Slide 1

In the Shade of Black Locusts:
Preserving the “Silent Sentinel”
of Fort Douglas

Kimberly Buckner
Volunteer Staff
Fort Douglas Military Museum
Salt Lake City, Utah

Photo: Utah State Historical Society

Copyright Notice
© 2012 Kimberly Buckner and Fort
Douglas Military Museum. All
Rights Reserved. No use of any
photographs/information in this
presentation without express
written consent of the copyright
owner(s). All photos used by
permission.

But not all historic properties
are deliberately being
destroyed. Many have fallen
victim to the “ravages of
time.” This structure near
Camp Floyd has completely
collapsed since this picture
was taken in 2010.

Preservation: A National Priority?
Thomas Parris: National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 promotes the preservation of historic
structures as a national priority

And YET thousands of historically significant
properties are being destroyed each year despite
placement on the National Register of Historic
Places
Thomas Parris, “Historic Preservation”, Environment, Vol. 46, no. 8 (February 2003), p. 3

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

A Common Misconception?
A commonly held misconception among public
audiences:
“Preservation is broadly opposed to change and by
extension, that Section 106 is a tool to block
progress.”
Instead:
“Preservation is about controlling and accommodating
change, and the entire network of preservation rules,
beginning with Section 106, is designed to accomplish
that end.”
Amos J. Loveday, “The Decision Maker’s guide to Section 106”, Forum Journal Winter 2012, Vol. 26
(2), p. 17

Preserving Eligibility
Preservation is meant to protect by not diminishing
any characteristic providing eligibility on the
National Register of Historic Places Including (but
not limited to):
• Integrity of Location
• Integrity of Design
• Integrity of Setting
• Integrity of Materials
• Integrity of Workmanship
• Integrity of Feeling
• Integrity of Association
“Section 106: Back to the Basics”, Forum Journal, Winter 2012, Vol. 26, no. 2, p.10; 36 CFR
800.5 (a)(1)

The National Register of
Historic Places
Since 1966, The National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) provides:
• Communal recognition of local, state or national
history in a visual way
• Consideration in federal undertakings and
improvement projects
• Eligibility for tax benefits through the federal
government
• Qualification for monetary funds for preservation
benefits
Donald L. Hardesty and Barbara Little, Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists
and Historians, 2nd edition, (Lanham, MD: Altamira Press, 2009).

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties
Approved treatment
options:
• Preservation
• Rehabilitation
• Reconstruction
In rare conditions:
• Demolition by neglect
• Moving the historic
structure
Historic Cabin Ca. 1860’s
La Sal, Utah
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2010. Edited by Brick R. King, 2010
Colors have been enhanced

Success Stories:
Onsite Preservation of Carson Inn, 1858
Quick Facts:
• Camp Floyd and
Stagecoach Inn State Park
• Fairfield, Utah
• Built in 1858 by John
Carson
• Adobe and Frame
Construction
• Restored June 1959
• Outcome: furnished as a
historic “house” museum

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2011
Plaque, Camp Floyd /Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah

Success Stories: Moving, Restoration and Renovation
Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, 1847 and the Deuel
Family Cabin, 1847
Deuel Cabin
•
•
•

Riter Cabin

Temple Square
Moved ca. 1989
Glass enclosed historic house museum
with period furnishings

Why are they so Important?

•
•
•

Maintained in Old Deseret Village
Moved to Old Deseret Village ca. 1989
Interpreted solely by historical plaque

• Photo

The two oldest
remaining structures
in Utah are these
original
165-year –old cabins

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village

Success Story:
Relocation to Old Deseret Village
Quick Facts:

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Historic Manti Mill,
built ca. 1858 in Manti, Utah
Relocated ca. 1989

• This is the Place Heritage
Park
• Salt Lake City, Utah
• More than 40
structures/buildings
• Buildings consist of
originals, reproductions, or
relocated 19th century
structures
• Outcome: set up as a
historic village to interpret
frontier life in Utah from
1847-1869

Other success stories
ODV

Photos: Kimberly Buckner 2012

Camp Douglas, ca. 1864
“…I found another location, which I like better for
various reasons…”– Patrick Edward Connor
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah
Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14 September 1862,
Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah.

From Camp to Fort
26 October 1862 : established Camp
Douglas
1862: “Connor Tents” and Dugouts
1863: Adobe and Log structures begun
1867: Expansion of Camp’s perimeter
1874-75: $1 Million rebuild from native
red sandstone
1878: Renamed Fort Douglas

Camp Douglas ca. 1866
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884: $63,820 expansion with 5 frame
structures

From Fort to Historic Landmark
1904-1911: $1,140,000 building expansion
1910: Introduction of electricity
1915-16: Addition of detention camp
1930: Final major building expansion
1970: Listed on National Register of Historic
Places as a heritage district
1974: Listed as National Historic Landmark
26 October 1991: Fort Douglas officially
decommissioned
2002: Athlete’s Village, 2002 Winter Olympics

Stillwell Field Looking East, 2012
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Building 55
Characteristics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

Cost $780
Less than 1900 Sq. Feet
Originally 26 ft. by 29 ft.
Adobe with frame additions
First Neoclassical cross-wing in
Utah (symmetrical design)
4 rooms
18” thick walls
3 adobe fireplaces
“Four over four” double hung
sash windows
Pine or Douglas Fir
Wooden shingle roof coated in
slate
“Lath and plastered” interior
Has a stand alone Historic
Register eligible structure below
the original building (1862 Root
Cellar)

Building 55 in 2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Greg Haws and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History
of Building 55 (7) and its Inhabitants.” University of Utah
Graduate School of Architecture,
Fort Douglas Papers, University of Utah
Marriott Library Special Collections,
Salt Lake City, Utah

Building 55, ca. 1865
“In the shadow of Red Butte, the silent sentinel…looks down upon the scene of
[their] labors, at the very spot where [they ]first camped…”
–Lieutenant Colonel Fred B. Rogers at the funeral of General Patrick Edward
Connor
Photo: Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah;
Elmo R. Morgan, “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22 October 1862-30 September 1954”, Fort Douglas
Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah(Brackets added)

Then and Now
ca. 1900

Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner

Preservation of Building 55: Additions
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

North Exterior

South Exterior

1930
Addition

Unknown
addition

1864
Frame
Addition

1862-3
Root
Cellar

1863
Original
Building

1863 Original
Building

1875
Addition
1864 Post
Surgeons
Quarter’s

1930
Addition

Extensive Known Alterations:
1864: addition of two frame rooms
1874: addition of parlor from Post Surgeon’s quarters
Removal of a fireplace
Windows changed
Fireplace enclosed
1903: Plumbing
1910: Electricity
1911-1928: steam heating, telephones, gas lines
1930: frame Lean-to addition
Windows changed
1960: fire damage repairs
Unknown: Building addition
Unknown: Exterior Stucco
Source: Maintenance Records for Building 33, 1933; Maintenance Records for Building 55, 1938

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Preservation

Unknown Addition
Ca. 1930

• Building 55 is believed to have
been the only complete 1863
structure remaining at Fort
Douglas
• In 2003 parts of several other
1863 buildings have been found:
– 1874: Commander’s Quarters
Parlor from 1863 District
Commander’s Residence
– 1864: Building 55
Parlor Post Surgeon’s
Quarters
– 1862-63: Building 55
Root Cellar

1874 Addition

Original 1863 Parlor

1874 Post Commander’s Residence
Source: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Moving Building 55
• First discussed in 1990
• Again in 1994
• The site chosen was Old
Deseret Village
• University of Utah did not
agree for “reasons so
compelling”
• Recommended for
preservation on site
• Discussion never progressed
further into action
• Outcome: remains on site

Old Deseret Village looking east, 2012
First proposed area to move Building 55

Source: Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995; Anne Racer to Rick
Reece, email, 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum,
Fort Douglas, Utah.

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Old Deseret Village:
Historically Camp Douglas
Pros for moving:

Cons for moving Building 55:

• Old Deseret Village was
constructed on the original
grounds of Camp Douglas
(Association)
• Preserves the structure
• Allows “basic” interpretation
of the historic structure
• Provides opportunities for new
use, but not uses the building
was intended for(Design)

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•

Moved off of original location 1+ miles
away (location)
Destroys 150 years of association to
location of the historic camp
(Association/location)
Bears no resemblance to current location
(feeling )
Would remove from NRHP an make it
ineligible for any future attempts
Removes Historic Landmark designation
Costs to move , reconstruct and restore
(materials)
Destruction of original workmanship
(workmanship)
May cause un-repairable damage to the
structure (workmanship/
materials/design)

Fort Douglas Military Museum
1917
Master Plan
POW Barracks (RC)

N: New
RE: Relocated
RC: Reconstructed
E: Existing
D: Drop Building Addition to
Historic Structure

1942
Firehouse (E)

North

1943
Barracks (RE)

and Guard Tower (RC)

Women’s
Memorial (N)

D

1863
Commanders
Home (RE)

D

D

Building 31 and 32
Current Museum (E)
Not connected yet. Black Star
Building has been completed.

1935
Shop (RE)
© 2012 Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884
Officer’s
Quarters
Duplex (RE)

Preservation Problems
• Stress fractures
• Plaster Damage
• Fire Damage
• Foundation damage
• Windows
•Adobe damage

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner , 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos:
Kimberly
Buckner
2012

A Good Move: Moving Building 55 to Fort
Douglas Military Museum Grounds
Pros:

Cons:

• A move of less than ¼ mile
• Maintains association to original
site (Association)
• Preservation of structure
(materials/design)
• Opportunities to interpret local
history of post (location)
• Chosen site provides similar view
to original location (setting)
• Allows for new use (design)
• Maintains feeling of the historic
district (Feeling)

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Removes from primary location and
original foundation (Location)
Potential to damage structure
May destroy the original
workmanship (Workmanship)
To which era of significance will it
be restored?
Original orientation may not be
possible
Will introduce modern materials
into the historic structure
(Materials)
Removes from NRHP but would
allow for reapplication/maintains
historic landmark designation

A Difference in Views
Old Deseret Village

Looking West

Fort Douglas Military
Museum Grounds

Cannon Park looking South
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Lessening the impacts:
When moving is the only Preservation
option
Old Deseret Village

Fort Douglas Military Museum

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Will lose nearly all historical identity
Not on original site, but in association with original
camp
Allows the structure to exist
Would impact the elements of original design
Area not with original feeling but among structures
who have lost their “history”
Introduction of modern materials
Further impacts to historic workmanship
Loss of National Historic Landmark Designation
Loss of NRHP listing. May not be able to reapply
Land has lost all association/use with original Camp
Douglas
New use may not be conducive to historic use
1+ mile move
Impacts all criterion of integrity
Must be removed from Federal ownership to
private

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Maintains historical Identity
Maintains association with original camp
Structure is preserved in similar location
Less than ¼ mile move
Area has maintained original feeling and
association to the camp
Loss of NHRP listing but retains eligibility for
the future
Maintains National Historic Landmark
Designation and prominence within the
historic district
Interpretation of changes in military housing
New use conducive to original use
Fully restored with historical furnishing s
Retains nearly all criterion of Integrity
Already part of museum complex
Maintains federal ownership (State of Utah
to Utah National Guard ownership)

Moving: The Right Choice?
Old Deseret Village is a good place to house relocated and reconstructed historic structures to interpret the
early territorial history of Utah
BUT…
It was not the right setting to house a unique structure like Building 55
–

Will Building 55 be remembered for its history and sense of location? Or, because of the 4th grade
field trip with limited exposure only to be quickly forgotten?

–

With so many structures will the building be properly maintained or fall victim to demolition by
neglect?

–

Potentially a Section 106 logistic nightmare (Federal holdings to “private” hands)

Whereas…
The Fort Douglas Military Museum grounds will allow the unique structure a permanent home, restoration and
ability to maintain a prominent place in Fort Douglas. It will allow for
–

more opportunities and exposure to its unique history,

–

Will ensure that it will be preserved for future generations.

If Moved to Old Deseret Village

The actual site chosen for Building 55 in 1990 was never disclosed in the documentation.
Building 55 was placed in an arbitrary location within the park.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012 Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

If moved to the Museum Grounds

Sitting in proposed Master Plan location on the museum grounds.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Future Recommendations
The recommendations for Building 55:
1.

Restoration at current site using historically accurate methods
–
Potential for learning opportunities at current site (i.e. Root Cellar)
–
Potential for gaining additional archaeological information from site
–
Root Cellar was nominated as a stand alone NHRP eligible structure in 2008.

2.

Create a viable strategic plan for living history and historic house museum (adaptive use)
–
Prepare plan to cover all preservation issues which may crop up in the next decade
–
Prepare a strategic plan for safely moving Building 55, allowing for historically
accurate restoration and renovation methods.

3.

I

Maintain Building 55 on site
–
Use authentic and historically accurate reproduction pieces
–
Interpretive/Museum use

4.
If and when the time comes, move the structure to the Fort Douglas Military Museum
grounds to maintain current preservation effort
-- Increase opportunities for interpretation of structure
-- Restore back to 1863, and use later additions for storage/office space
-- Allow for living history programs

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Any Questions?

Bibliography
•

Advisory Council Regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR 800) .

•

Anne Racer to Rick Reese, (Email), 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas
Utah

•

Andrus, Cecil B. et al. “Part 6: The National Historic Register of Historic Places.” The Manual for
State Historic Preservation Review Boards. www.nps.gov/nr/bulletins/strevman/strevman6.htm
(accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Exhibit, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Register Nomination Form, 1970.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Landmark Nomination Form, 1974, Building 7 file, Utah State
Historical Preservation Offices, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas Military Museum, Master Plan, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas , Utah.

•

Hardesty, Donald L. and Barbara Little. Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists and
Historians (Lanham, MD.: Altamira Press, 2009).

•

Haws, Greg and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History of Building 55 (7) and its inhabitants.” University
of Utah Graduate School., 12 December 1994, University of Utah Marriott Library Special
Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Loveday, Amos J. “The Decision Makers Guide to Section 106.” Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2) pp. 10-17.

•

Maintenance Records Building 33, 1933, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah .

•

Maintenance Records Building 55, 1938, Fort Douglas Military Museum

•

Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas,
Utah

•

Morgan, Elmo R. “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22October-30 September 1954.” Fort
Douglas Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

National Park Service. Cultural Resource Guidelines (2002).
www.nps.gov/history/online_books nps28/28chap8.htm (accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Parris, Thomas . “Historical Preservation.” Environment Vol. 26 no. 8, (February 2003). P. 3

• Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14
September, 1862, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.
• Plaque, Camp Floyd/Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah.

• Plaque, Deuel Cabin, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt
Lake City, Utah.
• Plaque, Levi Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village, Salt Lake City, Utah.

• “Section 106: Back to the Basics” in Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2).
• University of Utah “From Civil War Building to Entrepreneurial Mecca”,
9 September 2008, http:/unews.utah.edu/old/p/090808-1.html
(accessed 1 August 2012).
• Utah State Historical Society Photograph Collection, Utah State
Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah


Slide 2

In the Shade of Black Locusts:
Preserving the “Silent Sentinel”
of Fort Douglas

Kimberly Buckner
Volunteer Staff
Fort Douglas Military Museum
Salt Lake City, Utah

Photo: Utah State Historical Society

Copyright Notice
© 2012 Kimberly Buckner and Fort
Douglas Military Museum. All
Rights Reserved. No use of any
photographs/information in this
presentation without express
written consent of the copyright
owner(s). All photos used by
permission.

But not all historic properties
are deliberately being
destroyed. Many have fallen
victim to the “ravages of
time.” This structure near
Camp Floyd has completely
collapsed since this picture
was taken in 2010.

Preservation: A National Priority?
Thomas Parris: National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 promotes the preservation of historic
structures as a national priority

And YET thousands of historically significant
properties are being destroyed each year despite
placement on the National Register of Historic
Places
Thomas Parris, “Historic Preservation”, Environment, Vol. 46, no. 8 (February 2003), p. 3

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

A Common Misconception?
A commonly held misconception among public
audiences:
“Preservation is broadly opposed to change and by
extension, that Section 106 is a tool to block
progress.”
Instead:
“Preservation is about controlling and accommodating
change, and the entire network of preservation rules,
beginning with Section 106, is designed to accomplish
that end.”
Amos J. Loveday, “The Decision Maker’s guide to Section 106”, Forum Journal Winter 2012, Vol. 26
(2), p. 17

Preserving Eligibility
Preservation is meant to protect by not diminishing
any characteristic providing eligibility on the
National Register of Historic Places Including (but
not limited to):
• Integrity of Location
• Integrity of Design
• Integrity of Setting
• Integrity of Materials
• Integrity of Workmanship
• Integrity of Feeling
• Integrity of Association
“Section 106: Back to the Basics”, Forum Journal, Winter 2012, Vol. 26, no. 2, p.10; 36 CFR
800.5 (a)(1)

The National Register of
Historic Places
Since 1966, The National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) provides:
• Communal recognition of local, state or national
history in a visual way
• Consideration in federal undertakings and
improvement projects
• Eligibility for tax benefits through the federal
government
• Qualification for monetary funds for preservation
benefits
Donald L. Hardesty and Barbara Little, Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists
and Historians, 2nd edition, (Lanham, MD: Altamira Press, 2009).

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties
Approved treatment
options:
• Preservation
• Rehabilitation
• Reconstruction
In rare conditions:
• Demolition by neglect
• Moving the historic
structure
Historic Cabin Ca. 1860’s
La Sal, Utah
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2010. Edited by Brick R. King, 2010
Colors have been enhanced

Success Stories:
Onsite Preservation of Carson Inn, 1858
Quick Facts:
• Camp Floyd and
Stagecoach Inn State Park
• Fairfield, Utah
• Built in 1858 by John
Carson
• Adobe and Frame
Construction
• Restored June 1959
• Outcome: furnished as a
historic “house” museum

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2011
Plaque, Camp Floyd /Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah

Success Stories: Moving, Restoration and Renovation
Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, 1847 and the Deuel
Family Cabin, 1847
Deuel Cabin
•
•
•

Riter Cabin

Temple Square
Moved ca. 1989
Glass enclosed historic house museum
with period furnishings

Why are they so Important?

•
•
•

Maintained in Old Deseret Village
Moved to Old Deseret Village ca. 1989
Interpreted solely by historical plaque

• Photo

The two oldest
remaining structures
in Utah are these
original
165-year –old cabins

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village

Success Story:
Relocation to Old Deseret Village
Quick Facts:

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Historic Manti Mill,
built ca. 1858 in Manti, Utah
Relocated ca. 1989

• This is the Place Heritage
Park
• Salt Lake City, Utah
• More than 40
structures/buildings
• Buildings consist of
originals, reproductions, or
relocated 19th century
structures
• Outcome: set up as a
historic village to interpret
frontier life in Utah from
1847-1869

Other success stories
ODV

Photos: Kimberly Buckner 2012

Camp Douglas, ca. 1864
“…I found another location, which I like better for
various reasons…”– Patrick Edward Connor
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah
Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14 September 1862,
Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah.

From Camp to Fort
26 October 1862 : established Camp
Douglas
1862: “Connor Tents” and Dugouts
1863: Adobe and Log structures begun
1867: Expansion of Camp’s perimeter
1874-75: $1 Million rebuild from native
red sandstone
1878: Renamed Fort Douglas

Camp Douglas ca. 1866
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884: $63,820 expansion with 5 frame
structures

From Fort to Historic Landmark
1904-1911: $1,140,000 building expansion
1910: Introduction of electricity
1915-16: Addition of detention camp
1930: Final major building expansion
1970: Listed on National Register of Historic
Places as a heritage district
1974: Listed as National Historic Landmark
26 October 1991: Fort Douglas officially
decommissioned
2002: Athlete’s Village, 2002 Winter Olympics

Stillwell Field Looking East, 2012
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Building 55
Characteristics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

Cost $780
Less than 1900 Sq. Feet
Originally 26 ft. by 29 ft.
Adobe with frame additions
First Neoclassical cross-wing in
Utah (symmetrical design)
4 rooms
18” thick walls
3 adobe fireplaces
“Four over four” double hung
sash windows
Pine or Douglas Fir
Wooden shingle roof coated in
slate
“Lath and plastered” interior
Has a stand alone Historic
Register eligible structure below
the original building (1862 Root
Cellar)

Building 55 in 2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Greg Haws and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History
of Building 55 (7) and its Inhabitants.” University of Utah
Graduate School of Architecture,
Fort Douglas Papers, University of Utah
Marriott Library Special Collections,
Salt Lake City, Utah

Building 55, ca. 1865
“In the shadow of Red Butte, the silent sentinel…looks down upon the scene of
[their] labors, at the very spot where [they ]first camped…”
–Lieutenant Colonel Fred B. Rogers at the funeral of General Patrick Edward
Connor
Photo: Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah;
Elmo R. Morgan, “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22 October 1862-30 September 1954”, Fort Douglas
Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah(Brackets added)

Then and Now
ca. 1900

Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner

Preservation of Building 55: Additions
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

North Exterior

South Exterior

1930
Addition

Unknown
addition

1864
Frame
Addition

1862-3
Root
Cellar

1863
Original
Building

1863 Original
Building

1875
Addition
1864 Post
Surgeons
Quarter’s

1930
Addition

Extensive Known Alterations:
1864: addition of two frame rooms
1874: addition of parlor from Post Surgeon’s quarters
Removal of a fireplace
Windows changed
Fireplace enclosed
1903: Plumbing
1910: Electricity
1911-1928: steam heating, telephones, gas lines
1930: frame Lean-to addition
Windows changed
1960: fire damage repairs
Unknown: Building addition
Unknown: Exterior Stucco
Source: Maintenance Records for Building 33, 1933; Maintenance Records for Building 55, 1938

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Preservation

Unknown Addition
Ca. 1930

• Building 55 is believed to have
been the only complete 1863
structure remaining at Fort
Douglas
• In 2003 parts of several other
1863 buildings have been found:
– 1874: Commander’s Quarters
Parlor from 1863 District
Commander’s Residence
– 1864: Building 55
Parlor Post Surgeon’s
Quarters
– 1862-63: Building 55
Root Cellar

1874 Addition

Original 1863 Parlor

1874 Post Commander’s Residence
Source: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Moving Building 55
• First discussed in 1990
• Again in 1994
• The site chosen was Old
Deseret Village
• University of Utah did not
agree for “reasons so
compelling”
• Recommended for
preservation on site
• Discussion never progressed
further into action
• Outcome: remains on site

Old Deseret Village looking east, 2012
First proposed area to move Building 55

Source: Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995; Anne Racer to Rick
Reece, email, 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum,
Fort Douglas, Utah.

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Old Deseret Village:
Historically Camp Douglas
Pros for moving:

Cons for moving Building 55:

• Old Deseret Village was
constructed on the original
grounds of Camp Douglas
(Association)
• Preserves the structure
• Allows “basic” interpretation
of the historic structure
• Provides opportunities for new
use, but not uses the building
was intended for(Design)

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•

Moved off of original location 1+ miles
away (location)
Destroys 150 years of association to
location of the historic camp
(Association/location)
Bears no resemblance to current location
(feeling )
Would remove from NRHP an make it
ineligible for any future attempts
Removes Historic Landmark designation
Costs to move , reconstruct and restore
(materials)
Destruction of original workmanship
(workmanship)
May cause un-repairable damage to the
structure (workmanship/
materials/design)

Fort Douglas Military Museum
1917
Master Plan
POW Barracks (RC)

N: New
RE: Relocated
RC: Reconstructed
E: Existing
D: Drop Building Addition to
Historic Structure

1942
Firehouse (E)

North

1943
Barracks (RE)

and Guard Tower (RC)

Women’s
Memorial (N)

D

1863
Commanders
Home (RE)

D

D

Building 31 and 32
Current Museum (E)
Not connected yet. Black Star
Building has been completed.

1935
Shop (RE)
© 2012 Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884
Officer’s
Quarters
Duplex (RE)

Preservation Problems
• Stress fractures
• Plaster Damage
• Fire Damage
• Foundation damage
• Windows
•Adobe damage

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner , 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos:
Kimberly
Buckner
2012

A Good Move: Moving Building 55 to Fort
Douglas Military Museum Grounds
Pros:

Cons:

• A move of less than ¼ mile
• Maintains association to original
site (Association)
• Preservation of structure
(materials/design)
• Opportunities to interpret local
history of post (location)
• Chosen site provides similar view
to original location (setting)
• Allows for new use (design)
• Maintains feeling of the historic
district (Feeling)

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Removes from primary location and
original foundation (Location)
Potential to damage structure
May destroy the original
workmanship (Workmanship)
To which era of significance will it
be restored?
Original orientation may not be
possible
Will introduce modern materials
into the historic structure
(Materials)
Removes from NRHP but would
allow for reapplication/maintains
historic landmark designation

A Difference in Views
Old Deseret Village

Looking West

Fort Douglas Military
Museum Grounds

Cannon Park looking South
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Lessening the impacts:
When moving is the only Preservation
option
Old Deseret Village

Fort Douglas Military Museum

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Will lose nearly all historical identity
Not on original site, but in association with original
camp
Allows the structure to exist
Would impact the elements of original design
Area not with original feeling but among structures
who have lost their “history”
Introduction of modern materials
Further impacts to historic workmanship
Loss of National Historic Landmark Designation
Loss of NRHP listing. May not be able to reapply
Land has lost all association/use with original Camp
Douglas
New use may not be conducive to historic use
1+ mile move
Impacts all criterion of integrity
Must be removed from Federal ownership to
private

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Maintains historical Identity
Maintains association with original camp
Structure is preserved in similar location
Less than ¼ mile move
Area has maintained original feeling and
association to the camp
Loss of NHRP listing but retains eligibility for
the future
Maintains National Historic Landmark
Designation and prominence within the
historic district
Interpretation of changes in military housing
New use conducive to original use
Fully restored with historical furnishing s
Retains nearly all criterion of Integrity
Already part of museum complex
Maintains federal ownership (State of Utah
to Utah National Guard ownership)

Moving: The Right Choice?
Old Deseret Village is a good place to house relocated and reconstructed historic structures to interpret the
early territorial history of Utah
BUT…
It was not the right setting to house a unique structure like Building 55
–

Will Building 55 be remembered for its history and sense of location? Or, because of the 4th grade
field trip with limited exposure only to be quickly forgotten?

–

With so many structures will the building be properly maintained or fall victim to demolition by
neglect?

–

Potentially a Section 106 logistic nightmare (Federal holdings to “private” hands)

Whereas…
The Fort Douglas Military Museum grounds will allow the unique structure a permanent home, restoration and
ability to maintain a prominent place in Fort Douglas. It will allow for
–

more opportunities and exposure to its unique history,

–

Will ensure that it will be preserved for future generations.

If Moved to Old Deseret Village

The actual site chosen for Building 55 in 1990 was never disclosed in the documentation.
Building 55 was placed in an arbitrary location within the park.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012 Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

If moved to the Museum Grounds

Sitting in proposed Master Plan location on the museum grounds.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Future Recommendations
The recommendations for Building 55:
1.

Restoration at current site using historically accurate methods
–
Potential for learning opportunities at current site (i.e. Root Cellar)
–
Potential for gaining additional archaeological information from site
–
Root Cellar was nominated as a stand alone NHRP eligible structure in 2008.

2.

Create a viable strategic plan for living history and historic house museum (adaptive use)
–
Prepare plan to cover all preservation issues which may crop up in the next decade
–
Prepare a strategic plan for safely moving Building 55, allowing for historically
accurate restoration and renovation methods.

3.

I

Maintain Building 55 on site
–
Use authentic and historically accurate reproduction pieces
–
Interpretive/Museum use

4.
If and when the time comes, move the structure to the Fort Douglas Military Museum
grounds to maintain current preservation effort
-- Increase opportunities for interpretation of structure
-- Restore back to 1863, and use later additions for storage/office space
-- Allow for living history programs

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Any Questions?

Bibliography
•

Advisory Council Regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR 800) .

•

Anne Racer to Rick Reese, (Email), 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas
Utah

•

Andrus, Cecil B. et al. “Part 6: The National Historic Register of Historic Places.” The Manual for
State Historic Preservation Review Boards. www.nps.gov/nr/bulletins/strevman/strevman6.htm
(accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Exhibit, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Register Nomination Form, 1970.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Landmark Nomination Form, 1974, Building 7 file, Utah State
Historical Preservation Offices, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas Military Museum, Master Plan, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas , Utah.

•

Hardesty, Donald L. and Barbara Little. Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists and
Historians (Lanham, MD.: Altamira Press, 2009).

•

Haws, Greg and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History of Building 55 (7) and its inhabitants.” University
of Utah Graduate School., 12 December 1994, University of Utah Marriott Library Special
Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Loveday, Amos J. “The Decision Makers Guide to Section 106.” Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2) pp. 10-17.

•

Maintenance Records Building 33, 1933, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah .

•

Maintenance Records Building 55, 1938, Fort Douglas Military Museum

•

Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas,
Utah

•

Morgan, Elmo R. “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22October-30 September 1954.” Fort
Douglas Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

National Park Service. Cultural Resource Guidelines (2002).
www.nps.gov/history/online_books nps28/28chap8.htm (accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Parris, Thomas . “Historical Preservation.” Environment Vol. 26 no. 8, (February 2003). P. 3

• Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14
September, 1862, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.
• Plaque, Camp Floyd/Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah.

• Plaque, Deuel Cabin, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt
Lake City, Utah.
• Plaque, Levi Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village, Salt Lake City, Utah.

• “Section 106: Back to the Basics” in Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2).
• University of Utah “From Civil War Building to Entrepreneurial Mecca”,
9 September 2008, http:/unews.utah.edu/old/p/090808-1.html
(accessed 1 August 2012).
• Utah State Historical Society Photograph Collection, Utah State
Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah


Slide 3

In the Shade of Black Locusts:
Preserving the “Silent Sentinel”
of Fort Douglas

Kimberly Buckner
Volunteer Staff
Fort Douglas Military Museum
Salt Lake City, Utah

Photo: Utah State Historical Society

Copyright Notice
© 2012 Kimberly Buckner and Fort
Douglas Military Museum. All
Rights Reserved. No use of any
photographs/information in this
presentation without express
written consent of the copyright
owner(s). All photos used by
permission.

But not all historic properties
are deliberately being
destroyed. Many have fallen
victim to the “ravages of
time.” This structure near
Camp Floyd has completely
collapsed since this picture
was taken in 2010.

Preservation: A National Priority?
Thomas Parris: National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 promotes the preservation of historic
structures as a national priority

And YET thousands of historically significant
properties are being destroyed each year despite
placement on the National Register of Historic
Places
Thomas Parris, “Historic Preservation”, Environment, Vol. 46, no. 8 (February 2003), p. 3

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

A Common Misconception?
A commonly held misconception among public
audiences:
“Preservation is broadly opposed to change and by
extension, that Section 106 is a tool to block
progress.”
Instead:
“Preservation is about controlling and accommodating
change, and the entire network of preservation rules,
beginning with Section 106, is designed to accomplish
that end.”
Amos J. Loveday, “The Decision Maker’s guide to Section 106”, Forum Journal Winter 2012, Vol. 26
(2), p. 17

Preserving Eligibility
Preservation is meant to protect by not diminishing
any characteristic providing eligibility on the
National Register of Historic Places Including (but
not limited to):
• Integrity of Location
• Integrity of Design
• Integrity of Setting
• Integrity of Materials
• Integrity of Workmanship
• Integrity of Feeling
• Integrity of Association
“Section 106: Back to the Basics”, Forum Journal, Winter 2012, Vol. 26, no. 2, p.10; 36 CFR
800.5 (a)(1)

The National Register of
Historic Places
Since 1966, The National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) provides:
• Communal recognition of local, state or national
history in a visual way
• Consideration in federal undertakings and
improvement projects
• Eligibility for tax benefits through the federal
government
• Qualification for monetary funds for preservation
benefits
Donald L. Hardesty and Barbara Little, Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists
and Historians, 2nd edition, (Lanham, MD: Altamira Press, 2009).

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties
Approved treatment
options:
• Preservation
• Rehabilitation
• Reconstruction
In rare conditions:
• Demolition by neglect
• Moving the historic
structure
Historic Cabin Ca. 1860’s
La Sal, Utah
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2010. Edited by Brick R. King, 2010
Colors have been enhanced

Success Stories:
Onsite Preservation of Carson Inn, 1858
Quick Facts:
• Camp Floyd and
Stagecoach Inn State Park
• Fairfield, Utah
• Built in 1858 by John
Carson
• Adobe and Frame
Construction
• Restored June 1959
• Outcome: furnished as a
historic “house” museum

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2011
Plaque, Camp Floyd /Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah

Success Stories: Moving, Restoration and Renovation
Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, 1847 and the Deuel
Family Cabin, 1847
Deuel Cabin
•
•
•

Riter Cabin

Temple Square
Moved ca. 1989
Glass enclosed historic house museum
with period furnishings

Why are they so Important?

•
•
•

Maintained in Old Deseret Village
Moved to Old Deseret Village ca. 1989
Interpreted solely by historical plaque

• Photo

The two oldest
remaining structures
in Utah are these
original
165-year –old cabins

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village

Success Story:
Relocation to Old Deseret Village
Quick Facts:

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Historic Manti Mill,
built ca. 1858 in Manti, Utah
Relocated ca. 1989

• This is the Place Heritage
Park
• Salt Lake City, Utah
• More than 40
structures/buildings
• Buildings consist of
originals, reproductions, or
relocated 19th century
structures
• Outcome: set up as a
historic village to interpret
frontier life in Utah from
1847-1869

Other success stories
ODV

Photos: Kimberly Buckner 2012

Camp Douglas, ca. 1864
“…I found another location, which I like better for
various reasons…”– Patrick Edward Connor
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah
Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14 September 1862,
Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah.

From Camp to Fort
26 October 1862 : established Camp
Douglas
1862: “Connor Tents” and Dugouts
1863: Adobe and Log structures begun
1867: Expansion of Camp’s perimeter
1874-75: $1 Million rebuild from native
red sandstone
1878: Renamed Fort Douglas

Camp Douglas ca. 1866
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884: $63,820 expansion with 5 frame
structures

From Fort to Historic Landmark
1904-1911: $1,140,000 building expansion
1910: Introduction of electricity
1915-16: Addition of detention camp
1930: Final major building expansion
1970: Listed on National Register of Historic
Places as a heritage district
1974: Listed as National Historic Landmark
26 October 1991: Fort Douglas officially
decommissioned
2002: Athlete’s Village, 2002 Winter Olympics

Stillwell Field Looking East, 2012
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Building 55
Characteristics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

Cost $780
Less than 1900 Sq. Feet
Originally 26 ft. by 29 ft.
Adobe with frame additions
First Neoclassical cross-wing in
Utah (symmetrical design)
4 rooms
18” thick walls
3 adobe fireplaces
“Four over four” double hung
sash windows
Pine or Douglas Fir
Wooden shingle roof coated in
slate
“Lath and plastered” interior
Has a stand alone Historic
Register eligible structure below
the original building (1862 Root
Cellar)

Building 55 in 2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Greg Haws and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History
of Building 55 (7) and its Inhabitants.” University of Utah
Graduate School of Architecture,
Fort Douglas Papers, University of Utah
Marriott Library Special Collections,
Salt Lake City, Utah

Building 55, ca. 1865
“In the shadow of Red Butte, the silent sentinel…looks down upon the scene of
[their] labors, at the very spot where [they ]first camped…”
–Lieutenant Colonel Fred B. Rogers at the funeral of General Patrick Edward
Connor
Photo: Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah;
Elmo R. Morgan, “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22 October 1862-30 September 1954”, Fort Douglas
Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah(Brackets added)

Then and Now
ca. 1900

Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner

Preservation of Building 55: Additions
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

North Exterior

South Exterior

1930
Addition

Unknown
addition

1864
Frame
Addition

1862-3
Root
Cellar

1863
Original
Building

1863 Original
Building

1875
Addition
1864 Post
Surgeons
Quarter’s

1930
Addition

Extensive Known Alterations:
1864: addition of two frame rooms
1874: addition of parlor from Post Surgeon’s quarters
Removal of a fireplace
Windows changed
Fireplace enclosed
1903: Plumbing
1910: Electricity
1911-1928: steam heating, telephones, gas lines
1930: frame Lean-to addition
Windows changed
1960: fire damage repairs
Unknown: Building addition
Unknown: Exterior Stucco
Source: Maintenance Records for Building 33, 1933; Maintenance Records for Building 55, 1938

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Preservation

Unknown Addition
Ca. 1930

• Building 55 is believed to have
been the only complete 1863
structure remaining at Fort
Douglas
• In 2003 parts of several other
1863 buildings have been found:
– 1874: Commander’s Quarters
Parlor from 1863 District
Commander’s Residence
– 1864: Building 55
Parlor Post Surgeon’s
Quarters
– 1862-63: Building 55
Root Cellar

1874 Addition

Original 1863 Parlor

1874 Post Commander’s Residence
Source: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Moving Building 55
• First discussed in 1990
• Again in 1994
• The site chosen was Old
Deseret Village
• University of Utah did not
agree for “reasons so
compelling”
• Recommended for
preservation on site
• Discussion never progressed
further into action
• Outcome: remains on site

Old Deseret Village looking east, 2012
First proposed area to move Building 55

Source: Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995; Anne Racer to Rick
Reece, email, 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum,
Fort Douglas, Utah.

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Old Deseret Village:
Historically Camp Douglas
Pros for moving:

Cons for moving Building 55:

• Old Deseret Village was
constructed on the original
grounds of Camp Douglas
(Association)
• Preserves the structure
• Allows “basic” interpretation
of the historic structure
• Provides opportunities for new
use, but not uses the building
was intended for(Design)

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•

Moved off of original location 1+ miles
away (location)
Destroys 150 years of association to
location of the historic camp
(Association/location)
Bears no resemblance to current location
(feeling )
Would remove from NRHP an make it
ineligible for any future attempts
Removes Historic Landmark designation
Costs to move , reconstruct and restore
(materials)
Destruction of original workmanship
(workmanship)
May cause un-repairable damage to the
structure (workmanship/
materials/design)

Fort Douglas Military Museum
1917
Master Plan
POW Barracks (RC)

N: New
RE: Relocated
RC: Reconstructed
E: Existing
D: Drop Building Addition to
Historic Structure

1942
Firehouse (E)

North

1943
Barracks (RE)

and Guard Tower (RC)

Women’s
Memorial (N)

D

1863
Commanders
Home (RE)

D

D

Building 31 and 32
Current Museum (E)
Not connected yet. Black Star
Building has been completed.

1935
Shop (RE)
© 2012 Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884
Officer’s
Quarters
Duplex (RE)

Preservation Problems
• Stress fractures
• Plaster Damage
• Fire Damage
• Foundation damage
• Windows
•Adobe damage

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner , 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos:
Kimberly
Buckner
2012

A Good Move: Moving Building 55 to Fort
Douglas Military Museum Grounds
Pros:

Cons:

• A move of less than ¼ mile
• Maintains association to original
site (Association)
• Preservation of structure
(materials/design)
• Opportunities to interpret local
history of post (location)
• Chosen site provides similar view
to original location (setting)
• Allows for new use (design)
• Maintains feeling of the historic
district (Feeling)

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Removes from primary location and
original foundation (Location)
Potential to damage structure
May destroy the original
workmanship (Workmanship)
To which era of significance will it
be restored?
Original orientation may not be
possible
Will introduce modern materials
into the historic structure
(Materials)
Removes from NRHP but would
allow for reapplication/maintains
historic landmark designation

A Difference in Views
Old Deseret Village

Looking West

Fort Douglas Military
Museum Grounds

Cannon Park looking South
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Lessening the impacts:
When moving is the only Preservation
option
Old Deseret Village

Fort Douglas Military Museum

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Will lose nearly all historical identity
Not on original site, but in association with original
camp
Allows the structure to exist
Would impact the elements of original design
Area not with original feeling but among structures
who have lost their “history”
Introduction of modern materials
Further impacts to historic workmanship
Loss of National Historic Landmark Designation
Loss of NRHP listing. May not be able to reapply
Land has lost all association/use with original Camp
Douglas
New use may not be conducive to historic use
1+ mile move
Impacts all criterion of integrity
Must be removed from Federal ownership to
private

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Maintains historical Identity
Maintains association with original camp
Structure is preserved in similar location
Less than ¼ mile move
Area has maintained original feeling and
association to the camp
Loss of NHRP listing but retains eligibility for
the future
Maintains National Historic Landmark
Designation and prominence within the
historic district
Interpretation of changes in military housing
New use conducive to original use
Fully restored with historical furnishing s
Retains nearly all criterion of Integrity
Already part of museum complex
Maintains federal ownership (State of Utah
to Utah National Guard ownership)

Moving: The Right Choice?
Old Deseret Village is a good place to house relocated and reconstructed historic structures to interpret the
early territorial history of Utah
BUT…
It was not the right setting to house a unique structure like Building 55
–

Will Building 55 be remembered for its history and sense of location? Or, because of the 4th grade
field trip with limited exposure only to be quickly forgotten?

–

With so many structures will the building be properly maintained or fall victim to demolition by
neglect?

–

Potentially a Section 106 logistic nightmare (Federal holdings to “private” hands)

Whereas…
The Fort Douglas Military Museum grounds will allow the unique structure a permanent home, restoration and
ability to maintain a prominent place in Fort Douglas. It will allow for
–

more opportunities and exposure to its unique history,

–

Will ensure that it will be preserved for future generations.

If Moved to Old Deseret Village

The actual site chosen for Building 55 in 1990 was never disclosed in the documentation.
Building 55 was placed in an arbitrary location within the park.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012 Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

If moved to the Museum Grounds

Sitting in proposed Master Plan location on the museum grounds.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Future Recommendations
The recommendations for Building 55:
1.

Restoration at current site using historically accurate methods
–
Potential for learning opportunities at current site (i.e. Root Cellar)
–
Potential for gaining additional archaeological information from site
–
Root Cellar was nominated as a stand alone NHRP eligible structure in 2008.

2.

Create a viable strategic plan for living history and historic house museum (adaptive use)
–
Prepare plan to cover all preservation issues which may crop up in the next decade
–
Prepare a strategic plan for safely moving Building 55, allowing for historically
accurate restoration and renovation methods.

3.

I

Maintain Building 55 on site
–
Use authentic and historically accurate reproduction pieces
–
Interpretive/Museum use

4.
If and when the time comes, move the structure to the Fort Douglas Military Museum
grounds to maintain current preservation effort
-- Increase opportunities for interpretation of structure
-- Restore back to 1863, and use later additions for storage/office space
-- Allow for living history programs

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Any Questions?

Bibliography
•

Advisory Council Regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR 800) .

•

Anne Racer to Rick Reese, (Email), 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas
Utah

•

Andrus, Cecil B. et al. “Part 6: The National Historic Register of Historic Places.” The Manual for
State Historic Preservation Review Boards. www.nps.gov/nr/bulletins/strevman/strevman6.htm
(accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Exhibit, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Register Nomination Form, 1970.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Landmark Nomination Form, 1974, Building 7 file, Utah State
Historical Preservation Offices, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas Military Museum, Master Plan, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas , Utah.

•

Hardesty, Donald L. and Barbara Little. Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists and
Historians (Lanham, MD.: Altamira Press, 2009).

•

Haws, Greg and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History of Building 55 (7) and its inhabitants.” University
of Utah Graduate School., 12 December 1994, University of Utah Marriott Library Special
Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Loveday, Amos J. “The Decision Makers Guide to Section 106.” Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2) pp. 10-17.

•

Maintenance Records Building 33, 1933, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah .

•

Maintenance Records Building 55, 1938, Fort Douglas Military Museum

•

Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas,
Utah

•

Morgan, Elmo R. “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22October-30 September 1954.” Fort
Douglas Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

National Park Service. Cultural Resource Guidelines (2002).
www.nps.gov/history/online_books nps28/28chap8.htm (accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Parris, Thomas . “Historical Preservation.” Environment Vol. 26 no. 8, (February 2003). P. 3

• Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14
September, 1862, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.
• Plaque, Camp Floyd/Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah.

• Plaque, Deuel Cabin, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt
Lake City, Utah.
• Plaque, Levi Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village, Salt Lake City, Utah.

• “Section 106: Back to the Basics” in Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2).
• University of Utah “From Civil War Building to Entrepreneurial Mecca”,
9 September 2008, http:/unews.utah.edu/old/p/090808-1.html
(accessed 1 August 2012).
• Utah State Historical Society Photograph Collection, Utah State
Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah


Slide 4

In the Shade of Black Locusts:
Preserving the “Silent Sentinel”
of Fort Douglas

Kimberly Buckner
Volunteer Staff
Fort Douglas Military Museum
Salt Lake City, Utah

Photo: Utah State Historical Society

Copyright Notice
© 2012 Kimberly Buckner and Fort
Douglas Military Museum. All
Rights Reserved. No use of any
photographs/information in this
presentation without express
written consent of the copyright
owner(s). All photos used by
permission.

But not all historic properties
are deliberately being
destroyed. Many have fallen
victim to the “ravages of
time.” This structure near
Camp Floyd has completely
collapsed since this picture
was taken in 2010.

