work yard was removed. Their removal and re-use elsewhere provided for a larger open space in answer to a design requirement of the 1987-88 renovation which is further noted hereafter in the report.
The two large crape myrtles formerly located against the west side of the house were retained, but were moved to new locations as described below.
The house, trees in other areas and grove, as well as two 18 then-existing maples on Francis Street were thought to give necessary enclosure in this garden, by Mr. Hopkins.
The most important of these are the four crape myrtles (2 relocated) on this lot as mentioned earlier in the preceding section. They were placed at either end of the east garden panel to emphasize this over the other western panel and carry through the balanced centerline through the space. This balance is picked up in the Francis Street fence and the north garden fence, wall, outbuildings, walks, seats and all other planting in this garden. In the western panel close to the Francis Street fence Mr. Hopkins originally placed two green gage plums. These were later added to and carried north in that panel to make a small orchard.
In order to preserve the eastern garden panel as an enclosed, defined unit, the still-existing hedges were used as a border to the area. A planting strip of perennials formerly bordering the turf was originally planted but later was removed to simplify the garden and for easier maintenance. Most of the material within this border was low flowers, some bulbs and ground cover. As a foreground for the holly hedge along the terrace and between garden and grove, Mr. Hopkins used the white flowered mugwart. A long planting bed of this plant, contrasted against the dark holly, was thought to be a very effective border planting. Mr. Hopkins also prepared another plan (sht. L3-A, 19 dated 8 June 1942) showing intended future additions to the plan development of the gardens, most of which were apparently never carried out. World War II brought a halt to all work within Colonial Williamsburg and Mr. Hopkins, like so many other young Americans of that day, was called into the armed forces until 1946. Although he later served as Resident Landscape Architect from 1946 until his death in September 1960, and certainly had the opportunity to push for subsequent additions to this garden, Mr. Hopkins may have refrained from doing so in deference to the wishes of the former life tenant, Mrs. Ryland, whose needs and desires obviously had to be given due consideration when contemplating changes to the site and gardens.
Upon Mrs. Ryland's death in the early 1980's, ownership of the house reverted fully to the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. Discussions began concerning a number of alternative for the possible future use of the house. Once the decision had been made to renovate the house and gardens for use as a guest house and focal point/gathering place for the Raleigh Tavern Society, a complex series of events began to take place. Meetings of staff architects, researchers, hotel managers, interior designers, museum curators, and building and construction personnel were held to begin to define the project's scope and the roles each respective discipline would play in making the transition a reality. I was included in these discussions under the able guidance of Vice President, D. Stephen Elliott, and began to 20 develop a list of criteria, or what an architect or landscape architect calls "program requirements", in an effort to determine the extent of landscape revisions required to support the new use of the property and to enhance its functional capacity. From these discussions and planning efforts, we identified and agreed upon five (5) broad areas of concern about the previous landscape site development which required my attention and response. These five program requirements influencing the design revisions were as follows:
In order to respond to program requirement #1, in particular, more space was obviously needed for a large gathering of people and for serving tables, trays, etc. The courtyard space was the natural candidate for this potential use, however a more durable paved surface and a larger amount of paving than what existed was clearly needed. Space was provided for this by removing a large bed of ivy and laurel, and two small turf areas. Major existing walk connections, such as the east-west walk through the garden and extending to Botetourt Street, and the 22 north-south walk connection from the house to the kitchen, were not disturbed.
The rear portion of the courtyard had been separated from the rest by a tall paled fence, and had served as a service yard for drying clothes and trash can storage. This fence and clothes line were removed to provide further space for the courtyard, and the brick paving was expanded to provide an even, stable surface for serving tables and trays for receptions.
The remainder of the courtyard was given a brickbat and marl surface treatment. Since this space was a work and utility area in the eighteenth century, which included a forge operation, this type of surface was chosen. Research indicates that many work spaces behind houses, shops and taverns in eighteenth century Williamsburg were paved in this fashion. Archaeological remains of brick paving found during the 1941 excavations here also Provided evidence of the brickbat walks to the well from the house and kitchen. Small shells and marl were laid around the brickbats in this fashion and the constant traffic and use eventually crushed these into a compacted mass which provided a tough and durable surface after a short period of time.
The picket fence extending from the well north to the smokehouse was removed to further expand the usable space of the courtyard into the rear pleasure garden, and to allow that garden to be better seen and used than was formerly the case. The addition of a marl path to the north side of the grass panel and board edging to the adjacent planting bed established a symmetry 23 that was visually suggested but not fully developed in the pre-existing layout.
To create a better sense of enclosure, screen out incompatible uses and service areas, and establish a greater degree of privacy in the courtyard and garden, an existing fence and brick wall at the north property lines were modified. In the rear pleasure garden, the former paled board fence was removed and replaced with a taller, more authenticated paled board design which encloses the James Anderson Forges complex to the northwest. The side adjacent to the Barraud garden is whitewashed for visual compatibility with the other Barraud fences and outbuildings. The brick wall, a feature reconstructed on original eighteenth-century brick wall foundations as revealed by 1941 archaeological excavations, has also been raised. Its new height of six feet, coupled with additional landscape planting on both sides, provides courtyard privacy and screens the adjacent Brick House Tavern parking areas to the north.
As stated, a few plant varieties were removed in order to make room for more open space. This work included the removal of laurel, lilac and boxwood shrubs which were transplanted and reused elsewhere in the Historic Area. A small assortment of vines, ground covers, bulbs and perennial flowers were planted in newly formed or re-worked beds adjacent to the courtyard and within the rear pleasure garden borders, as described earlier in the report. (See plant list on sheet L5 for specifics.) The Landscape Maintenance Staff will use this list, as well as 24 augmenting these plant selections, with a variety of other annual and perennial flowers as appropriate to maintain a continual succession of seasonal interest, color and textures in the garden.
Other work included the shaping and shearing of the boxwood hedges, several large boxwood shrubs at the extreme western end of the rear pleasure garden, and a large tree box shrub just south of the well in the courtyard. Also, existing beds of ivy and periwinkle ground cover beds were trimmed and edged as required.
The formal ornamental garden and fruit orchard, and the informal, wildflower garden to the west of the house were deemed important visual elements worthy of preservation as documents of the earlier design philosophies of my predecessors. Their form was compatible and appropriate for the new use of this property and, thus, were left undisturbed.
To provide parking for guests of the Barraud House, the existing parking lot adjacent to the Wetherburn's Stable, across Botetourt Street to the east, was modified and reconfigured. Access to this lot was gained exclusively from Francis Street before the re-design was implemented. Currently, Barraud House guests gain access to their own reserved parking lot, containing four spaces, from Botetourt Street. This lot is enclosed by a nearly six-foot tall paled board fence which provides a measure of security and screens the cars from view of the nearby Wetherburn's Tavern exhibition/interpretive area and the central 25 Historic Area located just ¾ of a block to the north from the lot.
These revisions to the physical landscape environment of th Barraud House represent yet another chapter in the landscape evolution of this site, and have been executed with the primary objective in mind of retaining the historical and visual integrity of the property as it relates to its hallowed surroundings, while providing a lovely setting geared to the special needs and comforts of all Raleigh Tavern Society members and their guests. I feel honored to have been afforded the opportunity to play a role in the Foundation's efforts to preserve this interesting and historic property, as well as create this special Williamsburg "home" for our important and much esteemed friends who share in the dream of a perpetual Colonial Williamsburg. I hope you enjoy your stay with us!
Sincerely,
M. Kent Brinkley, A.S.L.A.
Landscape Architect
The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation