Historic Sculpture Master Plan

H I S TO R I C A L SC U L P T U R E S M A S T E R P L A N CO M M I T T E E

Cover Letter for the

Report to the Los Alamos County Council, the Fuller Lodge/Historic District Advisory Board, and the Art in Public Places Board

by Nancy R. Bartlit, Chairman

February 10, 2010 The Historical Sculptures Master Plan Committee conveys to the Los Alamos County Council its report, after review and approvals from the Fuller Lodge Advisory Board on January 6, 2010 and the Art in Public Places Board on February 10, 2010. This report includes: the “Master Plan Proposal to Select Historic Sculptures to Represent Five Eras of Los Alamos History,” and the “Recommendations Regarding Location of Oppenheimer and Groves Sculptures Report.”

The Committee has met weekly since July 20, 2009 until January 4, 2010, with the assistance of Stephani Johnson, Director of Community Services, and her staff. We appreciate the opportunity to develop, on behalf of the Council and the Arts in Public Places Board, recommendations and guidelines for location of historic statues. This process was lengthy and comprehensive, with consultation of Richard McIntyre, Director of the Parks Department, and maps to locate utilities which could influence final recommendations. County Councilor Ralph Phelps, liaison to both boards and our committee, provided key encouragement and guidance.

The Committee was inspired by the steps taken by the Art in Public Places Board to begin the Historic Sculptures project by asking the council to hire a sculptor to create life-sized statues of J. Robert Oppenheimer, the first laboratory director under the Manhattan Project, and Major General Leslie R. Groves, of the U.S. Army Corps who oversaw the Manhattan Project. Using the report of 2006 of the Economic Development through Art Committee, we adopted many

H I S TO R I C A L SC U L P T U R E S M A S T E R P L A N CO M M I T T E E

of its recommendations for goals, strategy, and statues. In addition to listing sculptures which fit historic sites in the downtown area and Historic District, we included possible outside funding sources for the County to consider to amplify Art in Public Places funds.

One component not addressed by the Committee was how to plan ahead for dedication of the first two statues sometime in 2010, which could be an excellent opportunity to draw the community together with others who have interest in the Manhattan Project. A comprehensive effort to involve the Oppenheimer Memorial Committee, the Light Opera, the Historical Society, history teachers and students, political leaders, military associations, and living relatives who reside in the region, could be foreseen to assist the Art in Public Places Board.

The Master Plan has two phases, one five year plan, and one for the second five years. Also included is a suggestion of a statue of historic interest to both Los Alamos and Santa Fe. Besides the specific persons or generic statues identified, we have made several other recommendations concerning signage of the Historic District and ways to connect the two museums. We hope these ideas will increase enjoyment of the downtown, as we encourage statues be crafted in fitting and entertaining poses, and that this plan will add pleasure and beauty around Fuller Lodge, Ashley Pond, the Historic Walking Tour, and along Central Avenue.

Mentioned in this letter are articles in the local newspaper which have featured the work of the Committee and support in the Albuquerque newspaper of the proposed Manhattan Project National Historical Park. If this Park becomes a reality, support for, and perhaps supplemental funding for statues from this historic era, could be expanded.

NEWSPAPER ARTICLES ABOUT HISTORIC STATUES

“Living History” photo, Los Alamos Monitor, Wednesday, August 12, 2009, p. 3.

“Living History: The famous among us,” by Katy Korkos, Los Alamos Monitor, August 13, 2009, p. l.

“Council clears way for Oppenheimer statue,” Los Alamos Monitor, October 24, 2008, p. 1.

“Committee polishes sculpture series,” Los Alamos Monitor, Tuesday, December 29, 2009. p 1&2.

“Council Oks historic statues,” Los Alamos Monitor, Friday, January 9, 2009, p. 1.

“Historic Park A Fine Idea,” Albuquerque Journal, Santa Fe/North, Wednesday, December 30, 2009, p. 3.

Master Plan Proposal to Select Historic Sculptures to Represent Five Eras of Los Alamos History

from The Historical Sculptures Master Plan Committee

January 13, 2010

INTRODUCTION GOAL

The goal of this project is to bring life and immediacy to the Los Alamos downtown and historical area through accurately and meaningfully presented life-size, historic bronze statues.

This master plan develops a 5–10 year plan for these life-size sculptures to be located in the downtown area. As part of the project, the Historical Sculptures Master Plan Committee (HSMPC) also was to accomplish the following two tasks: 1. Documentation of the reasons for the selections including historical context, and 2. Identification of potential funding sources.

The sculptures identified in this report have significant historical context and excellent visibility in all of the proposed locations.

The HSMPC used the criterion “defined route of flow” in its considerations to ensure that sculptures would be placed to draw visitors from the science museum to the historical museum, and vice versa, avoiding obscure locations. The existing boundaries for the downtown master plan and for our Art & Culture District (the Los Alamos Creative Culture District) are more than adequate to contain proposed sculpture sites. In fact, all the currently proposed sites are contained by the historical walking tour route, bounded by Trinity Drive and Nectar Street on the south and north, and Oppenheimer Drive and 15th Street on the west and east.

While meeting weekly since July 20, 2009, the Committee diligently researched, interviewed historians and persons who experienced past eras, and sought answers from the expertise of our members. We balanced a concern for what historic stories would be enjoyed by observers and the historic structures which influenced our choices. | one |

We hope these suggestions will beautify the downtown and enhance cultural events. We applaud the dedication of Stephani Johnson, Los Alamos County Community Services Director, to make our task easier and wish success as she assists the Art in Public Places (APP) Board to review our recommendations. We also appreciate the help of County Councilor Ralph Phelps for his guidance and key ideas.

The APP Board has already received County Council approval for the J. Robert Oppenheimer and Major General Leslie R. Groves sculptures, created by Santa Fe artist Susanne Vertel, which are recognized to be the first step in achieving these goals of the Master Plan. Attached to this report is the HSMPC’s “Recommendations Regarding Location of Oppenheimer and Groves Sculptures Report,” November 2, 2009, which selects three locations as finalists for this pair, recommending Site 6. In anticipation of the completion of these statues, the attached report develops guidelines which can be used, not only for the first two statues, but also more broadly to site future historic statues.

STRATEGY

To attract people into the Historic District in a way that the public art would stimulate the imagination of viewers in order to understand the five historic eras of the Pajarito Plateau of Los Alamos County.

This project also addresses the Council’s Strategic Goal #4G: “Diversify the Economy/Revitalize White Rock and Los Alamos Downtowns by increasing number of visitors coming to and through Los Alamos,” and Newly adopted Downtown Plan Element #6 which “supports the efforts of the Fuller Lodge/Historic Districts Board and Historical Society to bring a series of sculptures of local historical figures to the downtown.”

This project incorporates the earlier efforts of the Fuller Lodge/Historic Districts Advisory Board, the Los Alamos | two |

Historical Society, and the Art in Public Places subcommittees who prepared the Economic Development through Art report of 2006.

PROPOSED COST

At this time, the sculptures identified probably can be commissioned for a price between $60,000 to $80,000 per statue, dependent on materials cost. The exception to these estimates is in the first era identified, the Ranch School. The recommended sculpture for this era includes a pack animal or horse and therefore will likely be more costly. Funding for the sculptures could come through a combination of APP budgeting and through solicitation of private donations or grants. The Committee encourages the County to assign sustained responsibility for overseeing financial solicitations as part of the plan.

Historic Statues Master Plan for First Five Years Please note that the Committee’s recommendations are listed in the priority order that we suggest they be purchased and installed.

PHASE I

A. Manhattan Project Era (1943–1947)

Statues: J. Robert Oppenheimer and Major General Leslie R. Groves (contracted 2009–2010).

Location: At Fuller Lodge (Site 6). (Refer to Location report attached to this report.)

Possible Funding Sources (PFS): County Funds–APP Budgeted Funds.

B. Ranch School Era (1918–1943)

Statue: Boy Scout leading a horse, a Scout riding a horse, or leading a pack animal with the famous Los Alamos diamond hitch. Scouts | three |

Homesteader

are in shorts, high knee socks, and chaps. Suggest a generic Boy Scout unless a family wishes their loved one to be a model and makes a substantial donation. A special dedication could coincide with the Boy Scouts celebrating their centennial in 2017. Many photos as resources are in the Historical Society’s archives.

Location: Northeast corner of Ashley Pond, in the direction where the horses were stabled.

PFS: Family members of former/current Boy Scouts and possible endorsement/promotion by the Boy Scouts of America.

C. Homestead Era (1880–1943)

Statue: Hispanic male Homesteader planting or holding beans (e.g. Bences Gonzales, son-in-law of the Romero Family, cook for the Ranch School, and also worked at LASL). We recommend contacting the Romero family first if Bences is selected to represent their heritage. Many photos of Bences and Homesteaders working in the fields can be found in the Historical Society’s archives.

Location: Near the Romero Cabin in the Historic District, northeast of Fuller Lodge.

PFS: Descendants of Gonzales and/or Romero Families; Pajarito Plateau Homesteaders Association.

| four |

D. Manhattan Project Era (1943–1947)

Statue: U.S. Army WAC (Women’s Army Corps) and U.S. Army SED (Special Engineer Detachment). Generic models of both female and male, with woman holding slide rule or placed in her pocket. Couple could be preparing to attend movie theater. (Possible models are Jean and Winston Dabney, both Master Sergeants, who married at the end of the War.) Location: On Central Avenue, perhaps in front of CB Fox, site of a former movie theater.

PFS: WWII commemorative organizations.

E. Cold War Era (1947–1990):

Statue: Norris Bradbury, second director of the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory (LASL) for 25 years, and also key leader in the Trinity Test success. Member of the U.S. Naval Reserve, architect of the modern Lab. All new Lab hirees were invited to his home to welcome them.

Location: Bradbury sitting on a bench in front of the U.S. Post Office which was built while he was the Lab director. (FL/HD AB plans to re-nominate the post office building for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.)

PFS: Family support; WWII commemorative organizations.

F. Ancestral Pueblo Era (1150–1550 A.D.; ancestral village 1225 A.D.)

Statue: Woman coiling a pot.

Location: North end of ancestral pueblo village in Historic District.

PFS: National American recognition/heritage grants; local Native American pueblos’ development corporation partnerships.

OPPORTUNITY WITH CITY OF SANTA FE AND THEIR APP BOARD

Manhattan Project Era (1943–1947)

Statue: Dorothy McKibbin, a Santa Fean who was “Gatekeeper” to all who were sent to “The Hill” during WWII and until her retirement in the 1960s. The famous 109 E. Palace Avenue was

| five |

Yesterday, in a canyon beyond Guaje, I saw a deer flee through the pines. I heard the wind on a mesa beyond

the Manhattan Project’s office in Santa Fe. The original gate from Palace Avenue is in the Los Alamos Historic Museum.

Location: City of Santa Fe, possibly by the gate of 109 E. Palace, perhaps in the courtyard where her old office was. If the Manhattan Project Historical National Park becomes a reality, the historic interconnection between Los Alamos and Santa Fe would be reinforced.

PFS: Joint funding with the City of Santa Fe and Progress through Partnership monies if approved by the County Council.

Benefit to Los Alamos County: Having this statue beside or within the historical courtyard of Dorothy’s Santa Fe office, where a plaque already describes how Santa Fe was a “gateway” to Los Alamos during WWII, would explain the connection of the two cities then and would draw visitors to visit Los Alamos.

stride furiously from the mountain. I saw swift clouds darken

Historic Statues Master Plan for Second Five Years

the sun. I heard the PHASE II

advancing rain.

A. Ranch School Era (1918–1943) EXCERPT FROM “YESTERDAY” PEGGY POND CHURCH

Statue: Peggy Pond Church, daughter of Ashley Pond, known eloquent author and poet, loved living at the Ranch School. Her husband, a school master, taught at the school and two sons attended the school. The Church family is actively engaged in local history, attending events of historical nature, and sharing their memories.

Location: At the end of Bathtub Row and Peach Street corner on the Historic Walking Tour, near the home in which she, Fermor Church, and their three boys resided.

PFS: Family and friends.

B. Manhattan Project Era (1943–1947)

Statue: Deak Parsons, U.S. Naval Academy graduate and Admiral, was second in command to J. Robert Oppenheimer during the | six |

It is impossible to overestimate the value which Captain Parsons has been to the project.

DR. J. ROBERT OPPENHEIMER

Manhattan Project. He was in charge of all ordnance, and directed Project Alberta on Tinian Island. He armed Little Boy while Enola Gay was in flight. He was raised in Fort Sumner, NM, and brought Norris Bradbury to Los Alamos.

Location: Admiral Parsons’ family lived in the Church home on the north section of Bathtub Row, but he worked in the technical area surrounding Ashley Pond. His location could be near the Ice House Memorial or near Fuller Lodge.

PFS: Family; U.S. Navy local veterans; WWII Commemorative organizations.

Statue: George Kistiakowsky, a Ukrainian-born Harvard chemist and explosive expert, insisted on a lens-type implosive device to explode the plutonium bomb. He was a key figure in designing the Trinity Test bomb’s firing mechanism.

Location: In front of the Red Cross Building along the Historic Trail on Bathtub Row where he lived.

PFS: WWII commemorative organizations; Ukrainian heritage organizations.

C. Cold War Era (1947–1990)

Statue: James L. Tuck, a British scientist in the British Tube Alloys Project (code name), was sent to Los Alamos to assist the Manhattan Project. His research on the “lens system” of detonation proved vital to the success of the Trinity Test. Active in community affairs for years, he was instrumental in keeping Ashley Pond as a pond. His similar action also kept Fuller Lodge from destruction, after the Atomic Energy Commission took down the Big House in which the Boy Scouts and Manhattan Project scientists slept.

Location: Manhattan Project Ice House Memorial on the south side of Ashley Pond, possibly sitting on one of the walls of the exhibit.

PFS: WWII commemorative organizations.

Statue: Jean Nereson, one of the longest serving teachers in Los Alamos County, arriving during the Manhattan Project and teaching for 50 years. Jean inspired and kept in touch with the | seven |

children of the Manhattan Project scientists, influencing their lives.

Location: Near Central School site, west of Mesa Public Library.

PFS: Past students; Greek heritage organizations.

Statue: Stan Ulam, co-inventor of the hydrogen bomb who lived in Bathtub Row’s Spruce Cottage. He also invented the important Monte Carlo Method.

Location: [Along the Historic Walking Tour, near Spruce Cottage.]

PFS: Family; Polish heritage organizations.

Statue: Nick Metropolis, a computer calculations expert, he invented an important Monte Carlo algorithm. Along with John von Neumann, Richtmyer, Fermi, and Percy King, the FERMIAC was developed as an ingenious analog device to implement studies in neutron transport.

Location: To be determined.

PFS: Family, Greek heritage organizations.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

Statue Presentations: The Committee recommends that the historic sculpture bases have a design similarity, that they be placed at ground level, that written, historic interpretation accompany the statue, and that they be lit at night. (See attached location report.)

Signage in the Historic District: The Committee sent a suggestion to the Fuller Lodge/Historic Districts Advisory Board to replace the concrete signage in the Historic District to a more appropriate design for persons to find destinations. Most stakeholders in the area agree that it would be desirable to remove the present concrete signs and replace them with a more appropriate, historic style. Such signs would improve readability to find the museum and art center, and correct organizational names.

| eight |

The Committee also recommends that the Historic District borders be “signed” when collaboration of those working on heritage tourism recommend an appropriate style.

Possible Funding Sources: The Committee encourages the county to assign to a specific economic development staff, or consultant, the responsibility of developing private funding suggested in this report to supplement the public budget for historic statues.

Manhattan Project National Historical Park Designation: The National Park Service study of Manhattan Project Sites released in November 2009 discusses the possibility of Los Alamos being included in a future Manhattan Project National Historical Park with the cities of Oak Ridge, TN, and Hanford, WA. Since the majority of visitors to Los Alamos already come to learn Manhattan Project history, this designation could increase interest in, and outside funding for, the Manhattan Project and Cold War historic statues under Phase II. Sidewalk Enhancement: The idea of medallions in the sidewalks (with bas relief profiles of historic figures along Central Avenue as a beginning, e.g. Otto Frisch, Hans Bethe, Enrico Fermi, and Niels Bohr of the Manhattan Project Era) might be a more affordable way of recognizing other historic figures, and could lead people from the Bradbury Science Museum to the Historical Museum and Historic District.

RESOURCES

The Los Alamos Historical Society archival collections for all the eras.

The Los Alamos National Laboratory’s archival collections and historic preservation research on the Homesteaders, World War II, and the Cold War. The Atomic Heritage Foundation web site. | nine |

HISTORICAL SCULPTURE SITING CRITERIA

The following criteria and weightings were developed for siting the Oppenheimer/Groves sculptures. The committee would encourage their usage for future historic sculpture sitings.

As sites were considered, they were automatically removed from consideration if any of the following unsafe conditions were met: 1) the site would be a potential traffic hazard or a hazard to people; 2) it would be an obstruction in emergency situations; 3) was situated in a winter snow removal area, or 4) if there were deemed to be too many existing utilities (water, sewer, gas, electrical or data).

1. Historical Context: (25% weighting) Sculpture sites should have a strong historical association with their proposed locations. An example would be the Minuteman Sculpture at the North Bridge in Concord.

2. Visual Context: (25% weighting) Visual context includes whether: the setting makes for a good photo opportunity; it fits in with and enhances the setting in which it is placed; and adds to the ambiance of its surroundings. Sculpture sites should be compatible with the feeling and setting of the existing Los Alamos Historic District (aka, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory National Historic Landmark District (NHL District)) and should not detract from those attributes that make the properties eligible for inclusion in the NHL District.

3. Visibility: (15% weighting) Sculpture site should be placed in areas visible to pedestrians and passersby and consideration should be given to sight lines.

4. Defined Route or Flow: (15% weighting) Sculpture site should be part of a defined and interpreted route — a series that leads the visitor from one sculpture to the next. An example of such a defined route is the existing downtown walking tour.

5. Security: (10% weighting) Sculpture site should not put sculpture at undue risk for vandalism or theft.

6. Upkeep: (10% weighting) The sculpture site should not cause excessive maintenance work or hinder area upkeep.

| ten |

COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Nancy Bartlit, Chair, Author and Member FL/HD Board Helen Baran, past Member FL/HD Board Linda Deck, Director, Bradbury Science Museum Hedy Dunn, Museum Director, Los Alamos Historical Society Ellen McGehee, LANL Historic Preservation Liaison for Cultural Resources Team Katy Korkos, Members Services Coordinator, Chamber of Commerce Brian Hurshman, Sparkplug Studio, who donated the graphic design format of these reports.

EX-OFFICIO NON-VOTING MEMBERS

John Hofmann, Chair, APP Board Ron Wilkins, Chair, FL/HD Board Stephani Johnson, Director, Community Services, Los Alamos County

| eleven |

Recommendation Regarding Location of Oppenheimer and Groves Sculptures

for Members of the Art in Public Places Board Members of the Fuller Lodge/Historic Districts Advisory Board from Nancy Bartlit, Chair, Historical Sculptures Master Plan Committee

November 2, 2009

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this report is to offer three (3) options for a location for the J. Robert Oppenheimer and General Leslie Groves sculptures which are intended to stand side-by-side. The Oppenheimer statue is currently being created by artist Susanne Vertel.

There are children playing in the streets who could solve some of my top problems in physics, because they have modes of sensory perception that I lost long ago.

J. ROBERT OPPENHEIMER

BACKGROUND

At the County Council meeting of October 21, 2008, the Council approved “the recommendation of the Art in Public Places Board regarding the purchase and placement of an historic sculpture of Oppenheimer [to] be placed between the Historic Museum and Fuller Lodge among the trees; and the contract of this sculpture be returned to Council for final approval.”

Subsequently, at their January 6, 2009 meeting, the Council approved the contract with Ms. Vertel, but asked the Art in Public Places Board to consider moving the sculpture closer to Central Avenue in the Fuller Lodge area. At that same meeting, Councilor Gibson suggested that the location of the Oppenheimer sculpture be considered as part of a larger plan for locations of future historic sculptures.