Preservation: A National Priority?
Thomas Parris: National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 promotes the preservation of historic
structures as a national priority

And YET thousands of historically significant
properties are being destroyed each year despite
placement on the National Register of Historic
Places
Thomas Parris, “Historic Preservation”, Environment, Vol. 46, no. 8 (February 2003), p. 3

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

A Common Misconception?
A commonly held misconception among public
audiences:
“Preservation is broadly opposed to change and by
extension, that Section 106 is a tool to block
progress.”
Instead:
“Preservation is about controlling and accommodating
change, and the entire network of preservation rules,
beginning with Section 106, is designed to accomplish
that end.”
Amos J. Loveday, “The Decision Maker’s guide to Section 106”, Forum Journal Winter 2012, Vol. 26
(2), p. 17

Preserving Eligibility
Preservation is meant to protect by not diminishing
any characteristic providing eligibility on the
National Register of Historic Places Including (but
not limited to):
• Integrity of Location
• Integrity of Design
• Integrity of Setting
• Integrity of Materials
• Integrity of Workmanship
• Integrity of Feeling
• Integrity of Association
“Section 106: Back to the Basics”, Forum Journal, Winter 2012, Vol. 26, no. 2, p.10; 36 CFR
800.5 (a)(1)

The National Register of
Historic Places
Since 1966, The National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) provides:
• Communal recognition of local, state or national
history in a visual way
• Consideration in federal undertakings and
improvement projects
• Eligibility for tax benefits through the federal
government
• Qualification for monetary funds for preservation
benefits
Donald L. Hardesty and Barbara Little, Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists
and Historians, 2nd edition, (Lanham, MD: Altamira Press, 2009).

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties
Approved treatment
options:
• Preservation
• Rehabilitation
• Reconstruction
In rare conditions:
• Demolition by neglect
• Moving the historic
structure
Historic Cabin Ca. 1860’s
La Sal, Utah
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2010. Edited by Brick R. King, 2010
Colors have been enhanced

Success Stories:
Onsite Preservation of Carson Inn, 1858
Quick Facts:
• Camp Floyd and
Stagecoach Inn State Park
• Fairfield, Utah
• Built in 1858 by John
Carson
• Adobe and Frame
Construction
• Restored June 1959
• Outcome: furnished as a
historic “house” museum

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2011
Plaque, Camp Floyd /Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah

Success Stories: Moving, Restoration and Renovation
Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, 1847 and the Deuel
Family Cabin, 1847
Deuel Cabin
•
•
•

Riter Cabin

Temple Square
Moved ca. 1989
Glass enclosed historic house museum
with period furnishings

Why are they so Important?

•
•
•

Maintained in Old Deseret Village
Moved to Old Deseret Village ca. 1989
Interpreted solely by historical plaque

• Photo

The two oldest
remaining structures
in Utah are these
original
165-year –old cabins

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village

Success Story:
Relocation to Old Deseret Village
Quick Facts:

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Historic Manti Mill,
built ca. 1858 in Manti, Utah
Relocated ca. 1989

• This is the Place Heritage
Park
• Salt Lake City, Utah
• More than 40
structures/buildings
• Buildings consist of
originals, reproductions, or
relocated 19th century
structures
• Outcome: set up as a
historic village to interpret
frontier life in Utah from
1847-1869

Other success stories
ODV

Photos: Kimberly Buckner 2012

Camp Douglas, ca. 1864
“…I found another location, which I like better for
various reasons…”– Patrick Edward Connor
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah
Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14 September 1862,
Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah.

From Camp to Fort
26 October 1862 : established Camp
Douglas
1862: “Connor Tents” and Dugouts
1863: Adobe and Log structures begun
1867: Expansion of Camp’s perimeter
1874-75: $1 Million rebuild from native
red sandstone
1878: Renamed Fort Douglas

Camp Douglas ca. 1866
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884: $63,820 expansion with 5 frame
structures

From Fort to Historic Landmark
1904-1911: $1,140,000 building expansion
1910: Introduction of electricity
1915-16: Addition of detention camp
1930: Final major building expansion
1970: Listed on National Register of Historic
Places as a heritage district
1974: Listed as National Historic Landmark
26 October 1991: Fort Douglas officially
decommissioned
2002: Athlete’s Village, 2002 Winter Olympics

Stillwell Field Looking East, 2012
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Building 55
Characteristics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

Cost $780
Less than 1900 Sq. Feet
Originally 26 ft. by 29 ft.
Adobe with frame additions
First Neoclassical cross-wing in
Utah (symmetrical design)
4 rooms
18” thick walls
3 adobe fireplaces
“Four over four” double hung
sash windows
Pine or Douglas Fir
Wooden shingle roof coated in
slate
“Lath and plastered” interior
Has a stand alone Historic
Register eligible structure below
the original building (1862 Root
Cellar)

Building 55 in 2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Greg Haws and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History
of Building 55 (7) and its Inhabitants.” University of Utah
Graduate School of Architecture,
Fort Douglas Papers, University of Utah
Marriott Library Special Collections,
Salt Lake City, Utah

Building 55, ca. 1865
“In the shadow of Red Butte, the silent sentinel…looks down upon the scene of
[their] labors, at the very spot where [they ]first camped…”
–Lieutenant Colonel Fred B. Rogers at the funeral of General Patrick Edward
Connor
Photo: Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah;
Elmo R. Morgan, “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22 October 1862-30 September 1954”, Fort Douglas
Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah(Brackets added)

Then and Now
ca. 1900

Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner

Preservation of Building 55: Additions
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

North Exterior

South Exterior

1930
Addition

Unknown
addition

1864
Frame
Addition

1862-3
Root
Cellar

1863
Original
Building

1863 Original
Building

1875
Addition
1864 Post
Surgeons
Quarter’s

1930
Addition

Extensive Known Alterations:
1864: addition of two frame rooms
1874: addition of parlor from Post Surgeon’s quarters
Removal of a fireplace
Windows changed
Fireplace enclosed
1903: Plumbing
1910: Electricity
1911-1928: steam heating, telephones, gas lines
1930: frame Lean-to addition
Windows changed
1960: fire damage repairs
Unknown: Building addition
Unknown: Exterior Stucco
Source: Maintenance Records for Building 33, 1933; Maintenance Records for Building 55, 1938

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Preservation

Unknown Addition
Ca. 1930

• Building 55 is believed to have
been the only complete 1863
structure remaining at Fort
Douglas
• In 2003 parts of several other
1863 buildings have been found:
– 1874: Commander’s Quarters
Parlor from 1863 District
Commander’s Residence
– 1864: Building 55
Parlor Post Surgeon’s
Quarters
– 1862-63: Building 55
Root Cellar

1874 Addition

Original 1863 Parlor

1874 Post Commander’s Residence
Source: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Moving Building 55
• First discussed in 1990
• Again in 1994
• The site chosen was Old
Deseret Village
• University of Utah did not
agree for “reasons so
compelling”
• Recommended for
preservation on site
• Discussion never progressed
further into action
• Outcome: remains on site

Old Deseret Village looking east, 2012
First proposed area to move Building 55

Source: Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995; Anne Racer to Rick
Reece, email, 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum,
Fort Douglas, Utah.

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Old Deseret Village:
Historically Camp Douglas
Pros for moving:

Cons for moving Building 55:

• Old Deseret Village was
constructed on the original
grounds of Camp Douglas
(Association)
• Preserves the structure
• Allows “basic” interpretation
of the historic structure
• Provides opportunities for new
use, but not uses the building
was intended for(Design)

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•

Moved off of original location 1+ miles
away (location)
Destroys 150 years of association to
location of the historic camp
(Association/location)
Bears no resemblance to current location
(feeling )
Would remove from NRHP an make it
ineligible for any future attempts
Removes Historic Landmark designation
Costs to move , reconstruct and restore
(materials)
Destruction of original workmanship
(workmanship)
May cause un-repairable damage to the
structure (workmanship/
materials/design)

Fort Douglas Military Museum
1917
Master Plan
POW Barracks (RC)

N: New
RE: Relocated
RC: Reconstructed
E: Existing
D: Drop Building Addition to
Historic Structure

1942
Firehouse (E)

North

1943
Barracks (RE)

and Guard Tower (RC)

Women’s
Memorial (N)

D

1863
Commanders
Home (RE)

D

D

Building 31 and 32
Current Museum (E)
Not connected yet. Black Star
Building has been completed.

1935
Shop (RE)
© 2012 Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884
Officer’s
Quarters
Duplex (RE)

Preservation Problems
• Stress fractures
• Plaster Damage
• Fire Damage
• Foundation damage
• Windows
•Adobe damage

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner , 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos:
Kimberly
Buckner
2012

A Good Move: Moving Building 55 to Fort
Douglas Military Museum Grounds
Pros:

Cons:

• A move of less than ¼ mile
• Maintains association to original
site (Association)
• Preservation of structure
(materials/design)
• Opportunities to interpret local
history of post (location)
• Chosen site provides similar view
to original location (setting)
• Allows for new use (design)
• Maintains feeling of the historic
district (Feeling)

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Removes from primary location and
original foundation (Location)
Potential to damage structure
May destroy the original
workmanship (Workmanship)
To which era of significance will it
be restored?
Original orientation may not be
possible
Will introduce modern materials
into the historic structure
(Materials)
Removes from NRHP but would
allow for reapplication/maintains
historic landmark designation

A Difference in Views
Old Deseret Village

Looking West

Fort Douglas Military
Museum Grounds

Cannon Park looking South
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Lessening the impacts:
When moving is the only Preservation
option
Old Deseret Village

Fort Douglas Military Museum

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Will lose nearly all historical identity
Not on original site, but in association with original
camp
Allows the structure to exist
Would impact the elements of original design
Area not with original feeling but among structures
who have lost their “history”
Introduction of modern materials
Further impacts to historic workmanship
Loss of National Historic Landmark Designation
Loss of NRHP listing. May not be able to reapply
Land has lost all association/use with original Camp
Douglas
New use may not be conducive to historic use
1+ mile move
Impacts all criterion of integrity
Must be removed from Federal ownership to
private

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Maintains historical Identity
Maintains association with original camp
Structure is preserved in similar location
Less than ¼ mile move
Area has maintained original feeling and
association to the camp
Loss of NHRP listing but retains eligibility for
the future
Maintains National Historic Landmark
Designation and prominence within the
historic district
Interpretation of changes in military housing
New use conducive to original use
Fully restored with historical furnishing s
Retains nearly all criterion of Integrity
Already part of museum complex
Maintains federal ownership (State of Utah
to Utah National Guard ownership)

Moving: The Right Choice?
Old Deseret Village is a good place to house relocated and reconstructed historic structures to interpret the
early territorial history of Utah
BUT…
It was not the right setting to house a unique structure like Building 55
–

Will Building 55 be remembered for its history and sense of location? Or, because of the 4th grade
field trip with limited exposure only to be quickly forgotten?

–

With so many structures will the building be properly maintained or fall victim to demolition by
neglect?

–

Potentially a Section 106 logistic nightmare (Federal holdings to “private” hands)

Whereas…
The Fort Douglas Military Museum grounds will allow the unique structure a permanent home, restoration and
ability to maintain a prominent place in Fort Douglas. It will allow for
–

more opportunities and exposure to its unique history,

–

Will ensure that it will be preserved for future generations.

If Moved to Old Deseret Village

The actual site chosen for Building 55 in 1990 was never disclosed in the documentation.
Building 55 was placed in an arbitrary location within the park.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012 Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

If moved to the Museum Grounds

Sitting in proposed Master Plan location on the museum grounds.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Future Recommendations
The recommendations for Building 55:
1.

Restoration at current site using historically accurate methods
–
Potential for learning opportunities at current site (i.e. Root Cellar)
–
Potential for gaining additional archaeological information from site
–
Root Cellar was nominated as a stand alone NHRP eligible structure in 2008.

2.

Create a viable strategic plan for living history and historic house museum (adaptive use)
–
Prepare plan to cover all preservation issues which may crop up in the next decade
–
Prepare a strategic plan for safely moving Building 55, allowing for historically
accurate restoration and renovation methods.

3.

I

Maintain Building 55 on site
–
Use authentic and historically accurate reproduction pieces
–
Interpretive/Museum use

4.
If and when the time comes, move the structure to the Fort Douglas Military Museum
grounds to maintain current preservation effort
-- Increase opportunities for interpretation of structure
-- Restore back to 1863, and use later additions for storage/office space
-- Allow for living history programs

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Any Questions?

Bibliography
•

Advisory Council Regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR 800) .

•

Anne Racer to Rick Reese, (Email), 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas
Utah

•

Andrus, Cecil B. et al. “Part 6: The National Historic Register of Historic Places.” The Manual for
State Historic Preservation Review Boards. www.nps.gov/nr/bulletins/strevman/strevman6.htm
(accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Exhibit, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Register Nomination Form, 1970.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Landmark Nomination Form, 1974, Building 7 file, Utah State
Historical Preservation Offices, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas Military Museum, Master Plan, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas , Utah.

•

Hardesty, Donald L. and Barbara Little. Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists and
Historians (Lanham, MD.: Altamira Press, 2009).

•

Haws, Greg and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History of Building 55 (7) and its inhabitants.” University
of Utah Graduate School., 12 December 1994, University of Utah Marriott Library Special
Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Loveday, Amos J. “The Decision Makers Guide to Section 106.” Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2) pp. 10-17.

•

Maintenance Records Building 33, 1933, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah .

•

Maintenance Records Building 55, 1938, Fort Douglas Military Museum

•

Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas,
Utah

•

Morgan, Elmo R. “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22October-30 September 1954.” Fort
Douglas Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

National Park Service. Cultural Resource Guidelines (2002).
www.nps.gov/history/online_books nps28/28chap8.htm (accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Parris, Thomas . “Historical Preservation.” Environment Vol. 26 no. 8, (February 2003). P. 3

• Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14
September, 1862, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.
• Plaque, Camp Floyd/Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah.

• Plaque, Deuel Cabin, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt
Lake City, Utah.
• Plaque, Levi Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village, Salt Lake City, Utah.

• “Section 106: Back to the Basics” in Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2).
• University of Utah “From Civil War Building to Entrepreneurial Mecca”,
9 September 2008, http:/unews.utah.edu/old/p/090808-1.html
(accessed 1 August 2012).
• Utah State Historical Society Photograph Collection, Utah State
Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah


Slide 5

In the Shade of Black Locusts:
Preserving the “Silent Sentinel”
of Fort Douglas

Kimberly Buckner
Volunteer Staff
Fort Douglas Military Museum
Salt Lake City, Utah

Photo: Utah State Historical Society

Copyright Notice
© 2012 Kimberly Buckner and Fort
Douglas Military Museum. All
Rights Reserved. No use of any
photographs/information in this
presentation without express
written consent of the copyright
owner(s). All photos used by
permission.

But not all historic properties
are deliberately being
destroyed. Many have fallen
victim to the “ravages of
time.” This structure near
Camp Floyd has completely
collapsed since this picture
was taken in 2010.

Preservation: A National Priority?
Thomas Parris: National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 promotes the preservation of historic
structures as a national priority

And YET thousands of historically significant
properties are being destroyed each year despite
placement on the National Register of Historic
Places
Thomas Parris, “Historic Preservation”, Environment, Vol. 46, no. 8 (February 2003), p. 3

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

A Common Misconception?
A commonly held misconception among public
audiences:
“Preservation is broadly opposed to change and by
extension, that Section 106 is a tool to block
progress.”
Instead:
“Preservation is about controlling and accommodating
change, and the entire network of preservation rules,
beginning with Section 106, is designed to accomplish
that end.”
Amos J. Loveday, “The Decision Maker’s guide to Section 106”, Forum Journal Winter 2012, Vol. 26
(2), p. 17

Preserving Eligibility
Preservation is meant to protect by not diminishing
any characteristic providing eligibility on the
National Register of Historic Places Including (but
not limited to):
• Integrity of Location
• Integrity of Design
• Integrity of Setting
• Integrity of Materials
• Integrity of Workmanship
• Integrity of Feeling
• Integrity of Association
“Section 106: Back to the Basics”, Forum Journal, Winter 2012, Vol. 26, no. 2, p.10; 36 CFR
800.5 (a)(1)

The National Register of
Historic Places
Since 1966, The National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) provides:
• Communal recognition of local, state or national
history in a visual way
• Consideration in federal undertakings and
improvement projects
• Eligibility for tax benefits through the federal
government
• Qualification for monetary funds for preservation
benefits
Donald L. Hardesty and Barbara Little, Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists
and Historians, 2nd edition, (Lanham, MD: Altamira Press, 2009).

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties
Approved treatment
options:
• Preservation
• Rehabilitation
• Reconstruction
In rare conditions:
• Demolition by neglect
• Moving the historic
structure
Historic Cabin Ca. 1860’s
La Sal, Utah
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2010. Edited by Brick R. King, 2010
Colors have been enhanced

Success Stories:
Onsite Preservation of Carson Inn, 1858
Quick Facts:
• Camp Floyd and
Stagecoach Inn State Park
• Fairfield, Utah
• Built in 1858 by John
Carson
• Adobe and Frame
Construction
• Restored June 1959
• Outcome: furnished as a
historic “house” museum

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2011
Plaque, Camp Floyd /Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah

Success Stories: Moving, Restoration and Renovation
Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, 1847 and the Deuel
Family Cabin, 1847
Deuel Cabin
•
•
•

Riter Cabin

Temple Square
Moved ca. 1989
Glass enclosed historic house museum
with period furnishings

Why are they so Important?

•
•
•

Maintained in Old Deseret Village
Moved to Old Deseret Village ca. 1989
Interpreted solely by historical plaque

• Photo

The two oldest
remaining structures
in Utah are these
original
165-year –old cabins

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village

Success Story:
Relocation to Old Deseret Village
Quick Facts:

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Historic Manti Mill,
built ca. 1858 in Manti, Utah
Relocated ca. 1989

• This is the Place Heritage
Park
• Salt Lake City, Utah
• More than 40
structures/buildings
• Buildings consist of
originals, reproductions, or
relocated 19th century
structures
• Outcome: set up as a
historic village to interpret
frontier life in Utah from
1847-1869

Other success stories
ODV

Photos: Kimberly Buckner 2012

Camp Douglas, ca. 1864
“…I found another location, which I like better for
various reasons…”– Patrick Edward Connor
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah
Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14 September 1862,
Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah.

From Camp to Fort
26 October 1862 : established Camp
Douglas
1862: “Connor Tents” and Dugouts
1863: Adobe and Log structures begun
1867: Expansion of Camp’s perimeter
1874-75: $1 Million rebuild from native
red sandstone
1878: Renamed Fort Douglas

Camp Douglas ca. 1866
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884: $63,820 expansion with 5 frame
structures

From Fort to Historic Landmark
1904-1911: $1,140,000 building expansion
1910: Introduction of electricity
1915-16: Addition of detention camp
1930: Final major building expansion
1970: Listed on National Register of Historic
Places as a heritage district
1974: Listed as National Historic Landmark
26 October 1991: Fort Douglas officially
decommissioned
2002: Athlete’s Village, 2002 Winter Olympics

Stillwell Field Looking East, 2012
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Building 55
Characteristics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

Cost $780
Less than 1900 Sq. Feet
Originally 26 ft. by 29 ft.
Adobe with frame additions
First Neoclassical cross-wing in
Utah (symmetrical design)
4 rooms
18” thick walls
3 adobe fireplaces
“Four over four” double hung
sash windows
Pine or Douglas Fir
Wooden shingle roof coated in
slate
“Lath and plastered” interior
Has a stand alone Historic
Register eligible structure below
the original building (1862 Root
Cellar)

Building 55 in 2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Greg Haws and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History
of Building 55 (7) and its Inhabitants.” University of Utah
Graduate School of Architecture,
Fort Douglas Papers, University of Utah
Marriott Library Special Collections,
Salt Lake City, Utah

Building 55, ca. 1865
“In the shadow of Red Butte, the silent sentinel…looks down upon the scene of
[their] labors, at the very spot where [they ]first camped…”
–Lieutenant Colonel Fred B. Rogers at the funeral of General Patrick Edward
Connor
Photo: Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah;
Elmo R. Morgan, “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22 October 1862-30 September 1954”, Fort Douglas
Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah(Brackets added)

Then and Now
ca. 1900

Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner

Preservation of Building 55: Additions
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

North Exterior

South Exterior

1930
Addition

Unknown
addition

1864
Frame
Addition

1862-3
Root
Cellar

1863
Original
Building

1863 Original
Building

1875
Addition
1864 Post
Surgeons
Quarter’s

1930
Addition

Extensive Known Alterations:
1864: addition of two frame rooms
1874: addition of parlor from Post Surgeon’s quarters
Removal of a fireplace
Windows changed
Fireplace enclosed
1903: Plumbing
1910: Electricity
1911-1928: steam heating, telephones, gas lines
1930: frame Lean-to addition
Windows changed
1960: fire damage repairs
Unknown: Building addition
Unknown: Exterior Stucco
Source: Maintenance Records for Building 33, 1933; Maintenance Records for Building 55, 1938

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Preservation

Unknown Addition
Ca. 1930

• Building 55 is believed to have
been the only complete 1863
structure remaining at Fort
Douglas
• In 2003 parts of several other
1863 buildings have been found:
– 1874: Commander’s Quarters
Parlor from 1863 District
Commander’s Residence
– 1864: Building 55
Parlor Post Surgeon’s
Quarters
– 1862-63: Building 55
Root Cellar

1874 Addition

Original 1863 Parlor

1874 Post Commander’s Residence
Source: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Moving Building 55
• First discussed in 1990
• Again in 1994
• The site chosen was Old
Deseret Village
• University of Utah did not
agree for “reasons so
compelling”
• Recommended for
preservation on site
• Discussion never progressed
further into action
• Outcome: remains on site

Old Deseret Village looking east, 2012
First proposed area to move Building 55

Source: Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995; Anne Racer to Rick
Reece, email, 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum,
Fort Douglas, Utah.

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Old Deseret Village:
Historically Camp Douglas
Pros for moving:

Cons for moving Building 55:

• Old Deseret Village was
constructed on the original
grounds of Camp Douglas
(Association)
• Preserves the structure
• Allows “basic” interpretation
of the historic structure
• Provides opportunities for new
use, but not uses the building
was intended for(Design)

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•

Moved off of original location 1+ miles
away (location)
Destroys 150 years of association to
location of the historic camp
(Association/location)
Bears no resemblance to current location
(feeling )
Would remove from NRHP an make it
ineligible for any future attempts
Removes Historic Landmark designation
Costs to move , reconstruct and restore
(materials)
Destruction of original workmanship
(workmanship)
May cause un-repairable damage to the
structure (workmanship/
materials/design)

Fort Douglas Military Museum
1917
Master Plan
POW Barracks (RC)

N: New
RE: Relocated
RC: Reconstructed
E: Existing
D: Drop Building Addition to
Historic Structure

1942
Firehouse (E)

North

1943
Barracks (RE)

and Guard Tower (RC)

Women’s
Memorial (N)

D

1863
Commanders
Home (RE)

D

D

Building 31 and 32
Current Museum (E)
Not connected yet. Black Star
Building has been completed.

1935
Shop (RE)
© 2012 Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884
Officer’s
Quarters
Duplex (RE)

Preservation Problems
• Stress fractures
• Plaster Damage
• Fire Damage
• Foundation damage
• Windows
•Adobe damage

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner , 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos:
Kimberly
Buckner
2012

A Good Move: Moving Building 55 to Fort
Douglas Military Museum Grounds
Pros:

Cons:

• A move of less than ¼ mile
• Maintains association to original
site (Association)
• Preservation of structure
(materials/design)
• Opportunities to interpret local
history of post (location)
• Chosen site provides similar view
to original location (setting)
• Allows for new use (design)
• Maintains feeling of the historic
district (Feeling)

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Removes from primary location and
original foundation (Location)
Potential to damage structure
May destroy the original
workmanship (Workmanship)
To which era of significance will it
be restored?
Original orientation may not be
possible
Will introduce modern materials
into the historic structure
(Materials)
Removes from NRHP but would
allow for reapplication/maintains
historic landmark designation

A Difference in Views
Old Deseret Village

Looking West

Fort Douglas Military
Museum Grounds

Cannon Park looking South
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Lessening the impacts:
When moving is the only Preservation
option
Old Deseret Village

Fort Douglas Military Museum

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Will lose nearly all historical identity
Not on original site, but in association with original
camp
Allows the structure to exist
Would impact the elements of original design
Area not with original feeling but among structures
who have lost their “history”
Introduction of modern materials
Further impacts to historic workmanship
Loss of National Historic Landmark Designation
Loss of NRHP listing. May not be able to reapply
Land has lost all association/use with original Camp
Douglas
New use may not be conducive to historic use
1+ mile move
Impacts all criterion of integrity
Must be removed from Federal ownership to
private

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Maintains historical Identity
Maintains association with original camp
Structure is preserved in similar location
Less than ¼ mile move
Area has maintained original feeling and
association to the camp
Loss of NHRP listing but retains eligibility for
the future
Maintains National Historic Landmark
Designation and prominence within the
historic district
Interpretation of changes in military housing
New use conducive to original use
Fully restored with historical furnishing s
Retains nearly all criterion of Integrity
Already part of museum complex
Maintains federal ownership (State of Utah
to Utah National Guard ownership)

Moving: The Right Choice?
Old Deseret Village is a good place to house relocated and reconstructed historic structures to interpret the
early territorial history of Utah
BUT…
It was not the right setting to house a unique structure like Building 55
–

Will Building 55 be remembered for its history and sense of location? Or, because of the 4th grade
field trip with limited exposure only to be quickly forgotten?

–

With so many structures will the building be properly maintained or fall victim to demolition by
neglect?

–

Potentially a Section 106 logistic nightmare (Federal holdings to “private” hands)

Whereas…
The Fort Douglas Military Museum grounds will allow the unique structure a permanent home, restoration and
ability to maintain a prominent place in Fort Douglas. It will allow for
–

more opportunities and exposure to its unique history,

–

Will ensure that it will be preserved for future generations.

If Moved to Old Deseret Village

The actual site chosen for Building 55 in 1990 was never disclosed in the documentation.
Building 55 was placed in an arbitrary location within the park.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012 Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

If moved to the Museum Grounds

Sitting in proposed Master Plan location on the museum grounds.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Future Recommendations
The recommendations for Building 55:
1.

Restoration at current site using historically accurate methods
–
Potential for learning opportunities at current site (i.e. Root Cellar)
–
Potential for gaining additional archaeological information from site
–
Root Cellar was nominated as a stand alone NHRP eligible structure in 2008.

2.

Create a viable strategic plan for living history and historic house museum (adaptive use)
–
Prepare plan to cover all preservation issues which may crop up in the next decade
–
Prepare a strategic plan for safely moving Building 55, allowing for historically
accurate restoration and renovation methods.

3.

I

Maintain Building 55 on site
–
Use authentic and historically accurate reproduction pieces
–
Interpretive/Museum use

4.
If and when the time comes, move the structure to the Fort Douglas Military Museum
grounds to maintain current preservation effort
-- Increase opportunities for interpretation of structure
-- Restore back to 1863, and use later additions for storage/office space
-- Allow for living history programs

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Any Questions?

Bibliography
•

Advisory Council Regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR 800) .

•

Anne Racer to Rick Reese, (Email), 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas
Utah

•

Andrus, Cecil B. et al. “Part 6: The National Historic Register of Historic Places.” The Manual for
State Historic Preservation Review Boards. www.nps.gov/nr/bulletins/strevman/strevman6.htm
(accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Exhibit, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Register Nomination Form, 1970.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Landmark Nomination Form, 1974, Building 7 file, Utah State
Historical Preservation Offices, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas Military Museum, Master Plan, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas , Utah.

•

Hardesty, Donald L. and Barbara Little. Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists and
Historians (Lanham, MD.: Altamira Press, 2009).

•

Haws, Greg and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History of Building 55 (7) and its inhabitants.” University
of Utah Graduate School., 12 December 1994, University of Utah Marriott Library Special
Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Loveday, Amos J. “The Decision Makers Guide to Section 106.” Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2) pp. 10-17.

•

Maintenance Records Building 33, 1933, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah .

•

Maintenance Records Building 55, 1938, Fort Douglas Military Museum

•

Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas,
Utah

•

Morgan, Elmo R. “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22October-30 September 1954.” Fort
Douglas Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

National Park Service. Cultural Resource Guidelines (2002).
www.nps.gov/history/online_books nps28/28chap8.htm (accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Parris, Thomas . “Historical Preservation.” Environment Vol. 26 no. 8, (February 2003). P. 3

• Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14
September, 1862, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.
• Plaque, Camp Floyd/Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah.

• Plaque, Deuel Cabin, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt
Lake City, Utah.
• Plaque, Levi Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village, Salt Lake City, Utah.

• “Section 106: Back to the Basics” in Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2).
• University of Utah “From Civil War Building to Entrepreneurial Mecca”,
9 September 2008, http:/unews.utah.edu/old/p/090808-1.html
(accessed 1 August 2012).
• Utah State Historical Society Photograph Collection, Utah State
Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah


Slide 6

In the Shade of Black Locusts:
Preserving the “Silent Sentinel”
of Fort Douglas

Kimberly Buckner
Volunteer Staff
Fort Douglas Military Museum
Salt Lake City, Utah

Photo: Utah State Historical Society

Copyright Notice
© 2012 Kimberly Buckner and Fort
Douglas Military Museum. All
Rights Reserved. No use of any
photographs/information in this
presentation without express
written consent of the copyright
owner(s). All photos used by
permission.

But not all historic properties
are deliberately being
destroyed. Many have fallen
victim to the “ravages of
time.” This structure near
Camp Floyd has completely
collapsed since this picture
was taken in 2010.

Preservation: A National Priority?
Thomas Parris: National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 promotes the preservation of historic
structures as a national priority

And YET thousands of historically significant
properties are being destroyed each year despite
placement on the National Register of Historic
Places
Thomas Parris, “Historic Preservation”, Environment, Vol. 46, no. 8 (February 2003), p. 3

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

A Common Misconception?
A commonly held misconception among public
audiences:
“Preservation is broadly opposed to change and by
extension, that Section 106 is a tool to block
progress.”
Instead:
“Preservation is about controlling and accommodating
change, and the entire network of preservation rules,
beginning with Section 106, is designed to accomplish
that end.”
Amos J. Loveday, “The Decision Maker’s guide to Section 106”, Forum Journal Winter 2012, Vol. 26
(2), p. 17

Preserving Eligibility
Preservation is meant to protect by not diminishing
any characteristic providing eligibility on the
National Register of Historic Places Including (but
not limited to):
• Integrity of Location
• Integrity of Design
• Integrity of Setting
• Integrity of Materials
• Integrity of Workmanship
• Integrity of Feeling
• Integrity of Association
“Section 106: Back to the Basics”, Forum Journal, Winter 2012, Vol. 26, no. 2, p.10; 36 CFR
800.5 (a)(1)

The National Register of
Historic Places
Since 1966, The National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) provides:
• Communal recognition of local, state or national
history in a visual way
• Consideration in federal undertakings and
improvement projects
• Eligibility for tax benefits through the federal
government
• Qualification for monetary funds for preservation
benefits
Donald L. Hardesty and Barbara Little, Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists
and Historians, 2nd edition, (Lanham, MD: Altamira Press, 2009).

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties
Approved treatment
options:
• Preservation
• Rehabilitation
• Reconstruction
In rare conditions:
• Demolition by neglect
• Moving the historic
structure
Historic Cabin Ca. 1860’s
La Sal, Utah
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2010. Edited by Brick R. King, 2010
Colors have been enhanced

Success Stories:
Onsite Preservation of Carson Inn, 1858
Quick Facts:
• Camp Floyd and
Stagecoach Inn State Park
• Fairfield, Utah
• Built in 1858 by John
Carson
• Adobe and Frame
Construction
• Restored June 1959
• Outcome: furnished as a
historic “house” museum

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2011
Plaque, Camp Floyd /Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah

Success Stories: Moving, Restoration and Renovation
Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, 1847 and the Deuel
Family Cabin, 1847
Deuel Cabin
•
•
•

Riter Cabin

Temple Square
Moved ca. 1989
Glass enclosed historic house museum
with period furnishings

Why are they so Important?

•
•
•

Maintained in Old Deseret Village
Moved to Old Deseret Village ca. 1989
Interpreted solely by historical plaque

• Photo

The two oldest
remaining structures
in Utah are these
original
165-year –old cabins

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village

Success Story:
Relocation to Old Deseret Village
Quick Facts:

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Historic Manti Mill,
built ca. 1858 in Manti, Utah
Relocated ca. 1989

• This is the Place Heritage
Park
• Salt Lake City, Utah
• More than 40
structures/buildings
• Buildings consist of
originals, reproductions, or
relocated 19th century
structures
• Outcome: set up as a
historic village to interpret
frontier life in Utah from
1847-1869

Other success stories
ODV

Photos: Kimberly Buckner 2012

Camp Douglas, ca. 1864
“…I found another location, which I like better for
various reasons…”– Patrick Edward Connor
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah
Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14 September 1862,
Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah.

From Camp to Fort
26 October 1862 : established Camp
Douglas
1862: “Connor Tents” and Dugouts
1863: Adobe and Log structures begun
1867: Expansion of Camp’s perimeter
1874-75: $1 Million rebuild from native
red sandstone
1878: Renamed Fort Douglas

Camp Douglas ca. 1866
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884: $63,820 expansion with 5 frame
structures

From Fort to Historic Landmark
1904-1911: $1,140,000 building expansion
1910: Introduction of electricity
1915-16: Addition of detention camp
1930: Final major building expansion
1970: Listed on National Register of Historic
Places as a heritage district
1974: Listed as National Historic Landmark
26 October 1991: Fort Douglas officially
decommissioned
2002: Athlete’s Village, 2002 Winter Olympics

Stillwell Field Looking East, 2012
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Building 55
Characteristics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

Cost $780
Less than 1900 Sq. Feet
Originally 26 ft. by 29 ft.
Adobe with frame additions
First Neoclassical cross-wing in
Utah (symmetrical design)
4 rooms
18” thick walls
3 adobe fireplaces
“Four over four” double hung
sash windows
Pine or Douglas Fir
Wooden shingle roof coated in
slate
“Lath and plastered” interior
Has a stand alone Historic
Register eligible structure below
the original building (1862 Root
Cellar)

Building 55 in 2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Greg Haws and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History
of Building 55 (7) and its Inhabitants.” University of Utah
Graduate School of Architecture,
Fort Douglas Papers, University of Utah
Marriott Library Special Collections,
Salt Lake City, Utah

Building 55, ca. 1865
“In the shadow of Red Butte, the silent sentinel…looks down upon the scene of
[their] labors, at the very spot where [they ]first camped…”
–Lieutenant Colonel Fred B. Rogers at the funeral of General Patrick Edward
Connor
Photo: Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah;
Elmo R. Morgan, “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22 October 1862-30 September 1954”, Fort Douglas
Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah(Brackets added)

Then and Now
ca. 1900

Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner

Preservation of Building 55: Additions
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

North Exterior

South Exterior

1930
Addition

Unknown
addition

1864
Frame
Addition

1862-3
Root
Cellar

1863
Original
Building

1863 Original
Building

1875
Addition
1864 Post
Surgeons
Quarter’s

1930
Addition

Extensive Known Alterations:
1864: addition of two frame rooms
1874: addition of parlor from Post Surgeon’s quarters
Removal of a fireplace
Windows changed
Fireplace enclosed
1903: Plumbing
1910: Electricity
1911-1928: steam heating, telephones, gas lines
1930: frame Lean-to addition
Windows changed
1960: fire damage repairs
Unknown: Building addition
Unknown: Exterior Stucco
Source: Maintenance Records for Building 33, 1933; Maintenance Records for Building 55, 1938

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Preservation

Unknown Addition
Ca. 1930

• Building 55 is believed to have
been the only complete 1863
structure remaining at Fort
Douglas
• In 2003 parts of several other
1863 buildings have been found:
– 1874: Commander’s Quarters
Parlor from 1863 District
Commander’s Residence
– 1864: Building 55
Parlor Post Surgeon’s
Quarters
– 1862-63: Building 55
Root Cellar

1874 Addition

Original 1863 Parlor

1874 Post Commander’s Residence
Source: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Moving Building 55
• First discussed in 1990
• Again in 1994
• The site chosen was Old
Deseret Village
• University of Utah did not
agree for “reasons so
compelling”
• Recommended for
preservation on site
• Discussion never progressed
further into action
• Outcome: remains on site

Old Deseret Village looking east, 2012
First proposed area to move Building 55

Source: Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995; Anne Racer to Rick
Reece, email, 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum,
Fort Douglas, Utah.

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Old Deseret Village:
Historically Camp Douglas
Pros for moving:

Cons for moving Building 55:

• Old Deseret Village was
constructed on the original
grounds of Camp Douglas
(Association)
• Preserves the structure
• Allows “basic” interpretation
of the historic structure
• Provides opportunities for new
use, but not uses the building
was intended for(Design)

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•

Moved off of original location 1+ miles
away (location)
Destroys 150 years of association to
location of the historic camp
(Association/location)
Bears no resemblance to current location
(feeling )
Would remove from NRHP an make it
ineligible for any future attempts
Removes Historic Landmark designation
Costs to move , reconstruct and restore
(materials)
Destruction of original workmanship
(workmanship)
May cause un-repairable damage to the
structure (workmanship/
materials/design)

Fort Douglas Military Museum
1917
Master Plan
POW Barracks (RC)

N: New
RE: Relocated
RC: Reconstructed
E: Existing
D: Drop Building Addition to
Historic Structure

1942
Firehouse (E)

North

1943
Barracks (RE)

and Guard Tower (RC)

Women’s
Memorial (N)

D

1863
Commanders
Home (RE)

D

D

Building 31 and 32
Current Museum (E)
Not connected yet. Black Star
Building has been completed.

1935
Shop (RE)
© 2012 Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884
Officer’s
Quarters
Duplex (RE)

Preservation Problems
• Stress fractures
• Plaster Damage
• Fire Damage
• Foundation damage
• Windows
•Adobe damage

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner , 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos:
Kimberly
Buckner
2012

A Good Move: Moving Building 55 to Fort
Douglas Military Museum Grounds
Pros:

Cons:

• A move of less than ¼ mile
• Maintains association to original
site (Association)
• Preservation of structure
(materials/design)
• Opportunities to interpret local
history of post (location)
• Chosen site provides similar view
to original location (setting)
• Allows for new use (design)
• Maintains feeling of the historic
district (Feeling)

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Removes from primary location and
original foundation (Location)
Potential to damage structure
May destroy the original
workmanship (Workmanship)
To which era of significance will it
be restored?
Original orientation may not be
possible
Will introduce modern materials
into the historic structure
(Materials)
Removes from NRHP but would
allow for reapplication/maintains
historic landmark designation

A Difference in Views
Old Deseret Village

Looking West

Fort Douglas Military
Museum Grounds

Cannon Park looking South
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Lessening the impacts:
When moving is the only Preservation
option
Old Deseret Village

Fort Douglas Military Museum

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Will lose nearly all historical identity
Not on original site, but in association with original
camp
Allows the structure to exist
Would impact the elements of original design
Area not with original feeling but among structures
who have lost their “history”
Introduction of modern materials
Further impacts to historic workmanship
Loss of National Historic Landmark Designation
Loss of NRHP listing. May not be able to reapply
Land has lost all association/use with original Camp
Douglas
New use may not be conducive to historic use
1+ mile move
Impacts all criterion of integrity
Must be removed from Federal ownership to
private

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Maintains historical Identity
Maintains association with original camp
Structure is preserved in similar location
Less than ¼ mile move
Area has maintained original feeling and
association to the camp
Loss of NHRP listing but retains eligibility for
the future
Maintains National Historic Landmark
Designation and prominence within the
historic district
Interpretation of changes in military housing
New use conducive to original use
Fully restored with historical furnishing s
Retains nearly all criterion of Integrity
Already part of museum complex
Maintains federal ownership (State of Utah
to Utah National Guard ownership)

Moving: The Right Choice?
Old Deseret Village is a good place to house relocated and reconstructed historic structures to interpret the
early territorial history of Utah
BUT…
It was not the right setting to house a unique structure like Building 55
–

Will Building 55 be remembered for its history and sense of location? Or, because of the 4th grade
field trip with limited exposure only to be quickly forgotten?

–

With so many structures will the building be properly maintained or fall victim to demolition by
neglect?

–

Potentially a Section 106 logistic nightmare (Federal holdings to “private” hands)

Whereas…
The Fort Douglas Military Museum grounds will allow the unique structure a permanent home, restoration and
ability to maintain a prominent place in Fort Douglas. It will allow for
–

more opportunities and exposure to its unique history,

–

Will ensure that it will be preserved for future generations.

If Moved to Old Deseret Village

The actual site chosen for Building 55 in 1990 was never disclosed in the documentation.
Building 55 was placed in an arbitrary location within the park.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012 Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

If moved to the Museum Grounds

Sitting in proposed Master Plan location on the museum grounds.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Future Recommendations
The recommendations for Building 55:
1.

Restoration at current site using historically accurate methods
–
Potential for learning opportunities at current site (i.e. Root Cellar)
–
Potential for gaining additional archaeological information from site
–
Root Cellar was nominated as a stand alone NHRP eligible structure in 2008.

2.

Create a viable strategic plan for living history and historic house museum (adaptive use)
–
Prepare plan to cover all preservation issues which may crop up in the next decade
–
Prepare a strategic plan for safely moving Building 55, allowing for historically
accurate restoration and renovation methods.

3.

I

Maintain Building 55 on site
–
Use authentic and historically accurate reproduction pieces
–
Interpretive/Museum use

4.
If and when the time comes, move the structure to the Fort Douglas Military Museum
grounds to maintain current preservation effort
-- Increase opportunities for interpretation of structure
-- Restore back to 1863, and use later additions for storage/office space
-- Allow for living history programs

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Any Questions?

Bibliography
•

Advisory Council Regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR 800) .

•

Anne Racer to Rick Reese, (Email), 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas
Utah

•

Andrus, Cecil B. et al. “Part 6: The National Historic Register of Historic Places.” The Manual for
State Historic Preservation Review Boards. www.nps.gov/nr/bulletins/strevman/strevman6.htm
(accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Exhibit, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Register Nomination Form, 1970.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Landmark Nomination Form, 1974, Building 7 file, Utah State
Historical Preservation Offices, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas Military Museum, Master Plan, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas , Utah.

•

Hardesty, Donald L. and Barbara Little. Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists and
Historians (Lanham, MD.: Altamira Press, 2009).

•

Haws, Greg and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History of Building 55 (7) and its inhabitants.” University
of Utah Graduate School., 12 December 1994, University of Utah Marriott Library Special
Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Loveday, Amos J. “The Decision Makers Guide to Section 106.” Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2) pp. 10-17.

•

Maintenance Records Building 33, 1933, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah .

•

Maintenance Records Building 55, 1938, Fort Douglas Military Museum

•

Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas,
Utah

•

Morgan, Elmo R. “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22October-30 September 1954.” Fort
Douglas Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

National Park Service. Cultural Resource Guidelines (2002).
www.nps.gov/history/online_books nps28/28chap8.htm (accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Parris, Thomas . “Historical Preservation.” Environment Vol. 26 no. 8, (February 2003). P. 3

• Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14
September, 1862, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.
• Plaque, Camp Floyd/Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah.

• Plaque, Deuel Cabin, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt
Lake City, Utah.
• Plaque, Levi Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village, Salt Lake City, Utah.

• “Section 106: Back to the Basics” in Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2).
• University of Utah “From Civil War Building to Entrepreneurial Mecca”,
9 September 2008, http:/unews.utah.edu/old/p/090808-1.html
(accessed 1 August 2012).
• Utah State Historical Society Photograph Collection, Utah State
Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah


Slide 7

In the Shade of Black Locusts:
Preserving the “Silent Sentinel”
of Fort Douglas

Kimberly Buckner
Volunteer Staff
Fort Douglas Military Museum
Salt Lake City, Utah

Photo: Utah State Historical Society

Copyright Notice
© 2012 Kimberly Buckner and Fort
Douglas Military Museum. All
Rights Reserved. No use of any
photographs/information in this
presentation without express
written consent of the copyright
owner(s). All photos used by
permission.

But not all historic properties
are deliberately being
destroyed. Many have fallen
victim to the “ravages of
time.” This structure near
Camp Floyd has completely
collapsed since this picture
was taken in 2010.

Preservation: A National Priority?
Thomas Parris: National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 promotes the preservation of historic
structures as a national priority

And YET thousands of historically significant
properties are being destroyed each year despite
placement on the National Register of Historic
Places
Thomas Parris, “Historic Preservation”, Environment, Vol. 46, no. 8 (February 2003), p. 3

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

A Common Misconception?
A commonly held misconception among public
audiences:
“Preservation is broadly opposed to change and by
extension, that Section 106 is a tool to block
progress.”
Instead:
“Preservation is about controlling and accommodating
change, and the entire network of preservation rules,
beginning with Section 106, is designed to accomplish
that end.”
Amos J. Loveday, “The Decision Maker’s guide to Section 106”, Forum Journal Winter 2012, Vol. 26
(2), p. 17

Preserving Eligibility
Preservation is meant to protect by not diminishing
any characteristic providing eligibility on the
National Register of Historic Places Including (but
not limited to):
• Integrity of Location
• Integrity of Design
• Integrity of Setting
• Integrity of Materials
• Integrity of Workmanship
• Integrity of Feeling
• Integrity of Association
“Section 106: Back to the Basics”, Forum Journal, Winter 2012, Vol. 26, no. 2, p.10; 36 CFR
800.5 (a)(1)

The National Register of
Historic Places
Since 1966, The National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) provides:
• Communal recognition of local, state or national
history in a visual way
• Consideration in federal undertakings and
improvement projects
• Eligibility for tax benefits through the federal
government
• Qualification for monetary funds for preservation
benefits
Donald L. Hardesty and Barbara Little, Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists
and Historians, 2nd edition, (Lanham, MD: Altamira Press, 2009).

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties
Approved treatment
options:
• Preservation
• Rehabilitation
• Reconstruction
In rare conditions:
• Demolition by neglect
• Moving the historic
structure
Historic Cabin Ca. 1860’s
La Sal, Utah
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2010. Edited by Brick R. King, 2010
Colors have been enhanced

Success Stories:
Onsite Preservation of Carson Inn, 1858
Quick Facts:
• Camp Floyd and
Stagecoach Inn State Park
• Fairfield, Utah
• Built in 1858 by John
Carson
• Adobe and Frame
Construction
• Restored June 1959
• Outcome: furnished as a
historic “house” museum

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2011
Plaque, Camp Floyd /Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah

Success Stories: Moving, Restoration and Renovation
Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, 1847 and the Deuel
Family Cabin, 1847
Deuel Cabin
•
•
•

Riter Cabin

Temple Square
Moved ca. 1989
Glass enclosed historic house museum
with period furnishings

Why are they so Important?

•
•
•

Maintained in Old Deseret Village
Moved to Old Deseret Village ca. 1989
Interpreted solely by historical plaque

• Photo

The two oldest
remaining structures
in Utah are these
original
165-year –old cabins

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village

Success Story:
Relocation to Old Deseret Village
Quick Facts:

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Historic Manti Mill,
built ca. 1858 in Manti, Utah
Relocated ca. 1989

• This is the Place Heritage
Park
• Salt Lake City, Utah
• More than 40
structures/buildings
• Buildings consist of
originals, reproductions, or
relocated 19th century
structures
• Outcome: set up as a
historic village to interpret
frontier life in Utah from
1847-1869

Other success stories
ODV

Photos: Kimberly Buckner 2012

Camp Douglas, ca. 1864
“…I found another location, which I like better for
various reasons…”– Patrick Edward Connor
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah
Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14 September 1862,
Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah.

From Camp to Fort
26 October 1862 : established Camp
Douglas
1862: “Connor Tents” and Dugouts
1863: Adobe and Log structures begun
1867: Expansion of Camp’s perimeter
1874-75: $1 Million rebuild from native
red sandstone
1878: Renamed Fort Douglas

Camp Douglas ca. 1866
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884: $63,820 expansion with 5 frame
structures

From Fort to Historic Landmark
1904-1911: $1,140,000 building expansion
1910: Introduction of electricity
1915-16: Addition of detention camp
1930: Final major building expansion
1970: Listed on National Register of Historic
Places as a heritage district
1974: Listed as National Historic Landmark
26 October 1991: Fort Douglas officially
decommissioned
2002: Athlete’s Village, 2002 Winter Olympics

Stillwell Field Looking East, 2012
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Building 55
Characteristics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

Cost $780
Less than 1900 Sq. Feet
Originally 26 ft. by 29 ft.
Adobe with frame additions
First Neoclassical cross-wing in
Utah (symmetrical design)
4 rooms
18” thick walls
3 adobe fireplaces
“Four over four” double hung
sash windows
Pine or Douglas Fir
Wooden shingle roof coated in
slate
“Lath and plastered” interior
Has a stand alone Historic
Register eligible structure below
the original building (1862 Root
Cellar)

Building 55 in 2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Greg Haws and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History
of Building 55 (7) and its Inhabitants.” University of Utah
Graduate School of Architecture,
Fort Douglas Papers, University of Utah
Marriott Library Special Collections,
Salt Lake City, Utah

Building 55, ca. 1865
“In the shadow of Red Butte, the silent sentinel…looks down upon the scene of
[their] labors, at the very spot where [they ]first camped…”
–Lieutenant Colonel Fred B. Rogers at the funeral of General Patrick Edward
Connor
Photo: Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah;
Elmo R. Morgan, “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22 October 1862-30 September 1954”, Fort Douglas
Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah(Brackets added)

Then and Now
ca. 1900

Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner

Preservation of Building 55: Additions
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

North Exterior

South Exterior

1930
Addition

Unknown
addition

1864
Frame
Addition

1862-3
Root
Cellar

1863
Original
Building

1863 Original
Building

1875
Addition
1864 Post
Surgeons
Quarter’s

1930
Addition

Extensive Known Alterations:
1864: addition of two frame rooms
1874: addition of parlor from Post Surgeon’s quarters
Removal of a fireplace
Windows changed
Fireplace enclosed
1903: Plumbing
1910: Electricity
1911-1928: steam heating, telephones, gas lines
1930: frame Lean-to addition
Windows changed
1960: fire damage repairs
Unknown: Building addition
Unknown: Exterior Stucco
Source: Maintenance Records for Building 33, 1933; Maintenance Records for Building 55, 1938

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Preservation

Unknown Addition
Ca. 1930

• Building 55 is believed to have
been the only complete 1863
structure remaining at Fort
Douglas
• In 2003 parts of several other
1863 buildings have been found:
– 1874: Commander’s Quarters
Parlor from 1863 District
Commander’s Residence
– 1864: Building 55
Parlor Post Surgeon’s
Quarters
– 1862-63: Building 55
Root Cellar

1874 Addition

Original 1863 Parlor

1874 Post Commander’s Residence
Source: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Moving Building 55
• First discussed in 1990
• Again in 1994
• The site chosen was Old
Deseret Village
• University of Utah did not
agree for “reasons so
compelling”
• Recommended for
preservation on site
• Discussion never progressed
further into action
• Outcome: remains on site

Old Deseret Village looking east, 2012
First proposed area to move Building 55

Source: Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995; Anne Racer to Rick
Reece, email, 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum,
Fort Douglas, Utah.

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Old Deseret Village:
Historically Camp Douglas
Pros for moving:

Cons for moving Building 55:

• Old Deseret Village was
constructed on the original
grounds of Camp Douglas
(Association)
• Preserves the structure
• Allows “basic” interpretation
of the historic structure
• Provides opportunities for new
use, but not uses the building
was intended for(Design)

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•

Moved off of original location 1+ miles
away (location)
Destroys 150 years of association to
location of the historic camp
(Association/location)
Bears no resemblance to current location
(feeling )
Would remove from NRHP an make it
ineligible for any future attempts
Removes Historic Landmark designation
Costs to move , reconstruct and restore
(materials)
Destruction of original workmanship
(workmanship)
May cause un-repairable damage to the
structure (workmanship/
materials/design)

Fort Douglas Military Museum
1917
Master Plan
POW Barracks (RC)

N: New
RE: Relocated
RC: Reconstructed
E: Existing
D: Drop Building Addition to
Historic Structure

1942
Firehouse (E)

North

1943
Barracks (RE)

and Guard Tower (RC)

Women’s
Memorial (N)

D

1863
Commanders
Home (RE)

D

D

Building 31 and 32
Current Museum (E)
Not connected yet. Black Star
Building has been completed.

1935
Shop (RE)
© 2012 Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884
Officer’s
Quarters
Duplex (RE)

Preservation Problems
• Stress fractures
• Plaster Damage
• Fire Damage
• Foundation damage
• Windows
•Adobe damage

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner , 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos:
Kimberly
Buckner
2012

A Good Move: Moving Building 55 to Fort
Douglas Military Museum Grounds
Pros:

Cons:

• A move of less than ¼ mile
• Maintains association to original
site (Association)
• Preservation of structure
(materials/design)
• Opportunities to interpret local
history of post (location)
• Chosen site provides similar view
to original location (setting)
• Allows for new use (design)
• Maintains feeling of the historic
district (Feeling)

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Removes from primary location and
original foundation (Location)
Potential to damage structure
May destroy the original
workmanship (Workmanship)
To which era of significance will it
be restored?
Original orientation may not be
possible
Will introduce modern materials
into the historic structure
(Materials)
Removes from NRHP but would
allow for reapplication/maintains
historic landmark designation

A Difference in Views
Old Deseret Village

Looking West

Fort Douglas Military
Museum Grounds

Cannon Park looking South
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Lessening the impacts:
When moving is the only Preservation
option
Old Deseret Village

Fort Douglas Military Museum

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Will lose nearly all historical identity
Not on original site, but in association with original
camp
Allows the structure to exist
Would impact the elements of original design
Area not with original feeling but among structures
who have lost their “history”
Introduction of modern materials
Further impacts to historic workmanship
Loss of National Historic Landmark Designation
Loss of NRHP listing. May not be able to reapply
Land has lost all association/use with original Camp
Douglas
New use may not be conducive to historic use
1+ mile move
Impacts all criterion of integrity
Must be removed from Federal ownership to
private

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Maintains historical Identity
Maintains association with original camp
Structure is preserved in similar location
Less than ¼ mile move
Area has maintained original feeling and
association to the camp
Loss of NHRP listing but retains eligibility for
the future
Maintains National Historic Landmark
Designation and prominence within the
historic district
Interpretation of changes in military housing
New use conducive to original use
Fully restored with historical furnishing s
Retains nearly all criterion of Integrity
Already part of museum complex
Maintains federal ownership (State of Utah
to Utah National Guard ownership)

Moving: The Right Choice?
Old Deseret Village is a good place to house relocated and reconstructed historic structures to interpret the
early territorial history of Utah
BUT…
It was not the right setting to house a unique structure like Building 55
–

Will Building 55 be remembered for its history and sense of location? Or, because of the 4th grade
field trip with limited exposure only to be quickly forgotten?

–

With so many structures will the building be properly maintained or fall victim to demolition by
neglect?

–

Potentially a Section 106 logistic nightmare (Federal holdings to “private” hands)

Whereas…
The Fort Douglas Military Museum grounds will allow the unique structure a permanent home, restoration and
ability to maintain a prominent place in Fort Douglas. It will allow for
–

more opportunities and exposure to its unique history,

–

Will ensure that it will be preserved for future generations.

If Moved to Old Deseret Village

The actual site chosen for Building 55 in 1990 was never disclosed in the documentation.
Building 55 was placed in an arbitrary location within the park.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012 Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

If moved to the Museum Grounds

Sitting in proposed Master Plan location on the museum grounds.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Future Recommendations
The recommendations for Building 55:
1.

Restoration at current site using historically accurate methods
–
Potential for learning opportunities at current site (i.e. Root Cellar)
–
Potential for gaining additional archaeological information from site
–
Root Cellar was nominated as a stand alone NHRP eligible structure in 2008.

2.

Create a viable strategic plan for living history and historic house museum (adaptive use)
–
Prepare plan to cover all preservation issues which may crop up in the next decade
–
Prepare a strategic plan for safely moving Building 55, allowing for historically
accurate restoration and renovation methods.

3.

I

Maintain Building 55 on site
–
Use authentic and historically accurate reproduction pieces
–
Interpretive/Museum use

4.
If and when the time comes, move the structure to the Fort Douglas Military Museum
grounds to maintain current preservation effort
-- Increase opportunities for interpretation of structure
-- Restore back to 1863, and use later additions for storage/office space
-- Allow for living history programs

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Any Questions?

Bibliography
•

Advisory Council Regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR 800) .

•

Anne Racer to Rick Reese, (Email), 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas
Utah

•

Andrus, Cecil B. et al. “Part 6: The National Historic Register of Historic Places.” The Manual for
State Historic Preservation Review Boards. www.nps.gov/nr/bulletins/strevman/strevman6.htm
(accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Exhibit, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Register Nomination Form, 1970.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Landmark Nomination Form, 1974, Building 7 file, Utah State
Historical Preservation Offices, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas Military Museum, Master Plan, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas , Utah.

•

Hardesty, Donald L. and Barbara Little. Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists and
Historians (Lanham, MD.: Altamira Press, 2009).

•

Haws, Greg and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History of Building 55 (7) and its inhabitants.” University
of Utah Graduate School., 12 December 1994, University of Utah Marriott Library Special
Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Loveday, Amos J. “The Decision Makers Guide to Section 106.” Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2) pp. 10-17.

•

Maintenance Records Building 33, 1933, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah .

•

Maintenance Records Building 55, 1938, Fort Douglas Military Museum

•

Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas,
Utah

•

Morgan, Elmo R. “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22October-30 September 1954.” Fort
Douglas Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

National Park Service. Cultural Resource Guidelines (2002).
www.nps.gov/history/online_books nps28/28chap8.htm (accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Parris, Thomas . “Historical Preservation.” Environment Vol. 26 no. 8, (February 2003). P. 3

• Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14
September, 1862, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.
• Plaque, Camp Floyd/Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah.

• Plaque, Deuel Cabin, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt
Lake City, Utah.
• Plaque, Levi Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village, Salt Lake City, Utah.

• “Section 106: Back to the Basics” in Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2).
• University of Utah “From Civil War Building to Entrepreneurial Mecca”,
9 September 2008, http:/unews.utah.edu/old/p/090808-1.html
(accessed 1 August 2012).
• Utah State Historical Society Photograph Collection, Utah State
Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah


Slide 8

In the Shade of Black Locusts:
Preserving the “Silent Sentinel”
of Fort Douglas

Kimberly Buckner
Volunteer Staff
Fort Douglas Military Museum
Salt Lake City, Utah

Photo: Utah State Historical Society

Copyright Notice
© 2012 Kimberly Buckner and Fort
Douglas Military Museum. All
Rights Reserved. No use of any
photographs/information in this
presentation without express
written consent of the copyright
owner(s). All photos used by
permission.

But not all historic properties
are deliberately being
destroyed. Many have fallen
victim to the “ravages of
time.” This structure near
Camp Floyd has completely
collapsed since this picture
was taken in 2010.

Preservation: A National Priority?
Thomas Parris: National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 promotes the preservation of historic
structures as a national priority

And YET thousands of historically significant
properties are being destroyed each year despite
placement on the National Register of Historic
Places
Thomas Parris, “Historic Preservation”, Environment, Vol. 46, no. 8 (February 2003), p. 3

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

A Common Misconception?
A commonly held misconception among public
audiences:
“Preservation is broadly opposed to change and by
extension, that Section 106 is a tool to block
progress.”
Instead:
“Preservation is about controlling and accommodating
change, and the entire network of preservation rules,
beginning with Section 106, is designed to accomplish
that end.”
Amos J. Loveday, “The Decision Maker’s guide to Section 106”, Forum Journal Winter 2012, Vol. 26
(2), p. 17

Preserving Eligibility
Preservation is meant to protect by not diminishing
any characteristic providing eligibility on the
National Register of Historic Places Including (but
not limited to):
• Integrity of Location
• Integrity of Design
• Integrity of Setting
• Integrity of Materials
• Integrity of Workmanship
• Integrity of Feeling
• Integrity of Association
“Section 106: Back to the Basics”, Forum Journal, Winter 2012, Vol. 26, no. 2, p.10; 36 CFR
800.5 (a)(1)

The National Register of
Historic Places
Since 1966, The National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) provides:
• Communal recognition of local, state or national
history in a visual way
• Consideration in federal undertakings and
improvement projects
• Eligibility for tax benefits through the federal
government
• Qualification for monetary funds for preservation
benefits
Donald L. Hardesty and Barbara Little, Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists
and Historians, 2nd edition, (Lanham, MD: Altamira Press, 2009).

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties
Approved treatment
options:
• Preservation
• Rehabilitation
• Reconstruction
In rare conditions:
• Demolition by neglect
• Moving the historic
structure
Historic Cabin Ca. 1860’s
La Sal, Utah
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2010. Edited by Brick R. King, 2010
Colors have been enhanced

Success Stories:
Onsite Preservation of Carson Inn, 1858
Quick Facts:
• Camp Floyd and
Stagecoach Inn State Park
• Fairfield, Utah
• Built in 1858 by John
Carson
• Adobe and Frame
Construction
• Restored June 1959
• Outcome: furnished as a
historic “house” museum

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2011
Plaque, Camp Floyd /Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah

Success Stories: Moving, Restoration and Renovation
Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, 1847 and the Deuel
Family Cabin, 1847
Deuel Cabin
•
•
•

Riter Cabin

Temple Square
Moved ca. 1989
Glass enclosed historic house museum
with period furnishings

Why are they so Important?

•
•
•

Maintained in Old Deseret Village
Moved to Old Deseret Village ca. 1989
Interpreted solely by historical plaque

• Photo

The two oldest
remaining structures
in Utah are these
original
165-year –old cabins

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village

Success Story:
Relocation to Old Deseret Village
Quick Facts:

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Historic Manti Mill,
built ca. 1858 in Manti, Utah
Relocated ca. 1989

• This is the Place Heritage
Park
• Salt Lake City, Utah
• More than 40
structures/buildings
• Buildings consist of
originals, reproductions, or
relocated 19th century
structures
• Outcome: set up as a
historic village to interpret
frontier life in Utah from
1847-1869

Other success stories
ODV

Photos: Kimberly Buckner 2012

Camp Douglas, ca. 1864
“…I found another location, which I like better for
various reasons…”– Patrick Edward Connor
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah
Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14 September 1862,
Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah.

From Camp to Fort
26 October 1862 : established Camp
Douglas
1862: “Connor Tents” and Dugouts
1863: Adobe and Log structures begun
1867: Expansion of Camp’s perimeter
1874-75: $1 Million rebuild from native
red sandstone
1878: Renamed Fort Douglas

Camp Douglas ca. 1866
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884: $63,820 expansion with 5 frame
structures

From Fort to Historic Landmark
1904-1911: $1,140,000 building expansion
1910: Introduction of electricity
1915-16: Addition of detention camp
1930: Final major building expansion
1970: Listed on National Register of Historic
Places as a heritage district
1974: Listed as National Historic Landmark
26 October 1991: Fort Douglas officially
decommissioned
2002: Athlete’s Village, 2002 Winter Olympics

Stillwell Field Looking East, 2012
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Building 55
Characteristics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

Cost $780
Less than 1900 Sq. Feet
Originally 26 ft. by 29 ft.
Adobe with frame additions
First Neoclassical cross-wing in
Utah (symmetrical design)
4 rooms
18” thick walls
3 adobe fireplaces
“Four over four” double hung
sash windows
Pine or Douglas Fir
Wooden shingle roof coated in
slate
“Lath and plastered” interior
Has a stand alone Historic
Register eligible structure below
the original building (1862 Root
Cellar)

Building 55 in 2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Greg Haws and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History
of Building 55 (7) and its Inhabitants.” University of Utah
Graduate School of Architecture,
Fort Douglas Papers, University of Utah
Marriott Library Special Collections,
Salt Lake City, Utah

Building 55, ca. 1865
“In the shadow of Red Butte, the silent sentinel…looks down upon the scene of
[their] labors, at the very spot where [they ]first camped…”
–Lieutenant Colonel Fred B. Rogers at the funeral of General Patrick Edward
Connor
Photo: Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah;
Elmo R. Morgan, “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22 October 1862-30 September 1954”, Fort Douglas
Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah(Brackets added)

Then and Now
ca. 1900

Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner

Preservation of Building 55: Additions
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

North Exterior

South Exterior

1930
Addition

Unknown
addition

1864
Frame
Addition

1862-3
Root
Cellar

1863
Original
Building

1863 Original
Building

1875
Addition
1864 Post
Surgeons
Quarter’s

1930
Addition

Extensive Known Alterations:
1864: addition of two frame rooms
1874: addition of parlor from Post Surgeon’s quarters
Removal of a fireplace
Windows changed
Fireplace enclosed
1903: Plumbing
1910: Electricity
1911-1928: steam heating, telephones, gas lines
1930: frame Lean-to addition
Windows changed
1960: fire damage repairs
Unknown: Building addition
Unknown: Exterior Stucco
Source: Maintenance Records for Building 33, 1933; Maintenance Records for Building 55, 1938

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Preservation

Unknown Addition
Ca. 1930

• Building 55 is believed to have
been the only complete 1863
structure remaining at Fort
Douglas
• In 2003 parts of several other
1863 buildings have been found:
– 1874: Commander’s Quarters
Parlor from 1863 District
Commander’s Residence
– 1864: Building 55
Parlor Post Surgeon’s
Quarters
– 1862-63: Building 55
Root Cellar

1874 Addition

Original 1863 Parlor

1874 Post Commander’s Residence
Source: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Moving Building 55
• First discussed in 1990
• Again in 1994
• The site chosen was Old
Deseret Village
• University of Utah did not
agree for “reasons so
compelling”
• Recommended for
preservation on site
• Discussion never progressed
further into action
• Outcome: remains on site

Old Deseret Village looking east, 2012
First proposed area to move Building 55

Source: Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995; Anne Racer to Rick
Reece, email, 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum,
Fort Douglas, Utah.

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Old Deseret Village:
Historically Camp Douglas
Pros for moving:

Cons for moving Building 55:

• Old Deseret Village was
constructed on the original
grounds of Camp Douglas
(Association)
• Preserves the structure
• Allows “basic” interpretation
of the historic structure
• Provides opportunities for new
use, but not uses the building
was intended for(Design)

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•

Moved off of original location 1+ miles
away (location)
Destroys 150 years of association to
location of the historic camp
(Association/location)
Bears no resemblance to current location
(feeling )
Would remove from NRHP an make it
ineligible for any future attempts
Removes Historic Landmark designation
Costs to move , reconstruct and restore
(materials)
Destruction of original workmanship
(workmanship)
May cause un-repairable damage to the
structure (workmanship/
materials/design)

Fort Douglas Military Museum
1917
Master Plan
POW Barracks (RC)

N: New
RE: Relocated
RC: Reconstructed
E: Existing
D: Drop Building Addition to
Historic Structure

1942
Firehouse (E)

North

1943
Barracks (RE)

and Guard Tower (RC)

Women’s
Memorial (N)

D

1863
Commanders
Home (RE)

D

D

Building 31 and 32
Current Museum (E)
Not connected yet. Black Star
Building has been completed.

1935
Shop (RE)
© 2012 Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884
Officer’s
Quarters
Duplex (RE)

Preservation Problems
• Stress fractures
• Plaster Damage
• Fire Damage
• Foundation damage
• Windows
•Adobe damage

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner , 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos:
Kimberly
Buckner
2012

A Good Move: Moving Building 55 to Fort
Douglas Military Museum Grounds
Pros:

Cons:

• A move of less than ¼ mile
• Maintains association to original
site (Association)
• Preservation of structure
(materials/design)
• Opportunities to interpret local
history of post (location)
• Chosen site provides similar view
to original location (setting)
• Allows for new use (design)
• Maintains feeling of the historic
district (Feeling)

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Removes from primary location and
original foundation (Location)
Potential to damage structure
May destroy the original
workmanship (Workmanship)
To which era of significance will it
be restored?
Original orientation may not be
possible
Will introduce modern materials
into the historic structure
(Materials)
Removes from NRHP but would
allow for reapplication/maintains
historic landmark designation

A Difference in Views
Old Deseret Village

Looking West

Fort Douglas Military
Museum Grounds

Cannon Park looking South
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Lessening the impacts:
When moving is the only Preservation
option
Old Deseret Village

Fort Douglas Military Museum

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Will lose nearly all historical identity
Not on original site, but in association with original
camp
Allows the structure to exist
Would impact the elements of original design
Area not with original feeling but among structures
who have lost their “history”
Introduction of modern materials
Further impacts to historic workmanship
Loss of National Historic Landmark Designation
Loss of NRHP listing. May not be able to reapply
Land has lost all association/use with original Camp
Douglas
New use may not be conducive to historic use
1+ mile move
Impacts all criterion of integrity
Must be removed from Federal ownership to
private

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Maintains historical Identity
Maintains association with original camp
Structure is preserved in similar location
Less than ¼ mile move
Area has maintained original feeling and
association to the camp
Loss of NHRP listing but retains eligibility for
the future
Maintains National Historic Landmark
Designation and prominence within the
historic district
Interpretation of changes in military housing
New use conducive to original use
Fully restored with historical furnishing s
Retains nearly all criterion of Integrity
Already part of museum complex
Maintains federal ownership (State of Utah
to Utah National Guard ownership)

Moving: The Right Choice?
Old Deseret Village is a good place to house relocated and reconstructed historic structures to interpret the
early territorial history of Utah
BUT…
It was not the right setting to house a unique structure like Building 55
–

Will Building 55 be remembered for its history and sense of location? Or, because of the 4th grade
field trip with limited exposure only to be quickly forgotten?

–

With so many structures will the building be properly maintained or fall victim to demolition by
neglect?

–

Potentially a Section 106 logistic nightmare (Federal holdings to “private” hands)

Whereas…
The Fort Douglas Military Museum grounds will allow the unique structure a permanent home, restoration and
ability to maintain a prominent place in Fort Douglas. It will allow for
–

more opportunities and exposure to its unique history,

–

Will ensure that it will be preserved for future generations.

If Moved to Old Deseret Village

The actual site chosen for Building 55 in 1990 was never disclosed in the documentation.
Building 55 was placed in an arbitrary location within the park.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012 Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

If moved to the Museum Grounds

Sitting in proposed Master Plan location on the museum grounds.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Future Recommendations
The recommendations for Building 55:
1.

Restoration at current site using historically accurate methods
–
Potential for learning opportunities at current site (i.e. Root Cellar)
–
Potential for gaining additional archaeological information from site
–
Root Cellar was nominated as a stand alone NHRP eligible structure in 2008.

2.

Create a viable strategic plan for living history and historic house museum (adaptive use)
–
Prepare plan to cover all preservation issues which may crop up in the next decade
–
Prepare a strategic plan for safely moving Building 55, allowing for historically
accurate restoration and renovation methods.

3.

I

Maintain Building 55 on site
–
Use authentic and historically accurate reproduction pieces
–
Interpretive/Museum use

4.
If and when the time comes, move the structure to the Fort Douglas Military Museum
grounds to maintain current preservation effort
-- Increase opportunities for interpretation of structure
-- Restore back to 1863, and use later additions for storage/office space
-- Allow for living history programs

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Any Questions?

Bibliography
•

Advisory Council Regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR 800) .

•

Anne Racer to Rick Reese, (Email), 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas
Utah

•

Andrus, Cecil B. et al. “Part 6: The National Historic Register of Historic Places.” The Manual for
State Historic Preservation Review Boards. www.nps.gov/nr/bulletins/strevman/strevman6.htm
(accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Exhibit, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Register Nomination Form, 1970.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Landmark Nomination Form, 1974, Building 7 file, Utah State
Historical Preservation Offices, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas Military Museum, Master Plan, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas , Utah.

•

Hardesty, Donald L. and Barbara Little. Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists and
Historians (Lanham, MD.: Altamira Press, 2009).

•

Haws, Greg and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History of Building 55 (7) and its inhabitants.” University
of Utah Graduate School., 12 December 1994, University of Utah Marriott Library Special
Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Loveday, Amos J. “The Decision Makers Guide to Section 106.” Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2) pp. 10-17.

•

Maintenance Records Building 33, 1933, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah .

•

Maintenance Records Building 55, 1938, Fort Douglas Military Museum

•

Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas,
Utah

•

Morgan, Elmo R. “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22October-30 September 1954.” Fort
Douglas Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

National Park Service. Cultural Resource Guidelines (2002).
www.nps.gov/history/online_books nps28/28chap8.htm (accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Parris, Thomas . “Historical Preservation.” Environment Vol. 26 no. 8, (February 2003). P. 3

• Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14
September, 1862, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.
• Plaque, Camp Floyd/Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah.

• Plaque, Deuel Cabin, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt
Lake City, Utah.
• Plaque, Levi Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village, Salt Lake City, Utah.

• “Section 106: Back to the Basics” in Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2).
• University of Utah “From Civil War Building to Entrepreneurial Mecca”,
9 September 2008, http:/unews.utah.edu/old/p/090808-1.html
(accessed 1 August 2012).
• Utah State Historical Society Photograph Collection, Utah State
Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah


Slide 9

In the Shade of Black Locusts:
Preserving the “Silent Sentinel”
of Fort Douglas

Kimberly Buckner
Volunteer Staff
Fort Douglas Military Museum
Salt Lake City, Utah

Photo: Utah State Historical Society

Copyright Notice
© 2012 Kimberly Buckner and Fort
Douglas Military Museum. All
Rights Reserved. No use of any
photographs/information in this
presentation without express
written consent of the copyright
owner(s). All photos used by
permission.

But not all historic properties
are deliberately being
destroyed. Many have fallen
victim to the “ravages of
time.” This structure near
Camp Floyd has completely
collapsed since this picture
was taken in 2010.

Preservation: A National Priority?
Thomas Parris: National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 promotes the preservation of historic
structures as a national priority

And YET thousands of historically significant
properties are being destroyed each year despite
placement on the National Register of Historic
Places
Thomas Parris, “Historic Preservation”, Environment, Vol. 46, no. 8 (February 2003), p. 3

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

A Common Misconception?
A commonly held misconception among public
audiences:
“Preservation is broadly opposed to change and by
extension, that Section 106 is a tool to block
progress.”
Instead:
“Preservation is about controlling and accommodating
change, and the entire network of preservation rules,
beginning with Section 106, is designed to accomplish
that end.”
Amos J. Loveday, “The Decision Maker’s guide to Section 106”, Forum Journal Winter 2012, Vol. 26
(2), p. 17

Preserving Eligibility
Preservation is meant to protect by not diminishing
any characteristic providing eligibility on the
National Register of Historic Places Including (but
not limited to):
• Integrity of Location
• Integrity of Design
• Integrity of Setting
• Integrity of Materials
• Integrity of Workmanship
• Integrity of Feeling
• Integrity of Association
“Section 106: Back to the Basics”, Forum Journal, Winter 2012, Vol. 26, no. 2, p.10; 36 CFR
800.5 (a)(1)

The National Register of
Historic Places
Since 1966, The National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) provides:
• Communal recognition of local, state or national
history in a visual way
• Consideration in federal undertakings and
improvement projects
• Eligibility for tax benefits through the federal
government
• Qualification for monetary funds for preservation
benefits
Donald L. Hardesty and Barbara Little, Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists
and Historians, 2nd edition, (Lanham, MD: Altamira Press, 2009).

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties
Approved treatment
options:
• Preservation
• Rehabilitation
• Reconstruction
In rare conditions:
• Demolition by neglect
• Moving the historic
structure
Historic Cabin Ca. 1860’s
La Sal, Utah
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2010. Edited by Brick R. King, 2010
Colors have been enhanced

Success Stories:
Onsite Preservation of Carson Inn, 1858
Quick Facts:
• Camp Floyd and
Stagecoach Inn State Park
• Fairfield, Utah
• Built in 1858 by John
Carson
• Adobe and Frame
Construction
• Restored June 1959
• Outcome: furnished as a
historic “house” museum

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2011
Plaque, Camp Floyd /Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah

Success Stories: Moving, Restoration and Renovation
Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, 1847 and the Deuel
Family Cabin, 1847
Deuel Cabin
•
•
•

Riter Cabin

Temple Square
Moved ca. 1989
Glass enclosed historic house museum
with period furnishings

Why are they so Important?

•
•
•

Maintained in Old Deseret Village
Moved to Old Deseret Village ca. 1989
Interpreted solely by historical plaque

• Photo

The two oldest
remaining structures
in Utah are these
original
165-year –old cabins

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village

Success Story:
Relocation to Old Deseret Village
Quick Facts:

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Historic Manti Mill,
built ca. 1858 in Manti, Utah
Relocated ca. 1989

• This is the Place Heritage
Park
• Salt Lake City, Utah
• More than 40
structures/buildings
• Buildings consist of
originals, reproductions, or
relocated 19th century
structures
• Outcome: set up as a
historic village to interpret
frontier life in Utah from
1847-1869

Other success stories
ODV

Photos: Kimberly Buckner 2012

Camp Douglas, ca. 1864
“…I found another location, which I like better for
various reasons…”– Patrick Edward Connor
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah
Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14 September 1862,
Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah.

From Camp to Fort
26 October 1862 : established Camp
Douglas
1862: “Connor Tents” and Dugouts
1863: Adobe and Log structures begun
1867: Expansion of Camp’s perimeter
1874-75: $1 Million rebuild from native
red sandstone
1878: Renamed Fort Douglas

Camp Douglas ca. 1866
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884: $63,820 expansion with 5 frame
structures

From Fort to Historic Landmark
1904-1911: $1,140,000 building expansion
1910: Introduction of electricity
1915-16: Addition of detention camp
1930: Final major building expansion
1970: Listed on National Register of Historic
Places as a heritage district
1974: Listed as National Historic Landmark
26 October 1991: Fort Douglas officially
decommissioned
2002: Athlete’s Village, 2002 Winter Olympics

Stillwell Field Looking East, 2012
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Building 55
Characteristics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

Cost $780
Less than 1900 Sq. Feet
Originally 26 ft. by 29 ft.
Adobe with frame additions
First Neoclassical cross-wing in
Utah (symmetrical design)
4 rooms
18” thick walls
3 adobe fireplaces
“Four over four” double hung
sash windows
Pine or Douglas Fir
Wooden shingle roof coated in
slate
“Lath and plastered” interior
Has a stand alone Historic
Register eligible structure below
the original building (1862 Root
Cellar)

Building 55 in 2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Greg Haws and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History
of Building 55 (7) and its Inhabitants.” University of Utah
Graduate School of Architecture,
Fort Douglas Papers, University of Utah
Marriott Library Special Collections,
Salt Lake City, Utah

Building 55, ca. 1865
“In the shadow of Red Butte, the silent sentinel…looks down upon the scene of
[their] labors, at the very spot where [they ]first camped…”
–Lieutenant Colonel Fred B. Rogers at the funeral of General Patrick Edward
Connor
Photo: Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah;
Elmo R. Morgan, “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22 October 1862-30 September 1954”, Fort Douglas
Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah(Brackets added)

Then and Now
ca. 1900

Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner

Preservation of Building 55: Additions
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

North Exterior

South Exterior

1930
Addition

Unknown
addition

1864
Frame
Addition

1862-3
Root
Cellar

1863
Original
Building

1863 Original
Building

1875
Addition
1864 Post
Surgeons
Quarter’s

1930
Addition

Extensive Known Alterations:
1864: addition of two frame rooms
1874: addition of parlor from Post Surgeon’s quarters
Removal of a fireplace
Windows changed
Fireplace enclosed
1903: Plumbing
1910: Electricity
1911-1928: steam heating, telephones, gas lines
1930: frame Lean-to addition
Windows changed
1960: fire damage repairs
Unknown: Building addition
Unknown: Exterior Stucco
Source: Maintenance Records for Building 33, 1933; Maintenance Records for Building 55, 1938

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Preservation

Unknown Addition
Ca. 1930

• Building 55 is believed to have
been the only complete 1863
structure remaining at Fort
Douglas
• In 2003 parts of several other
1863 buildings have been found:
– 1874: Commander’s Quarters
Parlor from 1863 District
Commander’s Residence
– 1864: Building 55
Parlor Post Surgeon’s
Quarters
– 1862-63: Building 55
Root Cellar

1874 Addition

Original 1863 Parlor

1874 Post Commander’s Residence
Source: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Moving Building 55
• First discussed in 1990
• Again in 1994
• The site chosen was Old
Deseret Village
• University of Utah did not
agree for “reasons so
compelling”
• Recommended for
preservation on site
• Discussion never progressed
further into action
• Outcome: remains on site

Old Deseret Village looking east, 2012
First proposed area to move Building 55

Source: Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995; Anne Racer to Rick
Reece, email, 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum,
Fort Douglas, Utah.

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Old Deseret Village:
Historically Camp Douglas
Pros for moving:

Cons for moving Building 55:

• Old Deseret Village was
constructed on the original
grounds of Camp Douglas
(Association)
• Preserves the structure
• Allows “basic” interpretation
of the historic structure
• Provides opportunities for new
use, but not uses the building
was intended for(Design)

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•

Moved off of original location 1+ miles
away (location)
Destroys 150 years of association to
location of the historic camp
(Association/location)
Bears no resemblance to current location
(feeling )
Would remove from NRHP an make it
ineligible for any future attempts
Removes Historic Landmark designation
Costs to move , reconstruct and restore
(materials)
Destruction of original workmanship
(workmanship)
May cause un-repairable damage to the
structure (workmanship/
materials/design)

Fort Douglas Military Museum
1917
Master Plan
POW Barracks (RC)

N: New
RE: Relocated
RC: Reconstructed
E: Existing
D: Drop Building Addition to
Historic Structure

1942
Firehouse (E)

North

1943
Barracks (RE)

and Guard Tower (RC)

Women’s
Memorial (N)

D

1863
Commanders
Home (RE)

D

D

Building 31 and 32
Current Museum (E)
Not connected yet. Black Star
Building has been completed.

1935
Shop (RE)
© 2012 Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884
Officer’s
Quarters
Duplex (RE)

Preservation Problems
• Stress fractures
• Plaster Damage
• Fire Damage
• Foundation damage
• Windows
•Adobe damage

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner , 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos:
Kimberly
Buckner
2012

A Good Move: Moving Building 55 to Fort
Douglas Military Museum Grounds
Pros:

Cons:

• A move of less than ¼ mile
• Maintains association to original
site (Association)
• Preservation of structure
(materials/design)
• Opportunities to interpret local
history of post (location)
• Chosen site provides similar view
to original location (setting)
• Allows for new use (design)
• Maintains feeling of the historic
district (Feeling)

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Removes from primary location and
original foundation (Location)
Potential to damage structure
May destroy the original
workmanship (Workmanship)
To which era of significance will it
be restored?
Original orientation may not be
possible
Will introduce modern materials
into the historic structure
(Materials)
Removes from NRHP but would
allow for reapplication/maintains
historic landmark designation

A Difference in Views
Old Deseret Village

Looking West

Fort Douglas Military
Museum Grounds

Cannon Park looking South
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Lessening the impacts:
When moving is the only Preservation
option
Old Deseret Village

Fort Douglas Military Museum

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Will lose nearly all historical identity
Not on original site, but in association with original
camp
Allows the structure to exist
Would impact the elements of original design
Area not with original feeling but among structures
who have lost their “history”
Introduction of modern materials
Further impacts to historic workmanship
Loss of National Historic Landmark Designation
Loss of NRHP listing. May not be able to reapply
Land has lost all association/use with original Camp
Douglas
New use may not be conducive to historic use
1+ mile move
Impacts all criterion of integrity
Must be removed from Federal ownership to
private

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Maintains historical Identity
Maintains association with original camp
Structure is preserved in similar location
Less than ¼ mile move
Area has maintained original feeling and
association to the camp
Loss of NHRP listing but retains eligibility for
the future
Maintains National Historic Landmark
Designation and prominence within the
historic district
Interpretation of changes in military housing
New use conducive to original use
Fully restored with historical furnishing s
Retains nearly all criterion of Integrity
Already part of museum complex
Maintains federal ownership (State of Utah
to Utah National Guard ownership)

Moving: The Right Choice?
Old Deseret Village is a good place to house relocated and reconstructed historic structures to interpret the
early territorial history of Utah
BUT…
It was not the right setting to house a unique structure like Building 55
–

Will Building 55 be remembered for its history and sense of location? Or, because of the 4th grade
field trip with limited exposure only to be quickly forgotten?

–

With so many structures will the building be properly maintained or fall victim to demolition by
neglect?

–

Potentially a Section 106 logistic nightmare (Federal holdings to “private” hands)

Whereas…
The Fort Douglas Military Museum grounds will allow the unique structure a permanent home, restoration and
ability to maintain a prominent place in Fort Douglas. It will allow for
–

more opportunities and exposure to its unique history,

–

Will ensure that it will be preserved for future generations.

If Moved to Old Deseret Village

The actual site chosen for Building 55 in 1990 was never disclosed in the documentation.
Building 55 was placed in an arbitrary location within the park.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012 Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

If moved to the Museum Grounds

Sitting in proposed Master Plan location on the museum grounds.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Future Recommendations
The recommendations for Building 55:
1.

Restoration at current site using historically accurate methods
–
Potential for learning opportunities at current site (i.e. Root Cellar)
–
Potential for gaining additional archaeological information from site
–
Root Cellar was nominated as a stand alone NHRP eligible structure in 2008.

2.

Create a viable strategic plan for living history and historic house museum (adaptive use)
–
Prepare plan to cover all preservation issues which may crop up in the next decade
–
Prepare a strategic plan for safely moving Building 55, allowing for historically
accurate restoration and renovation methods.

3.

I

Maintain Building 55 on site
–
Use authentic and historically accurate reproduction pieces
–
Interpretive/Museum use

4.
If and when the time comes, move the structure to the Fort Douglas Military Museum
grounds to maintain current preservation effort
-- Increase opportunities for interpretation of structure
-- Restore back to 1863, and use later additions for storage/office space
-- Allow for living history programs

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Any Questions?

Bibliography
•

Advisory Council Regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR 800) .

•

Anne Racer to Rick Reese, (Email), 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas
Utah

•

Andrus, Cecil B. et al. “Part 6: The National Historic Register of Historic Places.” The Manual for
State Historic Preservation Review Boards. www.nps.gov/nr/bulletins/strevman/strevman6.htm
(accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Exhibit, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Register Nomination Form, 1970.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Landmark Nomination Form, 1974, Building 7 file, Utah State
Historical Preservation Offices, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas Military Museum, Master Plan, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas , Utah.

•

Hardesty, Donald L. and Barbara Little. Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists and
Historians (Lanham, MD.: Altamira Press, 2009).

•

Haws, Greg and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History of Building 55 (7) and its inhabitants.” University
of Utah Graduate School., 12 December 1994, University of Utah Marriott Library Special
Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Loveday, Amos J. “The Decision Makers Guide to Section 106.” Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2) pp. 10-17.

•

Maintenance Records Building 33, 1933, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah .

•

Maintenance Records Building 55, 1938, Fort Douglas Military Museum

•

Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas,
Utah

•

Morgan, Elmo R. “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22October-30 September 1954.” Fort
Douglas Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

National Park Service. Cultural Resource Guidelines (2002).
www.nps.gov/history/online_books nps28/28chap8.htm (accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Parris, Thomas . “Historical Preservation.” Environment Vol. 26 no. 8, (February 2003). P. 3

• Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14
September, 1862, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.
• Plaque, Camp Floyd/Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah.

• Plaque, Deuel Cabin, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt
Lake City, Utah.
• Plaque, Levi Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village, Salt Lake City, Utah.

• “Section 106: Back to the Basics” in Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2).
• University of Utah “From Civil War Building to Entrepreneurial Mecca”,
9 September 2008, http:/unews.utah.edu/old/p/090808-1.html
(accessed 1 August 2012).
• Utah State Historical Society Photograph Collection, Utah State
Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah


Slide 10

In the Shade of Black Locusts:
Preserving the “Silent Sentinel”
of Fort Douglas

Kimberly Buckner
Volunteer Staff
Fort Douglas Military Museum
Salt Lake City, Utah

Photo: Utah State Historical Society

Copyright Notice
© 2012 Kimberly Buckner and Fort
Douglas Military Museum. All
Rights Reserved. No use of any
photographs/information in this
presentation without express
written consent of the copyright
owner(s). All photos used by
permission.

But not all historic properties
are deliberately being
destroyed. Many have fallen
victim to the “ravages of
time.” This structure near
Camp Floyd has completely
collapsed since this picture
was taken in 2010.

Preservation: A National Priority?
Thomas Parris: National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 promotes the preservation of historic
structures as a national priority

And YET thousands of historically significant
properties are being destroyed each year despite
placement on the National Register of Historic
Places
Thomas Parris, “Historic Preservation”, Environment, Vol. 46, no. 8 (February 2003), p. 3

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

A Common Misconception?
A commonly held misconception among public
audiences:
“Preservation is broadly opposed to change and by
extension, that Section 106 is a tool to block
progress.”
Instead:
“Preservation is about controlling and accommodating
change, and the entire network of preservation rules,
beginning with Section 106, is designed to accomplish
that end.”
Amos J. Loveday, “The Decision Maker’s guide to Section 106”, Forum Journal Winter 2012, Vol. 26
(2), p. 17

Preserving Eligibility
Preservation is meant to protect by not diminishing
any characteristic providing eligibility on the
National Register of Historic Places Including (but
not limited to):
• Integrity of Location
• Integrity of Design
• Integrity of Setting
• Integrity of Materials
• Integrity of Workmanship
• Integrity of Feeling
• Integrity of Association
“Section 106: Back to the Basics”, Forum Journal, Winter 2012, Vol. 26, no. 2, p.10; 36 CFR
800.5 (a)(1)

The National Register of
Historic Places
Since 1966, The National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) provides:
• Communal recognition of local, state or national
history in a visual way
• Consideration in federal undertakings and
improvement projects
• Eligibility for tax benefits through the federal
government
• Qualification for monetary funds for preservation
benefits
Donald L. Hardesty and Barbara Little, Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists
and Historians, 2nd edition, (Lanham, MD: Altamira Press, 2009).

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties
Approved treatment
options:
• Preservation
• Rehabilitation
• Reconstruction
In rare conditions:
• Demolition by neglect
• Moving the historic
structure
Historic Cabin Ca. 1860’s
La Sal, Utah
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2010. Edited by Brick R. King, 2010
Colors have been enhanced

Success Stories:
Onsite Preservation of Carson Inn, 1858
Quick Facts:
• Camp Floyd and
Stagecoach Inn State Park
• Fairfield, Utah
• Built in 1858 by John
Carson
• Adobe and Frame
Construction
• Restored June 1959
• Outcome: furnished as a
historic “house” museum

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2011
Plaque, Camp Floyd /Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah

Success Stories: Moving, Restoration and Renovation
Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, 1847 and the Deuel
Family Cabin, 1847
Deuel Cabin
•
•
•

Riter Cabin

Temple Square
Moved ca. 1989
Glass enclosed historic house museum
with period furnishings

Why are they so Important?

•
•
•

Maintained in Old Deseret Village
Moved to Old Deseret Village ca. 1989
Interpreted solely by historical plaque

• Photo

The two oldest
remaining structures
in Utah are these
original
165-year –old cabins

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village

Success Story:
Relocation to Old Deseret Village
Quick Facts:

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Historic Manti Mill,
built ca. 1858 in Manti, Utah
Relocated ca. 1989

• This is the Place Heritage
Park
• Salt Lake City, Utah
• More than 40
structures/buildings
• Buildings consist of
originals, reproductions, or
relocated 19th century
structures
• Outcome: set up as a
historic village to interpret
frontier life in Utah from
1847-1869

Other success stories
ODV

Photos: Kimberly Buckner 2012

Camp Douglas, ca. 1864
“…I found another location, which I like better for
various reasons…”– Patrick Edward Connor
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah
Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14 September 1862,
Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah.