After that meeting, members of the Art in Public Places Board and the Fuller Lodge/Historic Districts Advisory Board met to discuss the formation of a committee to create a Master Plan for the location of both the Oppenheimer and Groves sculptures, as well as locations for future historic sculptures. Therefore, the creation of the Historic Sculptures Master Plan Committee whose charge was to “develop a 5 – 10 year master plan for sculptures to be located in the downtown area which included the existing Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory National Historic Landmark District (NHL District). The sculptures will be life-size, realistic representations of individuals (e.g. Oppenheimer, Groves, and Bradbury) or groups (e.g. homesteaders, Boy Scouts) that have

| one |

played a significant role in the history of our community. The plan will provide context for future proposals to Council and does not represent a commitment to future action.�

DISCUSSION

The Committee has met weekly (with the exception of the Labor Day and Columbus Day holidays) since July 20, 2009. The members have focused their initial efforts on decisions related to the location criteria of the historical sculptures with special attention to the location for the Oppenheimer and Groves sculptures, as they are the first to be purchased. The Committee considered both privately and publicly owned sites. Six criteria for ranking any potential sculpture site have been discussed and agreed upon. These criteria address critical issues in sculpture placement and the Committee recommends that these criteria be used to select locations for sculptures in the future.

As sites were considered, they were automatically removed from consideration if any of the following unsafe conditions were met: 1) the site would be a potential traffic hazard or a hazard to people; 2) it would be an obstruction in emergency situations; 3) was situated in a winter snow removal area, or 4) if there were deemed to be too many existing utilities (water, sewer, gas, electrical or data).

The remaining historical sculpture siting criteria, which are placed in order of importance, include: 1. Historical Context: Sculpture sites should have a strong historical association with their proposed locations. An example would be the Minuteman Sculpture at the North Bridge in Concord.

| two |

2. Visual Context: Visual context includes whether: the setting makes for a good photo opportunity; it fits in with and enhances the setting in which it is placed; and adds to the ambiance of its surroundings. Sculpture sites should be compatible with the feeling and setting of the existing Los Alamos Historic District (aka, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory National Historic Landmark District (NHL District)) and should not detract from those attributes that make the properties eligible for inclusion in the NHL District.

3. Visibility: Sculpture site should be placed in areas visible to pedestrians and passersby and consideration should be given to sight lines.

4. Defined Route or Flow: Sculpture site should be part of a defined and interpreted route — a series that leads the visitor from one sculpture to the next. An example of such a defined route is the existing downtown walking tour.

5. Security: Sculpture site should not put sculpture at undue risk for vandalism or theft.

6. Upkeep: The sculpture site should not cause excessive maintenance work or hinder area upkeep.

1B

Fuller Lodge

5B 6

At the Committee meeting of August 10th members tested the proposed criteria by visiting eight possible locations for the statues.

After the visits, Committee members were asked to come to the next meeting with their top three (3) sites identified.

At the August 31st meeting, Committee members toured the remaining sites and commented on the pros and cons of each. After discussion on the remaining sites, Committee members chose what are called Sites 1B, 5B and 6 (photos are attached of each site). Following are the comments on each site by Committee members. It should be noted that with regard to the Historical Context criterion, all three sites provide an excellent location.

| three |

site 1B

Between the Trees at Historical Museum and Fuller Lodge (Site 1B) 1) Historical Context: The sculptures have a strong historical association with this location. This is because both J. Robert Oppenheimer and General Leslie Groves visited and ate at Fuller Lodge, while Groves stayed at the guest cottage, currently known as the Historical Museum. They also would have walked the path from Fuller Lodge to their offices. 2) Visual Context: Placement here would meet the compatibility requirements. The sculptures would not detract from the attributes of the District, but in fact, add to the ambience of the surroundings. 3) Visibility: Although this location would lend itself to visibility by pedestrians who visit Fuller Lodge, the Historical Museum, or take advantage of the Historical Walking Tour, it is likely that in this location, passersby on Central Avenue would not readily see them. 4) Defined Route or Flow: Placement of the sculptures in this area would be ideal in that the site lies between two (2) stops on the downtown walking tour — the Red Cross Building and the Historical Museum. 5) Security: This location meets this criterion in that the sculptures would be

| four |

placed within the trees between Fuller Lodge and the Historical Museum. In this location traffic would not be impeded, nor would the sculptures lend themselves to vandalism, especially in view of the fact that lighting is recommended to be installed in whatever location is chosen. 6) Upkeep: Placement in this location would not cause excessive maintenance or hinder area landscaping.