From Camp to Fort
26 October 1862 : established Camp
Douglas
1862: “Connor Tents” and Dugouts
1863: Adobe and Log structures begun
1867: Expansion of Camp’s perimeter
1874-75: $1 Million rebuild from native
red sandstone
1878: Renamed Fort Douglas

Camp Douglas ca. 1866
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884: $63,820 expansion with 5 frame
structures

From Fort to Historic Landmark
1904-1911: $1,140,000 building expansion
1910: Introduction of electricity
1915-16: Addition of detention camp
1930: Final major building expansion
1970: Listed on National Register of Historic
Places as a heritage district
1974: Listed as National Historic Landmark
26 October 1991: Fort Douglas officially
decommissioned
2002: Athlete’s Village, 2002 Winter Olympics

Stillwell Field Looking East, 2012
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Building 55
Characteristics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

Cost $780
Less than 1900 Sq. Feet
Originally 26 ft. by 29 ft.
Adobe with frame additions
First Neoclassical cross-wing in
Utah (symmetrical design)
4 rooms
18” thick walls
3 adobe fireplaces
“Four over four” double hung
sash windows
Pine or Douglas Fir
Wooden shingle roof coated in
slate
“Lath and plastered” interior
Has a stand alone Historic
Register eligible structure below
the original building (1862 Root
Cellar)

Building 55 in 2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Greg Haws and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History
of Building 55 (7) and its Inhabitants.” University of Utah
Graduate School of Architecture,
Fort Douglas Papers, University of Utah
Marriott Library Special Collections,
Salt Lake City, Utah

Building 55, ca. 1865
“In the shadow of Red Butte, the silent sentinel…looks down upon the scene of
[their] labors, at the very spot where [they ]first camped…”
–Lieutenant Colonel Fred B. Rogers at the funeral of General Patrick Edward
Connor
Photo: Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah;
Elmo R. Morgan, “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22 October 1862-30 September 1954”, Fort Douglas
Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah(Brackets added)

Then and Now
ca. 1900

Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner

Preservation of Building 55: Additions
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

North Exterior

South Exterior

1930
Addition

Unknown
addition

1864
Frame
Addition

1862-3
Root
Cellar

1863
Original
Building

1863 Original
Building

1875
Addition
1864 Post
Surgeons
Quarter’s

1930
Addition

Extensive Known Alterations:
1864: addition of two frame rooms
1874: addition of parlor from Post Surgeon’s quarters
Removal of a fireplace
Windows changed
Fireplace enclosed
1903: Plumbing
1910: Electricity
1911-1928: steam heating, telephones, gas lines
1930: frame Lean-to addition
Windows changed
1960: fire damage repairs
Unknown: Building addition
Unknown: Exterior Stucco
Source: Maintenance Records for Building 33, 1933; Maintenance Records for Building 55, 1938

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Preservation

Unknown Addition
Ca. 1930

• Building 55 is believed to have
been the only complete 1863
structure remaining at Fort
Douglas
• In 2003 parts of several other
1863 buildings have been found:
– 1874: Commander’s Quarters
Parlor from 1863 District
Commander’s Residence
– 1864: Building 55
Parlor Post Surgeon’s
Quarters
– 1862-63: Building 55
Root Cellar

1874 Addition

Original 1863 Parlor

1874 Post Commander’s Residence
Source: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Moving Building 55
• First discussed in 1990
• Again in 1994
• The site chosen was Old
Deseret Village
• University of Utah did not
agree for “reasons so
compelling”
• Recommended for
preservation on site
• Discussion never progressed
further into action
• Outcome: remains on site

Old Deseret Village looking east, 2012
First proposed area to move Building 55

Source: Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995; Anne Racer to Rick
Reece, email, 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum,
Fort Douglas, Utah.

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Old Deseret Village:
Historically Camp Douglas
Pros for moving:

Cons for moving Building 55:

• Old Deseret Village was
constructed on the original
grounds of Camp Douglas
(Association)
• Preserves the structure
• Allows “basic” interpretation
of the historic structure
• Provides opportunities for new
use, but not uses the building
was intended for(Design)

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•

Moved off of original location 1+ miles
away (location)
Destroys 150 years of association to
location of the historic camp
(Association/location)
Bears no resemblance to current location
(feeling )
Would remove from NRHP an make it
ineligible for any future attempts
Removes Historic Landmark designation
Costs to move , reconstruct and restore
(materials)
Destruction of original workmanship
(workmanship)
May cause un-repairable damage to the
structure (workmanship/
materials/design)

Fort Douglas Military Museum
1917
Master Plan
POW Barracks (RC)

N: New
RE: Relocated
RC: Reconstructed
E: Existing
D: Drop Building Addition to
Historic Structure

1942
Firehouse (E)

North

1943
Barracks (RE)

and Guard Tower (RC)

Women’s
Memorial (N)

D

1863
Commanders
Home (RE)

D

D

Building 31 and 32
Current Museum (E)
Not connected yet. Black Star
Building has been completed.

1935
Shop (RE)
© 2012 Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884
Officer’s
Quarters
Duplex (RE)

Preservation Problems
• Stress fractures
• Plaster Damage
• Fire Damage
• Foundation damage
• Windows
•Adobe damage

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner , 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos:
Kimberly
Buckner
2012

A Good Move: Moving Building 55 to Fort
Douglas Military Museum Grounds
Pros:

Cons:

• A move of less than ¼ mile
• Maintains association to original
site (Association)
• Preservation of structure
(materials/design)
• Opportunities to interpret local
history of post (location)
• Chosen site provides similar view
to original location (setting)
• Allows for new use (design)
• Maintains feeling of the historic
district (Feeling)

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Removes from primary location and
original foundation (Location)
Potential to damage structure
May destroy the original
workmanship (Workmanship)
To which era of significance will it
be restored?
Original orientation may not be
possible
Will introduce modern materials
into the historic structure
(Materials)
Removes from NRHP but would
allow for reapplication/maintains
historic landmark designation

A Difference in Views
Old Deseret Village

Looking West

Fort Douglas Military
Museum Grounds

Cannon Park looking South
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Lessening the impacts:
When moving is the only Preservation
option
Old Deseret Village

Fort Douglas Military Museum

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Will lose nearly all historical identity
Not on original site, but in association with original
camp
Allows the structure to exist
Would impact the elements of original design
Area not with original feeling but among structures
who have lost their “history”
Introduction of modern materials
Further impacts to historic workmanship
Loss of National Historic Landmark Designation
Loss of NRHP listing. May not be able to reapply
Land has lost all association/use with original Camp
Douglas
New use may not be conducive to historic use
1+ mile move
Impacts all criterion of integrity
Must be removed from Federal ownership to
private

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Maintains historical Identity
Maintains association with original camp
Structure is preserved in similar location
Less than ¼ mile move
Area has maintained original feeling and
association to the camp
Loss of NHRP listing but retains eligibility for
the future
Maintains National Historic Landmark
Designation and prominence within the
historic district
Interpretation of changes in military housing
New use conducive to original use
Fully restored with historical furnishing s
Retains nearly all criterion of Integrity
Already part of museum complex
Maintains federal ownership (State of Utah
to Utah National Guard ownership)

Moving: The Right Choice?
Old Deseret Village is a good place to house relocated and reconstructed historic structures to interpret the
early territorial history of Utah
BUT…
It was not the right setting to house a unique structure like Building 55
–

Will Building 55 be remembered for its history and sense of location? Or, because of the 4th grade
field trip with limited exposure only to be quickly forgotten?

–

With so many structures will the building be properly maintained or fall victim to demolition by
neglect?

–

Potentially a Section 106 logistic nightmare (Federal holdings to “private” hands)

Whereas…
The Fort Douglas Military Museum grounds will allow the unique structure a permanent home, restoration and
ability to maintain a prominent place in Fort Douglas. It will allow for
–

more opportunities and exposure to its unique history,

–

Will ensure that it will be preserved for future generations.

If Moved to Old Deseret Village

The actual site chosen for Building 55 in 1990 was never disclosed in the documentation.
Building 55 was placed in an arbitrary location within the park.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012 Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

If moved to the Museum Grounds

Sitting in proposed Master Plan location on the museum grounds.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Future Recommendations
The recommendations for Building 55:
1.

Restoration at current site using historically accurate methods
–
Potential for learning opportunities at current site (i.e. Root Cellar)
–
Potential for gaining additional archaeological information from site
–
Root Cellar was nominated as a stand alone NHRP eligible structure in 2008.

2.

Create a viable strategic plan for living history and historic house museum (adaptive use)
–
Prepare plan to cover all preservation issues which may crop up in the next decade
–
Prepare a strategic plan for safely moving Building 55, allowing for historically
accurate restoration and renovation methods.

3.

I

Maintain Building 55 on site
–
Use authentic and historically accurate reproduction pieces
–
Interpretive/Museum use

4.
If and when the time comes, move the structure to the Fort Douglas Military Museum
grounds to maintain current preservation effort
-- Increase opportunities for interpretation of structure
-- Restore back to 1863, and use later additions for storage/office space
-- Allow for living history programs

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Any Questions?

Bibliography
•

Advisory Council Regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR 800) .

•

Anne Racer to Rick Reese, (Email), 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas
Utah

•

Andrus, Cecil B. et al. “Part 6: The National Historic Register of Historic Places.” The Manual for
State Historic Preservation Review Boards. www.nps.gov/nr/bulletins/strevman/strevman6.htm
(accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Exhibit, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Register Nomination Form, 1970.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Landmark Nomination Form, 1974, Building 7 file, Utah State
Historical Preservation Offices, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas Military Museum, Master Plan, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas , Utah.

•

Hardesty, Donald L. and Barbara Little. Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists and
Historians (Lanham, MD.: Altamira Press, 2009).

•

Haws, Greg and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History of Building 55 (7) and its inhabitants.” University
of Utah Graduate School., 12 December 1994, University of Utah Marriott Library Special
Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Loveday, Amos J. “The Decision Makers Guide to Section 106.” Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2) pp. 10-17.

•

Maintenance Records Building 33, 1933, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah .

•

Maintenance Records Building 55, 1938, Fort Douglas Military Museum

•

Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas,
Utah

•

Morgan, Elmo R. “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22October-30 September 1954.” Fort
Douglas Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

National Park Service. Cultural Resource Guidelines (2002).
www.nps.gov/history/online_books nps28/28chap8.htm (accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Parris, Thomas . “Historical Preservation.” Environment Vol. 26 no. 8, (February 2003). P. 3

• Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14
September, 1862, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.
• Plaque, Camp Floyd/Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah.

• Plaque, Deuel Cabin, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt
Lake City, Utah.
• Plaque, Levi Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village, Salt Lake City, Utah.

• “Section 106: Back to the Basics” in Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2).
• University of Utah “From Civil War Building to Entrepreneurial Mecca”,
9 September 2008, http:/unews.utah.edu/old/p/090808-1.html
(accessed 1 August 2012).
• Utah State Historical Society Photograph Collection, Utah State
Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah


Slide 11

In the Shade of Black Locusts:
Preserving the “Silent Sentinel”
of Fort Douglas

Kimberly Buckner
Volunteer Staff
Fort Douglas Military Museum
Salt Lake City, Utah

Photo: Utah State Historical Society

Copyright Notice
© 2012 Kimberly Buckner and Fort
Douglas Military Museum. All
Rights Reserved. No use of any
photographs/information in this
presentation without express
written consent of the copyright
owner(s). All photos used by
permission.

But not all historic properties
are deliberately being
destroyed. Many have fallen
victim to the “ravages of
time.” This structure near
Camp Floyd has completely
collapsed since this picture
was taken in 2010.

Preservation: A National Priority?
Thomas Parris: National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 promotes the preservation of historic
structures as a national priority

And YET thousands of historically significant
properties are being destroyed each year despite
placement on the National Register of Historic
Places
Thomas Parris, “Historic Preservation”, Environment, Vol. 46, no. 8 (February 2003), p. 3

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

A Common Misconception?
A commonly held misconception among public
audiences:
“Preservation is broadly opposed to change and by
extension, that Section 106 is a tool to block
progress.”
Instead:
“Preservation is about controlling and accommodating
change, and the entire network of preservation rules,
beginning with Section 106, is designed to accomplish
that end.”
Amos J. Loveday, “The Decision Maker’s guide to Section 106”, Forum Journal Winter 2012, Vol. 26
(2), p. 17

Preserving Eligibility
Preservation is meant to protect by not diminishing
any characteristic providing eligibility on the
National Register of Historic Places Including (but
not limited to):
• Integrity of Location
• Integrity of Design
• Integrity of Setting
• Integrity of Materials
• Integrity of Workmanship
• Integrity of Feeling
• Integrity of Association
“Section 106: Back to the Basics”, Forum Journal, Winter 2012, Vol. 26, no. 2, p.10; 36 CFR
800.5 (a)(1)

The National Register of
Historic Places
Since 1966, The National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) provides:
• Communal recognition of local, state or national
history in a visual way
• Consideration in federal undertakings and
improvement projects
• Eligibility for tax benefits through the federal
government
• Qualification for monetary funds for preservation
benefits
Donald L. Hardesty and Barbara Little, Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists
and Historians, 2nd edition, (Lanham, MD: Altamira Press, 2009).

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties
Approved treatment
options:
• Preservation
• Rehabilitation
• Reconstruction
In rare conditions:
• Demolition by neglect
• Moving the historic
structure
Historic Cabin Ca. 1860’s
La Sal, Utah
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2010. Edited by Brick R. King, 2010
Colors have been enhanced

Success Stories:
Onsite Preservation of Carson Inn, 1858
Quick Facts:
• Camp Floyd and
Stagecoach Inn State Park
• Fairfield, Utah
• Built in 1858 by John
Carson
• Adobe and Frame
Construction
• Restored June 1959
• Outcome: furnished as a
historic “house” museum

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2011
Plaque, Camp Floyd /Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah

Success Stories: Moving, Restoration and Renovation
Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, 1847 and the Deuel
Family Cabin, 1847
Deuel Cabin
•
•
•

Riter Cabin

Temple Square
Moved ca. 1989
Glass enclosed historic house museum
with period furnishings

Why are they so Important?

•
•
•

Maintained in Old Deseret Village
Moved to Old Deseret Village ca. 1989
Interpreted solely by historical plaque

• Photo

The two oldest
remaining structures
in Utah are these
original
165-year –old cabins

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village

Success Story:
Relocation to Old Deseret Village
Quick Facts:

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Historic Manti Mill,
built ca. 1858 in Manti, Utah
Relocated ca. 1989

• This is the Place Heritage
Park
• Salt Lake City, Utah
• More than 40
structures/buildings
• Buildings consist of
originals, reproductions, or
relocated 19th century
structures
• Outcome: set up as a
historic village to interpret
frontier life in Utah from
1847-1869

Other success stories
ODV

Photos: Kimberly Buckner 2012

Camp Douglas, ca. 1864
“…I found another location, which I like better for
various reasons…”– Patrick Edward Connor
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah
Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14 September 1862,
Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah.

From Camp to Fort
26 October 1862 : established Camp
Douglas
1862: “Connor Tents” and Dugouts
1863: Adobe and Log structures begun
1867: Expansion of Camp’s perimeter
1874-75: $1 Million rebuild from native
red sandstone
1878: Renamed Fort Douglas

Camp Douglas ca. 1866
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884: $63,820 expansion with 5 frame
structures

From Fort to Historic Landmark
1904-1911: $1,140,000 building expansion
1910: Introduction of electricity
1915-16: Addition of detention camp
1930: Final major building expansion
1970: Listed on National Register of Historic
Places as a heritage district
1974: Listed as National Historic Landmark
26 October 1991: Fort Douglas officially
decommissioned
2002: Athlete’s Village, 2002 Winter Olympics

Stillwell Field Looking East, 2012
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Building 55
Characteristics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

Cost $780
Less than 1900 Sq. Feet
Originally 26 ft. by 29 ft.
Adobe with frame additions
First Neoclassical cross-wing in
Utah (symmetrical design)
4 rooms
18” thick walls
3 adobe fireplaces
“Four over four” double hung
sash windows
Pine or Douglas Fir
Wooden shingle roof coated in
slate
“Lath and plastered” interior
Has a stand alone Historic
Register eligible structure below
the original building (1862 Root
Cellar)

Building 55 in 2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Greg Haws and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History
of Building 55 (7) and its Inhabitants.” University of Utah
Graduate School of Architecture,
Fort Douglas Papers, University of Utah
Marriott Library Special Collections,
Salt Lake City, Utah

Building 55, ca. 1865
“In the shadow of Red Butte, the silent sentinel…looks down upon the scene of
[their] labors, at the very spot where [they ]first camped…”
–Lieutenant Colonel Fred B. Rogers at the funeral of General Patrick Edward
Connor
Photo: Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah;
Elmo R. Morgan, “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22 October 1862-30 September 1954”, Fort Douglas
Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah(Brackets added)

Then and Now
ca. 1900

Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner

Preservation of Building 55: Additions
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

North Exterior

South Exterior

1930
Addition

Unknown
addition

1864
Frame
Addition

1862-3
Root
Cellar

1863
Original
Building

1863 Original
Building

1875
Addition
1864 Post
Surgeons
Quarter’s

1930
Addition

Extensive Known Alterations:
1864: addition of two frame rooms
1874: addition of parlor from Post Surgeon’s quarters
Removal of a fireplace
Windows changed
Fireplace enclosed
1903: Plumbing
1910: Electricity
1911-1928: steam heating, telephones, gas lines
1930: frame Lean-to addition
Windows changed
1960: fire damage repairs
Unknown: Building addition
Unknown: Exterior Stucco
Source: Maintenance Records for Building 33, 1933; Maintenance Records for Building 55, 1938

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Preservation

Unknown Addition
Ca. 1930

• Building 55 is believed to have
been the only complete 1863
structure remaining at Fort
Douglas
• In 2003 parts of several other
1863 buildings have been found:
– 1874: Commander’s Quarters
Parlor from 1863 District
Commander’s Residence
– 1864: Building 55
Parlor Post Surgeon’s
Quarters
– 1862-63: Building 55
Root Cellar

1874 Addition

Original 1863 Parlor

1874 Post Commander’s Residence
Source: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Moving Building 55
• First discussed in 1990
• Again in 1994
• The site chosen was Old
Deseret Village
• University of Utah did not
agree for “reasons so
compelling”
• Recommended for
preservation on site
• Discussion never progressed
further into action
• Outcome: remains on site

Old Deseret Village looking east, 2012
First proposed area to move Building 55

Source: Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995; Anne Racer to Rick
Reece, email, 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum,
Fort Douglas, Utah.

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Old Deseret Village:
Historically Camp Douglas
Pros for moving:

Cons for moving Building 55:

• Old Deseret Village was
constructed on the original
grounds of Camp Douglas
(Association)
• Preserves the structure
• Allows “basic” interpretation
of the historic structure
• Provides opportunities for new
use, but not uses the building
was intended for(Design)

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•

Moved off of original location 1+ miles
away (location)
Destroys 150 years of association to
location of the historic camp
(Association/location)
Bears no resemblance to current location
(feeling )
Would remove from NRHP an make it
ineligible for any future attempts
Removes Historic Landmark designation
Costs to move , reconstruct and restore
(materials)
Destruction of original workmanship
(workmanship)
May cause un-repairable damage to the
structure (workmanship/
materials/design)

Fort Douglas Military Museum
1917
Master Plan
POW Barracks (RC)

N: New
RE: Relocated
RC: Reconstructed
E: Existing
D: Drop Building Addition to
Historic Structure

1942
Firehouse (E)

North

1943
Barracks (RE)

and Guard Tower (RC)

Women’s
Memorial (N)

D

1863
Commanders
Home (RE)

D

D

Building 31 and 32
Current Museum (E)
Not connected yet. Black Star
Building has been completed.

1935
Shop (RE)
© 2012 Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884
Officer’s
Quarters
Duplex (RE)

Preservation Problems
• Stress fractures
• Plaster Damage
• Fire Damage
• Foundation damage
• Windows
•Adobe damage

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner , 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos:
Kimberly
Buckner
2012

A Good Move: Moving Building 55 to Fort
Douglas Military Museum Grounds
Pros:

Cons:

• A move of less than ¼ mile
• Maintains association to original
site (Association)
• Preservation of structure
(materials/design)
• Opportunities to interpret local
history of post (location)
• Chosen site provides similar view
to original location (setting)
• Allows for new use (design)
• Maintains feeling of the historic
district (Feeling)

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Removes from primary location and
original foundation (Location)
Potential to damage structure
May destroy the original
workmanship (Workmanship)
To which era of significance will it
be restored?
Original orientation may not be
possible
Will introduce modern materials
into the historic structure
(Materials)
Removes from NRHP but would
allow for reapplication/maintains
historic landmark designation

A Difference in Views
Old Deseret Village

Looking West

Fort Douglas Military
Museum Grounds

Cannon Park looking South
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Lessening the impacts:
When moving is the only Preservation
option
Old Deseret Village

Fort Douglas Military Museum

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Will lose nearly all historical identity
Not on original site, but in association with original
camp
Allows the structure to exist
Would impact the elements of original design
Area not with original feeling but among structures
who have lost their “history”
Introduction of modern materials
Further impacts to historic workmanship
Loss of National Historic Landmark Designation
Loss of NRHP listing. May not be able to reapply
Land has lost all association/use with original Camp
Douglas
New use may not be conducive to historic use
1+ mile move
Impacts all criterion of integrity
Must be removed from Federal ownership to
private

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Maintains historical Identity
Maintains association with original camp
Structure is preserved in similar location
Less than ¼ mile move
Area has maintained original feeling and
association to the camp
Loss of NHRP listing but retains eligibility for
the future
Maintains National Historic Landmark
Designation and prominence within the
historic district
Interpretation of changes in military housing
New use conducive to original use
Fully restored with historical furnishing s
Retains nearly all criterion of Integrity
Already part of museum complex
Maintains federal ownership (State of Utah
to Utah National Guard ownership)

Moving: The Right Choice?
Old Deseret Village is a good place to house relocated and reconstructed historic structures to interpret the
early territorial history of Utah
BUT…
It was not the right setting to house a unique structure like Building 55
–

Will Building 55 be remembered for its history and sense of location? Or, because of the 4th grade
field trip with limited exposure only to be quickly forgotten?

–

With so many structures will the building be properly maintained or fall victim to demolition by
neglect?

–

Potentially a Section 106 logistic nightmare (Federal holdings to “private” hands)

Whereas…
The Fort Douglas Military Museum grounds will allow the unique structure a permanent home, restoration and
ability to maintain a prominent place in Fort Douglas. It will allow for
–

more opportunities and exposure to its unique history,

–

Will ensure that it will be preserved for future generations.

If Moved to Old Deseret Village

The actual site chosen for Building 55 in 1990 was never disclosed in the documentation.
Building 55 was placed in an arbitrary location within the park.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012 Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

If moved to the Museum Grounds

Sitting in proposed Master Plan location on the museum grounds.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Future Recommendations
The recommendations for Building 55:
1.

Restoration at current site using historically accurate methods
–
Potential for learning opportunities at current site (i.e. Root Cellar)
–
Potential for gaining additional archaeological information from site
–
Root Cellar was nominated as a stand alone NHRP eligible structure in 2008.

2.

Create a viable strategic plan for living history and historic house museum (adaptive use)
–
Prepare plan to cover all preservation issues which may crop up in the next decade
–
Prepare a strategic plan for safely moving Building 55, allowing for historically
accurate restoration and renovation methods.

3.

I

Maintain Building 55 on site
–
Use authentic and historically accurate reproduction pieces
–
Interpretive/Museum use

4.
If and when the time comes, move the structure to the Fort Douglas Military Museum
grounds to maintain current preservation effort
-- Increase opportunities for interpretation of structure
-- Restore back to 1863, and use later additions for storage/office space
-- Allow for living history programs

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Any Questions?

Bibliography
•

Advisory Council Regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR 800) .

•

Anne Racer to Rick Reese, (Email), 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas
Utah

•

Andrus, Cecil B. et al. “Part 6: The National Historic Register of Historic Places.” The Manual for
State Historic Preservation Review Boards. www.nps.gov/nr/bulletins/strevman/strevman6.htm
(accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Exhibit, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Register Nomination Form, 1970.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Landmark Nomination Form, 1974, Building 7 file, Utah State
Historical Preservation Offices, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas Military Museum, Master Plan, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas , Utah.

•

Hardesty, Donald L. and Barbara Little. Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists and
Historians (Lanham, MD.: Altamira Press, 2009).

•

Haws, Greg and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History of Building 55 (7) and its inhabitants.” University
of Utah Graduate School., 12 December 1994, University of Utah Marriott Library Special
Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Loveday, Amos J. “The Decision Makers Guide to Section 106.” Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2) pp. 10-17.

•

Maintenance Records Building 33, 1933, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah .

•

Maintenance Records Building 55, 1938, Fort Douglas Military Museum

•

Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas,
Utah

•

Morgan, Elmo R. “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22October-30 September 1954.” Fort
Douglas Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

National Park Service. Cultural Resource Guidelines (2002).
www.nps.gov/history/online_books nps28/28chap8.htm (accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Parris, Thomas . “Historical Preservation.” Environment Vol. 26 no. 8, (February 2003). P. 3

• Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14
September, 1862, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.
• Plaque, Camp Floyd/Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah.

• Plaque, Deuel Cabin, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt
Lake City, Utah.
• Plaque, Levi Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village, Salt Lake City, Utah.

• “Section 106: Back to the Basics” in Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2).
• University of Utah “From Civil War Building to Entrepreneurial Mecca”,
9 September 2008, http:/unews.utah.edu/old/p/090808-1.html
(accessed 1 August 2012).
• Utah State Historical Society Photograph Collection, Utah State
Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah


Slide 12

In the Shade of Black Locusts:
Preserving the “Silent Sentinel”
of Fort Douglas

Kimberly Buckner
Volunteer Staff
Fort Douglas Military Museum
Salt Lake City, Utah

Photo: Utah State Historical Society

Copyright Notice
© 2012 Kimberly Buckner and Fort
Douglas Military Museum. All
Rights Reserved. No use of any
photographs/information in this
presentation without express
written consent of the copyright
owner(s). All photos used by
permission.

But not all historic properties
are deliberately being
destroyed. Many have fallen
victim to the “ravages of
time.” This structure near
Camp Floyd has completely
collapsed since this picture
was taken in 2010.

Preservation: A National Priority?
Thomas Parris: National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 promotes the preservation of historic
structures as a national priority

And YET thousands of historically significant
properties are being destroyed each year despite
placement on the National Register of Historic
Places
Thomas Parris, “Historic Preservation”, Environment, Vol. 46, no. 8 (February 2003), p. 3

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

A Common Misconception?
A commonly held misconception among public
audiences:
“Preservation is broadly opposed to change and by
extension, that Section 106 is a tool to block
progress.”
Instead:
“Preservation is about controlling and accommodating
change, and the entire network of preservation rules,
beginning with Section 106, is designed to accomplish
that end.”
Amos J. Loveday, “The Decision Maker’s guide to Section 106”, Forum Journal Winter 2012, Vol. 26
(2), p. 17

Preserving Eligibility
Preservation is meant to protect by not diminishing
any characteristic providing eligibility on the
National Register of Historic Places Including (but
not limited to):
• Integrity of Location
• Integrity of Design
• Integrity of Setting
• Integrity of Materials
• Integrity of Workmanship
• Integrity of Feeling
• Integrity of Association
“Section 106: Back to the Basics”, Forum Journal, Winter 2012, Vol. 26, no. 2, p.10; 36 CFR
800.5 (a)(1)

The National Register of
Historic Places
Since 1966, The National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) provides:
• Communal recognition of local, state or national
history in a visual way
• Consideration in federal undertakings and
improvement projects
• Eligibility for tax benefits through the federal
government
• Qualification for monetary funds for preservation
benefits
Donald L. Hardesty and Barbara Little, Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists
and Historians, 2nd edition, (Lanham, MD: Altamira Press, 2009).

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties
Approved treatment
options:
• Preservation
• Rehabilitation
• Reconstruction
In rare conditions:
• Demolition by neglect
• Moving the historic
structure
Historic Cabin Ca. 1860’s
La Sal, Utah
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2010. Edited by Brick R. King, 2010
Colors have been enhanced

Success Stories:
Onsite Preservation of Carson Inn, 1858
Quick Facts:
• Camp Floyd and
Stagecoach Inn State Park
• Fairfield, Utah
• Built in 1858 by John
Carson
• Adobe and Frame
Construction
• Restored June 1959
• Outcome: furnished as a
historic “house” museum

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2011
Plaque, Camp Floyd /Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah

Success Stories: Moving, Restoration and Renovation
Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, 1847 and the Deuel
Family Cabin, 1847
Deuel Cabin
•
•
•

Riter Cabin

Temple Square
Moved ca. 1989
Glass enclosed historic house museum
with period furnishings

Why are they so Important?

•
•
•

Maintained in Old Deseret Village
Moved to Old Deseret Village ca. 1989
Interpreted solely by historical plaque

• Photo

The two oldest
remaining structures
in Utah are these
original
165-year –old cabins

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village

Success Story:
Relocation to Old Deseret Village
Quick Facts:

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Historic Manti Mill,
built ca. 1858 in Manti, Utah
Relocated ca. 1989

• This is the Place Heritage
Park
• Salt Lake City, Utah
• More than 40
structures/buildings
• Buildings consist of
originals, reproductions, or
relocated 19th century
structures
• Outcome: set up as a
historic village to interpret
frontier life in Utah from
1847-1869

Other success stories
ODV

Photos: Kimberly Buckner 2012

Camp Douglas, ca. 1864
“…I found another location, which I like better for
various reasons…”– Patrick Edward Connor
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah
Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14 September 1862,
Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah.

From Camp to Fort
26 October 1862 : established Camp
Douglas
1862: “Connor Tents” and Dugouts
1863: Adobe and Log structures begun
1867: Expansion of Camp’s perimeter
1874-75: $1 Million rebuild from native
red sandstone
1878: Renamed Fort Douglas

Camp Douglas ca. 1866
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884: $63,820 expansion with 5 frame
structures

From Fort to Historic Landmark
1904-1911: $1,140,000 building expansion
1910: Introduction of electricity
1915-16: Addition of detention camp
1930: Final major building expansion
1970: Listed on National Register of Historic
Places as a heritage district
1974: Listed as National Historic Landmark
26 October 1991: Fort Douglas officially
decommissioned
2002: Athlete’s Village, 2002 Winter Olympics

Stillwell Field Looking East, 2012
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Building 55
Characteristics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

Cost $780
Less than 1900 Sq. Feet
Originally 26 ft. by 29 ft.
Adobe with frame additions
First Neoclassical cross-wing in
Utah (symmetrical design)
4 rooms
18” thick walls
3 adobe fireplaces
“Four over four” double hung
sash windows
Pine or Douglas Fir
Wooden shingle roof coated in
slate
“Lath and plastered” interior
Has a stand alone Historic
Register eligible structure below
the original building (1862 Root
Cellar)

Building 55 in 2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Greg Haws and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History
of Building 55 (7) and its Inhabitants.” University of Utah
Graduate School of Architecture,
Fort Douglas Papers, University of Utah
Marriott Library Special Collections,
Salt Lake City, Utah

Building 55, ca. 1865
“In the shadow of Red Butte, the silent sentinel…looks down upon the scene of
[their] labors, at the very spot where [they ]first camped…”
–Lieutenant Colonel Fred B. Rogers at the funeral of General Patrick Edward
Connor
Photo: Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah;
Elmo R. Morgan, “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22 October 1862-30 September 1954”, Fort Douglas
Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah(Brackets added)

Then and Now
ca. 1900

Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner

Preservation of Building 55: Additions
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

North Exterior

South Exterior

1930
Addition

Unknown
addition

1864
Frame
Addition

1862-3
Root
Cellar

1863
Original
Building

1863 Original
Building

1875
Addition
1864 Post
Surgeons
Quarter’s

1930
Addition

Extensive Known Alterations:
1864: addition of two frame rooms
1874: addition of parlor from Post Surgeon’s quarters
Removal of a fireplace
Windows changed
Fireplace enclosed
1903: Plumbing
1910: Electricity
1911-1928: steam heating, telephones, gas lines
1930: frame Lean-to addition
Windows changed
1960: fire damage repairs
Unknown: Building addition
Unknown: Exterior Stucco
Source: Maintenance Records for Building 33, 1933; Maintenance Records for Building 55, 1938

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Preservation

Unknown Addition
Ca. 1930

• Building 55 is believed to have
been the only complete 1863
structure remaining at Fort
Douglas
• In 2003 parts of several other
1863 buildings have been found:
– 1874: Commander’s Quarters
Parlor from 1863 District
Commander’s Residence
– 1864: Building 55
Parlor Post Surgeon’s
Quarters
– 1862-63: Building 55
Root Cellar

1874 Addition

Original 1863 Parlor

1874 Post Commander’s Residence
Source: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Moving Building 55
• First discussed in 1990
• Again in 1994
• The site chosen was Old
Deseret Village
• University of Utah did not
agree for “reasons so
compelling”
• Recommended for
preservation on site
• Discussion never progressed
further into action
• Outcome: remains on site

Old Deseret Village looking east, 2012
First proposed area to move Building 55

Source: Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995; Anne Racer to Rick
Reece, email, 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum,
Fort Douglas, Utah.

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Old Deseret Village:
Historically Camp Douglas
Pros for moving:

Cons for moving Building 55:

• Old Deseret Village was
constructed on the original
grounds of Camp Douglas
(Association)
• Preserves the structure
• Allows “basic” interpretation
of the historic structure
• Provides opportunities for new
use, but not uses the building
was intended for(Design)

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•

Moved off of original location 1+ miles
away (location)
Destroys 150 years of association to
location of the historic camp
(Association/location)
Bears no resemblance to current location
(feeling )
Would remove from NRHP an make it
ineligible for any future attempts
Removes Historic Landmark designation
Costs to move , reconstruct and restore
(materials)
Destruction of original workmanship
(workmanship)
May cause un-repairable damage to the
structure (workmanship/
materials/design)

Fort Douglas Military Museum
1917
Master Plan
POW Barracks (RC)

N: New
RE: Relocated
RC: Reconstructed
E: Existing
D: Drop Building Addition to
Historic Structure

1942
Firehouse (E)

North

1943
Barracks (RE)

and Guard Tower (RC)

Women’s
Memorial (N)

D

1863
Commanders
Home (RE)

D

D

Building 31 and 32
Current Museum (E)
Not connected yet. Black Star
Building has been completed.

1935
Shop (RE)
© 2012 Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884
Officer’s
Quarters
Duplex (RE)

Preservation Problems
• Stress fractures
• Plaster Damage
• Fire Damage
• Foundation damage
• Windows
•Adobe damage

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner , 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos:
Kimberly
Buckner
2012

A Good Move: Moving Building 55 to Fort
Douglas Military Museum Grounds
Pros:

Cons:

• A move of less than ¼ mile
• Maintains association to original
site (Association)
• Preservation of structure
(materials/design)
• Opportunities to interpret local
history of post (location)
• Chosen site provides similar view
to original location (setting)
• Allows for new use (design)
• Maintains feeling of the historic
district (Feeling)

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Removes from primary location and
original foundation (Location)
Potential to damage structure
May destroy the original
workmanship (Workmanship)
To which era of significance will it
be restored?
Original orientation may not be
possible
Will introduce modern materials
into the historic structure
(Materials)
Removes from NRHP but would
allow for reapplication/maintains
historic landmark designation

A Difference in Views
Old Deseret Village

Looking West

Fort Douglas Military
Museum Grounds

Cannon Park looking South
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Lessening the impacts:
When moving is the only Preservation
option
Old Deseret Village

Fort Douglas Military Museum

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Will lose nearly all historical identity
Not on original site, but in association with original
camp
Allows the structure to exist
Would impact the elements of original design
Area not with original feeling but among structures
who have lost their “history”
Introduction of modern materials
Further impacts to historic workmanship
Loss of National Historic Landmark Designation
Loss of NRHP listing. May not be able to reapply
Land has lost all association/use with original Camp
Douglas
New use may not be conducive to historic use
1+ mile move
Impacts all criterion of integrity
Must be removed from Federal ownership to
private

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Maintains historical Identity
Maintains association with original camp
Structure is preserved in similar location
Less than ¼ mile move
Area has maintained original feeling and
association to the camp
Loss of NHRP listing but retains eligibility for
the future
Maintains National Historic Landmark
Designation and prominence within the
historic district
Interpretation of changes in military housing
New use conducive to original use
Fully restored with historical furnishing s
Retains nearly all criterion of Integrity
Already part of museum complex
Maintains federal ownership (State of Utah
to Utah National Guard ownership)

Moving: The Right Choice?
Old Deseret Village is a good place to house relocated and reconstructed historic structures to interpret the
early territorial history of Utah
BUT…
It was not the right setting to house a unique structure like Building 55
–

Will Building 55 be remembered for its history and sense of location? Or, because of the 4th grade
field trip with limited exposure only to be quickly forgotten?

–

With so many structures will the building be properly maintained or fall victim to demolition by
neglect?

–

Potentially a Section 106 logistic nightmare (Federal holdings to “private” hands)

Whereas…
The Fort Douglas Military Museum grounds will allow the unique structure a permanent home, restoration and
ability to maintain a prominent place in Fort Douglas. It will allow for
–

more opportunities and exposure to its unique history,

–

Will ensure that it will be preserved for future generations.

If Moved to Old Deseret Village

The actual site chosen for Building 55 in 1990 was never disclosed in the documentation.
Building 55 was placed in an arbitrary location within the park.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012 Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

If moved to the Museum Grounds

Sitting in proposed Master Plan location on the museum grounds.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Future Recommendations
The recommendations for Building 55:
1.

Restoration at current site using historically accurate methods
–
Potential for learning opportunities at current site (i.e. Root Cellar)
–
Potential for gaining additional archaeological information from site
–
Root Cellar was nominated as a stand alone NHRP eligible structure in 2008.

2.

Create a viable strategic plan for living history and historic house museum (adaptive use)
–
Prepare plan to cover all preservation issues which may crop up in the next decade
–
Prepare a strategic plan for safely moving Building 55, allowing for historically
accurate restoration and renovation methods.

3.

I

Maintain Building 55 on site
–
Use authentic and historically accurate reproduction pieces
–
Interpretive/Museum use

4.
If and when the time comes, move the structure to the Fort Douglas Military Museum
grounds to maintain current preservation effort
-- Increase opportunities for interpretation of structure
-- Restore back to 1863, and use later additions for storage/office space
-- Allow for living history programs

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Any Questions?

Bibliography
•

Advisory Council Regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR 800) .

•

Anne Racer to Rick Reese, (Email), 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas
Utah

•

Andrus, Cecil B. et al. “Part 6: The National Historic Register of Historic Places.” The Manual for
State Historic Preservation Review Boards. www.nps.gov/nr/bulletins/strevman/strevman6.htm
(accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Exhibit, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Register Nomination Form, 1970.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Landmark Nomination Form, 1974, Building 7 file, Utah State
Historical Preservation Offices, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas Military Museum, Master Plan, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas , Utah.

•

Hardesty, Donald L. and Barbara Little. Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists and
Historians (Lanham, MD.: Altamira Press, 2009).

•

Haws, Greg and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History of Building 55 (7) and its inhabitants.” University
of Utah Graduate School., 12 December 1994, University of Utah Marriott Library Special
Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Loveday, Amos J. “The Decision Makers Guide to Section 106.” Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2) pp. 10-17.

•

Maintenance Records Building 33, 1933, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah .

•

Maintenance Records Building 55, 1938, Fort Douglas Military Museum

•

Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas,
Utah

•

Morgan, Elmo R. “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22October-30 September 1954.” Fort
Douglas Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

National Park Service. Cultural Resource Guidelines (2002).
www.nps.gov/history/online_books nps28/28chap8.htm (accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Parris, Thomas . “Historical Preservation.” Environment Vol. 26 no. 8, (February 2003). P. 3

• Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14
September, 1862, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.
• Plaque, Camp Floyd/Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah.

• Plaque, Deuel Cabin, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt
Lake City, Utah.
• Plaque, Levi Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village, Salt Lake City, Utah.

• “Section 106: Back to the Basics” in Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2).
• University of Utah “From Civil War Building to Entrepreneurial Mecca”,
9 September 2008, http:/unews.utah.edu/old/p/090808-1.html
(accessed 1 August 2012).
• Utah State Historical Society Photograph Collection, Utah State
Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah


Slide 13

In the Shade of Black Locusts:
Preserving the “Silent Sentinel”
of Fort Douglas

Kimberly Buckner
Volunteer Staff
Fort Douglas Military Museum
Salt Lake City, Utah

Photo: Utah State Historical Society

Copyright Notice
© 2012 Kimberly Buckner and Fort
Douglas Military Museum. All
Rights Reserved. No use of any
photographs/information in this
presentation without express
written consent of the copyright
owner(s). All photos used by
permission.

But not all historic properties
are deliberately being
destroyed. Many have fallen
victim to the “ravages of
time.” This structure near
Camp Floyd has completely
collapsed since this picture
was taken in 2010.

Preservation: A National Priority?
Thomas Parris: National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 promotes the preservation of historic
structures as a national priority

And YET thousands of historically significant
properties are being destroyed each year despite
placement on the National Register of Historic
Places
Thomas Parris, “Historic Preservation”, Environment, Vol. 46, no. 8 (February 2003), p. 3

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

A Common Misconception?
A commonly held misconception among public
audiences:
“Preservation is broadly opposed to change and by
extension, that Section 106 is a tool to block
progress.”
Instead:
“Preservation is about controlling and accommodating
change, and the entire network of preservation rules,
beginning with Section 106, is designed to accomplish
that end.”
Amos J. Loveday, “The Decision Maker’s guide to Section 106”, Forum Journal Winter 2012, Vol. 26
(2), p. 17

Preserving Eligibility
Preservation is meant to protect by not diminishing
any characteristic providing eligibility on the
National Register of Historic Places Including (but
not limited to):
• Integrity of Location
• Integrity of Design
• Integrity of Setting
• Integrity of Materials
• Integrity of Workmanship
• Integrity of Feeling
• Integrity of Association
“Section 106: Back to the Basics”, Forum Journal, Winter 2012, Vol. 26, no. 2, p.10; 36 CFR
800.5 (a)(1)

The National Register of
Historic Places
Since 1966, The National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) provides:
• Communal recognition of local, state or national
history in a visual way
• Consideration in federal undertakings and
improvement projects
• Eligibility for tax benefits through the federal
government
• Qualification for monetary funds for preservation
benefits
Donald L. Hardesty and Barbara Little, Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists
and Historians, 2nd edition, (Lanham, MD: Altamira Press, 2009).

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties
Approved treatment
options:
• Preservation
• Rehabilitation
• Reconstruction
In rare conditions:
• Demolition by neglect
• Moving the historic
structure
Historic Cabin Ca. 1860’s
La Sal, Utah
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2010. Edited by Brick R. King, 2010
Colors have been enhanced

Success Stories:
Onsite Preservation of Carson Inn, 1858
Quick Facts:
• Camp Floyd and
Stagecoach Inn State Park
• Fairfield, Utah
• Built in 1858 by John
Carson
• Adobe and Frame
Construction
• Restored June 1959
• Outcome: furnished as a
historic “house” museum

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2011
Plaque, Camp Floyd /Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah

Success Stories: Moving, Restoration and Renovation
Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, 1847 and the Deuel
Family Cabin, 1847
Deuel Cabin
•
•
•

Riter Cabin

Temple Square
Moved ca. 1989
Glass enclosed historic house museum
with period furnishings

Why are they so Important?

•
•
•

Maintained in Old Deseret Village
Moved to Old Deseret Village ca. 1989
Interpreted solely by historical plaque

• Photo

The two oldest
remaining structures
in Utah are these
original
165-year –old cabins

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village

Success Story:
Relocation to Old Deseret Village
Quick Facts:

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Historic Manti Mill,
built ca. 1858 in Manti, Utah
Relocated ca. 1989

• This is the Place Heritage
Park
• Salt Lake City, Utah
• More than 40
structures/buildings
• Buildings consist of
originals, reproductions, or
relocated 19th century
structures
• Outcome: set up as a
historic village to interpret
frontier life in Utah from
1847-1869

Other success stories
ODV

Photos: Kimberly Buckner 2012

Camp Douglas, ca. 1864
“…I found another location, which I like better for
various reasons…”– Patrick Edward Connor
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah
Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14 September 1862,
Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah.

From Camp to Fort
26 October 1862 : established Camp
Douglas
1862: “Connor Tents” and Dugouts
1863: Adobe and Log structures begun
1867: Expansion of Camp’s perimeter
1874-75: $1 Million rebuild from native
red sandstone
1878: Renamed Fort Douglas

Camp Douglas ca. 1866
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884: $63,820 expansion with 5 frame
structures

From Fort to Historic Landmark
1904-1911: $1,140,000 building expansion
1910: Introduction of electricity
1915-16: Addition of detention camp
1930: Final major building expansion
1970: Listed on National Register of Historic
Places as a heritage district
1974: Listed as National Historic Landmark
26 October 1991: Fort Douglas officially
decommissioned
2002: Athlete’s Village, 2002 Winter Olympics

Stillwell Field Looking East, 2012
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Building 55
Characteristics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

Cost $780
Less than 1900 Sq. Feet
Originally 26 ft. by 29 ft.
Adobe with frame additions
First Neoclassical cross-wing in
Utah (symmetrical design)
4 rooms
18” thick walls
3 adobe fireplaces
“Four over four” double hung
sash windows
Pine or Douglas Fir
Wooden shingle roof coated in
slate
“Lath and plastered” interior
Has a stand alone Historic
Register eligible structure below
the original building (1862 Root
Cellar)

Building 55 in 2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Greg Haws and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History
of Building 55 (7) and its Inhabitants.” University of Utah
Graduate School of Architecture,
Fort Douglas Papers, University of Utah
Marriott Library Special Collections,
Salt Lake City, Utah

Building 55, ca. 1865
“In the shadow of Red Butte, the silent sentinel…looks down upon the scene of
[their] labors, at the very spot where [they ]first camped…”
–Lieutenant Colonel Fred B. Rogers at the funeral of General Patrick Edward
Connor
Photo: Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah;
Elmo R. Morgan, “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22 October 1862-30 September 1954”, Fort Douglas
Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah(Brackets added)

Then and Now
ca. 1900

Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner

Preservation of Building 55: Additions
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

North Exterior

South Exterior

1930
Addition

Unknown
addition

1864
Frame
Addition

1862-3
Root
Cellar

1863
Original
Building

1863 Original
Building

1875
Addition
1864 Post
Surgeons
Quarter’s

1930
Addition

Extensive Known Alterations:
1864: addition of two frame rooms
1874: addition of parlor from Post Surgeon’s quarters
Removal of a fireplace
Windows changed
Fireplace enclosed
1903: Plumbing
1910: Electricity
1911-1928: steam heating, telephones, gas lines
1930: frame Lean-to addition
Windows changed
1960: fire damage repairs
Unknown: Building addition
Unknown: Exterior Stucco
Source: Maintenance Records for Building 33, 1933; Maintenance Records for Building 55, 1938

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Preservation

Unknown Addition
Ca. 1930

• Building 55 is believed to have
been the only complete 1863
structure remaining at Fort
Douglas
• In 2003 parts of several other
1863 buildings have been found:
– 1874: Commander’s Quarters
Parlor from 1863 District
Commander’s Residence
– 1864: Building 55
Parlor Post Surgeon’s
Quarters
– 1862-63: Building 55
Root Cellar

1874 Addition

Original 1863 Parlor

1874 Post Commander’s Residence
Source: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Moving Building 55
• First discussed in 1990
• Again in 1994
• The site chosen was Old
Deseret Village
• University of Utah did not
agree for “reasons so
compelling”
• Recommended for
preservation on site
• Discussion never progressed
further into action
• Outcome: remains on site

Old Deseret Village looking east, 2012
First proposed area to move Building 55

Source: Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995; Anne Racer to Rick
Reece, email, 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum,
Fort Douglas, Utah.

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Old Deseret Village:
Historically Camp Douglas
Pros for moving:

Cons for moving Building 55:

• Old Deseret Village was
constructed on the original
grounds of Camp Douglas
(Association)
• Preserves the structure
• Allows “basic” interpretation
of the historic structure
• Provides opportunities for new
use, but not uses the building
was intended for(Design)

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•

Moved off of original location 1+ miles
away (location)
Destroys 150 years of association to
location of the historic camp
(Association/location)
Bears no resemblance to current location
(feeling )
Would remove from NRHP an make it
ineligible for any future attempts
Removes Historic Landmark designation
Costs to move , reconstruct and restore
(materials)
Destruction of original workmanship
(workmanship)
May cause un-repairable damage to the
structure (workmanship/
materials/design)

Fort Douglas Military Museum
1917
Master Plan
POW Barracks (RC)

N: New
RE: Relocated
RC: Reconstructed
E: Existing
D: Drop Building Addition to
Historic Structure

1942
Firehouse (E)

North

1943
Barracks (RE)

and Guard Tower (RC)

Women’s
Memorial (N)

D

1863
Commanders
Home (RE)

D

D

Building 31 and 32
Current Museum (E)
Not connected yet. Black Star
Building has been completed.

1935
Shop (RE)
© 2012 Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884
Officer’s
Quarters
Duplex (RE)

Preservation Problems
• Stress fractures
• Plaster Damage
• Fire Damage
• Foundation damage
• Windows
•Adobe damage

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner , 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos:
Kimberly
Buckner
2012

A Good Move: Moving Building 55 to Fort
Douglas Military Museum Grounds
Pros:

Cons:

• A move of less than ¼ mile
• Maintains association to original
site (Association)
• Preservation of structure
(materials/design)
• Opportunities to interpret local
history of post (location)
• Chosen site provides similar view
to original location (setting)
• Allows for new use (design)
• Maintains feeling of the historic
district (Feeling)

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Removes from primary location and
original foundation (Location)
Potential to damage structure
May destroy the original
workmanship (Workmanship)
To which era of significance will it
be restored?
Original orientation may not be
possible
Will introduce modern materials
into the historic structure
(Materials)
Removes from NRHP but would
allow for reapplication/maintains
historic landmark designation

A Difference in Views
Old Deseret Village

Looking West

Fort Douglas Military
Museum Grounds

Cannon Park looking South
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Lessening the impacts:
When moving is the only Preservation
option
Old Deseret Village

Fort Douglas Military Museum

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Will lose nearly all historical identity
Not on original site, but in association with original
camp
Allows the structure to exist
Would impact the elements of original design
Area not with original feeling but among structures
who have lost their “history”
Introduction of modern materials
Further impacts to historic workmanship
Loss of National Historic Landmark Designation
Loss of NRHP listing. May not be able to reapply
Land has lost all association/use with original Camp
Douglas
New use may not be conducive to historic use
1+ mile move
Impacts all criterion of integrity
Must be removed from Federal ownership to
private

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Maintains historical Identity
Maintains association with original camp
Structure is preserved in similar location
Less than ¼ mile move
Area has maintained original feeling and
association to the camp
Loss of NHRP listing but retains eligibility for
the future
Maintains National Historic Landmark
Designation and prominence within the
historic district
Interpretation of changes in military housing
New use conducive to original use
Fully restored with historical furnishing s
Retains nearly all criterion of Integrity
Already part of museum complex
Maintains federal ownership (State of Utah
to Utah National Guard ownership)

Moving: The Right Choice?
Old Deseret Village is a good place to house relocated and reconstructed historic structures to interpret the
early territorial history of Utah
BUT…
It was not the right setting to house a unique structure like Building 55
–

Will Building 55 be remembered for its history and sense of location? Or, because of the 4th grade
field trip with limited exposure only to be quickly forgotten?

–

With so many structures will the building be properly maintained or fall victim to demolition by
neglect?

–

Potentially a Section 106 logistic nightmare (Federal holdings to “private” hands)

Whereas…
The Fort Douglas Military Museum grounds will allow the unique structure a permanent home, restoration and
ability to maintain a prominent place in Fort Douglas. It will allow for
–

more opportunities and exposure to its unique history,

–

Will ensure that it will be preserved for future generations.

If Moved to Old Deseret Village

The actual site chosen for Building 55 in 1990 was never disclosed in the documentation.
Building 55 was placed in an arbitrary location within the park.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012 Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

If moved to the Museum Grounds

Sitting in proposed Master Plan location on the museum grounds.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Future Recommendations
The recommendations for Building 55:
1.

Restoration at current site using historically accurate methods
–
Potential for learning opportunities at current site (i.e. Root Cellar)
–
Potential for gaining additional archaeological information from site
–
Root Cellar was nominated as a stand alone NHRP eligible structure in 2008.

2.

Create a viable strategic plan for living history and historic house museum (adaptive use)
–
Prepare plan to cover all preservation issues which may crop up in the next decade
–
Prepare a strategic plan for safely moving Building 55, allowing for historically
accurate restoration and renovation methods.

3.

I

Maintain Building 55 on site
–
Use authentic and historically accurate reproduction pieces
–
Interpretive/Museum use

4.
If and when the time comes, move the structure to the Fort Douglas Military Museum
grounds to maintain current preservation effort
-- Increase opportunities for interpretation of structure
-- Restore back to 1863, and use later additions for storage/office space
-- Allow for living history programs

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Any Questions?

Bibliography
•

Advisory Council Regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR 800) .

•

Anne Racer to Rick Reese, (Email), 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas
Utah

•

Andrus, Cecil B. et al. “Part 6: The National Historic Register of Historic Places.” The Manual for
State Historic Preservation Review Boards. www.nps.gov/nr/bulletins/strevman/strevman6.htm
(accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Exhibit, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Register Nomination Form, 1970.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Landmark Nomination Form, 1974, Building 7 file, Utah State
Historical Preservation Offices, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas Military Museum, Master Plan, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas , Utah.

•

Hardesty, Donald L. and Barbara Little. Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists and
Historians (Lanham, MD.: Altamira Press, 2009).

•

Haws, Greg and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History of Building 55 (7) and its inhabitants.” University
of Utah Graduate School., 12 December 1994, University of Utah Marriott Library Special
Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Loveday, Amos J. “The Decision Makers Guide to Section 106.” Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2) pp. 10-17.

•

Maintenance Records Building 33, 1933, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah .

•

Maintenance Records Building 55, 1938, Fort Douglas Military Museum

•

Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas,
Utah

•

Morgan, Elmo R. “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22October-30 September 1954.” Fort
Douglas Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

National Park Service. Cultural Resource Guidelines (2002).
www.nps.gov/history/online_books nps28/28chap8.htm (accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Parris, Thomas . “Historical Preservation.” Environment Vol. 26 no. 8, (February 2003). P. 3

• Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14
September, 1862, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.
• Plaque, Camp Floyd/Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah.

• Plaque, Deuel Cabin, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt
Lake City, Utah.
• Plaque, Levi Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village, Salt Lake City, Utah.

• “Section 106: Back to the Basics” in Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2).
• University of Utah “From Civil War Building to Entrepreneurial Mecca”,
9 September 2008, http:/unews.utah.edu/old/p/090808-1.html
(accessed 1 August 2012).
• Utah State Historical Society Photograph Collection, Utah State
Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah


Slide 14

In the Shade of Black Locusts:
Preserving the “Silent Sentinel”
of Fort Douglas

Kimberly Buckner
Volunteer Staff
Fort Douglas Military Museum
Salt Lake City, Utah

Photo: Utah State Historical Society

Copyright Notice
© 2012 Kimberly Buckner and Fort
Douglas Military Museum. All
Rights Reserved. No use of any
photographs/information in this
presentation without express
written consent of the copyright
owner(s). All photos used by
permission.

But not all historic properties
are deliberately being
destroyed. Many have fallen
victim to the “ravages of
time.” This structure near
Camp Floyd has completely
collapsed since this picture
was taken in 2010.

Preservation: A National Priority?
Thomas Parris: National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 promotes the preservation of historic
structures as a national priority

And YET thousands of historically significant
properties are being destroyed each year despite
placement on the National Register of Historic
Places
Thomas Parris, “Historic Preservation”, Environment, Vol. 46, no. 8 (February 2003), p. 3

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

A Common Misconception?
A commonly held misconception among public
audiences:
“Preservation is broadly opposed to change and by
extension, that Section 106 is a tool to block
progress.”
Instead:
“Preservation is about controlling and accommodating
change, and the entire network of preservation rules,
beginning with Section 106, is designed to accomplish
that end.”
Amos J. Loveday, “The Decision Maker’s guide to Section 106”, Forum Journal Winter 2012, Vol. 26
(2), p. 17

Preserving Eligibility
Preservation is meant to protect by not diminishing
any characteristic providing eligibility on the
National Register of Historic Places Including (but
not limited to):
• Integrity of Location
• Integrity of Design
• Integrity of Setting
• Integrity of Materials
• Integrity of Workmanship
• Integrity of Feeling
• Integrity of Association
“Section 106: Back to the Basics”, Forum Journal, Winter 2012, Vol. 26, no. 2, p.10; 36 CFR
800.5 (a)(1)

The National Register of
Historic Places
Since 1966, The National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) provides:
• Communal recognition of local, state or national
history in a visual way
• Consideration in federal undertakings and
improvement projects
• Eligibility for tax benefits through the federal
government
• Qualification for monetary funds for preservation
benefits
Donald L. Hardesty and Barbara Little, Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists
and Historians, 2nd edition, (Lanham, MD: Altamira Press, 2009).

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties
Approved treatment
options:
• Preservation
• Rehabilitation
• Reconstruction
In rare conditions:
• Demolition by neglect
• Moving the historic
structure
Historic Cabin Ca. 1860’s
La Sal, Utah
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2010. Edited by Brick R. King, 2010
Colors have been enhanced

Success Stories:
Onsite Preservation of Carson Inn, 1858
Quick Facts:
• Camp Floyd and
Stagecoach Inn State Park
• Fairfield, Utah
• Built in 1858 by John
Carson
• Adobe and Frame
Construction
• Restored June 1959
• Outcome: furnished as a
historic “house” museum

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2011
Plaque, Camp Floyd /Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah

Success Stories: Moving, Restoration and Renovation
Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, 1847 and the Deuel
Family Cabin, 1847
Deuel Cabin
•
•
•

Riter Cabin

Temple Square
Moved ca. 1989
Glass enclosed historic house museum
with period furnishings

Why are they so Important?

•
•
•

Maintained in Old Deseret Village
Moved to Old Deseret Village ca. 1989
Interpreted solely by historical plaque

• Photo

The two oldest
remaining structures
in Utah are these
original
165-year –old cabins

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village

Success Story:
Relocation to Old Deseret Village
Quick Facts:

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Historic Manti Mill,
built ca. 1858 in Manti, Utah
Relocated ca. 1989

• This is the Place Heritage
Park
• Salt Lake City, Utah
• More than 40
structures/buildings
• Buildings consist of
originals, reproductions, or
relocated 19th century
structures
• Outcome: set up as a
historic village to interpret
frontier life in Utah from
1847-1869

Other success stories
ODV

Photos: Kimberly Buckner 2012

Camp Douglas, ca. 1864
“…I found another location, which I like better for
various reasons…”– Patrick Edward Connor
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah
Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14 September 1862,
Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah.

From Camp to Fort
26 October 1862 : established Camp
Douglas
1862: “Connor Tents” and Dugouts
1863: Adobe and Log structures begun
1867: Expansion of Camp’s perimeter
1874-75: $1 Million rebuild from native
red sandstone
1878: Renamed Fort Douglas

Camp Douglas ca. 1866
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884: $63,820 expansion with 5 frame
structures

From Fort to Historic Landmark
1904-1911: $1,140,000 building expansion
1910: Introduction of electricity
1915-16: Addition of detention camp
1930: Final major building expansion
1970: Listed on National Register of Historic
Places as a heritage district
1974: Listed as National Historic Landmark
26 October 1991: Fort Douglas officially
decommissioned
2002: Athlete’s Village, 2002 Winter Olympics

Stillwell Field Looking East, 2012
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Building 55
Characteristics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

Cost $780
Less than 1900 Sq. Feet
Originally 26 ft. by 29 ft.
Adobe with frame additions
First Neoclassical cross-wing in
Utah (symmetrical design)
4 rooms
18” thick walls
3 adobe fireplaces
“Four over four” double hung
sash windows
Pine or Douglas Fir
Wooden shingle roof coated in
slate
“Lath and plastered” interior
Has a stand alone Historic
Register eligible structure below
the original building (1862 Root
Cellar)

Building 55 in 2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Greg Haws and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History
of Building 55 (7) and its Inhabitants.” University of Utah
Graduate School of Architecture,
Fort Douglas Papers, University of Utah
Marriott Library Special Collections,
Salt Lake City, Utah

Building 55, ca. 1865
“In the shadow of Red Butte, the silent sentinel…looks down upon the scene of
[their] labors, at the very spot where [they ]first camped…”
–Lieutenant Colonel Fred B. Rogers at the funeral of General Patrick Edward
Connor
Photo: Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah;
Elmo R. Morgan, “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22 October 1862-30 September 1954”, Fort Douglas
Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah(Brackets added)

Then and Now
ca. 1900

Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner

Preservation of Building 55: Additions
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

North Exterior

South Exterior

1930
Addition

Unknown
addition

1864
Frame
Addition

1862-3
Root
Cellar

1863
Original
Building

1863 Original
Building

1875
Addition
1864 Post
Surgeons
Quarter’s

1930
Addition

Extensive Known Alterations:
1864: addition of two frame rooms
1874: addition of parlor from Post Surgeon’s quarters
Removal of a fireplace
Windows changed
Fireplace enclosed
1903: Plumbing
1910: Electricity
1911-1928: steam heating, telephones, gas lines
1930: frame Lean-to addition
Windows changed
1960: fire damage repairs
Unknown: Building addition
Unknown: Exterior Stucco
Source: Maintenance Records for Building 33, 1933; Maintenance Records for Building 55, 1938

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Preservation

Unknown Addition
Ca. 1930

• Building 55 is believed to have
been the only complete 1863
structure remaining at Fort
Douglas
• In 2003 parts of several other
1863 buildings have been found:
– 1874: Commander’s Quarters
Parlor from 1863 District
Commander’s Residence
– 1864: Building 55
Parlor Post Surgeon’s
Quarters
– 1862-63: Building 55
Root Cellar

1874 Addition

Original 1863 Parlor

1874 Post Commander’s Residence
Source: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Moving Building 55
• First discussed in 1990
• Again in 1994
• The site chosen was Old
Deseret Village
• University of Utah did not
agree for “reasons so
compelling”
• Recommended for
preservation on site
• Discussion never progressed
further into action
• Outcome: remains on site

Old Deseret Village looking east, 2012
First proposed area to move Building 55

Source: Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995; Anne Racer to Rick
Reece, email, 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum,
Fort Douglas, Utah.

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Old Deseret Village:
Historically Camp Douglas
Pros for moving:

Cons for moving Building 55:

• Old Deseret Village was
constructed on the original
grounds of Camp Douglas
(Association)
• Preserves the structure
• Allows “basic” interpretation
of the historic structure
• Provides opportunities for new
use, but not uses the building
was intended for(Design)

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•

Moved off of original location 1+ miles
away (location)
Destroys 150 years of association to
location of the historic camp
(Association/location)
Bears no resemblance to current location
(feeling )
Would remove from NRHP an make it
ineligible for any future attempts
Removes Historic Landmark designation
Costs to move , reconstruct and restore
(materials)
Destruction of original workmanship
(workmanship)
May cause un-repairable damage to the
structure (workmanship/
materials/design)

Fort Douglas Military Museum
1917
Master Plan
POW Barracks (RC)

N: New
RE: Relocated
RC: Reconstructed
E: Existing
D: Drop Building Addition to
Historic Structure

1942
Firehouse (E)

North

1943
Barracks (RE)

and Guard Tower (RC)

Women’s
Memorial (N)

D

1863
Commanders
Home (RE)

D

D

Building 31 and 32
Current Museum (E)
Not connected yet. Black Star
Building has been completed.

1935
Shop (RE)
© 2012 Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884
Officer’s
Quarters
Duplex (RE)

Preservation Problems
• Stress fractures
• Plaster Damage
• Fire Damage
• Foundation damage
• Windows
•Adobe damage

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner , 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos:
Kimberly
Buckner
2012

A Good Move: Moving Building 55 to Fort
Douglas Military Museum Grounds
Pros:

Cons:

• A move of less than ¼ mile
• Maintains association to original
site (Association)
• Preservation of structure
(materials/design)
• Opportunities to interpret local
history of post (location)
• Chosen site provides similar view
to original location (setting)
• Allows for new use (design)
• Maintains feeling of the historic
district (Feeling)

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Removes from primary location and
original foundation (Location)
Potential to damage structure
May destroy the original
workmanship (Workmanship)
To which era of significance will it
be restored?
Original orientation may not be
possible
Will introduce modern materials
into the historic structure
(Materials)
Removes from NRHP but would
allow for reapplication/maintains
historic landmark designation

A Difference in Views
Old Deseret Village

Looking West

Fort Douglas Military
Museum Grounds

Cannon Park looking South
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Lessening the impacts:
When moving is the only Preservation
option
Old Deseret Village

Fort Douglas Military Museum

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Will lose nearly all historical identity
Not on original site, but in association with original
camp
Allows the structure to exist
Would impact the elements of original design
Area not with original feeling but among structures
who have lost their “history”
Introduction of modern materials
Further impacts to historic workmanship
Loss of National Historic Landmark Designation
Loss of NRHP listing. May not be able to reapply
Land has lost all association/use with original Camp
Douglas
New use may not be conducive to historic use
1+ mile move
Impacts all criterion of integrity
Must be removed from Federal ownership to
private

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Maintains historical Identity
Maintains association with original camp
Structure is preserved in similar location
Less than ¼ mile move
Area has maintained original feeling and
association to the camp
Loss of NHRP listing but retains eligibility for
the future
Maintains National Historic Landmark
Designation and prominence within the
historic district
Interpretation of changes in military housing
New use conducive to original use
Fully restored with historical furnishing s
Retains nearly all criterion of Integrity
Already part of museum complex
Maintains federal ownership (State of Utah
to Utah National Guard ownership)

Moving: The Right Choice?
Old Deseret Village is a good place to house relocated and reconstructed historic structures to interpret the
early territorial history of Utah
BUT…
It was not the right setting to house a unique structure like Building 55
–

Will Building 55 be remembered for its history and sense of location? Or, because of the 4th grade
field trip with limited exposure only to be quickly forgotten?

–

With so many structures will the building be properly maintained or fall victim to demolition by
neglect?

–

Potentially a Section 106 logistic nightmare (Federal holdings to “private” hands)

Whereas…
The Fort Douglas Military Museum grounds will allow the unique structure a permanent home, restoration and
ability to maintain a prominent place in Fort Douglas. It will allow for
–

more opportunities and exposure to its unique history,

–

Will ensure that it will be preserved for future generations.

If Moved to Old Deseret Village

The actual site chosen for Building 55 in 1990 was never disclosed in the documentation.
Building 55 was placed in an arbitrary location within the park.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012 Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

If moved to the Museum Grounds

Sitting in proposed Master Plan location on the museum grounds.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Future Recommendations
The recommendations for Building 55:
1.

Restoration at current site using historically accurate methods
–
Potential for learning opportunities at current site (i.e. Root Cellar)
–
Potential for gaining additional archaeological information from site
–
Root Cellar was nominated as a stand alone NHRP eligible structure in 2008.

2.

Create a viable strategic plan for living history and historic house museum (adaptive use)
–
Prepare plan to cover all preservation issues which may crop up in the next decade
–
Prepare a strategic plan for safely moving Building 55, allowing for historically
accurate restoration and renovation methods.

3.

I

Maintain Building 55 on site
–
Use authentic and historically accurate reproduction pieces
–
Interpretive/Museum use

4.
If and when the time comes, move the structure to the Fort Douglas Military Museum
grounds to maintain current preservation effort
-- Increase opportunities for interpretation of structure
-- Restore back to 1863, and use later additions for storage/office space
-- Allow for living history programs

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Any Questions?

Bibliography
•

Advisory Council Regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR 800) .

•

Anne Racer to Rick Reese, (Email), 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas
Utah

•

Andrus, Cecil B. et al. “Part 6: The National Historic Register of Historic Places.” The Manual for
State Historic Preservation Review Boards. www.nps.gov/nr/bulletins/strevman/strevman6.htm
(accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Exhibit, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Register Nomination Form, 1970.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Landmark Nomination Form, 1974, Building 7 file, Utah State
Historical Preservation Offices, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas Military Museum, Master Plan, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas , Utah.

•

Hardesty, Donald L. and Barbara Little. Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists and
Historians (Lanham, MD.: Altamira Press, 2009).

•

Haws, Greg and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History of Building 55 (7) and its inhabitants.” University
of Utah Graduate School., 12 December 1994, University of Utah Marriott Library Special
Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Loveday, Amos J. “The Decision Makers Guide to Section 106.” Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2) pp. 10-17.

•

Maintenance Records Building 33, 1933, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah .

•

Maintenance Records Building 55, 1938, Fort Douglas Military Museum

•

Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas,
Utah

•

Morgan, Elmo R. “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22October-30 September 1954.” Fort
Douglas Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

National Park Service. Cultural Resource Guidelines (2002).
www.nps.gov/history/online_books nps28/28chap8.htm (accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Parris, Thomas . “Historical Preservation.” Environment Vol. 26 no. 8, (February 2003). P. 3

• Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14
September, 1862, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.
• Plaque, Camp Floyd/Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah.

• Plaque, Deuel Cabin, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt
Lake City, Utah.
• Plaque, Levi Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village, Salt Lake City, Utah.

• “Section 106: Back to the Basics” in Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2).
• University of Utah “From Civil War Building to Entrepreneurial Mecca”,
9 September 2008, http:/unews.utah.edu/old/p/090808-1.html
(accessed 1 August 2012).
• Utah State Historical Society Photograph Collection, Utah State
Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah


Slide 15

In the Shade of Black Locusts:
Preserving the “Silent Sentinel”
of Fort Douglas

Kimberly Buckner
Volunteer Staff
Fort Douglas Military Museum
Salt Lake City, Utah

Photo: Utah State Historical Society

Copyright Notice
© 2012 Kimberly Buckner and Fort
Douglas Military Museum. All
Rights Reserved. No use of any
photographs/information in this
presentation without express
written consent of the copyright
owner(s). All photos used by
permission.

But not all historic properties
are deliberately being
destroyed. Many have fallen
victim to the “ravages of
time.” This structure near
Camp Floyd has completely
collapsed since this picture
was taken in 2010.

Preservation: A National Priority?
Thomas Parris: National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 promotes the preservation of historic
structures as a national priority

And YET thousands of historically significant
properties are being destroyed each year despite
placement on the National Register of Historic
Places
Thomas Parris, “Historic Preservation”, Environment, Vol. 46, no. 8 (February 2003), p. 3

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

A Common Misconception?
A commonly held misconception among public
audiences:
“Preservation is broadly opposed to change and by
extension, that Section 106 is a tool to block
progress.”
Instead:
“Preservation is about controlling and accommodating
change, and the entire network of preservation rules,
beginning with Section 106, is designed to accomplish
that end.”
Amos J. Loveday, “The Decision Maker’s guide to Section 106”, Forum Journal Winter 2012, Vol. 26
(2), p. 17

Preserving Eligibility
Preservation is meant to protect by not diminishing
any characteristic providing eligibility on the
National Register of Historic Places Including (but
not limited to):
• Integrity of Location
• Integrity of Design
• Integrity of Setting
• Integrity of Materials
• Integrity of Workmanship
• Integrity of Feeling
• Integrity of Association
“Section 106: Back to the Basics”, Forum Journal, Winter 2012, Vol. 26, no. 2, p.10; 36 CFR
800.5 (a)(1)

The National Register of
Historic Places
Since 1966, The National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) provides:
• Communal recognition of local, state or national
history in a visual way
• Consideration in federal undertakings and
improvement projects
• Eligibility for tax benefits through the federal
government
• Qualification for monetary funds for preservation
benefits
Donald L. Hardesty and Barbara Little, Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists
and Historians, 2nd edition, (Lanham, MD: Altamira Press, 2009).

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties
Approved treatment
options:
• Preservation
• Rehabilitation
• Reconstruction
In rare conditions:
• Demolition by neglect
• Moving the historic
structure
Historic Cabin Ca. 1860’s
La Sal, Utah
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2010. Edited by Brick R. King, 2010
Colors have been enhanced

Success Stories:
Onsite Preservation of Carson Inn, 1858
Quick Facts:
• Camp Floyd and
Stagecoach Inn State Park
• Fairfield, Utah
• Built in 1858 by John
Carson
• Adobe and Frame
Construction
• Restored June 1959
• Outcome: furnished as a
historic “house” museum

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2011
Plaque, Camp Floyd /Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah

Success Stories: Moving, Restoration and Renovation
Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, 1847 and the Deuel
Family Cabin, 1847
Deuel Cabin
•
•
•

Riter Cabin

Temple Square
Moved ca. 1989
Glass enclosed historic house museum
with period furnishings

Why are they so Important?

•
•
•

Maintained in Old Deseret Village
Moved to Old Deseret Village ca. 1989
Interpreted solely by historical plaque

• Photo

The two oldest
remaining structures
in Utah are these
original
165-year –old cabins

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village

Success Story:
Relocation to Old Deseret Village
Quick Facts:

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Historic Manti Mill,
built ca. 1858 in Manti, Utah
Relocated ca. 1989

• This is the Place Heritage
Park
• Salt Lake City, Utah
• More than 40
structures/buildings
• Buildings consist of
originals, reproductions, or
relocated 19th century
structures
• Outcome: set up as a
historic village to interpret
frontier life in Utah from
1847-1869

Other success stories
ODV

Photos: Kimberly Buckner 2012

Camp Douglas, ca. 1864
“…I found another location, which I like better for
various reasons…”– Patrick Edward Connor
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah
Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14 September 1862,
Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah.

From Camp to Fort
26 October 1862 : established Camp
Douglas
1862: “Connor Tents” and Dugouts
1863: Adobe and Log structures begun
1867: Expansion of Camp’s perimeter
1874-75: $1 Million rebuild from native
red sandstone
1878: Renamed Fort Douglas

Camp Douglas ca. 1866
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884: $63,820 expansion with 5 frame
structures

From Fort to Historic Landmark
1904-1911: $1,140,000 building expansion
1910: Introduction of electricity
1915-16: Addition of detention camp
1930: Final major building expansion
1970: Listed on National Register of Historic
Places as a heritage district
1974: Listed as National Historic Landmark
26 October 1991: Fort Douglas officially
decommissioned
2002: Athlete’s Village, 2002 Winter Olympics

Stillwell Field Looking East, 2012
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Building 55
Characteristics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

Cost $780
Less than 1900 Sq. Feet
Originally 26 ft. by 29 ft.
Adobe with frame additions
First Neoclassical cross-wing in
Utah (symmetrical design)
4 rooms
18” thick walls
3 adobe fireplaces
“Four over four” double hung
sash windows
Pine or Douglas Fir
Wooden shingle roof coated in
slate
“Lath and plastered” interior
Has a stand alone Historic
Register eligible structure below
the original building (1862 Root
Cellar)

Building 55 in 2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Greg Haws and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History
of Building 55 (7) and its Inhabitants.” University of Utah
Graduate School of Architecture,
Fort Douglas Papers, University of Utah
Marriott Library Special Collections,
Salt Lake City, Utah

Building 55, ca. 1865
“In the shadow of Red Butte, the silent sentinel…looks down upon the scene of
[their] labors, at the very spot where [they ]first camped…”
–Lieutenant Colonel Fred B. Rogers at the funeral of General Patrick Edward
Connor
Photo: Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah;
Elmo R. Morgan, “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22 October 1862-30 September 1954”, Fort Douglas
Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah(Brackets added)

Then and Now
ca. 1900

Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner

Preservation of Building 55: Additions
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

North Exterior

South Exterior

1930
Addition

Unknown
addition

1864
Frame
Addition

1862-3
Root
Cellar

1863
Original
Building

1863 Original
Building

1875
Addition
1864 Post
Surgeons
Quarter’s

1930
Addition

Extensive Known Alterations:
1864: addition of two frame rooms
1874: addition of parlor from Post Surgeon’s quarters
Removal of a fireplace
Windows changed
Fireplace enclosed
1903: Plumbing
1910: Electricity
1911-1928: steam heating, telephones, gas lines
1930: frame Lean-to addition
Windows changed
1960: fire damage repairs
Unknown: Building addition
Unknown: Exterior Stucco
Source: Maintenance Records for Building 33, 1933; Maintenance Records for Building 55, 1938

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Preservation

Unknown Addition
Ca. 1930

• Building 55 is believed to have
been the only complete 1863
structure remaining at Fort
Douglas
• In 2003 parts of several other
1863 buildings have been found:
– 1874: Commander’s Quarters
Parlor from 1863 District
Commander’s Residence
– 1864: Building 55
Parlor Post Surgeon’s
Quarters
– 1862-63: Building 55
Root Cellar

1874 Addition

Original 1863 Parlor

1874 Post Commander’s Residence
Source: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Moving Building 55
• First discussed in 1990
• Again in 1994
• The site chosen was Old
Deseret Village
• University of Utah did not
agree for “reasons so
compelling”
• Recommended for
preservation on site
• Discussion never progressed
further into action
• Outcome: remains on site

Old Deseret Village looking east, 2012
First proposed area to move Building 55

Source: Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995; Anne Racer to Rick
Reece, email, 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum,
Fort Douglas, Utah.

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Old Deseret Village:
Historically Camp Douglas
Pros for moving:

Cons for moving Building 55:

• Old Deseret Village was
constructed on the original
grounds of Camp Douglas
(Association)
• Preserves the structure
• Allows “basic” interpretation
of the historic structure
• Provides opportunities for new
use, but not uses the building
was intended for(Design)

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•

Moved off of original location 1+ miles
away (location)
Destroys 150 years of association to
location of the historic camp
(Association/location)
Bears no resemblance to current location
(feeling )
Would remove from NRHP an make it
ineligible for any future attempts
Removes Historic Landmark designation
Costs to move , reconstruct and restore
(materials)
Destruction of original workmanship
(workmanship)
May cause un-repairable damage to the
structure (workmanship/
materials/design)

Fort Douglas Military Museum
1917
Master Plan
POW Barracks (RC)

N: New
RE: Relocated
RC: Reconstructed
E: Existing
D: Drop Building Addition to
Historic Structure

1942
Firehouse (E)

North

1943
Barracks (RE)

and Guard Tower (RC)

Women’s
Memorial (N)

D

1863
Commanders
Home (RE)

D

D

Building 31 and 32
Current Museum (E)
Not connected yet. Black Star
Building has been completed.

1935
Shop (RE)
© 2012 Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884
Officer’s
Quarters
Duplex (RE)

Preservation Problems
• Stress fractures
• Plaster Damage
• Fire Damage
• Foundation damage
• Windows
•Adobe damage

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner , 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos:
Kimberly
Buckner
2012

A Good Move: Moving Building 55 to Fort
Douglas Military Museum Grounds
Pros:

Cons:

• A move of less than ¼ mile
• Maintains association to original
site (Association)
• Preservation of structure
(materials/design)
• Opportunities to interpret local
history of post (location)
• Chosen site provides similar view
to original location (setting)
• Allows for new use (design)
• Maintains feeling of the historic
district (Feeling)

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Removes from primary location and
original foundation (Location)
Potential to damage structure
May destroy the original
workmanship (Workmanship)
To which era of significance will it
be restored?
Original orientation may not be
possible
Will introduce modern materials
into the historic structure
(Materials)
Removes from NRHP but would
allow for reapplication/maintains
historic landmark designation

A Difference in Views
Old Deseret Village

Looking West

Fort Douglas Military
Museum Grounds

Cannon Park looking South
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Lessening the impacts:
When moving is the only Preservation
option
Old Deseret Village

Fort Douglas Military Museum

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Will lose nearly all historical identity
Not on original site, but in association with original
camp
Allows the structure to exist
Would impact the elements of original design
Area not with original feeling but among structures
who have lost their “history”
Introduction of modern materials
Further impacts to historic workmanship
Loss of National Historic Landmark Designation
Loss of NRHP listing. May not be able to reapply
Land has lost all association/use with original Camp
Douglas
New use may not be conducive to historic use
1+ mile move
Impacts all criterion of integrity
Must be removed from Federal ownership to
private

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Maintains historical Identity
Maintains association with original camp
Structure is preserved in similar location
Less than ¼ mile move
Area has maintained original feeling and
association to the camp
Loss of NHRP listing but retains eligibility for
the future
Maintains National Historic Landmark
Designation and prominence within the
historic district
Interpretation of changes in military housing
New use conducive to original use
Fully restored with historical furnishing s
Retains nearly all criterion of Integrity
Already part of museum complex
Maintains federal ownership (State of Utah
to Utah National Guard ownership)

Moving: The Right Choice?
Old Deseret Village is a good place to house relocated and reconstructed historic structures to interpret the
early territorial history of Utah
BUT…
It was not the right setting to house a unique structure like Building 55
–

Will Building 55 be remembered for its history and sense of location? Or, because of the 4th grade
field trip with limited exposure only to be quickly forgotten?

–

With so many structures will the building be properly maintained or fall victim to demolition by
neglect?

–

Potentially a Section 106 logistic nightmare (Federal holdings to “private” hands)

Whereas…
The Fort Douglas Military Museum grounds will allow the unique structure a permanent home, restoration and
ability to maintain a prominent place in Fort Douglas. It will allow for
–

more opportunities and exposure to its unique history,

–

Will ensure that it will be preserved for future generations.

If Moved to Old Deseret Village

The actual site chosen for Building 55 in 1990 was never disclosed in the documentation.
Building 55 was placed in an arbitrary location within the park.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012 Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

If moved to the Museum Grounds

Sitting in proposed Master Plan location on the museum grounds.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Future Recommendations
The recommendations for Building 55:
1.

Restoration at current site using historically accurate methods
–
Potential for learning opportunities at current site (i.e. Root Cellar)
–
Potential for gaining additional archaeological information from site
–
Root Cellar was nominated as a stand alone NHRP eligible structure in 2008.

2.

Create a viable strategic plan for living history and historic house museum (adaptive use)
–
Prepare plan to cover all preservation issues which may crop up in the next decade
–
Prepare a strategic plan for safely moving Building 55, allowing for historically
accurate restoration and renovation methods.

3.

I

Maintain Building 55 on site
–
Use authentic and historically accurate reproduction pieces
–
Interpretive/Museum use

4.
If and when the time comes, move the structure to the Fort Douglas Military Museum
grounds to maintain current preservation effort
-- Increase opportunities for interpretation of structure
-- Restore back to 1863, and use later additions for storage/office space
-- Allow for living history programs

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Any Questions?

Bibliography
•

Advisory Council Regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR 800) .

•

Anne Racer to Rick Reese, (Email), 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas
Utah

•

Andrus, Cecil B. et al. “Part 6: The National Historic Register of Historic Places.” The Manual for
State Historic Preservation Review Boards. www.nps.gov/nr/bulletins/strevman/strevman6.htm
(accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Exhibit, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Register Nomination Form, 1970.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Landmark Nomination Form, 1974, Building 7 file, Utah State
Historical Preservation Offices, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas Military Museum, Master Plan, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas , Utah.

•

Hardesty, Donald L. and Barbara Little. Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists and
Historians (Lanham, MD.: Altamira Press, 2009).

•

Haws, Greg and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History of Building 55 (7) and its inhabitants.” University
of Utah Graduate School., 12 December 1994, University of Utah Marriott Library Special
Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Loveday, Amos J. “The Decision Makers Guide to Section 106.” Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2) pp. 10-17.

•

Maintenance Records Building 33, 1933, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah .

•

Maintenance Records Building 55, 1938, Fort Douglas Military Museum

•

Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas,
Utah

•

Morgan, Elmo R. “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22October-30 September 1954.” Fort
Douglas Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

National Park Service. Cultural Resource Guidelines (2002).
www.nps.gov/history/online_books nps28/28chap8.htm (accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Parris, Thomas . “Historical Preservation.” Environment Vol. 26 no. 8, (February 2003). P. 3

• Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14
September, 1862, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.
• Plaque, Camp Floyd/Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah.

• Plaque, Deuel Cabin, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt
Lake City, Utah.
• Plaque, Levi Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village, Salt Lake City, Utah.

• “Section 106: Back to the Basics” in Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2).
• University of Utah “From Civil War Building to Entrepreneurial Mecca”,
9 September 2008, http:/unews.utah.edu/old/p/090808-1.html
(accessed 1 August 2012).
• Utah State Historical Society Photograph Collection, Utah State
Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah


Slide 16

In the Shade of Black Locusts:
Preserving the “Silent Sentinel”
of Fort Douglas

Kimberly Buckner
Volunteer Staff
Fort Douglas Military Museum
Salt Lake City, Utah

Photo: Utah State Historical Society

Copyright Notice
© 2012 Kimberly Buckner and Fort
Douglas Military Museum. All
Rights Reserved. No use of any
photographs/information in this
presentation without express
written consent of the copyright
owner(s). All photos used by
permission.

But not all historic properties
are deliberately being
destroyed. Many have fallen
victim to the “ravages of
time.” This structure near
Camp Floyd has completely
collapsed since this picture
was taken in 2010.

Preservation: A National Priority?
Thomas Parris: National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 promotes the preservation of historic
structures as a national priority

And YET thousands of historically significant
properties are being destroyed each year despite
placement on the National Register of Historic
Places
Thomas Parris, “Historic Preservation”, Environment, Vol. 46, no. 8 (February 2003), p. 3

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

A Common Misconception?
A commonly held misconception among public
audiences:
“Preservation is broadly opposed to change and by
extension, that Section 106 is a tool to block
progress.”
Instead:
“Preservation is about controlling and accommodating
change, and the entire network of preservation rules,
beginning with Section 106, is designed to accomplish
that end.”
Amos J. Loveday, “The Decision Maker’s guide to Section 106”, Forum Journal Winter 2012, Vol. 26
(2), p. 17

Preserving Eligibility
Preservation is meant to protect by not diminishing
any characteristic providing eligibility on the
National Register of Historic Places Including (but
not limited to):
• Integrity of Location
• Integrity of Design
• Integrity of Setting
• Integrity of Materials
• Integrity of Workmanship
• Integrity of Feeling
• Integrity of Association
“Section 106: Back to the Basics”, Forum Journal, Winter 2012, Vol. 26, no. 2, p.10; 36 CFR
800.5 (a)(1)

The National Register of
Historic Places
Since 1966, The National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) provides:
• Communal recognition of local, state or national
history in a visual way
• Consideration in federal undertakings and
improvement projects
• Eligibility for tax benefits through the federal
government
• Qualification for monetary funds for preservation
benefits
Donald L. Hardesty and Barbara Little, Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists
and Historians, 2nd edition, (Lanham, MD: Altamira Press, 2009).

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties
Approved treatment
options:
• Preservation
• Rehabilitation
• Reconstruction
In rare conditions:
• Demolition by neglect
• Moving the historic
structure
Historic Cabin Ca. 1860’s
La Sal, Utah
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2010. Edited by Brick R. King, 2010
Colors have been enhanced

Success Stories:
Onsite Preservation of Carson Inn, 1858
Quick Facts:
• Camp Floyd and
Stagecoach Inn State Park
• Fairfield, Utah
• Built in 1858 by John
Carson
• Adobe and Frame
Construction
• Restored June 1959
• Outcome: furnished as a
historic “house” museum

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2011
Plaque, Camp Floyd /Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah

Success Stories: Moving, Restoration and Renovation
Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, 1847 and the Deuel
Family Cabin, 1847
Deuel Cabin
•
•
•

Riter Cabin

Temple Square
Moved ca. 1989
Glass enclosed historic house museum
with period furnishings

Why are they so Important?

•
•
•

Maintained in Old Deseret Village
Moved to Old Deseret Village ca. 1989
Interpreted solely by historical plaque

• Photo

The two oldest
remaining structures
in Utah are these
original
165-year –old cabins

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village

Success Story:
Relocation to Old Deseret Village
Quick Facts:

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Historic Manti Mill,
built ca. 1858 in Manti, Utah
Relocated ca. 1989

• This is the Place Heritage
Park
• Salt Lake City, Utah
• More than 40
structures/buildings
• Buildings consist of
originals, reproductions, or
relocated 19th century
structures
• Outcome: set up as a
historic village to interpret
frontier life in Utah from
1847-1869

Other success stories
ODV

Photos: Kimberly Buckner 2012

Camp Douglas, ca. 1864
“…I found another location, which I like better for
various reasons…”– Patrick Edward Connor
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah
Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14 September 1862,
Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah.

From Camp to Fort
26 October 1862 : established Camp
Douglas
1862: “Connor Tents” and Dugouts
1863: Adobe and Log structures begun
1867: Expansion of Camp’s perimeter
1874-75: $1 Million rebuild from native
red sandstone
1878: Renamed Fort Douglas

Camp Douglas ca. 1866
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884: $63,820 expansion with 5 frame
structures

From Fort to Historic Landmark
1904-1911: $1,140,000 building expansion
1910: Introduction of electricity
1915-16: Addition of detention camp
1930: Final major building expansion
1970: Listed on National Register of Historic
Places as a heritage district
1974: Listed as National Historic Landmark
26 October 1991: Fort Douglas officially
decommissioned
2002: Athlete’s Village, 2002 Winter Olympics

Stillwell Field Looking East, 2012
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Building 55
Characteristics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

Cost $780
Less than 1900 Sq. Feet
Originally 26 ft. by 29 ft.
Adobe with frame additions
First Neoclassical cross-wing in
Utah (symmetrical design)
4 rooms
18” thick walls
3 adobe fireplaces
“Four over four” double hung
sash windows
Pine or Douglas Fir
Wooden shingle roof coated in
slate
“Lath and plastered” interior
Has a stand alone Historic
Register eligible structure below
the original building (1862 Root
Cellar)

Building 55 in 2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Greg Haws and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History
of Building 55 (7) and its Inhabitants.” University of Utah
Graduate School of Architecture,
Fort Douglas Papers, University of Utah
Marriott Library Special Collections,
Salt Lake City, Utah

Building 55, ca. 1865
“In the shadow of Red Butte, the silent sentinel…looks down upon the scene of
[their] labors, at the very spot where [they ]first camped…”
–Lieutenant Colonel Fred B. Rogers at the funeral of General Patrick Edward
Connor
Photo: Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah;
Elmo R. Morgan, “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22 October 1862-30 September 1954”, Fort Douglas
Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah(Brackets added)

Then and Now
ca. 1900

Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner

Preservation of Building 55: Additions
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

North Exterior

South Exterior

1930
Addition

Unknown
addition

1864
Frame
Addition

1862-3
Root
Cellar

1863
Original
Building

1863 Original
Building

1875
Addition
1864 Post
Surgeons
Quarter’s

1930
Addition

Extensive Known Alterations:
1864: addition of two frame rooms
1874: addition of parlor from Post Surgeon’s quarters
Removal of a fireplace
Windows changed
Fireplace enclosed
1903: Plumbing
1910: Electricity
1911-1928: steam heating, telephones, gas lines
1930: frame Lean-to addition
Windows changed
1960: fire damage repairs
Unknown: Building addition
Unknown: Exterior Stucco
Source: Maintenance Records for Building 33, 1933; Maintenance Records for Building 55, 1938

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Preservation

Unknown Addition
Ca. 1930

• Building 55 is believed to have
been the only complete 1863
structure remaining at Fort
Douglas
• In 2003 parts of several other
1863 buildings have been found:
– 1874: Commander’s Quarters
Parlor from 1863 District
Commander’s Residence
– 1864: Building 55
Parlor Post Surgeon’s
Quarters
– 1862-63: Building 55
Root Cellar

1874 Addition

Original 1863 Parlor

1874 Post Commander’s Residence
Source: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Moving Building 55
• First discussed in 1990
• Again in 1994
• The site chosen was Old
Deseret Village
• University of Utah did not
agree for “reasons so
compelling”
• Recommended for
preservation on site
• Discussion never progressed
further into action
• Outcome: remains on site

Old Deseret Village looking east, 2012
First proposed area to move Building 55

Source: Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995; Anne Racer to Rick
Reece, email, 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum,
Fort Douglas, Utah.