site 5B

Central Avenue and Bathtub Row Intersection (Site 5B) 1) Historical Context: The sculptures have a strong historical association with this location. 2) Visual Context: This location, as well, is compatible with the Historic District. When other sculptures are installed as part of a Master Plan, this location could reinforce that each individual sculpture is part of a recognizable set and/or series. 3) Visibility: The visibility from Central Avenue is excellent in this location. 4) Defined Route or Flow: This location would eventually become part of a defined and interpreted route as more of the historic sculptures are installed per the Master Plan | five |

that is being created by the Committee. It is not currently part of the downtown walking tour, although this site would be ideal for those visitors who walk down Central Avenue from the Bradbury Museum to Fuller Lodge and the Historical Museum. 5) Security: If this site is chosen, the sculptures should be placed in such a way that they will not interfere with the site distance requirements of the motoring traffic. Since this location is part of a large grassy area well off of the sidewalks, the two will not impede pedestrian traffic either. Since this location is on a well-traveled corner, both by pedestrians and motorists, the chance for vandalism or theft is much reduced. 6) Upkeep: As in the proposed location noted above, this location would not cause excessive maintenance or hinder area landscaping and could be lighted at night.

site 6

Central Avenue at South Wing of Fuller Lodge (Site 6) 1) Historical Context: The sculptures have a strong historical association with this location in that Fuller Lodge and the Big

| six |

House were the hubs of daily life. 2) Visual Context: This site is very like the above-mentioned site and this location is compatible with the Historic District. When other sculptures are installed as part of a Master Plan, this location could reinforce that each individual sculpture is part of a recognizable set and/or series. 3) Visibility: The visibility is excellent in this location with the southern wall of the wing of Fuller Lodge in the background. 4)Â Defined Route or Flow: Again this site is similar to the previously mentioned site, as this location would eventually become part of a defined and interpreted route as more of the historic sculptures are installed per the Master Plan that is being created by the committee. It is not currently part of the downtown walking tour, although this site would be ideal for those visitors who walk down Central Avenue from the Bradbury Museum to Fuller Lodge and to the Historical Museum in the Historical District. 5) Security: Placement in this location will not create safety hazards for pedestrians or the motoring traffic. This location is part of a large grassy area very near sidewalks thereby making it very accessible to pedestrian traffic without impeding the traffic. This location faces a well-travelled corner (Central Avenue and 20th Street), used both by pedestrians and motorists, so the chance for vandalism or theft is much reduced. 6) Upkeep: Since there are utilities in this area, care should be taken to ensure that the sculpture is placed well away from the utilities. This location would not cause excessive maintenance or hinder area landscaping. continues

| seven |

RECOMMENDATION

Based on our consideration of these criteria, we recommend the above-mentioned sites in this order: 1. Central Avenue at the South Wing of Fuller Lodge (Site 6), 2. Central Avenue and Bathtub Row Intersection (Site 5B), and 3. Between the Trees at Historical Museum and Fuller Lodge (Site 1B).

How the Sites Ranked (on a scale of 1 to 100) SITE RATING

6

5B

1B

87.9

83.9

82.6

COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Nancy Bartlit, Chair, Member FL/HDAB Helen Baran, past Member FL/HDAB Linda Deck, Director, Bradbury Science Museum Hedy Dunn, Museum Director, Los Alamos Historical Society Ellen McGehee, LANL Historic Preservation Liaison for Cultural Resources Team Katy Korkos, Members Services Coordinator, Chamber of Commerce Brian Hurshman, Sparkplug Studio EX-OFFICIO NON-VOTING MEMBERS

John Hofmann, Chair, APP Board Ron Wilkins, Chair, FL/HDAB Board Stephani Johnson, Director, Community Services, Los Alamos County

| eight |

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service http://www.nps.gov/history/NR/publications/bulletins/nrb15/nrb15_8.htm#determining

“Understanding the Aspects of Integrity” LOCATION

Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. The relationship between the property and its location is often important to understanding why the property was created or why something happened. The actual location of a historic property, complemented by its setting, is particularly important in recapturing the sense of historic events and persons. Except in rare cases, the relationship between a property and its historic associations is destroyed if the property is moved. (See Criteria Consideration B in Part VII: How to Apply the Criteria Considerations, for the conditions under which a moved property can be eligible.)