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Old Deseret Village:
Historically Camp Douglas
Pros for moving:

Cons for moving Building 55:

• Old Deseret Village was
constructed on the original
grounds of Camp Douglas
(Association)
• Preserves the structure
• Allows “basic” interpretation
of the historic structure
• Provides opportunities for new
use, but not uses the building
was intended for(Design)

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•

Moved off of original location 1+ miles
away (location)
Destroys 150 years of association to
location of the historic camp
(Association/location)
Bears no resemblance to current location
(feeling )
Would remove from NRHP an make it
ineligible for any future attempts
Removes Historic Landmark designation
Costs to move , reconstruct and restore
(materials)
Destruction of original workmanship
(workmanship)
May cause un-repairable damage to the
structure (workmanship/
materials/design)

Fort Douglas Military Museum
1917
Master Plan
POW Barracks (RC)

N: New
RE: Relocated
RC: Reconstructed
E: Existing
D: Drop Building Addition to
Historic Structure

1942
Firehouse (E)

North

1943
Barracks (RE)

and Guard Tower (RC)

Women’s
Memorial (N)

D

1863
Commanders
Home (RE)

D

D

Building 31 and 32
Current Museum (E)
Not connected yet. Black Star
Building has been completed.

1935
Shop (RE)
© 2012 Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884
Officer’s
Quarters
Duplex (RE)

Preservation Problems
• Stress fractures
• Plaster Damage
• Fire Damage
• Foundation damage
• Windows
•Adobe damage

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner , 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos:
Kimberly
Buckner
2012

A Good Move: Moving Building 55 to Fort
Douglas Military Museum Grounds
Pros:

Cons:

• A move of less than ¼ mile
• Maintains association to original
site (Association)
• Preservation of structure
(materials/design)
• Opportunities to interpret local
history of post (location)
• Chosen site provides similar view
to original location (setting)
• Allows for new use (design)
• Maintains feeling of the historic
district (Feeling)

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Removes from primary location and
original foundation (Location)
Potential to damage structure
May destroy the original
workmanship (Workmanship)
To which era of significance will it
be restored?
Original orientation may not be
possible
Will introduce modern materials
into the historic structure
(Materials)
Removes from NRHP but would
allow for reapplication/maintains
historic landmark designation

A Difference in Views
Old Deseret Village

Looking West

Fort Douglas Military
Museum Grounds

Cannon Park looking South
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Lessening the impacts:
When moving is the only Preservation
option
Old Deseret Village

Fort Douglas Military Museum

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Will lose nearly all historical identity
Not on original site, but in association with original
camp
Allows the structure to exist
Would impact the elements of original design
Area not with original feeling but among structures
who have lost their “history”
Introduction of modern materials
Further impacts to historic workmanship
Loss of National Historic Landmark Designation
Loss of NRHP listing. May not be able to reapply
Land has lost all association/use with original Camp
Douglas
New use may not be conducive to historic use
1+ mile move
Impacts all criterion of integrity
Must be removed from Federal ownership to
private

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Maintains historical Identity
Maintains association with original camp
Structure is preserved in similar location
Less than ¼ mile move
Area has maintained original feeling and
association to the camp
Loss of NHRP listing but retains eligibility for
the future
Maintains National Historic Landmark
Designation and prominence within the
historic district
Interpretation of changes in military housing
New use conducive to original use
Fully restored with historical furnishing s
Retains nearly all criterion of Integrity
Already part of museum complex
Maintains federal ownership (State of Utah
to Utah National Guard ownership)

Moving: The Right Choice?
Old Deseret Village is a good place to house relocated and reconstructed historic structures to interpret the
early territorial history of Utah
BUT…
It was not the right setting to house a unique structure like Building 55
–

Will Building 55 be remembered for its history and sense of location? Or, because of the 4th grade
field trip with limited exposure only to be quickly forgotten?

–

With so many structures will the building be properly maintained or fall victim to demolition by
neglect?

–

Potentially a Section 106 logistic nightmare (Federal holdings to “private” hands)

Whereas…
The Fort Douglas Military Museum grounds will allow the unique structure a permanent home, restoration and
ability to maintain a prominent place in Fort Douglas. It will allow for
–

more opportunities and exposure to its unique history,

–

Will ensure that it will be preserved for future generations.

If Moved to Old Deseret Village

The actual site chosen for Building 55 in 1990 was never disclosed in the documentation.
Building 55 was placed in an arbitrary location within the park.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012 Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

If moved to the Museum Grounds

Sitting in proposed Master Plan location on the museum grounds.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Future Recommendations
The recommendations for Building 55:
1.

Restoration at current site using historically accurate methods
–
Potential for learning opportunities at current site (i.e. Root Cellar)
–
Potential for gaining additional archaeological information from site
–
Root Cellar was nominated as a stand alone NHRP eligible structure in 2008.

2.

Create a viable strategic plan for living history and historic house museum (adaptive use)
–
Prepare plan to cover all preservation issues which may crop up in the next decade
–
Prepare a strategic plan for safely moving Building 55, allowing for historically
accurate restoration and renovation methods.

3.

I

Maintain Building 55 on site
–
Use authentic and historically accurate reproduction pieces
–
Interpretive/Museum use

4.
If and when the time comes, move the structure to the Fort Douglas Military Museum
grounds to maintain current preservation effort
-- Increase opportunities for interpretation of structure
-- Restore back to 1863, and use later additions for storage/office space
-- Allow for living history programs

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Any Questions?

Bibliography
•

Advisory Council Regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR 800) .

•

Anne Racer to Rick Reese, (Email), 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas
Utah

•

Andrus, Cecil B. et al. “Part 6: The National Historic Register of Historic Places.” The Manual for
State Historic Preservation Review Boards. www.nps.gov/nr/bulletins/strevman/strevman6.htm
(accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Exhibit, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Register Nomination Form, 1970.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Landmark Nomination Form, 1974, Building 7 file, Utah State
Historical Preservation Offices, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas Military Museum, Master Plan, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas , Utah.

•

Hardesty, Donald L. and Barbara Little. Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists and
Historians (Lanham, MD.: Altamira Press, 2009).

•

Haws, Greg and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History of Building 55 (7) and its inhabitants.” University
of Utah Graduate School., 12 December 1994, University of Utah Marriott Library Special
Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Loveday, Amos J. “The Decision Makers Guide to Section 106.” Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2) pp. 10-17.

•

Maintenance Records Building 33, 1933, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah .

•

Maintenance Records Building 55, 1938, Fort Douglas Military Museum

•

Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas,
Utah

•

Morgan, Elmo R. “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22October-30 September 1954.” Fort
Douglas Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

National Park Service. Cultural Resource Guidelines (2002).
www.nps.gov/history/online_books nps28/28chap8.htm (accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Parris, Thomas . “Historical Preservation.” Environment Vol. 26 no. 8, (February 2003). P. 3

• Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14
September, 1862, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.
• Plaque, Camp Floyd/Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah.

• Plaque, Deuel Cabin, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt
Lake City, Utah.
• Plaque, Levi Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village, Salt Lake City, Utah.

• “Section 106: Back to the Basics” in Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2).
• University of Utah “From Civil War Building to Entrepreneurial Mecca”,
9 September 2008, http:/unews.utah.edu/old/p/090808-1.html
(accessed 1 August 2012).
• Utah State Historical Society Photograph Collection, Utah State
Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah


Slide 17

In the Shade of Black Locusts:
Preserving the “Silent Sentinel”
of Fort Douglas

Kimberly Buckner
Volunteer Staff
Fort Douglas Military Museum
Salt Lake City, Utah

Photo: Utah State Historical Society

Copyright Notice
© 2012 Kimberly Buckner and Fort
Douglas Military Museum. All
Rights Reserved. No use of any
photographs/information in this
presentation without express
written consent of the copyright
owner(s). All photos used by
permission.

But not all historic properties
are deliberately being
destroyed. Many have fallen
victim to the “ravages of
time.” This structure near
Camp Floyd has completely
collapsed since this picture
was taken in 2010.

Preservation: A National Priority?
Thomas Parris: National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 promotes the preservation of historic
structures as a national priority

And YET thousands of historically significant
properties are being destroyed each year despite
placement on the National Register of Historic
Places
Thomas Parris, “Historic Preservation”, Environment, Vol. 46, no. 8 (February 2003), p. 3

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

A Common Misconception?
A commonly held misconception among public
audiences:
“Preservation is broadly opposed to change and by
extension, that Section 106 is a tool to block
progress.”
Instead:
“Preservation is about controlling and accommodating
change, and the entire network of preservation rules,
beginning with Section 106, is designed to accomplish
that end.”
Amos J. Loveday, “The Decision Maker’s guide to Section 106”, Forum Journal Winter 2012, Vol. 26
(2), p. 17

Preserving Eligibility
Preservation is meant to protect by not diminishing
any characteristic providing eligibility on the
National Register of Historic Places Including (but
not limited to):
• Integrity of Location
• Integrity of Design
• Integrity of Setting
• Integrity of Materials
• Integrity of Workmanship
• Integrity of Feeling
• Integrity of Association
“Section 106: Back to the Basics”, Forum Journal, Winter 2012, Vol. 26, no. 2, p.10; 36 CFR
800.5 (a)(1)

The National Register of
Historic Places
Since 1966, The National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) provides:
• Communal recognition of local, state or national
history in a visual way
• Consideration in federal undertakings and
improvement projects
• Eligibility for tax benefits through the federal
government
• Qualification for monetary funds for preservation
benefits
Donald L. Hardesty and Barbara Little, Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists
and Historians, 2nd edition, (Lanham, MD: Altamira Press, 2009).

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties
Approved treatment
options:
• Preservation
• Rehabilitation
• Reconstruction
In rare conditions:
• Demolition by neglect
• Moving the historic
structure
Historic Cabin Ca. 1860’s
La Sal, Utah
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2010. Edited by Brick R. King, 2010
Colors have been enhanced

Success Stories:
Onsite Preservation of Carson Inn, 1858
Quick Facts:
• Camp Floyd and
Stagecoach Inn State Park
• Fairfield, Utah
• Built in 1858 by John
Carson
• Adobe and Frame
Construction
• Restored June 1959
• Outcome: furnished as a
historic “house” museum

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2011
Plaque, Camp Floyd /Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah

Success Stories: Moving, Restoration and Renovation
Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, 1847 and the Deuel
Family Cabin, 1847
Deuel Cabin
•
•
•

Riter Cabin

Temple Square
Moved ca. 1989
Glass enclosed historic house museum
with period furnishings

Why are they so Important?

•
•
•

Maintained in Old Deseret Village
Moved to Old Deseret Village ca. 1989
Interpreted solely by historical plaque

• Photo

The two oldest
remaining structures
in Utah are these
original
165-year –old cabins

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village

Success Story:
Relocation to Old Deseret Village
Quick Facts:

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Historic Manti Mill,
built ca. 1858 in Manti, Utah
Relocated ca. 1989

• This is the Place Heritage
Park
• Salt Lake City, Utah
• More than 40
structures/buildings
• Buildings consist of
originals, reproductions, or
relocated 19th century
structures
• Outcome: set up as a
historic village to interpret
frontier life in Utah from
1847-1869

Other success stories
ODV

Photos: Kimberly Buckner 2012

Camp Douglas, ca. 1864
“…I found another location, which I like better for
various reasons…”– Patrick Edward Connor
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah
Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14 September 1862,
Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah.

From Camp to Fort
26 October 1862 : established Camp
Douglas
1862: “Connor Tents” and Dugouts
1863: Adobe and Log structures begun
1867: Expansion of Camp’s perimeter
1874-75: $1 Million rebuild from native
red sandstone
1878: Renamed Fort Douglas

Camp Douglas ca. 1866
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884: $63,820 expansion with 5 frame
structures

From Fort to Historic Landmark
1904-1911: $1,140,000 building expansion
1910: Introduction of electricity
1915-16: Addition of detention camp
1930: Final major building expansion
1970: Listed on National Register of Historic
Places as a heritage district
1974: Listed as National Historic Landmark
26 October 1991: Fort Douglas officially
decommissioned
2002: Athlete’s Village, 2002 Winter Olympics

Stillwell Field Looking East, 2012
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Building 55
Characteristics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

Cost $780
Less than 1900 Sq. Feet
Originally 26 ft. by 29 ft.
Adobe with frame additions
First Neoclassical cross-wing in
Utah (symmetrical design)
4 rooms
18” thick walls
3 adobe fireplaces
“Four over four” double hung
sash windows
Pine or Douglas Fir
Wooden shingle roof coated in
slate
“Lath and plastered” interior
Has a stand alone Historic
Register eligible structure below
the original building (1862 Root
Cellar)

Building 55 in 2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Greg Haws and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History
of Building 55 (7) and its Inhabitants.” University of Utah
Graduate School of Architecture,
Fort Douglas Papers, University of Utah
Marriott Library Special Collections,
Salt Lake City, Utah

Building 55, ca. 1865
“In the shadow of Red Butte, the silent sentinel…looks down upon the scene of
[their] labors, at the very spot where [they ]first camped…”
–Lieutenant Colonel Fred B. Rogers at the funeral of General Patrick Edward
Connor
Photo: Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah;
Elmo R. Morgan, “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22 October 1862-30 September 1954”, Fort Douglas
Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah(Brackets added)

Then and Now
ca. 1900

Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner

Preservation of Building 55: Additions
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

North Exterior

South Exterior

1930
Addition

Unknown
addition

1864
Frame
Addition

1862-3
Root
Cellar

1863
Original
Building

1863 Original
Building

1875
Addition
1864 Post
Surgeons
Quarter’s

1930
Addition

Extensive Known Alterations:
1864: addition of two frame rooms
1874: addition of parlor from Post Surgeon’s quarters
Removal of a fireplace
Windows changed
Fireplace enclosed
1903: Plumbing
1910: Electricity
1911-1928: steam heating, telephones, gas lines
1930: frame Lean-to addition
Windows changed
1960: fire damage repairs
Unknown: Building addition
Unknown: Exterior Stucco
Source: Maintenance Records for Building 33, 1933; Maintenance Records for Building 55, 1938

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Preservation

Unknown Addition
Ca. 1930

• Building 55 is believed to have
been the only complete 1863
structure remaining at Fort
Douglas
• In 2003 parts of several other
1863 buildings have been found:
– 1874: Commander’s Quarters
Parlor from 1863 District
Commander’s Residence
– 1864: Building 55
Parlor Post Surgeon’s
Quarters
– 1862-63: Building 55
Root Cellar

1874 Addition

Original 1863 Parlor

1874 Post Commander’s Residence
Source: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Moving Building 55
• First discussed in 1990
• Again in 1994
• The site chosen was Old
Deseret Village
• University of Utah did not
agree for “reasons so
compelling”
• Recommended for
preservation on site
• Discussion never progressed
further into action
• Outcome: remains on site

Old Deseret Village looking east, 2012
First proposed area to move Building 55

Source: Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995; Anne Racer to Rick
Reece, email, 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum,
Fort Douglas, Utah.

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Old Deseret Village:
Historically Camp Douglas
Pros for moving:

Cons for moving Building 55:

• Old Deseret Village was
constructed on the original
grounds of Camp Douglas
(Association)
• Preserves the structure
• Allows “basic” interpretation
of the historic structure
• Provides opportunities for new
use, but not uses the building
was intended for(Design)

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•

Moved off of original location 1+ miles
away (location)
Destroys 150 years of association to
location of the historic camp
(Association/location)
Bears no resemblance to current location
(feeling )
Would remove from NRHP an make it
ineligible for any future attempts
Removes Historic Landmark designation
Costs to move , reconstruct and restore
(materials)
Destruction of original workmanship
(workmanship)
May cause un-repairable damage to the
structure (workmanship/
materials/design)

Fort Douglas Military Museum
1917
Master Plan
POW Barracks (RC)

N: New
RE: Relocated
RC: Reconstructed
E: Existing
D: Drop Building Addition to
Historic Structure

1942
Firehouse (E)

North

1943
Barracks (RE)

and Guard Tower (RC)

Women’s
Memorial (N)

D

1863
Commanders
Home (RE)

D

D

Building 31 and 32
Current Museum (E)
Not connected yet. Black Star
Building has been completed.

1935
Shop (RE)
© 2012 Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884
Officer’s
Quarters
Duplex (RE)

Preservation Problems
• Stress fractures
• Plaster Damage
• Fire Damage
• Foundation damage
• Windows
•Adobe damage

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner , 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos:
Kimberly
Buckner
2012

A Good Move: Moving Building 55 to Fort
Douglas Military Museum Grounds
Pros:

Cons:

• A move of less than ¼ mile
• Maintains association to original
site (Association)
• Preservation of structure
(materials/design)
• Opportunities to interpret local
history of post (location)
• Chosen site provides similar view
to original location (setting)
• Allows for new use (design)
• Maintains feeling of the historic
district (Feeling)

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Removes from primary location and
original foundation (Location)
Potential to damage structure
May destroy the original
workmanship (Workmanship)
To which era of significance will it
be restored?
Original orientation may not be
possible
Will introduce modern materials
into the historic structure
(Materials)
Removes from NRHP but would
allow for reapplication/maintains
historic landmark designation

A Difference in Views
Old Deseret Village

Looking West

Fort Douglas Military
Museum Grounds

Cannon Park looking South
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Lessening the impacts:
When moving is the only Preservation
option
Old Deseret Village

Fort Douglas Military Museum

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Will lose nearly all historical identity
Not on original site, but in association with original
camp
Allows the structure to exist
Would impact the elements of original design
Area not with original feeling but among structures
who have lost their “history”
Introduction of modern materials
Further impacts to historic workmanship
Loss of National Historic Landmark Designation
Loss of NRHP listing. May not be able to reapply
Land has lost all association/use with original Camp
Douglas
New use may not be conducive to historic use
1+ mile move
Impacts all criterion of integrity
Must be removed from Federal ownership to
private

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Maintains historical Identity
Maintains association with original camp
Structure is preserved in similar location
Less than ¼ mile move
Area has maintained original feeling and
association to the camp
Loss of NHRP listing but retains eligibility for
the future
Maintains National Historic Landmark
Designation and prominence within the
historic district
Interpretation of changes in military housing
New use conducive to original use
Fully restored with historical furnishing s
Retains nearly all criterion of Integrity
Already part of museum complex
Maintains federal ownership (State of Utah
to Utah National Guard ownership)

Moving: The Right Choice?
Old Deseret Village is a good place to house relocated and reconstructed historic structures to interpret the
early territorial history of Utah
BUT…
It was not the right setting to house a unique structure like Building 55
–

Will Building 55 be remembered for its history and sense of location? Or, because of the 4th grade
field trip with limited exposure only to be quickly forgotten?

–

With so many structures will the building be properly maintained or fall victim to demolition by
neglect?

–

Potentially a Section 106 logistic nightmare (Federal holdings to “private” hands)

Whereas…
The Fort Douglas Military Museum grounds will allow the unique structure a permanent home, restoration and
ability to maintain a prominent place in Fort Douglas. It will allow for
–

more opportunities and exposure to its unique history,

–

Will ensure that it will be preserved for future generations.

If Moved to Old Deseret Village

The actual site chosen for Building 55 in 1990 was never disclosed in the documentation.
Building 55 was placed in an arbitrary location within the park.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012 Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

If moved to the Museum Grounds

Sitting in proposed Master Plan location on the museum grounds.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Future Recommendations
The recommendations for Building 55:
1.

Restoration at current site using historically accurate methods
–
Potential for learning opportunities at current site (i.e. Root Cellar)
–
Potential for gaining additional archaeological information from site
–
Root Cellar was nominated as a stand alone NHRP eligible structure in 2008.

2.

Create a viable strategic plan for living history and historic house museum (adaptive use)
–
Prepare plan to cover all preservation issues which may crop up in the next decade
–
Prepare a strategic plan for safely moving Building 55, allowing for historically
accurate restoration and renovation methods.

3.

I

Maintain Building 55 on site
–
Use authentic and historically accurate reproduction pieces
–
Interpretive/Museum use

4.
If and when the time comes, move the structure to the Fort Douglas Military Museum
grounds to maintain current preservation effort
-- Increase opportunities for interpretation of structure
-- Restore back to 1863, and use later additions for storage/office space
-- Allow for living history programs

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Any Questions?

Bibliography
•

Advisory Council Regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR 800) .

•

Anne Racer to Rick Reese, (Email), 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas
Utah

•

Andrus, Cecil B. et al. “Part 6: The National Historic Register of Historic Places.” The Manual for
State Historic Preservation Review Boards. www.nps.gov/nr/bulletins/strevman/strevman6.htm
(accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Exhibit, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Register Nomination Form, 1970.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Landmark Nomination Form, 1974, Building 7 file, Utah State
Historical Preservation Offices, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas Military Museum, Master Plan, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas , Utah.

•

Hardesty, Donald L. and Barbara Little. Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists and
Historians (Lanham, MD.: Altamira Press, 2009).

•

Haws, Greg and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History of Building 55 (7) and its inhabitants.” University
of Utah Graduate School., 12 December 1994, University of Utah Marriott Library Special
Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Loveday, Amos J. “The Decision Makers Guide to Section 106.” Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2) pp. 10-17.

•

Maintenance Records Building 33, 1933, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah .

•

Maintenance Records Building 55, 1938, Fort Douglas Military Museum

•

Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas,
Utah

•

Morgan, Elmo R. “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22October-30 September 1954.” Fort
Douglas Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

National Park Service. Cultural Resource Guidelines (2002).
www.nps.gov/history/online_books nps28/28chap8.htm (accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Parris, Thomas . “Historical Preservation.” Environment Vol. 26 no. 8, (February 2003). P. 3

• Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14
September, 1862, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.
• Plaque, Camp Floyd/Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah.

• Plaque, Deuel Cabin, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt
Lake City, Utah.
• Plaque, Levi Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village, Salt Lake City, Utah.

• “Section 106: Back to the Basics” in Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2).
• University of Utah “From Civil War Building to Entrepreneurial Mecca”,
9 September 2008, http:/unews.utah.edu/old/p/090808-1.html
(accessed 1 August 2012).
• Utah State Historical Society Photograph Collection, Utah State
Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah


Slide 18

In the Shade of Black Locusts:
Preserving the “Silent Sentinel”
of Fort Douglas

Kimberly Buckner
Volunteer Staff
Fort Douglas Military Museum
Salt Lake City, Utah

Photo: Utah State Historical Society

Copyright Notice
© 2012 Kimberly Buckner and Fort
Douglas Military Museum. All
Rights Reserved. No use of any
photographs/information in this
presentation without express
written consent of the copyright
owner(s). All photos used by
permission.

But not all historic properties
are deliberately being
destroyed. Many have fallen
victim to the “ravages of
time.” This structure near
Camp Floyd has completely
collapsed since this picture
was taken in 2010.

Preservation: A National Priority?
Thomas Parris: National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 promotes the preservation of historic
structures as a national priority

And YET thousands of historically significant
properties are being destroyed each year despite
placement on the National Register of Historic
Places
Thomas Parris, “Historic Preservation”, Environment, Vol. 46, no. 8 (February 2003), p. 3

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

A Common Misconception?
A commonly held misconception among public
audiences:
“Preservation is broadly opposed to change and by
extension, that Section 106 is a tool to block
progress.”
Instead:
“Preservation is about controlling and accommodating
change, and the entire network of preservation rules,
beginning with Section 106, is designed to accomplish
that end.”
Amos J. Loveday, “The Decision Maker’s guide to Section 106”, Forum Journal Winter 2012, Vol. 26
(2), p. 17

Preserving Eligibility
Preservation is meant to protect by not diminishing
any characteristic providing eligibility on the
National Register of Historic Places Including (but
not limited to):
• Integrity of Location
• Integrity of Design
• Integrity of Setting
• Integrity of Materials
• Integrity of Workmanship
• Integrity of Feeling
• Integrity of Association
“Section 106: Back to the Basics”, Forum Journal, Winter 2012, Vol. 26, no. 2, p.10; 36 CFR
800.5 (a)(1)

The National Register of
Historic Places
Since 1966, The National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) provides:
• Communal recognition of local, state or national
history in a visual way
• Consideration in federal undertakings and
improvement projects
• Eligibility for tax benefits through the federal
government
• Qualification for monetary funds for preservation
benefits
Donald L. Hardesty and Barbara Little, Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists
and Historians, 2nd edition, (Lanham, MD: Altamira Press, 2009).

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties
Approved treatment
options:
• Preservation
• Rehabilitation
• Reconstruction
In rare conditions:
• Demolition by neglect
• Moving the historic
structure
Historic Cabin Ca. 1860’s
La Sal, Utah
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2010. Edited by Brick R. King, 2010
Colors have been enhanced

Success Stories:
Onsite Preservation of Carson Inn, 1858
Quick Facts:
• Camp Floyd and
Stagecoach Inn State Park
• Fairfield, Utah
• Built in 1858 by John
Carson
• Adobe and Frame
Construction
• Restored June 1959
• Outcome: furnished as a
historic “house” museum

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2011
Plaque, Camp Floyd /Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah

Success Stories: Moving, Restoration and Renovation
Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, 1847 and the Deuel
Family Cabin, 1847
Deuel Cabin
•
•
•

Riter Cabin

Temple Square
Moved ca. 1989
Glass enclosed historic house museum
with period furnishings

Why are they so Important?

•
•
•

Maintained in Old Deseret Village
Moved to Old Deseret Village ca. 1989
Interpreted solely by historical plaque

• Photo

The two oldest
remaining structures
in Utah are these
original
165-year –old cabins

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village

Success Story:
Relocation to Old Deseret Village
Quick Facts:

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Historic Manti Mill,
built ca. 1858 in Manti, Utah
Relocated ca. 1989

• This is the Place Heritage
Park
• Salt Lake City, Utah
• More than 40
structures/buildings
• Buildings consist of
originals, reproductions, or
relocated 19th century
structures
• Outcome: set up as a
historic village to interpret
frontier life in Utah from
1847-1869

Other success stories
ODV

Photos: Kimberly Buckner 2012

Camp Douglas, ca. 1864
“…I found another location, which I like better for
various reasons…”– Patrick Edward Connor
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah
Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14 September 1862,
Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah.

From Camp to Fort
26 October 1862 : established Camp
Douglas
1862: “Connor Tents” and Dugouts
1863: Adobe and Log structures begun
1867: Expansion of Camp’s perimeter
1874-75: $1 Million rebuild from native
red sandstone
1878: Renamed Fort Douglas

Camp Douglas ca. 1866
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884: $63,820 expansion with 5 frame
structures

From Fort to Historic Landmark
1904-1911: $1,140,000 building expansion
1910: Introduction of electricity
1915-16: Addition of detention camp
1930: Final major building expansion
1970: Listed on National Register of Historic
Places as a heritage district
1974: Listed as National Historic Landmark
26 October 1991: Fort Douglas officially
decommissioned
2002: Athlete’s Village, 2002 Winter Olympics

Stillwell Field Looking East, 2012
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Building 55
Characteristics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

Cost $780
Less than 1900 Sq. Feet
Originally 26 ft. by 29 ft.
Adobe with frame additions
First Neoclassical cross-wing in
Utah (symmetrical design)
4 rooms
18” thick walls
3 adobe fireplaces
“Four over four” double hung
sash windows
Pine or Douglas Fir
Wooden shingle roof coated in
slate
“Lath and plastered” interior
Has a stand alone Historic
Register eligible structure below
the original building (1862 Root
Cellar)

Building 55 in 2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Greg Haws and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History
of Building 55 (7) and its Inhabitants.” University of Utah
Graduate School of Architecture,
Fort Douglas Papers, University of Utah
Marriott Library Special Collections,
Salt Lake City, Utah

Building 55, ca. 1865
“In the shadow of Red Butte, the silent sentinel…looks down upon the scene of
[their] labors, at the very spot where [they ]first camped…”
–Lieutenant Colonel Fred B. Rogers at the funeral of General Patrick Edward
Connor
Photo: Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah;
Elmo R. Morgan, “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22 October 1862-30 September 1954”, Fort Douglas
Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah(Brackets added)

Then and Now
ca. 1900

Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner

Preservation of Building 55: Additions
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

North Exterior

South Exterior

1930
Addition

Unknown
addition

1864
Frame
Addition

1862-3
Root
Cellar

1863
Original
Building

1863 Original
Building

1875
Addition
1864 Post
Surgeons
Quarter’s

1930
Addition

Extensive Known Alterations:
1864: addition of two frame rooms
1874: addition of parlor from Post Surgeon’s quarters
Removal of a fireplace
Windows changed
Fireplace enclosed
1903: Plumbing
1910: Electricity
1911-1928: steam heating, telephones, gas lines
1930: frame Lean-to addition
Windows changed
1960: fire damage repairs
Unknown: Building addition
Unknown: Exterior Stucco
Source: Maintenance Records for Building 33, 1933; Maintenance Records for Building 55, 1938

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Preservation

Unknown Addition
Ca. 1930

• Building 55 is believed to have
been the only complete 1863
structure remaining at Fort
Douglas
• In 2003 parts of several other
1863 buildings have been found:
– 1874: Commander’s Quarters
Parlor from 1863 District
Commander’s Residence
– 1864: Building 55
Parlor Post Surgeon’s
Quarters
– 1862-63: Building 55
Root Cellar

1874 Addition

Original 1863 Parlor

1874 Post Commander’s Residence
Source: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Moving Building 55
• First discussed in 1990
• Again in 1994
• The site chosen was Old
Deseret Village
• University of Utah did not
agree for “reasons so
compelling”
• Recommended for
preservation on site
• Discussion never progressed
further into action
• Outcome: remains on site

Old Deseret Village looking east, 2012
First proposed area to move Building 55

Source: Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995; Anne Racer to Rick
Reece, email, 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum,
Fort Douglas, Utah.

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Old Deseret Village:
Historically Camp Douglas
Pros for moving:

Cons for moving Building 55:

• Old Deseret Village was
constructed on the original
grounds of Camp Douglas
(Association)
• Preserves the structure
• Allows “basic” interpretation
of the historic structure
• Provides opportunities for new
use, but not uses the building
was intended for(Design)

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•

Moved off of original location 1+ miles
away (location)
Destroys 150 years of association to
location of the historic camp
(Association/location)
Bears no resemblance to current location
(feeling )
Would remove from NRHP an make it
ineligible for any future attempts
Removes Historic Landmark designation
Costs to move , reconstruct and restore
(materials)
Destruction of original workmanship
(workmanship)
May cause un-repairable damage to the
structure (workmanship/
materials/design)

Fort Douglas Military Museum
1917
Master Plan
POW Barracks (RC)

N: New
RE: Relocated
RC: Reconstructed
E: Existing
D: Drop Building Addition to
Historic Structure

1942
Firehouse (E)

North

1943
Barracks (RE)

and Guard Tower (RC)

Women’s
Memorial (N)

D

1863
Commanders
Home (RE)

D

D

Building 31 and 32
Current Museum (E)
Not connected yet. Black Star
Building has been completed.

1935
Shop (RE)
© 2012 Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884
Officer’s
Quarters
Duplex (RE)

Preservation Problems
• Stress fractures
• Plaster Damage
• Fire Damage
• Foundation damage
• Windows
•Adobe damage

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner , 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos:
Kimberly
Buckner
2012

A Good Move: Moving Building 55 to Fort
Douglas Military Museum Grounds
Pros:

Cons:

• A move of less than ¼ mile
• Maintains association to original
site (Association)
• Preservation of structure
(materials/design)
• Opportunities to interpret local
history of post (location)
• Chosen site provides similar view
to original location (setting)
• Allows for new use (design)
• Maintains feeling of the historic
district (Feeling)

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Removes from primary location and
original foundation (Location)
Potential to damage structure
May destroy the original
workmanship (Workmanship)
To which era of significance will it
be restored?
Original orientation may not be
possible
Will introduce modern materials
into the historic structure
(Materials)
Removes from NRHP but would
allow for reapplication/maintains
historic landmark designation

A Difference in Views
Old Deseret Village

Looking West

Fort Douglas Military
Museum Grounds

Cannon Park looking South
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Lessening the impacts:
When moving is the only Preservation
option
Old Deseret Village

Fort Douglas Military Museum

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Will lose nearly all historical identity
Not on original site, but in association with original
camp
Allows the structure to exist
Would impact the elements of original design
Area not with original feeling but among structures
who have lost their “history”
Introduction of modern materials
Further impacts to historic workmanship
Loss of National Historic Landmark Designation
Loss of NRHP listing. May not be able to reapply
Land has lost all association/use with original Camp
Douglas
New use may not be conducive to historic use
1+ mile move
Impacts all criterion of integrity
Must be removed from Federal ownership to
private

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Maintains historical Identity
Maintains association with original camp
Structure is preserved in similar location
Less than ¼ mile move
Area has maintained original feeling and
association to the camp
Loss of NHRP listing but retains eligibility for
the future
Maintains National Historic Landmark
Designation and prominence within the
historic district
Interpretation of changes in military housing
New use conducive to original use
Fully restored with historical furnishing s
Retains nearly all criterion of Integrity
Already part of museum complex
Maintains federal ownership (State of Utah
to Utah National Guard ownership)

Moving: The Right Choice?
Old Deseret Village is a good place to house relocated and reconstructed historic structures to interpret the
early territorial history of Utah
BUT…
It was not the right setting to house a unique structure like Building 55
–

Will Building 55 be remembered for its history and sense of location? Or, because of the 4th grade
field trip with limited exposure only to be quickly forgotten?

–

With so many structures will the building be properly maintained or fall victim to demolition by
neglect?

–

Potentially a Section 106 logistic nightmare (Federal holdings to “private” hands)

Whereas…
The Fort Douglas Military Museum grounds will allow the unique structure a permanent home, restoration and
ability to maintain a prominent place in Fort Douglas. It will allow for
–

more opportunities and exposure to its unique history,

–

Will ensure that it will be preserved for future generations.

If Moved to Old Deseret Village

The actual site chosen for Building 55 in 1990 was never disclosed in the documentation.
Building 55 was placed in an arbitrary location within the park.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012 Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

If moved to the Museum Grounds

Sitting in proposed Master Plan location on the museum grounds.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Future Recommendations
The recommendations for Building 55:
1.

Restoration at current site using historically accurate methods
–
Potential for learning opportunities at current site (i.e. Root Cellar)
–
Potential for gaining additional archaeological information from site
–
Root Cellar was nominated as a stand alone NHRP eligible structure in 2008.

2.

Create a viable strategic plan for living history and historic house museum (adaptive use)
–
Prepare plan to cover all preservation issues which may crop up in the next decade
–
Prepare a strategic plan for safely moving Building 55, allowing for historically
accurate restoration and renovation methods.

3.

I

Maintain Building 55 on site
–
Use authentic and historically accurate reproduction pieces
–
Interpretive/Museum use

4.
If and when the time comes, move the structure to the Fort Douglas Military Museum
grounds to maintain current preservation effort
-- Increase opportunities for interpretation of structure
-- Restore back to 1863, and use later additions for storage/office space
-- Allow for living history programs

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Any Questions?

Bibliography
•

Advisory Council Regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR 800) .

•

Anne Racer to Rick Reese, (Email), 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas
Utah

•

Andrus, Cecil B. et al. “Part 6: The National Historic Register of Historic Places.” The Manual for
State Historic Preservation Review Boards. www.nps.gov/nr/bulletins/strevman/strevman6.htm
(accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Exhibit, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Register Nomination Form, 1970.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Landmark Nomination Form, 1974, Building 7 file, Utah State
Historical Preservation Offices, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas Military Museum, Master Plan, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas , Utah.

•

Hardesty, Donald L. and Barbara Little. Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists and
Historians (Lanham, MD.: Altamira Press, 2009).

•

Haws, Greg and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History of Building 55 (7) and its inhabitants.” University
of Utah Graduate School., 12 December 1994, University of Utah Marriott Library Special
Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Loveday, Amos J. “The Decision Makers Guide to Section 106.” Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2) pp. 10-17.

•

Maintenance Records Building 33, 1933, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah .

•

Maintenance Records Building 55, 1938, Fort Douglas Military Museum

•

Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas,
Utah

•

Morgan, Elmo R. “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22October-30 September 1954.” Fort
Douglas Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

National Park Service. Cultural Resource Guidelines (2002).
www.nps.gov/history/online_books nps28/28chap8.htm (accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Parris, Thomas . “Historical Preservation.” Environment Vol. 26 no. 8, (February 2003). P. 3

• Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14
September, 1862, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.
• Plaque, Camp Floyd/Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah.

• Plaque, Deuel Cabin, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt
Lake City, Utah.
• Plaque, Levi Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village, Salt Lake City, Utah.

• “Section 106: Back to the Basics” in Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2).
• University of Utah “From Civil War Building to Entrepreneurial Mecca”,
9 September 2008, http:/unews.utah.edu/old/p/090808-1.html
(accessed 1 August 2012).
• Utah State Historical Society Photograph Collection, Utah State
Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah


Slide 19

In the Shade of Black Locusts:
Preserving the “Silent Sentinel”
of Fort Douglas

Kimberly Buckner
Volunteer Staff
Fort Douglas Military Museum
Salt Lake City, Utah

Photo: Utah State Historical Society

Copyright Notice
© 2012 Kimberly Buckner and Fort
Douglas Military Museum. All
Rights Reserved. No use of any
photographs/information in this
presentation without express
written consent of the copyright
owner(s). All photos used by
permission.

But not all historic properties
are deliberately being
destroyed. Many have fallen
victim to the “ravages of
time.” This structure near
Camp Floyd has completely
collapsed since this picture
was taken in 2010.

Preservation: A National Priority?
Thomas Parris: National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 promotes the preservation of historic
structures as a national priority

And YET thousands of historically significant
properties are being destroyed each year despite
placement on the National Register of Historic
Places
Thomas Parris, “Historic Preservation”, Environment, Vol. 46, no. 8 (February 2003), p. 3

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

A Common Misconception?
A commonly held misconception among public
audiences:
“Preservation is broadly opposed to change and by
extension, that Section 106 is a tool to block
progress.”
Instead:
“Preservation is about controlling and accommodating
change, and the entire network of preservation rules,
beginning with Section 106, is designed to accomplish
that end.”
Amos J. Loveday, “The Decision Maker’s guide to Section 106”, Forum Journal Winter 2012, Vol. 26
(2), p. 17

Preserving Eligibility
Preservation is meant to protect by not diminishing
any characteristic providing eligibility on the
National Register of Historic Places Including (but
not limited to):
• Integrity of Location
• Integrity of Design
• Integrity of Setting
• Integrity of Materials
• Integrity of Workmanship
• Integrity of Feeling
• Integrity of Association
“Section 106: Back to the Basics”, Forum Journal, Winter 2012, Vol. 26, no. 2, p.10; 36 CFR
800.5 (a)(1)

The National Register of
Historic Places
Since 1966, The National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) provides:
• Communal recognition of local, state or national
history in a visual way
• Consideration in federal undertakings and
improvement projects
• Eligibility for tax benefits through the federal
government
• Qualification for monetary funds for preservation
benefits
Donald L. Hardesty and Barbara Little, Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists
and Historians, 2nd edition, (Lanham, MD: Altamira Press, 2009).

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties
Approved treatment
options:
• Preservation
• Rehabilitation
• Reconstruction
In rare conditions:
• Demolition by neglect
• Moving the historic
structure
Historic Cabin Ca. 1860’s
La Sal, Utah
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2010. Edited by Brick R. King, 2010
Colors have been enhanced

Success Stories:
Onsite Preservation of Carson Inn, 1858
Quick Facts:
• Camp Floyd and
Stagecoach Inn State Park
• Fairfield, Utah
• Built in 1858 by John
Carson
• Adobe and Frame
Construction
• Restored June 1959
• Outcome: furnished as a
historic “house” museum

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2011
Plaque, Camp Floyd /Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah

Success Stories: Moving, Restoration and Renovation
Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, 1847 and the Deuel
Family Cabin, 1847
Deuel Cabin
•
•
•

Riter Cabin

Temple Square
Moved ca. 1989
Glass enclosed historic house museum
with period furnishings

Why are they so Important?

•
•
•

Maintained in Old Deseret Village
Moved to Old Deseret Village ca. 1989
Interpreted solely by historical plaque

• Photo

The two oldest
remaining structures
in Utah are these
original
165-year –old cabins

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village

Success Story:
Relocation to Old Deseret Village
Quick Facts:

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Historic Manti Mill,
built ca. 1858 in Manti, Utah
Relocated ca. 1989

• This is the Place Heritage
Park
• Salt Lake City, Utah
• More than 40
structures/buildings
• Buildings consist of
originals, reproductions, or
relocated 19th century
structures
• Outcome: set up as a
historic village to interpret
frontier life in Utah from
1847-1869

Other success stories
ODV

Photos: Kimberly Buckner 2012

Camp Douglas, ca. 1864
“…I found another location, which I like better for
various reasons…”– Patrick Edward Connor
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah
Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14 September 1862,
Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah.

From Camp to Fort
26 October 1862 : established Camp
Douglas
1862: “Connor Tents” and Dugouts
1863: Adobe and Log structures begun
1867: Expansion of Camp’s perimeter
1874-75: $1 Million rebuild from native
red sandstone
1878: Renamed Fort Douglas

Camp Douglas ca. 1866
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884: $63,820 expansion with 5 frame
structures

From Fort to Historic Landmark
1904-1911: $1,140,000 building expansion
1910: Introduction of electricity
1915-16: Addition of detention camp
1930: Final major building expansion
1970: Listed on National Register of Historic
Places as a heritage district
1974: Listed as National Historic Landmark
26 October 1991: Fort Douglas officially
decommissioned
2002: Athlete’s Village, 2002 Winter Olympics

Stillwell Field Looking East, 2012
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Building 55
Characteristics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

Cost $780
Less than 1900 Sq. Feet
Originally 26 ft. by 29 ft.
Adobe with frame additions
First Neoclassical cross-wing in
Utah (symmetrical design)
4 rooms
18” thick walls
3 adobe fireplaces
“Four over four” double hung
sash windows
Pine or Douglas Fir
Wooden shingle roof coated in
slate
“Lath and plastered” interior
Has a stand alone Historic
Register eligible structure below
the original building (1862 Root
Cellar)

Building 55 in 2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Greg Haws and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History
of Building 55 (7) and its Inhabitants.” University of Utah
Graduate School of Architecture,
Fort Douglas Papers, University of Utah
Marriott Library Special Collections,
Salt Lake City, Utah

Building 55, ca. 1865
“In the shadow of Red Butte, the silent sentinel…looks down upon the scene of
[their] labors, at the very spot where [they ]first camped…”
–Lieutenant Colonel Fred B. Rogers at the funeral of General Patrick Edward
Connor
Photo: Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah;
Elmo R. Morgan, “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22 October 1862-30 September 1954”, Fort Douglas
Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah(Brackets added)

Then and Now
ca. 1900

Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner

Preservation of Building 55: Additions
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

North Exterior

South Exterior

1930
Addition

Unknown
addition

1864
Frame
Addition

1862-3
Root
Cellar

1863
Original
Building

1863 Original
Building

1875
Addition
1864 Post
Surgeons
Quarter’s

1930
Addition

Extensive Known Alterations:
1864: addition of two frame rooms
1874: addition of parlor from Post Surgeon’s quarters
Removal of a fireplace
Windows changed
Fireplace enclosed
1903: Plumbing
1910: Electricity
1911-1928: steam heating, telephones, gas lines
1930: frame Lean-to addition
Windows changed
1960: fire damage repairs
Unknown: Building addition
Unknown: Exterior Stucco
Source: Maintenance Records for Building 33, 1933; Maintenance Records for Building 55, 1938

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Preservation

Unknown Addition
Ca. 1930

• Building 55 is believed to have
been the only complete 1863
structure remaining at Fort
Douglas
• In 2003 parts of several other
1863 buildings have been found:
– 1874: Commander’s Quarters
Parlor from 1863 District
Commander’s Residence
– 1864: Building 55
Parlor Post Surgeon’s
Quarters
– 1862-63: Building 55
Root Cellar

1874 Addition

Original 1863 Parlor

1874 Post Commander’s Residence
Source: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Moving Building 55
• First discussed in 1990
• Again in 1994
• The site chosen was Old
Deseret Village
• University of Utah did not
agree for “reasons so
compelling”
• Recommended for
preservation on site
• Discussion never progressed
further into action
• Outcome: remains on site

Old Deseret Village looking east, 2012
First proposed area to move Building 55

Source: Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995; Anne Racer to Rick
Reece, email, 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum,
Fort Douglas, Utah.