DESIGN

Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. It results from conscious decisions made during the original conception and planning of a property (or its significant alteration) and applies to activities as diverse as community planning, engineering, architecture, and landscape architecture. Design includes such elements as organization of space, proportion, scale, technology, ornamentation, and materials.

A property’s design reflects historic functions and technologies as well as aesthetics. It includes such considerations as the structural system; massing; arrangement of spaces; pattern of fenestration; textures and colors of surface materials; type, amount, and style of ornamental detailing; and arrangement and type of plantings in a designed landscape.

Design can also apply to districts, whether they are important primarily for historic association, architectural value, information potential, or a combination thereof. For districts significant primarily for historic association or architectural value, design concerns more than just the individual buildings or structures located within the boundaries. It also applies to the way in which buildings, sites, or structures are related: for example, spatial relationships between major features; visual rhythms in a streetscape or landscape plantings; the layout and materials of walkways and roads; and the relationship of other features, such as statues, water fountains, and archeological sites.

SETTING

Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. Whereas location refers to the specific place where a property was built or an event occurred, setting refers to the character of the place in which the property played its historical role. It involves how, not just where, the property is situated and its relationship to surrounding features and open space.

Setting often reflects the basic physical conditions under which a property was built and the functions it was intended to serve. In addition, the way in which a property is positioned in its environment can reflect the designer’s concept of nature and aesthetic preferences.

The physical features that constitute the setting of a historic property can be either natural or manmade, including such elements as: Topographic features (a gorge or the crest of a hill); Vegetation; Simple manmade features (paths or fences); and

Relationships between buildings and other features or open space.

These features and their relationships should be examined not only within the exact boundaries of the property, but also between the property and its surroundings. This is particularly important for districts.

MATERIALS

Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. The choice and combination of materials reveal the preferences of those who created the property and indicate the availability of particular types of materials and technologies. Indigenous materials are often the focus of regional building traditions and thereby help define an area’s sense of time and place.

A property must retain the key exterior materials dating from the period of its historic significance.

If the property has been rehabilitated, the historic materials and significant features must have been preserved. The property must also be an actual historic resource, not a recreation; a recent structure fabricated to look historic is not eligible. Likewise, a property whose historic features and materials have been lost and then reconstructed is usually not eligible. (See Criteria Consideration E in Part VII: How to Apply the Criteria Considerations for the conditions under which a reconstructed property can be eligible.)

WORKMANSHIP

Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of artisans’ labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure, object, or site. Workmanship can apply to the property as a whole or to its individual components. It can be expressed in vernacular methods of construction and plain finishes or in highly sophisticated configurations and ornamental detailing. It can be based on common traditions or innovative period techniques.

Workmanship is important because it can furnish evidence of the technology of a craft, illustrate the aesthetic principles of a historic or prehistoric period, and reveal individual, local, regional, or national applications of both technological practices and aesthetic principles. Examples of workmanship in historic buildings include tooling, carving, painting, graining, turning, and joinery. Examples of workmanship in prehistoric contexts include Paleo-Indian clovis projectile points; Archaic period beveled adzes; Hopewellian birdstone pipes; copper earspools and worked bone pendants; and Iroquoian effigy pipes.

FEELING

Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.

It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property’s historic character. For example, a rural historic district retaining original design, materials, workmanship, and setting will relate the feeling of agricultural life in the 19th century. A grouping of prehistoric petroglyphs, unmarred by graffiti and intrusions and located on its original isolated bluff, can evoke a sense of tribal spiritual life.

ASSOCIATION

Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.

A property retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling, association requires the presence of physical features that convey a property’s historic character. For example, a Revolutionary War battlefield whose natural and manmade elements have remained intact since the 18th century will retain its quality of association with the battle.”