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Old Deseret Village:
Historically Camp Douglas
Pros for moving:

Cons for moving Building 55:

• Old Deseret Village was
constructed on the original
grounds of Camp Douglas
(Association)
• Preserves the structure
• Allows “basic” interpretation
of the historic structure
• Provides opportunities for new
use, but not uses the building
was intended for(Design)

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•

Moved off of original location 1+ miles
away (location)
Destroys 150 years of association to
location of the historic camp
(Association/location)
Bears no resemblance to current location
(feeling )
Would remove from NRHP an make it
ineligible for any future attempts
Removes Historic Landmark designation
Costs to move , reconstruct and restore
(materials)
Destruction of original workmanship
(workmanship)
May cause un-repairable damage to the
structure (workmanship/
materials/design)

Fort Douglas Military Museum
1917
Master Plan
POW Barracks (RC)

N: New
RE: Relocated
RC: Reconstructed
E: Existing
D: Drop Building Addition to
Historic Structure

1942
Firehouse (E)

North

1943
Barracks (RE)

and Guard Tower (RC)

Women’s
Memorial (N)

D

1863
Commanders
Home (RE)

D

D

Building 31 and 32
Current Museum (E)
Not connected yet. Black Star
Building has been completed.

1935
Shop (RE)
© 2012 Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884
Officer’s
Quarters
Duplex (RE)

Preservation Problems
• Stress fractures
• Plaster Damage
• Fire Damage
• Foundation damage
• Windows
•Adobe damage

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner , 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos:
Kimberly
Buckner
2012

A Good Move: Moving Building 55 to Fort
Douglas Military Museum Grounds
Pros:

Cons:

• A move of less than ¼ mile
• Maintains association to original
site (Association)
• Preservation of structure
(materials/design)
• Opportunities to interpret local
history of post (location)
• Chosen site provides similar view
to original location (setting)
• Allows for new use (design)
• Maintains feeling of the historic
district (Feeling)

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Removes from primary location and
original foundation (Location)
Potential to damage structure
May destroy the original
workmanship (Workmanship)
To which era of significance will it
be restored?
Original orientation may not be
possible
Will introduce modern materials
into the historic structure
(Materials)
Removes from NRHP but would
allow for reapplication/maintains
historic landmark designation

A Difference in Views
Old Deseret Village

Looking West

Fort Douglas Military
Museum Grounds

Cannon Park looking South
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Lessening the impacts:
When moving is the only Preservation
option
Old Deseret Village

Fort Douglas Military Museum

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Will lose nearly all historical identity
Not on original site, but in association with original
camp
Allows the structure to exist
Would impact the elements of original design
Area not with original feeling but among structures
who have lost their “history”
Introduction of modern materials
Further impacts to historic workmanship
Loss of National Historic Landmark Designation
Loss of NRHP listing. May not be able to reapply
Land has lost all association/use with original Camp
Douglas
New use may not be conducive to historic use
1+ mile move
Impacts all criterion of integrity
Must be removed from Federal ownership to
private

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Maintains historical Identity
Maintains association with original camp
Structure is preserved in similar location
Less than ¼ mile move
Area has maintained original feeling and
association to the camp
Loss of NHRP listing but retains eligibility for
the future
Maintains National Historic Landmark
Designation and prominence within the
historic district
Interpretation of changes in military housing
New use conducive to original use
Fully restored with historical furnishing s
Retains nearly all criterion of Integrity
Already part of museum complex
Maintains federal ownership (State of Utah
to Utah National Guard ownership)

Moving: The Right Choice?
Old Deseret Village is a good place to house relocated and reconstructed historic structures to interpret the
early territorial history of Utah
BUT…
It was not the right setting to house a unique structure like Building 55
–

Will Building 55 be remembered for its history and sense of location? Or, because of the 4th grade
field trip with limited exposure only to be quickly forgotten?

–

With so many structures will the building be properly maintained or fall victim to demolition by
neglect?

–

Potentially a Section 106 logistic nightmare (Federal holdings to “private” hands)

Whereas…
The Fort Douglas Military Museum grounds will allow the unique structure a permanent home, restoration and
ability to maintain a prominent place in Fort Douglas. It will allow for
–

more opportunities and exposure to its unique history,

–

Will ensure that it will be preserved for future generations.

If Moved to Old Deseret Village

The actual site chosen for Building 55 in 1990 was never disclosed in the documentation.
Building 55 was placed in an arbitrary location within the park.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012 Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

If moved to the Museum Grounds

Sitting in proposed Master Plan location on the museum grounds.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Future Recommendations
The recommendations for Building 55:
1.

Restoration at current site using historically accurate methods
–
Potential for learning opportunities at current site (i.e. Root Cellar)
–
Potential for gaining additional archaeological information from site
–
Root Cellar was nominated as a stand alone NHRP eligible structure in 2008.

2.

Create a viable strategic plan for living history and historic house museum (adaptive use)
–
Prepare plan to cover all preservation issues which may crop up in the next decade
–
Prepare a strategic plan for safely moving Building 55, allowing for historically
accurate restoration and renovation methods.

3.

I

Maintain Building 55 on site
–
Use authentic and historically accurate reproduction pieces
–
Interpretive/Museum use

4.
If and when the time comes, move the structure to the Fort Douglas Military Museum
grounds to maintain current preservation effort
-- Increase opportunities for interpretation of structure
-- Restore back to 1863, and use later additions for storage/office space
-- Allow for living history programs

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Any Questions?

Bibliography
•

Advisory Council Regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR 800) .

•

Anne Racer to Rick Reese, (Email), 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas
Utah

•

Andrus, Cecil B. et al. “Part 6: The National Historic Register of Historic Places.” The Manual for
State Historic Preservation Review Boards. www.nps.gov/nr/bulletins/strevman/strevman6.htm
(accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Exhibit, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Register Nomination Form, 1970.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Landmark Nomination Form, 1974, Building 7 file, Utah State
Historical Preservation Offices, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas Military Museum, Master Plan, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas , Utah.

•

Hardesty, Donald L. and Barbara Little. Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists and
Historians (Lanham, MD.: Altamira Press, 2009).

•

Haws, Greg and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History of Building 55 (7) and its inhabitants.” University
of Utah Graduate School., 12 December 1994, University of Utah Marriott Library Special
Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Loveday, Amos J. “The Decision Makers Guide to Section 106.” Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2) pp. 10-17.

•

Maintenance Records Building 33, 1933, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah .

•

Maintenance Records Building 55, 1938, Fort Douglas Military Museum

•

Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas,
Utah

•

Morgan, Elmo R. “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22October-30 September 1954.” Fort
Douglas Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

National Park Service. Cultural Resource Guidelines (2002).
www.nps.gov/history/online_books nps28/28chap8.htm (accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Parris, Thomas . “Historical Preservation.” Environment Vol. 26 no. 8, (February 2003). P. 3

• Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14
September, 1862, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.
• Plaque, Camp Floyd/Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah.

• Plaque, Deuel Cabin, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt
Lake City, Utah.
• Plaque, Levi Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village, Salt Lake City, Utah.

• “Section 106: Back to the Basics” in Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2).
• University of Utah “From Civil War Building to Entrepreneurial Mecca”,
9 September 2008, http:/unews.utah.edu/old/p/090808-1.html
(accessed 1 August 2012).
• Utah State Historical Society Photograph Collection, Utah State
Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah


Slide 20

In the Shade of Black Locusts:
Preserving the “Silent Sentinel”
of Fort Douglas

Kimberly Buckner
Volunteer Staff
Fort Douglas Military Museum
Salt Lake City, Utah

Photo: Utah State Historical Society

Copyright Notice
© 2012 Kimberly Buckner and Fort
Douglas Military Museum. All
Rights Reserved. No use of any
photographs/information in this
presentation without express
written consent of the copyright
owner(s). All photos used by
permission.

But not all historic properties
are deliberately being
destroyed. Many have fallen
victim to the “ravages of
time.” This structure near
Camp Floyd has completely
collapsed since this picture
was taken in 2010.

Preservation: A National Priority?
Thomas Parris: National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 promotes the preservation of historic
structures as a national priority

And YET thousands of historically significant
properties are being destroyed each year despite
placement on the National Register of Historic
Places
Thomas Parris, “Historic Preservation”, Environment, Vol. 46, no. 8 (February 2003), p. 3

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

A Common Misconception?
A commonly held misconception among public
audiences:
“Preservation is broadly opposed to change and by
extension, that Section 106 is a tool to block
progress.”
Instead:
“Preservation is about controlling and accommodating
change, and the entire network of preservation rules,
beginning with Section 106, is designed to accomplish
that end.”
Amos J. Loveday, “The Decision Maker’s guide to Section 106”, Forum Journal Winter 2012, Vol. 26
(2), p. 17

Preserving Eligibility
Preservation is meant to protect by not diminishing
any characteristic providing eligibility on the
National Register of Historic Places Including (but
not limited to):
• Integrity of Location
• Integrity of Design
• Integrity of Setting
• Integrity of Materials
• Integrity of Workmanship
• Integrity of Feeling
• Integrity of Association
“Section 106: Back to the Basics”, Forum Journal, Winter 2012, Vol. 26, no. 2, p.10; 36 CFR
800.5 (a)(1)

The National Register of
Historic Places
Since 1966, The National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) provides:
• Communal recognition of local, state or national
history in a visual way
• Consideration in federal undertakings and
improvement projects
• Eligibility for tax benefits through the federal
government
• Qualification for monetary funds for preservation
benefits
Donald L. Hardesty and Barbara Little, Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists
and Historians, 2nd edition, (Lanham, MD: Altamira Press, 2009).

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties
Approved treatment
options:
• Preservation
• Rehabilitation
• Reconstruction
In rare conditions:
• Demolition by neglect
• Moving the historic
structure
Historic Cabin Ca. 1860’s
La Sal, Utah
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2010. Edited by Brick R. King, 2010
Colors have been enhanced

Success Stories:
Onsite Preservation of Carson Inn, 1858
Quick Facts:
• Camp Floyd and
Stagecoach Inn State Park
• Fairfield, Utah
• Built in 1858 by John
Carson
• Adobe and Frame
Construction
• Restored June 1959
• Outcome: furnished as a
historic “house” museum

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2011
Plaque, Camp Floyd /Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah

Success Stories: Moving, Restoration and Renovation
Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, 1847 and the Deuel
Family Cabin, 1847
Deuel Cabin
•
•
•

Riter Cabin

Temple Square
Moved ca. 1989
Glass enclosed historic house museum
with period furnishings

Why are they so Important?

•
•
•

Maintained in Old Deseret Village
Moved to Old Deseret Village ca. 1989
Interpreted solely by historical plaque

• Photo

The two oldest
remaining structures
in Utah are these
original
165-year –old cabins

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village

Success Story:
Relocation to Old Deseret Village
Quick Facts:

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Historic Manti Mill,
built ca. 1858 in Manti, Utah
Relocated ca. 1989

• This is the Place Heritage
Park
• Salt Lake City, Utah
• More than 40
structures/buildings
• Buildings consist of
originals, reproductions, or
relocated 19th century
structures
• Outcome: set up as a
historic village to interpret
frontier life in Utah from
1847-1869

Other success stories
ODV

Photos: Kimberly Buckner 2012

Camp Douglas, ca. 1864
“…I found another location, which I like better for
various reasons…”– Patrick Edward Connor
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah
Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14 September 1862,
Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah.

From Camp to Fort
26 October 1862 : established Camp
Douglas
1862: “Connor Tents” and Dugouts
1863: Adobe and Log structures begun
1867: Expansion of Camp’s perimeter
1874-75: $1 Million rebuild from native
red sandstone
1878: Renamed Fort Douglas

Camp Douglas ca. 1866
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884: $63,820 expansion with 5 frame
structures

From Fort to Historic Landmark
1904-1911: $1,140,000 building expansion
1910: Introduction of electricity
1915-16: Addition of detention camp
1930: Final major building expansion
1970: Listed on National Register of Historic
Places as a heritage district
1974: Listed as National Historic Landmark
26 October 1991: Fort Douglas officially
decommissioned
2002: Athlete’s Village, 2002 Winter Olympics

Stillwell Field Looking East, 2012
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Building 55
Characteristics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

Cost $780
Less than 1900 Sq. Feet
Originally 26 ft. by 29 ft.
Adobe with frame additions
First Neoclassical cross-wing in
Utah (symmetrical design)
4 rooms
18” thick walls
3 adobe fireplaces
“Four over four” double hung
sash windows
Pine or Douglas Fir
Wooden shingle roof coated in
slate
“Lath and plastered” interior
Has a stand alone Historic
Register eligible structure below
the original building (1862 Root
Cellar)

Building 55 in 2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Greg Haws and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History
of Building 55 (7) and its Inhabitants.” University of Utah
Graduate School of Architecture,
Fort Douglas Papers, University of Utah
Marriott Library Special Collections,
Salt Lake City, Utah

Building 55, ca. 1865
“In the shadow of Red Butte, the silent sentinel…looks down upon the scene of
[their] labors, at the very spot where [they ]first camped…”
–Lieutenant Colonel Fred B. Rogers at the funeral of General Patrick Edward
Connor
Photo: Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah;
Elmo R. Morgan, “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22 October 1862-30 September 1954”, Fort Douglas
Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah(Brackets added)

Then and Now
ca. 1900

Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner

Preservation of Building 55: Additions
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

North Exterior

South Exterior

1930
Addition

Unknown
addition

1864
Frame
Addition

1862-3
Root
Cellar

1863
Original
Building

1863 Original
Building

1875
Addition
1864 Post
Surgeons
Quarter’s

1930
Addition

Extensive Known Alterations:
1864: addition of two frame rooms
1874: addition of parlor from Post Surgeon’s quarters
Removal of a fireplace
Windows changed
Fireplace enclosed
1903: Plumbing
1910: Electricity
1911-1928: steam heating, telephones, gas lines
1930: frame Lean-to addition
Windows changed
1960: fire damage repairs
Unknown: Building addition
Unknown: Exterior Stucco
Source: Maintenance Records for Building 33, 1933; Maintenance Records for Building 55, 1938

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Preservation

Unknown Addition
Ca. 1930

• Building 55 is believed to have
been the only complete 1863
structure remaining at Fort
Douglas
• In 2003 parts of several other
1863 buildings have been found:
– 1874: Commander’s Quarters
Parlor from 1863 District
Commander’s Residence
– 1864: Building 55
Parlor Post Surgeon’s
Quarters
– 1862-63: Building 55
Root Cellar

1874 Addition

Original 1863 Parlor

1874 Post Commander’s Residence
Source: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Moving Building 55
• First discussed in 1990
• Again in 1994
• The site chosen was Old
Deseret Village
• University of Utah did not
agree for “reasons so
compelling”
• Recommended for
preservation on site
• Discussion never progressed
further into action
• Outcome: remains on site

Old Deseret Village looking east, 2012
First proposed area to move Building 55

Source: Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995; Anne Racer to Rick
Reece, email, 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum,
Fort Douglas, Utah.

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Old Deseret Village:
Historically Camp Douglas
Pros for moving:

Cons for moving Building 55:

• Old Deseret Village was
constructed on the original
grounds of Camp Douglas
(Association)
• Preserves the structure
• Allows “basic” interpretation
of the historic structure
• Provides opportunities for new
use, but not uses the building
was intended for(Design)

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•

Moved off of original location 1+ miles
away (location)
Destroys 150 years of association to
location of the historic camp
(Association/location)
Bears no resemblance to current location
(feeling )
Would remove from NRHP an make it
ineligible for any future attempts
Removes Historic Landmark designation
Costs to move , reconstruct and restore
(materials)
Destruction of original workmanship
(workmanship)
May cause un-repairable damage to the
structure (workmanship/
materials/design)

Fort Douglas Military Museum
1917
Master Plan
POW Barracks (RC)

N: New
RE: Relocated
RC: Reconstructed
E: Existing
D: Drop Building Addition to
Historic Structure

1942
Firehouse (E)

North

1943
Barracks (RE)

and Guard Tower (RC)

Women’s
Memorial (N)

D

1863
Commanders
Home (RE)

D

D

Building 31 and 32
Current Museum (E)
Not connected yet. Black Star
Building has been completed.

1935
Shop (RE)
© 2012 Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884
Officer’s
Quarters
Duplex (RE)

Preservation Problems
• Stress fractures
• Plaster Damage
• Fire Damage
• Foundation damage
• Windows
•Adobe damage

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner , 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos:
Kimberly
Buckner
2012

A Good Move: Moving Building 55 to Fort
Douglas Military Museum Grounds
Pros:

Cons:

• A move of less than ¼ mile
• Maintains association to original
site (Association)
• Preservation of structure
(materials/design)
• Opportunities to interpret local
history of post (location)
• Chosen site provides similar view
to original location (setting)
• Allows for new use (design)
• Maintains feeling of the historic
district (Feeling)

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Removes from primary location and
original foundation (Location)
Potential to damage structure
May destroy the original
workmanship (Workmanship)
To which era of significance will it
be restored?
Original orientation may not be
possible
Will introduce modern materials
into the historic structure
(Materials)
Removes from NRHP but would
allow for reapplication/maintains
historic landmark designation

A Difference in Views
Old Deseret Village

Looking West

Fort Douglas Military
Museum Grounds

Cannon Park looking South
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Lessening the impacts:
When moving is the only Preservation
option
Old Deseret Village

Fort Douglas Military Museum

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Will lose nearly all historical identity
Not on original site, but in association with original
camp
Allows the structure to exist
Would impact the elements of original design
Area not with original feeling but among structures
who have lost their “history”
Introduction of modern materials
Further impacts to historic workmanship
Loss of National Historic Landmark Designation
Loss of NRHP listing. May not be able to reapply
Land has lost all association/use with original Camp
Douglas
New use may not be conducive to historic use
1+ mile move
Impacts all criterion of integrity
Must be removed from Federal ownership to
private

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Maintains historical Identity
Maintains association with original camp
Structure is preserved in similar location
Less than ¼ mile move
Area has maintained original feeling and
association to the camp
Loss of NHRP listing but retains eligibility for
the future
Maintains National Historic Landmark
Designation and prominence within the
historic district
Interpretation of changes in military housing
New use conducive to original use
Fully restored with historical furnishing s
Retains nearly all criterion of Integrity
Already part of museum complex
Maintains federal ownership (State of Utah
to Utah National Guard ownership)

Moving: The Right Choice?
Old Deseret Village is a good place to house relocated and reconstructed historic structures to interpret the
early territorial history of Utah
BUT…
It was not the right setting to house a unique structure like Building 55
–

Will Building 55 be remembered for its history and sense of location? Or, because of the 4th grade
field trip with limited exposure only to be quickly forgotten?

–

With so many structures will the building be properly maintained or fall victim to demolition by
neglect?

–

Potentially a Section 106 logistic nightmare (Federal holdings to “private” hands)

Whereas…
The Fort Douglas Military Museum grounds will allow the unique structure a permanent home, restoration and
ability to maintain a prominent place in Fort Douglas. It will allow for
–

more opportunities and exposure to its unique history,

–

Will ensure that it will be preserved for future generations.

If Moved to Old Deseret Village

The actual site chosen for Building 55 in 1990 was never disclosed in the documentation.
Building 55 was placed in an arbitrary location within the park.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012 Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

If moved to the Museum Grounds

Sitting in proposed Master Plan location on the museum grounds.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Future Recommendations
The recommendations for Building 55:
1.

Restoration at current site using historically accurate methods
–
Potential for learning opportunities at current site (i.e. Root Cellar)
–
Potential for gaining additional archaeological information from site
–
Root Cellar was nominated as a stand alone NHRP eligible structure in 2008.

2.

Create a viable strategic plan for living history and historic house museum (adaptive use)
–
Prepare plan to cover all preservation issues which may crop up in the next decade
–
Prepare a strategic plan for safely moving Building 55, allowing for historically
accurate restoration and renovation methods.

3.

I

Maintain Building 55 on site
–
Use authentic and historically accurate reproduction pieces
–
Interpretive/Museum use

4.
If and when the time comes, move the structure to the Fort Douglas Military Museum
grounds to maintain current preservation effort
-- Increase opportunities for interpretation of structure
-- Restore back to 1863, and use later additions for storage/office space
-- Allow for living history programs

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Any Questions?

Bibliography
•

Advisory Council Regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR 800) .

•

Anne Racer to Rick Reese, (Email), 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas
Utah

•

Andrus, Cecil B. et al. “Part 6: The National Historic Register of Historic Places.” The Manual for
State Historic Preservation Review Boards. www.nps.gov/nr/bulletins/strevman/strevman6.htm
(accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Exhibit, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Register Nomination Form, 1970.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Landmark Nomination Form, 1974, Building 7 file, Utah State
Historical Preservation Offices, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas Military Museum, Master Plan, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas , Utah.

•

Hardesty, Donald L. and Barbara Little. Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists and
Historians (Lanham, MD.: Altamira Press, 2009).

•

Haws, Greg and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History of Building 55 (7) and its inhabitants.” University
of Utah Graduate School., 12 December 1994, University of Utah Marriott Library Special
Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Loveday, Amos J. “The Decision Makers Guide to Section 106.” Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2) pp. 10-17.

•

Maintenance Records Building 33, 1933, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah .

•

Maintenance Records Building 55, 1938, Fort Douglas Military Museum

•

Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas,
Utah

•

Morgan, Elmo R. “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22October-30 September 1954.” Fort
Douglas Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

National Park Service. Cultural Resource Guidelines (2002).
www.nps.gov/history/online_books nps28/28chap8.htm (accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Parris, Thomas . “Historical Preservation.” Environment Vol. 26 no. 8, (February 2003). P. 3

• Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14
September, 1862, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.
• Plaque, Camp Floyd/Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah.

• Plaque, Deuel Cabin, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt
Lake City, Utah.
• Plaque, Levi Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village, Salt Lake City, Utah.

• “Section 106: Back to the Basics” in Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2).
• University of Utah “From Civil War Building to Entrepreneurial Mecca”,
9 September 2008, http:/unews.utah.edu/old/p/090808-1.html
(accessed 1 August 2012).
• Utah State Historical Society Photograph Collection, Utah State
Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah


Slide 21

In the Shade of Black Locusts:
Preserving the “Silent Sentinel”
of Fort Douglas

Kimberly Buckner
Volunteer Staff
Fort Douglas Military Museum
Salt Lake City, Utah

Photo: Utah State Historical Society

Copyright Notice
© 2012 Kimberly Buckner and Fort
Douglas Military Museum. All
Rights Reserved. No use of any
photographs/information in this
presentation without express
written consent of the copyright
owner(s). All photos used by
permission.

But not all historic properties
are deliberately being
destroyed. Many have fallen
victim to the “ravages of
time.” This structure near
Camp Floyd has completely
collapsed since this picture
was taken in 2010.

Preservation: A National Priority?
Thomas Parris: National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 promotes the preservation of historic
structures as a national priority

And YET thousands of historically significant
properties are being destroyed each year despite
placement on the National Register of Historic
Places
Thomas Parris, “Historic Preservation”, Environment, Vol. 46, no. 8 (February 2003), p. 3

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

A Common Misconception?
A commonly held misconception among public
audiences:
“Preservation is broadly opposed to change and by
extension, that Section 106 is a tool to block
progress.”
Instead:
“Preservation is about controlling and accommodating
change, and the entire network of preservation rules,
beginning with Section 106, is designed to accomplish
that end.”
Amos J. Loveday, “The Decision Maker’s guide to Section 106”, Forum Journal Winter 2012, Vol. 26
(2), p. 17

Preserving Eligibility
Preservation is meant to protect by not diminishing
any characteristic providing eligibility on the
National Register of Historic Places Including (but
not limited to):
• Integrity of Location
• Integrity of Design
• Integrity of Setting
• Integrity of Materials
• Integrity of Workmanship
• Integrity of Feeling
• Integrity of Association
“Section 106: Back to the Basics”, Forum Journal, Winter 2012, Vol. 26, no. 2, p.10; 36 CFR
800.5 (a)(1)

The National Register of
Historic Places
Since 1966, The National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) provides:
• Communal recognition of local, state or national
history in a visual way
• Consideration in federal undertakings and
improvement projects
• Eligibility for tax benefits through the federal
government
• Qualification for monetary funds for preservation
benefits
Donald L. Hardesty and Barbara Little, Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists
and Historians, 2nd edition, (Lanham, MD: Altamira Press, 2009).

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties
Approved treatment
options:
• Preservation
• Rehabilitation
• Reconstruction
In rare conditions:
• Demolition by neglect
• Moving the historic
structure
Historic Cabin Ca. 1860’s
La Sal, Utah
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2010. Edited by Brick R. King, 2010
Colors have been enhanced

Success Stories:
Onsite Preservation of Carson Inn, 1858
Quick Facts:
• Camp Floyd and
Stagecoach Inn State Park
• Fairfield, Utah
• Built in 1858 by John
Carson
• Adobe and Frame
Construction
• Restored June 1959
• Outcome: furnished as a
historic “house” museum

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2011
Plaque, Camp Floyd /Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah

Success Stories: Moving, Restoration and Renovation
Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, 1847 and the Deuel
Family Cabin, 1847
Deuel Cabin
•
•
•

Riter Cabin

Temple Square
Moved ca. 1989
Glass enclosed historic house museum
with period furnishings

Why are they so Important?

•
•
•

Maintained in Old Deseret Village
Moved to Old Deseret Village ca. 1989
Interpreted solely by historical plaque

• Photo

The two oldest
remaining structures
in Utah are these
original
165-year –old cabins

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village

Success Story:
Relocation to Old Deseret Village
Quick Facts:

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Historic Manti Mill,
built ca. 1858 in Manti, Utah
Relocated ca. 1989

• This is the Place Heritage
Park
• Salt Lake City, Utah
• More than 40
structures/buildings
• Buildings consist of
originals, reproductions, or
relocated 19th century
structures
• Outcome: set up as a
historic village to interpret
frontier life in Utah from
1847-1869

Other success stories
ODV

Photos: Kimberly Buckner 2012

Camp Douglas, ca. 1864
“…I found another location, which I like better for
various reasons…”– Patrick Edward Connor
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah
Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14 September 1862,
Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah.

From Camp to Fort
26 October 1862 : established Camp
Douglas
1862: “Connor Tents” and Dugouts
1863: Adobe and Log structures begun
1867: Expansion of Camp’s perimeter
1874-75: $1 Million rebuild from native
red sandstone
1878: Renamed Fort Douglas

Camp Douglas ca. 1866
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884: $63,820 expansion with 5 frame
structures

From Fort to Historic Landmark
1904-1911: $1,140,000 building expansion
1910: Introduction of electricity
1915-16: Addition of detention camp
1930: Final major building expansion
1970: Listed on National Register of Historic
Places as a heritage district
1974: Listed as National Historic Landmark
26 October 1991: Fort Douglas officially
decommissioned
2002: Athlete’s Village, 2002 Winter Olympics

Stillwell Field Looking East, 2012
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Building 55
Characteristics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

Cost $780
Less than 1900 Sq. Feet
Originally 26 ft. by 29 ft.
Adobe with frame additions
First Neoclassical cross-wing in
Utah (symmetrical design)
4 rooms
18” thick walls
3 adobe fireplaces
“Four over four” double hung
sash windows
Pine or Douglas Fir
Wooden shingle roof coated in
slate
“Lath and plastered” interior
Has a stand alone Historic
Register eligible structure below
the original building (1862 Root
Cellar)

Building 55 in 2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Greg Haws and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History
of Building 55 (7) and its Inhabitants.” University of Utah
Graduate School of Architecture,
Fort Douglas Papers, University of Utah
Marriott Library Special Collections,
Salt Lake City, Utah

Building 55, ca. 1865
“In the shadow of Red Butte, the silent sentinel…looks down upon the scene of
[their] labors, at the very spot where [they ]first camped…”
–Lieutenant Colonel Fred B. Rogers at the funeral of General Patrick Edward
Connor
Photo: Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah;
Elmo R. Morgan, “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22 October 1862-30 September 1954”, Fort Douglas
Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah(Brackets added)

Then and Now
ca. 1900

Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner

Preservation of Building 55: Additions
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

North Exterior

South Exterior

1930
Addition

Unknown
addition

1864
Frame
Addition

1862-3
Root
Cellar

1863
Original
Building

1863 Original
Building

1875
Addition
1864 Post
Surgeons
Quarter’s

1930
Addition

Extensive Known Alterations:
1864: addition of two frame rooms
1874: addition of parlor from Post Surgeon’s quarters
Removal of a fireplace
Windows changed
Fireplace enclosed
1903: Plumbing
1910: Electricity
1911-1928: steam heating, telephones, gas lines
1930: frame Lean-to addition
Windows changed
1960: fire damage repairs
Unknown: Building addition
Unknown: Exterior Stucco
Source: Maintenance Records for Building 33, 1933; Maintenance Records for Building 55, 1938

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Preservation

Unknown Addition
Ca. 1930

• Building 55 is believed to have
been the only complete 1863
structure remaining at Fort
Douglas
• In 2003 parts of several other
1863 buildings have been found:
– 1874: Commander’s Quarters
Parlor from 1863 District
Commander’s Residence
– 1864: Building 55
Parlor Post Surgeon’s
Quarters
– 1862-63: Building 55
Root Cellar

1874 Addition

Original 1863 Parlor

1874 Post Commander’s Residence
Source: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Moving Building 55
• First discussed in 1990
• Again in 1994
• The site chosen was Old
Deseret Village
• University of Utah did not
agree for “reasons so
compelling”
• Recommended for
preservation on site
• Discussion never progressed
further into action
• Outcome: remains on site

Old Deseret Village looking east, 2012
First proposed area to move Building 55

Source: Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995; Anne Racer to Rick
Reece, email, 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum,
Fort Douglas, Utah.

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Old Deseret Village:
Historically Camp Douglas
Pros for moving:

Cons for moving Building 55:

• Old Deseret Village was
constructed on the original
grounds of Camp Douglas
(Association)
• Preserves the structure
• Allows “basic” interpretation
of the historic structure
• Provides opportunities for new
use, but not uses the building
was intended for(Design)

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•

Moved off of original location 1+ miles
away (location)
Destroys 150 years of association to
location of the historic camp
(Association/location)
Bears no resemblance to current location
(feeling )
Would remove from NRHP an make it
ineligible for any future attempts
Removes Historic Landmark designation
Costs to move , reconstruct and restore
(materials)
Destruction of original workmanship
(workmanship)
May cause un-repairable damage to the
structure (workmanship/
materials/design)

Fort Douglas Military Museum
1917
Master Plan
POW Barracks (RC)

N: New
RE: Relocated
RC: Reconstructed
E: Existing
D: Drop Building Addition to
Historic Structure

1942
Firehouse (E)

North

1943
Barracks (RE)

and Guard Tower (RC)

Women’s
Memorial (N)

D

1863
Commanders
Home (RE)

D

D

Building 31 and 32
Current Museum (E)
Not connected yet. Black Star
Building has been completed.

1935
Shop (RE)
© 2012 Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884
Officer’s
Quarters
Duplex (RE)

Preservation Problems
• Stress fractures
• Plaster Damage
• Fire Damage
• Foundation damage
• Windows
•Adobe damage

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner , 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos:
Kimberly
Buckner
2012

A Good Move: Moving Building 55 to Fort
Douglas Military Museum Grounds
Pros:

Cons:

• A move of less than ¼ mile
• Maintains association to original
site (Association)
• Preservation of structure
(materials/design)
• Opportunities to interpret local
history of post (location)
• Chosen site provides similar view
to original location (setting)
• Allows for new use (design)
• Maintains feeling of the historic
district (Feeling)

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Removes from primary location and
original foundation (Location)
Potential to damage structure
May destroy the original
workmanship (Workmanship)
To which era of significance will it
be restored?
Original orientation may not be
possible
Will introduce modern materials
into the historic structure
(Materials)
Removes from NRHP but would
allow for reapplication/maintains
historic landmark designation

A Difference in Views
Old Deseret Village

Looking West

Fort Douglas Military
Museum Grounds

Cannon Park looking South
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Lessening the impacts:
When moving is the only Preservation
option
Old Deseret Village

Fort Douglas Military Museum

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Will lose nearly all historical identity
Not on original site, but in association with original
camp
Allows the structure to exist
Would impact the elements of original design
Area not with original feeling but among structures
who have lost their “history”
Introduction of modern materials
Further impacts to historic workmanship
Loss of National Historic Landmark Designation
Loss of NRHP listing. May not be able to reapply
Land has lost all association/use with original Camp
Douglas
New use may not be conducive to historic use
1+ mile move
Impacts all criterion of integrity
Must be removed from Federal ownership to
private

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Maintains historical Identity
Maintains association with original camp
Structure is preserved in similar location
Less than ¼ mile move
Area has maintained original feeling and
association to the camp
Loss of NHRP listing but retains eligibility for
the future
Maintains National Historic Landmark
Designation and prominence within the
historic district
Interpretation of changes in military housing
New use conducive to original use
Fully restored with historical furnishing s
Retains nearly all criterion of Integrity
Already part of museum complex
Maintains federal ownership (State of Utah
to Utah National Guard ownership)

Moving: The Right Choice?
Old Deseret Village is a good place to house relocated and reconstructed historic structures to interpret the
early territorial history of Utah
BUT…
It was not the right setting to house a unique structure like Building 55
–

Will Building 55 be remembered for its history and sense of location? Or, because of the 4th grade
field trip with limited exposure only to be quickly forgotten?

–

With so many structures will the building be properly maintained or fall victim to demolition by
neglect?

–

Potentially a Section 106 logistic nightmare (Federal holdings to “private” hands)

Whereas…
The Fort Douglas Military Museum grounds will allow the unique structure a permanent home, restoration and
ability to maintain a prominent place in Fort Douglas. It will allow for
–

more opportunities and exposure to its unique history,

–

Will ensure that it will be preserved for future generations.

If Moved to Old Deseret Village

The actual site chosen for Building 55 in 1990 was never disclosed in the documentation.
Building 55 was placed in an arbitrary location within the park.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012 Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

If moved to the Museum Grounds

Sitting in proposed Master Plan location on the museum grounds.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Future Recommendations
The recommendations for Building 55:
1.

Restoration at current site using historically accurate methods
–
Potential for learning opportunities at current site (i.e. Root Cellar)
–
Potential for gaining additional archaeological information from site
–
Root Cellar was nominated as a stand alone NHRP eligible structure in 2008.

2.

Create a viable strategic plan for living history and historic house museum (adaptive use)
–
Prepare plan to cover all preservation issues which may crop up in the next decade
–
Prepare a strategic plan for safely moving Building 55, allowing for historically
accurate restoration and renovation methods.

3.

I

Maintain Building 55 on site
–
Use authentic and historically accurate reproduction pieces
–
Interpretive/Museum use

4.
If and when the time comes, move the structure to the Fort Douglas Military Museum
grounds to maintain current preservation effort
-- Increase opportunities for interpretation of structure
-- Restore back to 1863, and use later additions for storage/office space
-- Allow for living history programs

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Any Questions?

Bibliography
•

Advisory Council Regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR 800) .

•

Anne Racer to Rick Reese, (Email), 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas
Utah

•

Andrus, Cecil B. et al. “Part 6: The National Historic Register of Historic Places.” The Manual for
State Historic Preservation Review Boards. www.nps.gov/nr/bulletins/strevman/strevman6.htm
(accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Exhibit, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Register Nomination Form, 1970.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Landmark Nomination Form, 1974, Building 7 file, Utah State
Historical Preservation Offices, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas Military Museum, Master Plan, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas , Utah.

•

Hardesty, Donald L. and Barbara Little. Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists and
Historians (Lanham, MD.: Altamira Press, 2009).

•

Haws, Greg and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History of Building 55 (7) and its inhabitants.” University
of Utah Graduate School., 12 December 1994, University of Utah Marriott Library Special
Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Loveday, Amos J. “The Decision Makers Guide to Section 106.” Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2) pp. 10-17.

•

Maintenance Records Building 33, 1933, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah .

•

Maintenance Records Building 55, 1938, Fort Douglas Military Museum

•

Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas,
Utah

•

Morgan, Elmo R. “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22October-30 September 1954.” Fort
Douglas Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

National Park Service. Cultural Resource Guidelines (2002).
www.nps.gov/history/online_books nps28/28chap8.htm (accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Parris, Thomas . “Historical Preservation.” Environment Vol. 26 no. 8, (February 2003). P. 3

• Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14
September, 1862, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.
• Plaque, Camp Floyd/Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah.

• Plaque, Deuel Cabin, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt
Lake City, Utah.
• Plaque, Levi Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village, Salt Lake City, Utah.

• “Section 106: Back to the Basics” in Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2).
• University of Utah “From Civil War Building to Entrepreneurial Mecca”,
9 September 2008, http:/unews.utah.edu/old/p/090808-1.html
(accessed 1 August 2012).
• Utah State Historical Society Photograph Collection, Utah State
Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah


Slide 22

In the Shade of Black Locusts:
Preserving the “Silent Sentinel”
of Fort Douglas

Kimberly Buckner
Volunteer Staff
Fort Douglas Military Museum
Salt Lake City, Utah

Photo: Utah State Historical Society

Copyright Notice
© 2012 Kimberly Buckner and Fort
Douglas Military Museum. All
Rights Reserved. No use of any
photographs/information in this
presentation without express
written consent of the copyright
owner(s). All photos used by
permission.

But not all historic properties
are deliberately being
destroyed. Many have fallen
victim to the “ravages of
time.” This structure near
Camp Floyd has completely
collapsed since this picture
was taken in 2010.

Preservation: A National Priority?
Thomas Parris: National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 promotes the preservation of historic
structures as a national priority

And YET thousands of historically significant
properties are being destroyed each year despite
placement on the National Register of Historic
Places
Thomas Parris, “Historic Preservation”, Environment, Vol. 46, no. 8 (February 2003), p. 3

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

A Common Misconception?
A commonly held misconception among public
audiences:
“Preservation is broadly opposed to change and by
extension, that Section 106 is a tool to block
progress.”
Instead:
“Preservation is about controlling and accommodating
change, and the entire network of preservation rules,
beginning with Section 106, is designed to accomplish
that end.”
Amos J. Loveday, “The Decision Maker’s guide to Section 106”, Forum Journal Winter 2012, Vol. 26
(2), p. 17

Preserving Eligibility
Preservation is meant to protect by not diminishing
any characteristic providing eligibility on the
National Register of Historic Places Including (but
not limited to):
• Integrity of Location
• Integrity of Design
• Integrity of Setting
• Integrity of Materials
• Integrity of Workmanship
• Integrity of Feeling
• Integrity of Association
“Section 106: Back to the Basics”, Forum Journal, Winter 2012, Vol. 26, no. 2, p.10; 36 CFR
800.5 (a)(1)

The National Register of
Historic Places
Since 1966, The National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) provides:
• Communal recognition of local, state or national
history in a visual way
• Consideration in federal undertakings and
improvement projects
• Eligibility for tax benefits through the federal
government
• Qualification for monetary funds for preservation
benefits
Donald L. Hardesty and Barbara Little, Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists
and Historians, 2nd edition, (Lanham, MD: Altamira Press, 2009).

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties
Approved treatment
options:
• Preservation
• Rehabilitation
• Reconstruction
In rare conditions:
• Demolition by neglect
• Moving the historic
structure
Historic Cabin Ca. 1860’s
La Sal, Utah
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2010. Edited by Brick R. King, 2010
Colors have been enhanced

Success Stories:
Onsite Preservation of Carson Inn, 1858
Quick Facts:
• Camp Floyd and
Stagecoach Inn State Park
• Fairfield, Utah
• Built in 1858 by John
Carson
• Adobe and Frame
Construction
• Restored June 1959
• Outcome: furnished as a
historic “house” museum

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2011
Plaque, Camp Floyd /Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah

Success Stories: Moving, Restoration and Renovation
Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, 1847 and the Deuel
Family Cabin, 1847
Deuel Cabin
•
•
•

Riter Cabin

Temple Square
Moved ca. 1989
Glass enclosed historic house museum
with period furnishings

Why are they so Important?

•
•
•

Maintained in Old Deseret Village
Moved to Old Deseret Village ca. 1989
Interpreted solely by historical plaque

• Photo

The two oldest
remaining structures
in Utah are these
original
165-year –old cabins

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village

Success Story:
Relocation to Old Deseret Village
Quick Facts:

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Historic Manti Mill,
built ca. 1858 in Manti, Utah
Relocated ca. 1989

• This is the Place Heritage
Park
• Salt Lake City, Utah
• More than 40
structures/buildings
• Buildings consist of
originals, reproductions, or
relocated 19th century
structures
• Outcome: set up as a
historic village to interpret
frontier life in Utah from
1847-1869

Other success stories
ODV

Photos: Kimberly Buckner 2012

Camp Douglas, ca. 1864
“…I found another location, which I like better for
various reasons…”– Patrick Edward Connor
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah
Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14 September 1862,
Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah.

From Camp to Fort
26 October 1862 : established Camp
Douglas
1862: “Connor Tents” and Dugouts
1863: Adobe and Log structures begun
1867: Expansion of Camp’s perimeter
1874-75: $1 Million rebuild from native
red sandstone
1878: Renamed Fort Douglas

Camp Douglas ca. 1866
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884: $63,820 expansion with 5 frame
structures

From Fort to Historic Landmark
1904-1911: $1,140,000 building expansion
1910: Introduction of electricity
1915-16: Addition of detention camp
1930: Final major building expansion
1970: Listed on National Register of Historic
Places as a heritage district
1974: Listed as National Historic Landmark
26 October 1991: Fort Douglas officially
decommissioned
2002: Athlete’s Village, 2002 Winter Olympics

Stillwell Field Looking East, 2012
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Building 55
Characteristics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

Cost $780
Less than 1900 Sq. Feet
Originally 26 ft. by 29 ft.
Adobe with frame additions
First Neoclassical cross-wing in
Utah (symmetrical design)
4 rooms
18” thick walls
3 adobe fireplaces
“Four over four” double hung
sash windows
Pine or Douglas Fir
Wooden shingle roof coated in
slate
“Lath and plastered” interior
Has a stand alone Historic
Register eligible structure below
the original building (1862 Root
Cellar)

Building 55 in 2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Greg Haws and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History
of Building 55 (7) and its Inhabitants.” University of Utah
Graduate School of Architecture,
Fort Douglas Papers, University of Utah
Marriott Library Special Collections,
Salt Lake City, Utah

Building 55, ca. 1865
“In the shadow of Red Butte, the silent sentinel…looks down upon the scene of
[their] labors, at the very spot where [they ]first camped…”
–Lieutenant Colonel Fred B. Rogers at the funeral of General Patrick Edward
Connor
Photo: Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah;
Elmo R. Morgan, “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22 October 1862-30 September 1954”, Fort Douglas
Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah(Brackets added)

Then and Now
ca. 1900

Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner

Preservation of Building 55: Additions
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

North Exterior

South Exterior

1930
Addition

Unknown
addition

1864
Frame
Addition

1862-3
Root
Cellar

1863
Original
Building

1863 Original
Building

1875
Addition
1864 Post
Surgeons
Quarter’s

1930
Addition

Extensive Known Alterations:
1864: addition of two frame rooms
1874: addition of parlor from Post Surgeon’s quarters
Removal of a fireplace
Windows changed
Fireplace enclosed
1903: Plumbing
1910: Electricity
1911-1928: steam heating, telephones, gas lines
1930: frame Lean-to addition
Windows changed
1960: fire damage repairs
Unknown: Building addition
Unknown: Exterior Stucco
Source: Maintenance Records for Building 33, 1933; Maintenance Records for Building 55, 1938

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Preservation

Unknown Addition
Ca. 1930

• Building 55 is believed to have
been the only complete 1863
structure remaining at Fort
Douglas
• In 2003 parts of several other
1863 buildings have been found:
– 1874: Commander’s Quarters
Parlor from 1863 District
Commander’s Residence
– 1864: Building 55
Parlor Post Surgeon’s
Quarters
– 1862-63: Building 55
Root Cellar

1874 Addition

Original 1863 Parlor

1874 Post Commander’s Residence
Source: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Moving Building 55
• First discussed in 1990
• Again in 1994
• The site chosen was Old
Deseret Village
• University of Utah did not
agree for “reasons so
compelling”
• Recommended for
preservation on site
• Discussion never progressed
further into action
• Outcome: remains on site

Old Deseret Village looking east, 2012
First proposed area to move Building 55

Source: Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995; Anne Racer to Rick
Reece, email, 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum,
Fort Douglas, Utah.

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Old Deseret Village:
Historically Camp Douglas
Pros for moving:

Cons for moving Building 55:

• Old Deseret Village was
constructed on the original
grounds of Camp Douglas
(Association)
• Preserves the structure
• Allows “basic” interpretation
of the historic structure
• Provides opportunities for new
use, but not uses the building
was intended for(Design)

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•

Moved off of original location 1+ miles
away (location)
Destroys 150 years of association to
location of the historic camp
(Association/location)
Bears no resemblance to current location
(feeling )
Would remove from NRHP an make it
ineligible for any future attempts
Removes Historic Landmark designation
Costs to move , reconstruct and restore
(materials)
Destruction of original workmanship
(workmanship)
May cause un-repairable damage to the
structure (workmanship/
materials/design)

Fort Douglas Military Museum
1917
Master Plan
POW Barracks (RC)

N: New
RE: Relocated
RC: Reconstructed
E: Existing
D: Drop Building Addition to
Historic Structure

1942
Firehouse (E)

North

1943
Barracks (RE)

and Guard Tower (RC)

Women’s
Memorial (N)

D

1863
Commanders
Home (RE)

D

D

Building 31 and 32
Current Museum (E)
Not connected yet. Black Star
Building has been completed.

1935
Shop (RE)
© 2012 Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884
Officer’s
Quarters
Duplex (RE)

Preservation Problems
• Stress fractures
• Plaster Damage
• Fire Damage
• Foundation damage
• Windows
•Adobe damage

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner , 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos:
Kimberly
Buckner
2012

A Good Move: Moving Building 55 to Fort
Douglas Military Museum Grounds
Pros:

Cons:

• A move of less than ¼ mile
• Maintains association to original
site (Association)
• Preservation of structure
(materials/design)
• Opportunities to interpret local
history of post (location)
• Chosen site provides similar view
to original location (setting)
• Allows for new use (design)
• Maintains feeling of the historic
district (Feeling)

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Removes from primary location and
original foundation (Location)
Potential to damage structure
May destroy the original
workmanship (Workmanship)
To which era of significance will it
be restored?
Original orientation may not be
possible
Will introduce modern materials
into the historic structure
(Materials)
Removes from NRHP but would
allow for reapplication/maintains
historic landmark designation

A Difference in Views
Old Deseret Village

Looking West

Fort Douglas Military
Museum Grounds

Cannon Park looking South
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Lessening the impacts:
When moving is the only Preservation
option
Old Deseret Village

Fort Douglas Military Museum

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Will lose nearly all historical identity
Not on original site, but in association with original
camp
Allows the structure to exist
Would impact the elements of original design
Area not with original feeling but among structures
who have lost their “history”
Introduction of modern materials
Further impacts to historic workmanship
Loss of National Historic Landmark Designation
Loss of NRHP listing. May not be able to reapply
Land has lost all association/use with original Camp
Douglas
New use may not be conducive to historic use
1+ mile move
Impacts all criterion of integrity
Must be removed from Federal ownership to
private

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Maintains historical Identity
Maintains association with original camp
Structure is preserved in similar location
Less than ¼ mile move
Area has maintained original feeling and
association to the camp
Loss of NHRP listing but retains eligibility for
the future
Maintains National Historic Landmark
Designation and prominence within the
historic district
Interpretation of changes in military housing
New use conducive to original use
Fully restored with historical furnishing s
Retains nearly all criterion of Integrity
Already part of museum complex
Maintains federal ownership (State of Utah
to Utah National Guard ownership)

Moving: The Right Choice?
Old Deseret Village is a good place to house relocated and reconstructed historic structures to interpret the
early territorial history of Utah
BUT…
It was not the right setting to house a unique structure like Building 55
–

Will Building 55 be remembered for its history and sense of location? Or, because of the 4th grade
field trip with limited exposure only to be quickly forgotten?

–

With so many structures will the building be properly maintained or fall victim to demolition by
neglect?

–

Potentially a Section 106 logistic nightmare (Federal holdings to “private” hands)

Whereas…
The Fort Douglas Military Museum grounds will allow the unique structure a permanent home, restoration and
ability to maintain a prominent place in Fort Douglas. It will allow for
–

more opportunities and exposure to its unique history,

–

Will ensure that it will be preserved for future generations.

If Moved to Old Deseret Village

The actual site chosen for Building 55 in 1990 was never disclosed in the documentation.
Building 55 was placed in an arbitrary location within the park.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012 Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

If moved to the Museum Grounds

Sitting in proposed Master Plan location on the museum grounds.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Future Recommendations
The recommendations for Building 55:
1.

Restoration at current site using historically accurate methods
–
Potential for learning opportunities at current site (i.e. Root Cellar)
–
Potential for gaining additional archaeological information from site
–
Root Cellar was nominated as a stand alone NHRP eligible structure in 2008.

2.

Create a viable strategic plan for living history and historic house museum (adaptive use)
–
Prepare plan to cover all preservation issues which may crop up in the next decade
–
Prepare a strategic plan for safely moving Building 55, allowing for historically
accurate restoration and renovation methods.

3.

I

Maintain Building 55 on site
–
Use authentic and historically accurate reproduction pieces
–
Interpretive/Museum use

4.
If and when the time comes, move the structure to the Fort Douglas Military Museum
grounds to maintain current preservation effort
-- Increase opportunities for interpretation of structure
-- Restore back to 1863, and use later additions for storage/office space
-- Allow for living history programs

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Any Questions?

Bibliography
•

Advisory Council Regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR 800) .

•

Anne Racer to Rick Reese, (Email), 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas
Utah

•

Andrus, Cecil B. et al. “Part 6: The National Historic Register of Historic Places.” The Manual for
State Historic Preservation Review Boards. www.nps.gov/nr/bulletins/strevman/strevman6.htm
(accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Exhibit, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Register Nomination Form, 1970.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Landmark Nomination Form, 1974, Building 7 file, Utah State
Historical Preservation Offices, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas Military Museum, Master Plan, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas , Utah.

•

Hardesty, Donald L. and Barbara Little. Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists and
Historians (Lanham, MD.: Altamira Press, 2009).

•

Haws, Greg and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History of Building 55 (7) and its inhabitants.” University
of Utah Graduate School., 12 December 1994, University of Utah Marriott Library Special
Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Loveday, Amos J. “The Decision Makers Guide to Section 106.” Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2) pp. 10-17.

•

Maintenance Records Building 33, 1933, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah .

•

Maintenance Records Building 55, 1938, Fort Douglas Military Museum

•

Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas,
Utah

•

Morgan, Elmo R. “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22October-30 September 1954.” Fort
Douglas Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

National Park Service. Cultural Resource Guidelines (2002).
www.nps.gov/history/online_books nps28/28chap8.htm (accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Parris, Thomas . “Historical Preservation.” Environment Vol. 26 no. 8, (February 2003). P. 3

• Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14
September, 1862, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.
• Plaque, Camp Floyd/Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah.

• Plaque, Deuel Cabin, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt
Lake City, Utah.
• Plaque, Levi Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village, Salt Lake City, Utah.

• “Section 106: Back to the Basics” in Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2).
• University of Utah “From Civil War Building to Entrepreneurial Mecca”,
9 September 2008, http:/unews.utah.edu/old/p/090808-1.html
(accessed 1 August 2012).
• Utah State Historical Society Photograph Collection, Utah State
Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah


Slide 23

In the Shade of Black Locusts:
Preserving the “Silent Sentinel”
of Fort Douglas

Kimberly Buckner
Volunteer Staff
Fort Douglas Military Museum
Salt Lake City, Utah

Photo: Utah State Historical Society

Copyright Notice
© 2012 Kimberly Buckner and Fort
Douglas Military Museum. All
Rights Reserved. No use of any
photographs/information in this
presentation without express
written consent of the copyright
owner(s). All photos used by
permission.

But not all historic properties
are deliberately being
destroyed. Many have fallen
victim to the “ravages of
time.” This structure near
Camp Floyd has completely
collapsed since this picture
was taken in 2010.

Preservation: A National Priority?
Thomas Parris: National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 promotes the preservation of historic
structures as a national priority

And YET thousands of historically significant
properties are being destroyed each year despite
placement on the National Register of Historic
Places
Thomas Parris, “Historic Preservation”, Environment, Vol. 46, no. 8 (February 2003), p. 3

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

A Common Misconception?
A commonly held misconception among public
audiences:
“Preservation is broadly opposed to change and by
extension, that Section 106 is a tool to block
progress.”
Instead:
“Preservation is about controlling and accommodating
change, and the entire network of preservation rules,
beginning with Section 106, is designed to accomplish
that end.”
Amos J. Loveday, “The Decision Maker’s guide to Section 106”, Forum Journal Winter 2012, Vol. 26
(2), p. 17

Preserving Eligibility
Preservation is meant to protect by not diminishing
any characteristic providing eligibility on the
National Register of Historic Places Including (but
not limited to):
• Integrity of Location
• Integrity of Design
• Integrity of Setting
• Integrity of Materials
• Integrity of Workmanship
• Integrity of Feeling
• Integrity of Association
“Section 106: Back to the Basics”, Forum Journal, Winter 2012, Vol. 26, no. 2, p.10; 36 CFR
800.5 (a)(1)

The National Register of
Historic Places
Since 1966, The National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) provides:
• Communal recognition of local, state or national
history in a visual way
• Consideration in federal undertakings and
improvement projects
• Eligibility for tax benefits through the federal
government
• Qualification for monetary funds for preservation
benefits
Donald L. Hardesty and Barbara Little, Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists
and Historians, 2nd edition, (Lanham, MD: Altamira Press, 2009).

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties
Approved treatment
options:
• Preservation
• Rehabilitation
• Reconstruction
In rare conditions:
• Demolition by neglect
• Moving the historic
structure
Historic Cabin Ca. 1860’s
La Sal, Utah
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2010. Edited by Brick R. King, 2010
Colors have been enhanced

Success Stories:
Onsite Preservation of Carson Inn, 1858
Quick Facts:
• Camp Floyd and
Stagecoach Inn State Park
• Fairfield, Utah
• Built in 1858 by John
Carson
• Adobe and Frame
Construction
• Restored June 1959
• Outcome: furnished as a
historic “house” museum

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2011
Plaque, Camp Floyd /Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah

Success Stories: Moving, Restoration and Renovation
Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, 1847 and the Deuel
Family Cabin, 1847
Deuel Cabin
•
•
•

Riter Cabin

Temple Square
Moved ca. 1989
Glass enclosed historic house museum
with period furnishings

Why are they so Important?

•
•
•

Maintained in Old Deseret Village
Moved to Old Deseret Village ca. 1989
Interpreted solely by historical plaque

• Photo

The two oldest
remaining structures
in Utah are these
original
165-year –old cabins

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village

Success Story:
Relocation to Old Deseret Village
Quick Facts:

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Historic Manti Mill,
built ca. 1858 in Manti, Utah
Relocated ca. 1989

• This is the Place Heritage
Park
• Salt Lake City, Utah
• More than 40
structures/buildings
• Buildings consist of
originals, reproductions, or
relocated 19th century
structures
• Outcome: set up as a
historic village to interpret
frontier life in Utah from
1847-1869

Other success stories
ODV

Photos: Kimberly Buckner 2012

Camp Douglas, ca. 1864
“…I found another location, which I like better for
various reasons…”– Patrick Edward Connor
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah
Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14 September 1862,
Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah.

From Camp to Fort
26 October 1862 : established Camp
Douglas
1862: “Connor Tents” and Dugouts
1863: Adobe and Log structures begun
1867: Expansion of Camp’s perimeter
1874-75: $1 Million rebuild from native
red sandstone
1878: Renamed Fort Douglas

Camp Douglas ca. 1866
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884: $63,820 expansion with 5 frame
structures

From Fort to Historic Landmark
1904-1911: $1,140,000 building expansion
1910: Introduction of electricity
1915-16: Addition of detention camp
1930: Final major building expansion
1970: Listed on National Register of Historic
Places as a heritage district
1974: Listed as National Historic Landmark
26 October 1991: Fort Douglas officially
decommissioned
2002: Athlete’s Village, 2002 Winter Olympics

Stillwell Field Looking East, 2012
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Building 55
Characteristics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

Cost $780
Less than 1900 Sq. Feet
Originally 26 ft. by 29 ft.
Adobe with frame additions
First Neoclassical cross-wing in
Utah (symmetrical design)
4 rooms
18” thick walls
3 adobe fireplaces
“Four over four” double hung
sash windows
Pine or Douglas Fir
Wooden shingle roof coated in
slate
“Lath and plastered” interior
Has a stand alone Historic
Register eligible structure below
the original building (1862 Root
Cellar)

Building 55 in 2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Greg Haws and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History
of Building 55 (7) and its Inhabitants.” University of Utah
Graduate School of Architecture,
Fort Douglas Papers, University of Utah
Marriott Library Special Collections,
Salt Lake City, Utah

Building 55, ca. 1865
“In the shadow of Red Butte, the silent sentinel…looks down upon the scene of
[their] labors, at the very spot where [they ]first camped…”
–Lieutenant Colonel Fred B. Rogers at the funeral of General Patrick Edward
Connor
Photo: Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah;
Elmo R. Morgan, “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22 October 1862-30 September 1954”, Fort Douglas
Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah(Brackets added)

Then and Now
ca. 1900

Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner

Preservation of Building 55: Additions
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

North Exterior

South Exterior

1930
Addition

Unknown
addition

1864
Frame
Addition

1862-3
Root
Cellar

1863
Original
Building

1863 Original
Building

1875
Addition
1864 Post
Surgeons
Quarter’s

1930
Addition

Extensive Known Alterations:
1864: addition of two frame rooms
1874: addition of parlor from Post Surgeon’s quarters
Removal of a fireplace
Windows changed
Fireplace enclosed
1903: Plumbing
1910: Electricity
1911-1928: steam heating, telephones, gas lines
1930: frame Lean-to addition
Windows changed
1960: fire damage repairs
Unknown: Building addition
Unknown: Exterior Stucco
Source: Maintenance Records for Building 33, 1933; Maintenance Records for Building 55, 1938

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Preservation

Unknown Addition
Ca. 1930

• Building 55 is believed to have
been the only complete 1863
structure remaining at Fort
Douglas
• In 2003 parts of several other
1863 buildings have been found:
– 1874: Commander’s Quarters
Parlor from 1863 District
Commander’s Residence
– 1864: Building 55
Parlor Post Surgeon’s
Quarters
– 1862-63: Building 55
Root Cellar

1874 Addition

Original 1863 Parlor

1874 Post Commander’s Residence
Source: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Moving Building 55
• First discussed in 1990
• Again in 1994
• The site chosen was Old
Deseret Village
• University of Utah did not
agree for “reasons so
compelling”
• Recommended for
preservation on site
• Discussion never progressed
further into action
• Outcome: remains on site

Old Deseret Village looking east, 2012
First proposed area to move Building 55

Source: Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995; Anne Racer to Rick
Reece, email, 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum,
Fort Douglas, Utah.

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Old Deseret Village:
Historically Camp Douglas
Pros for moving:

Cons for moving Building 55:

• Old Deseret Village was
constructed on the original
grounds of Camp Douglas
(Association)
• Preserves the structure
• Allows “basic” interpretation
of the historic structure
• Provides opportunities for new
use, but not uses the building
was intended for(Design)

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•

Moved off of original location 1+ miles
away (location)
Destroys 150 years of association to
location of the historic camp
(Association/location)
Bears no resemblance to current location
(feeling )
Would remove from NRHP an make it
ineligible for any future attempts
Removes Historic Landmark designation
Costs to move , reconstruct and restore
(materials)
Destruction of original workmanship
(workmanship)
May cause un-repairable damage to the
structure (workmanship/
materials/design)

Fort Douglas Military Museum
1917
Master Plan
POW Barracks (RC)

N: New
RE: Relocated
RC: Reconstructed
E: Existing
D: Drop Building Addition to
Historic Structure

1942
Firehouse (E)

North

1943
Barracks (RE)

and Guard Tower (RC)

Women’s
Memorial (N)

D

1863
Commanders
Home (RE)

D

D

Building 31 and 32
Current Museum (E)
Not connected yet. Black Star
Building has been completed.

1935
Shop (RE)
© 2012 Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884
Officer’s
Quarters
Duplex (RE)

Preservation Problems
• Stress fractures
• Plaster Damage
• Fire Damage
• Foundation damage
• Windows
•Adobe damage

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner , 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos:
Kimberly
Buckner
2012

A Good Move: Moving Building 55 to Fort
Douglas Military Museum Grounds
Pros:

Cons:

• A move of less than ¼ mile
• Maintains association to original
site (Association)
• Preservation of structure
(materials/design)
• Opportunities to interpret local
history of post (location)
• Chosen site provides similar view
to original location (setting)
• Allows for new use (design)
• Maintains feeling of the historic
district (Feeling)

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Removes from primary location and
original foundation (Location)
Potential to damage structure
May destroy the original
workmanship (Workmanship)
To which era of significance will it
be restored?
Original orientation may not be
possible
Will introduce modern materials
into the historic structure
(Materials)
Removes from NRHP but would
allow for reapplication/maintains
historic landmark designation

A Difference in Views
Old Deseret Village

Looking West

Fort Douglas Military
Museum Grounds

Cannon Park looking South
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Lessening the impacts:
When moving is the only Preservation
option
Old Deseret Village

Fort Douglas Military Museum

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Will lose nearly all historical identity
Not on original site, but in association with original
camp
Allows the structure to exist
Would impact the elements of original design
Area not with original feeling but among structures
who have lost their “history”
Introduction of modern materials
Further impacts to historic workmanship
Loss of National Historic Landmark Designation
Loss of NRHP listing. May not be able to reapply
Land has lost all association/use with original Camp
Douglas
New use may not be conducive to historic use
1+ mile move
Impacts all criterion of integrity
Must be removed from Federal ownership to
private

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Maintains historical Identity
Maintains association with original camp
Structure is preserved in similar location
Less than ¼ mile move
Area has maintained original feeling and
association to the camp
Loss of NHRP listing but retains eligibility for
the future
Maintains National Historic Landmark
Designation and prominence within the
historic district
Interpretation of changes in military housing
New use conducive to original use
Fully restored with historical furnishing s
Retains nearly all criterion of Integrity
Already part of museum complex
Maintains federal ownership (State of Utah
to Utah National Guard ownership)

Moving: The Right Choice?
Old Deseret Village is a good place to house relocated and reconstructed historic structures to interpret the
early territorial history of Utah
BUT…
It was not the right setting to house a unique structure like Building 55
–

Will Building 55 be remembered for its history and sense of location? Or, because of the 4th grade
field trip with limited exposure only to be quickly forgotten?

–

With so many structures will the building be properly maintained or fall victim to demolition by
neglect?

–

Potentially a Section 106 logistic nightmare (Federal holdings to “private” hands)

Whereas…
The Fort Douglas Military Museum grounds will allow the unique structure a permanent home, restoration and
ability to maintain a prominent place in Fort Douglas. It will allow for
–

more opportunities and exposure to its unique history,

–

Will ensure that it will be preserved for future generations.

If Moved to Old Deseret Village

The actual site chosen for Building 55 in 1990 was never disclosed in the documentation.
Building 55 was placed in an arbitrary location within the park.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012 Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

If moved to the Museum Grounds

Sitting in proposed Master Plan location on the museum grounds.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Future Recommendations
The recommendations for Building 55:
1.

Restoration at current site using historically accurate methods
–
Potential for learning opportunities at current site (i.e. Root Cellar)
–
Potential for gaining additional archaeological information from site
–
Root Cellar was nominated as a stand alone NHRP eligible structure in 2008.

2.

Create a viable strategic plan for living history and historic house museum (adaptive use)
–
Prepare plan to cover all preservation issues which may crop up in the next decade
–
Prepare a strategic plan for safely moving Building 55, allowing for historically
accurate restoration and renovation methods.

3.

I

Maintain Building 55 on site
–
Use authentic and historically accurate reproduction pieces
–
Interpretive/Museum use

4.
If and when the time comes, move the structure to the Fort Douglas Military Museum
grounds to maintain current preservation effort
-- Increase opportunities for interpretation of structure
-- Restore back to 1863, and use later additions for storage/office space
-- Allow for living history programs

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Any Questions?

Bibliography
•

Advisory Council Regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR 800) .

•

Anne Racer to Rick Reese, (Email), 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas
Utah

•

Andrus, Cecil B. et al. “Part 6: The National Historic Register of Historic Places.” The Manual for
State Historic Preservation Review Boards. www.nps.gov/nr/bulletins/strevman/strevman6.htm
(accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Exhibit, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Register Nomination Form, 1970.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Landmark Nomination Form, 1974, Building 7 file, Utah State
Historical Preservation Offices, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas Military Museum, Master Plan, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas , Utah.

•

Hardesty, Donald L. and Barbara Little. Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists and
Historians (Lanham, MD.: Altamira Press, 2009).

•

Haws, Greg and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History of Building 55 (7) and its inhabitants.” University
of Utah Graduate School., 12 December 1994, University of Utah Marriott Library Special
Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Loveday, Amos J. “The Decision Makers Guide to Section 106.” Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2) pp. 10-17.

•

Maintenance Records Building 33, 1933, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah .

•

Maintenance Records Building 55, 1938, Fort Douglas Military Museum

•

Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas,
Utah

•

Morgan, Elmo R. “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22October-30 September 1954.” Fort
Douglas Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

National Park Service. Cultural Resource Guidelines (2002).
www.nps.gov/history/online_books nps28/28chap8.htm (accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Parris, Thomas . “Historical Preservation.” Environment Vol. 26 no. 8, (February 2003). P. 3

• Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14
September, 1862, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.
• Plaque, Camp Floyd/Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah.

• Plaque, Deuel Cabin, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt
Lake City, Utah.
• Plaque, Levi Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village, Salt Lake City, Utah.

• “Section 106: Back to the Basics” in Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2).
• University of Utah “From Civil War Building to Entrepreneurial Mecca”,
9 September 2008, http:/unews.utah.edu/old/p/090808-1.html
(accessed 1 August 2012).
• Utah State Historical Society Photograph Collection, Utah State
Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah


Slide 24

In the Shade of Black Locusts:
Preserving the “Silent Sentinel”
of Fort Douglas

Kimberly Buckner
Volunteer Staff
Fort Douglas Military Museum
Salt Lake City, Utah

Photo: Utah State Historical Society

Copyright Notice
© 2012 Kimberly Buckner and Fort
Douglas Military Museum. All
Rights Reserved. No use of any
photographs/information in this
presentation without express
written consent of the copyright
owner(s). All photos used by
permission.

But not all historic properties
are deliberately being
destroyed. Many have fallen
victim to the “ravages of
time.” This structure near
Camp Floyd has completely
collapsed since this picture
was taken in 2010.

Preservation: A National Priority?
Thomas Parris: National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 promotes the preservation of historic
structures as a national priority

And YET thousands of historically significant
properties are being destroyed each year despite
placement on the National Register of Historic
Places
Thomas Parris, “Historic Preservation”, Environment, Vol. 46, no. 8 (February 2003), p. 3

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

A Common Misconception?
A commonly held misconception among public
audiences:
“Preservation is broadly opposed to change and by
extension, that Section 106 is a tool to block
progress.”
Instead:
“Preservation is about controlling and accommodating
change, and the entire network of preservation rules,
beginning with Section 106, is designed to accomplish
that end.”
Amos J. Loveday, “The Decision Maker’s guide to Section 106”, Forum Journal Winter 2012, Vol. 26
(2), p. 17

Preserving Eligibility
Preservation is meant to protect by not diminishing
any characteristic providing eligibility on the
National Register of Historic Places Including (but
not limited to):
• Integrity of Location
• Integrity of Design
• Integrity of Setting
• Integrity of Materials
• Integrity of Workmanship
• Integrity of Feeling
• Integrity of Association
“Section 106: Back to the Basics”, Forum Journal, Winter 2012, Vol. 26, no. 2, p.10; 36 CFR
800.5 (a)(1)

The National Register of
Historic Places
Since 1966, The National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) provides:
• Communal recognition of local, state or national
history in a visual way
• Consideration in federal undertakings and
improvement projects
• Eligibility for tax benefits through the federal
government
• Qualification for monetary funds for preservation
benefits
Donald L. Hardesty and Barbara Little, Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists
and Historians, 2nd edition, (Lanham, MD: Altamira Press, 2009).

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties
Approved treatment
options:
• Preservation
• Rehabilitation
• Reconstruction
In rare conditions:
• Demolition by neglect
• Moving the historic
structure
Historic Cabin Ca. 1860’s
La Sal, Utah
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2010. Edited by Brick R. King, 2010
Colors have been enhanced

Success Stories:
Onsite Preservation of Carson Inn, 1858
Quick Facts:
• Camp Floyd and
Stagecoach Inn State Park
• Fairfield, Utah
• Built in 1858 by John
Carson
• Adobe and Frame
Construction
• Restored June 1959
• Outcome: furnished as a
historic “house” museum

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2011
Plaque, Camp Floyd /Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah

Success Stories: Moving, Restoration and Renovation
Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, 1847 and the Deuel
Family Cabin, 1847
Deuel Cabin
•
•
•

Riter Cabin

Temple Square
Moved ca. 1989
Glass enclosed historic house museum
with period furnishings

Why are they so Important?

•
•
•

Maintained in Old Deseret Village
Moved to Old Deseret Village ca. 1989
Interpreted solely by historical plaque

• Photo

The two oldest
remaining structures
in Utah are these
original
165-year –old cabins

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village

Success Story:
Relocation to Old Deseret Village
Quick Facts:

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Historic Manti Mill,
built ca. 1858 in Manti, Utah
Relocated ca. 1989

• This is the Place Heritage
Park
• Salt Lake City, Utah
• More than 40
structures/buildings
• Buildings consist of
originals, reproductions, or
relocated 19th century
structures
• Outcome: set up as a
historic village to interpret
frontier life in Utah from
1847-1869

Other success stories
ODV

Photos: Kimberly Buckner 2012

Camp Douglas, ca. 1864
“…I found another location, which I like better for
various reasons…”– Patrick Edward Connor
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah
Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14 September 1862,
Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah.

From Camp to Fort
26 October 1862 : established Camp
Douglas
1862: “Connor Tents” and Dugouts
1863: Adobe and Log structures begun
1867: Expansion of Camp’s perimeter
1874-75: $1 Million rebuild from native
red sandstone
1878: Renamed Fort Douglas

Camp Douglas ca. 1866
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884: $63,820 expansion with 5 frame
structures

From Fort to Historic Landmark
1904-1911: $1,140,000 building expansion
1910: Introduction of electricity
1915-16: Addition of detention camp
1930: Final major building expansion
1970: Listed on National Register of Historic
Places as a heritage district
1974: Listed as National Historic Landmark
26 October 1991: Fort Douglas officially
decommissioned
2002: Athlete’s Village, 2002 Winter Olympics

Stillwell Field Looking East, 2012
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Building 55
Characteristics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

Cost $780
Less than 1900 Sq. Feet
Originally 26 ft. by 29 ft.
Adobe with frame additions
First Neoclassical cross-wing in
Utah (symmetrical design)
4 rooms
18” thick walls
3 adobe fireplaces
“Four over four” double hung
sash windows
Pine or Douglas Fir
Wooden shingle roof coated in
slate
“Lath and plastered” interior
Has a stand alone Historic
Register eligible structure below
the original building (1862 Root
Cellar)

Building 55 in 2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Greg Haws and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History
of Building 55 (7) and its Inhabitants.” University of Utah
Graduate School of Architecture,
Fort Douglas Papers, University of Utah
Marriott Library Special Collections,
Salt Lake City, Utah

Building 55, ca. 1865
“In the shadow of Red Butte, the silent sentinel…looks down upon the scene of
[their] labors, at the very spot where [they ]first camped…”
–Lieutenant Colonel Fred B. Rogers at the funeral of General Patrick Edward
Connor
Photo: Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah;
Elmo R. Morgan, “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22 October 1862-30 September 1954”, Fort Douglas
Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah(Brackets added)

Then and Now
ca. 1900

Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner

Preservation of Building 55: Additions
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

North Exterior

South Exterior

1930
Addition

Unknown
addition

1864
Frame
Addition

1862-3
Root
Cellar

1863
Original
Building

1863 Original
Building

1875
Addition
1864 Post
Surgeons
Quarter’s

1930
Addition

Extensive Known Alterations:
1864: addition of two frame rooms
1874: addition of parlor from Post Surgeon’s quarters
Removal of a fireplace
Windows changed
Fireplace enclosed
1903: Plumbing
1910: Electricity
1911-1928: steam heating, telephones, gas lines
1930: frame Lean-to addition
Windows changed
1960: fire damage repairs
Unknown: Building addition
Unknown: Exterior Stucco
Source: Maintenance Records for Building 33, 1933; Maintenance Records for Building 55, 1938

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Preservation

Unknown Addition
Ca. 1930

• Building 55 is believed to have
been the only complete 1863
structure remaining at Fort
Douglas
• In 2003 parts of several other
1863 buildings have been found:
– 1874: Commander’s Quarters
Parlor from 1863 District
Commander’s Residence
– 1864: Building 55
Parlor Post Surgeon’s
Quarters
– 1862-63: Building 55
Root Cellar

1874 Addition

Original 1863 Parlor

1874 Post Commander’s Residence
Source: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Moving Building 55
• First discussed in 1990
• Again in 1994
• The site chosen was Old
Deseret Village
• University of Utah did not
agree for “reasons so
compelling”
• Recommended for
preservation on site
• Discussion never progressed
further into action
• Outcome: remains on site

Old Deseret Village looking east, 2012
First proposed area to move Building 55

Source: Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995; Anne Racer to Rick
Reece, email, 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum,
Fort Douglas, Utah.

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Old Deseret Village:
Historically Camp Douglas
Pros for moving:

Cons for moving Building 55:

• Old Deseret Village was
constructed on the original
grounds of Camp Douglas
(Association)
• Preserves the structure
• Allows “basic” interpretation
of the historic structure
• Provides opportunities for new
use, but not uses the building
was intended for(Design)

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•

Moved off of original location 1+ miles
away (location)
Destroys 150 years of association to
location of the historic camp
(Association/location)
Bears no resemblance to current location
(feeling )
Would remove from NRHP an make it
ineligible for any future attempts
Removes Historic Landmark designation
Costs to move , reconstruct and restore
(materials)
Destruction of original workmanship
(workmanship)
May cause un-repairable damage to the
structure (workmanship/
materials/design)

Fort Douglas Military Museum
1917
Master Plan
POW Barracks (RC)

N: New
RE: Relocated
RC: Reconstructed
E: Existing
D: Drop Building Addition to
Historic Structure

1942
Firehouse (E)

North

1943
Barracks (RE)

and Guard Tower (RC)

Women’s
Memorial (N)

D

1863
Commanders
Home (RE)

D

D

Building 31 and 32
Current Museum (E)
Not connected yet. Black Star
Building has been completed.

1935
Shop (RE)
© 2012 Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884
Officer’s
Quarters
Duplex (RE)

Preservation Problems
• Stress fractures
• Plaster Damage
• Fire Damage
• Foundation damage
• Windows
•Adobe damage

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner , 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos:
Kimberly
Buckner
2012

A Good Move: Moving Building 55 to Fort
Douglas Military Museum Grounds
Pros:

Cons:

• A move of less than ¼ mile
• Maintains association to original
site (Association)
• Preservation of structure
(materials/design)
• Opportunities to interpret local
history of post (location)
• Chosen site provides similar view
to original location (setting)
• Allows for new use (design)
• Maintains feeling of the historic
district (Feeling)

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Removes from primary location and
original foundation (Location)
Potential to damage structure
May destroy the original
workmanship (Workmanship)
To which era of significance will it
be restored?
Original orientation may not be
possible
Will introduce modern materials
into the historic structure
(Materials)
Removes from NRHP but would
allow for reapplication/maintains
historic landmark designation

A Difference in Views
Old Deseret Village

Looking West

Fort Douglas Military
Museum Grounds

Cannon Park looking South
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Lessening the impacts:
When moving is the only Preservation
option
Old Deseret Village

Fort Douglas Military Museum

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Will lose nearly all historical identity
Not on original site, but in association with original
camp
Allows the structure to exist
Would impact the elements of original design
Area not with original feeling but among structures
who have lost their “history”
Introduction of modern materials
Further impacts to historic workmanship
Loss of National Historic Landmark Designation
Loss of NRHP listing. May not be able to reapply
Land has lost all association/use with original Camp
Douglas
New use may not be conducive to historic use
1+ mile move
Impacts all criterion of integrity
Must be removed from Federal ownership to
private

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Maintains historical Identity
Maintains association with original camp
Structure is preserved in similar location
Less than ¼ mile move
Area has maintained original feeling and
association to the camp
Loss of NHRP listing but retains eligibility for
the future
Maintains National Historic Landmark
Designation and prominence within the
historic district
Interpretation of changes in military housing
New use conducive to original use
Fully restored with historical furnishing s
Retains nearly all criterion of Integrity
Already part of museum complex
Maintains federal ownership (State of Utah
to Utah National Guard ownership)

Moving: The Right Choice?
Old Deseret Village is a good place to house relocated and reconstructed historic structures to interpret the
early territorial history of Utah
BUT…
It was not the right setting to house a unique structure like Building 55
–

Will Building 55 be remembered for its history and sense of location? Or, because of the 4th grade
field trip with limited exposure only to be quickly forgotten?

–

With so many structures will the building be properly maintained or fall victim to demolition by
neglect?

–

Potentially a Section 106 logistic nightmare (Federal holdings to “private” hands)

Whereas…
The Fort Douglas Military Museum grounds will allow the unique structure a permanent home, restoration and
ability to maintain a prominent place in Fort Douglas. It will allow for
–

more opportunities and exposure to its unique history,

–

Will ensure that it will be preserved for future generations.

If Moved to Old Deseret Village

The actual site chosen for Building 55 in 1990 was never disclosed in the documentation.
Building 55 was placed in an arbitrary location within the park.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012 Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

If moved to the Museum Grounds

Sitting in proposed Master Plan location on the museum grounds.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Future Recommendations
The recommendations for Building 55:
1.

Restoration at current site using historically accurate methods
–
Potential for learning opportunities at current site (i.e. Root Cellar)
–
Potential for gaining additional archaeological information from site
–
Root Cellar was nominated as a stand alone NHRP eligible structure in 2008.

2.

Create a viable strategic plan for living history and historic house museum (adaptive use)
–
Prepare plan to cover all preservation issues which may crop up in the next decade
–
Prepare a strategic plan for safely moving Building 55, allowing for historically
accurate restoration and renovation methods.

3.

I

Maintain Building 55 on site
–
Use authentic and historically accurate reproduction pieces
–
Interpretive/Museum use

4.
If and when the time comes, move the structure to the Fort Douglas Military Museum
grounds to maintain current preservation effort
-- Increase opportunities for interpretation of structure
-- Restore back to 1863, and use later additions for storage/office space
-- Allow for living history programs

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Any Questions?

Bibliography
•

Advisory Council Regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR 800) .

•

Anne Racer to Rick Reese, (Email), 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas
Utah

•

Andrus, Cecil B. et al. “Part 6: The National Historic Register of Historic Places.” The Manual for
State Historic Preservation Review Boards. www.nps.gov/nr/bulletins/strevman/strevman6.htm
(accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Exhibit, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Register Nomination Form, 1970.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Landmark Nomination Form, 1974, Building 7 file, Utah State
Historical Preservation Offices, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas Military Museum, Master Plan, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas , Utah.

•

Hardesty, Donald L. and Barbara Little. Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists and
Historians (Lanham, MD.: Altamira Press, 2009).

•

Haws, Greg and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History of Building 55 (7) and its inhabitants.” University
of Utah Graduate School., 12 December 1994, University of Utah Marriott Library Special
Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Loveday, Amos J. “The Decision Makers Guide to Section 106.” Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2) pp. 10-17.

•

Maintenance Records Building 33, 1933, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah .

•

Maintenance Records Building 55, 1938, Fort Douglas Military Museum

•

Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas,
Utah

•

Morgan, Elmo R. “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22October-30 September 1954.” Fort
Douglas Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

National Park Service. Cultural Resource Guidelines (2002).
www.nps.gov/history/online_books nps28/28chap8.htm (accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Parris, Thomas . “Historical Preservation.” Environment Vol. 26 no. 8, (February 2003). P. 3

• Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14
September, 1862, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.
• Plaque, Camp Floyd/Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah.

• Plaque, Deuel Cabin, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt
Lake City, Utah.
• Plaque, Levi Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village, Salt Lake City, Utah.

• “Section 106: Back to the Basics” in Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2).
• University of Utah “From Civil War Building to Entrepreneurial Mecca”,
9 September 2008, http:/unews.utah.edu/old/p/090808-1.html
(accessed 1 August 2012).
• Utah State Historical Society Photograph Collection, Utah State
Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah


Slide 25

In the Shade of Black Locusts:
Preserving the “Silent Sentinel”
of Fort Douglas

Kimberly Buckner
Volunteer Staff
Fort Douglas Military Museum
Salt Lake City, Utah

Photo: Utah State Historical Society

Copyright Notice
© 2012 Kimberly Buckner and Fort
Douglas Military Museum. All
Rights Reserved. No use of any
photographs/information in this
presentation without express
written consent of the copyright
owner(s). All photos used by
permission.

But not all historic properties
are deliberately being
destroyed. Many have fallen
victim to the “ravages of
time.” This structure near
Camp Floyd has completely
collapsed since this picture
was taken in 2010.

Preservation: A National Priority?
Thomas Parris: National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 promotes the preservation of historic
structures as a national priority

And YET thousands of historically significant
properties are being destroyed each year despite
placement on the National Register of Historic
Places
Thomas Parris, “Historic Preservation”, Environment, Vol. 46, no. 8 (February 2003), p. 3

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

A Common Misconception?
A commonly held misconception among public
audiences:
“Preservation is broadly opposed to change and by
extension, that Section 106 is a tool to block
progress.”
Instead:
“Preservation is about controlling and accommodating
change, and the entire network of preservation rules,
beginning with Section 106, is designed to accomplish
that end.”
Amos J. Loveday, “The Decision Maker’s guide to Section 106”, Forum Journal Winter 2012, Vol. 26
(2), p. 17

Preserving Eligibility
Preservation is meant to protect by not diminishing
any characteristic providing eligibility on the
National Register of Historic Places Including (but
not limited to):
• Integrity of Location
• Integrity of Design
• Integrity of Setting
• Integrity of Materials
• Integrity of Workmanship
• Integrity of Feeling
• Integrity of Association
“Section 106: Back to the Basics”, Forum Journal, Winter 2012, Vol. 26, no. 2, p.10; 36 CFR
800.5 (a)(1)

The National Register of
Historic Places
Since 1966, The National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) provides:
• Communal recognition of local, state or national
history in a visual way
• Consideration in federal undertakings and
improvement projects
• Eligibility for tax benefits through the federal
government
• Qualification for monetary funds for preservation
benefits
Donald L. Hardesty and Barbara Little, Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists
and Historians, 2nd edition, (Lanham, MD: Altamira Press, 2009).

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties
Approved treatment
options:
• Preservation
• Rehabilitation
• Reconstruction
In rare conditions:
• Demolition by neglect
• Moving the historic
structure
Historic Cabin Ca. 1860’s
La Sal, Utah
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2010. Edited by Brick R. King, 2010
Colors have been enhanced

Success Stories:
Onsite Preservation of Carson Inn, 1858
Quick Facts:
• Camp Floyd and
Stagecoach Inn State Park
• Fairfield, Utah
• Built in 1858 by John
Carson
• Adobe and Frame
Construction
• Restored June 1959
• Outcome: furnished as a
historic “house” museum

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2011
Plaque, Camp Floyd /Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah

Success Stories: Moving, Restoration and Renovation
Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, 1847 and the Deuel
Family Cabin, 1847
Deuel Cabin
•
•
•

Riter Cabin

Temple Square
Moved ca. 1989
Glass enclosed historic house museum
with period furnishings

Why are they so Important?

•
•
•

Maintained in Old Deseret Village
Moved to Old Deseret Village ca. 1989
Interpreted solely by historical plaque

• Photo

The two oldest
remaining structures
in Utah are these
original
165-year –old cabins

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village

Success Story:
Relocation to Old Deseret Village
Quick Facts:

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Historic Manti Mill,
built ca. 1858 in Manti, Utah
Relocated ca. 1989

• This is the Place Heritage
Park
• Salt Lake City, Utah
• More than 40
structures/buildings
• Buildings consist of
originals, reproductions, or
relocated 19th century
structures
• Outcome: set up as a
historic village to interpret
frontier life in Utah from
1847-1869

Other success stories
ODV

Photos: Kimberly Buckner 2012

Camp Douglas, ca. 1864
“…I found another location, which I like better for
various reasons…”– Patrick Edward Connor
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah
Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14 September 1862,
Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah.

From Camp to Fort
26 October 1862 : established Camp
Douglas
1862: “Connor Tents” and Dugouts
1863: Adobe and Log structures begun
1867: Expansion of Camp’s perimeter
1874-75: $1 Million rebuild from native
red sandstone
1878: Renamed Fort Douglas

Camp Douglas ca. 1866
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884: $63,820 expansion with 5 frame
structures

From Fort to Historic Landmark
1904-1911: $1,140,000 building expansion
1910: Introduction of electricity
1915-16: Addition of detention camp
1930: Final major building expansion
1970: Listed on National Register of Historic
Places as a heritage district
1974: Listed as National Historic Landmark
26 October 1991: Fort Douglas officially
decommissioned
2002: Athlete’s Village, 2002 Winter Olympics

Stillwell Field Looking East, 2012
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Building 55
Characteristics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

Cost $780
Less than 1900 Sq. Feet
Originally 26 ft. by 29 ft.
Adobe with frame additions
First Neoclassical cross-wing in
Utah (symmetrical design)
4 rooms
18” thick walls
3 adobe fireplaces
“Four over four” double hung
sash windows
Pine or Douglas Fir
Wooden shingle roof coated in
slate
“Lath and plastered” interior
Has a stand alone Historic
Register eligible structure below
the original building (1862 Root
Cellar)

Building 55 in 2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Greg Haws and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History
of Building 55 (7) and its Inhabitants.” University of Utah
Graduate School of Architecture,
Fort Douglas Papers, University of Utah
Marriott Library Special Collections,
Salt Lake City, Utah

Building 55, ca. 1865
“In the shadow of Red Butte, the silent sentinel…looks down upon the scene of
[their] labors, at the very spot where [they ]first camped…”
–Lieutenant Colonel Fred B. Rogers at the funeral of General Patrick Edward
Connor
Photo: Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah;
Elmo R. Morgan, “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22 October 1862-30 September 1954”, Fort Douglas
Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah(Brackets added)

Then and Now
ca. 1900

Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner

Preservation of Building 55: Additions
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

North Exterior

South Exterior

1930
Addition

Unknown
addition

1864
Frame
Addition

1862-3
Root
Cellar

1863
Original
Building

1863 Original
Building

1875
Addition
1864 Post
Surgeons
Quarter’s

1930
Addition

Extensive Known Alterations:
1864: addition of two frame rooms
1874: addition of parlor from Post Surgeon’s quarters
Removal of a fireplace
Windows changed
Fireplace enclosed
1903: Plumbing
1910: Electricity
1911-1928: steam heating, telephones, gas lines
1930: frame Lean-to addition
Windows changed
1960: fire damage repairs
Unknown: Building addition
Unknown: Exterior Stucco
Source: Maintenance Records for Building 33, 1933; Maintenance Records for Building 55, 1938

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Preservation

Unknown Addition
Ca. 1930

• Building 55 is believed to have
been the only complete 1863
structure remaining at Fort
Douglas
• In 2003 parts of several other
1863 buildings have been found:
– 1874: Commander’s Quarters
Parlor from 1863 District
Commander’s Residence
– 1864: Building 55
Parlor Post Surgeon’s
Quarters
– 1862-63: Building 55
Root Cellar

1874 Addition

Original 1863 Parlor

1874 Post Commander’s Residence
Source: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Moving Building 55
• First discussed in 1990
• Again in 1994
• The site chosen was Old
Deseret Village
• University of Utah did not
agree for “reasons so
compelling”
• Recommended for
preservation on site
• Discussion never progressed
further into action
• Outcome: remains on site

Old Deseret Village looking east, 2012
First proposed area to move Building 55

Source: Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995; Anne Racer to Rick
Reece, email, 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum,
Fort Douglas, Utah.

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Old Deseret Village:
Historically Camp Douglas
Pros for moving:

Cons for moving Building 55:

• Old Deseret Village was
constructed on the original
grounds of Camp Douglas
(Association)
• Preserves the structure
• Allows “basic” interpretation
of the historic structure
• Provides opportunities for new
use, but not uses the building
was intended for(Design)

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•

Moved off of original location 1+ miles
away (location)
Destroys 150 years of association to
location of the historic camp
(Association/location)
Bears no resemblance to current location
(feeling )
Would remove from NRHP an make it
ineligible for any future attempts
Removes Historic Landmark designation
Costs to move , reconstruct and restore
(materials)
Destruction of original workmanship
(workmanship)
May cause un-repairable damage to the
structure (workmanship/
materials/design)

Fort Douglas Military Museum
1917
Master Plan
POW Barracks (RC)

N: New
RE: Relocated
RC: Reconstructed
E: Existing
D: Drop Building Addition to
Historic Structure

1942
Firehouse (E)

North

1943
Barracks (RE)

and Guard Tower (RC)

Women’s
Memorial (N)

D

1863
Commanders
Home (RE)

D

D

Building 31 and 32
Current Museum (E)
Not connected yet. Black Star
Building has been completed.

1935
Shop (RE)
© 2012 Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884
Officer’s
Quarters
Duplex (RE)

Preservation Problems
• Stress fractures
• Plaster Damage
• Fire Damage
• Foundation damage
• Windows
•Adobe damage

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner , 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos:
Kimberly
Buckner
2012

A Good Move: Moving Building 55 to Fort
Douglas Military Museum Grounds
Pros:

Cons:

• A move of less than ¼ mile
• Maintains association to original
site (Association)
• Preservation of structure
(materials/design)
• Opportunities to interpret local
history of post (location)
• Chosen site provides similar view
to original location (setting)
• Allows for new use (design)
• Maintains feeling of the historic
district (Feeling)

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Removes from primary location and
original foundation (Location)
Potential to damage structure
May destroy the original
workmanship (Workmanship)
To which era of significance will it
be restored?
Original orientation may not be
possible
Will introduce modern materials
into the historic structure
(Materials)
Removes from NRHP but would
allow for reapplication/maintains
historic landmark designation

A Difference in Views
Old Deseret Village

Looking West

Fort Douglas Military
Museum Grounds

Cannon Park looking South
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Lessening the impacts:
When moving is the only Preservation
option
Old Deseret Village

Fort Douglas Military Museum

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Will lose nearly all historical identity
Not on original site, but in association with original
camp
Allows the structure to exist
Would impact the elements of original design
Area not with original feeling but among structures
who have lost their “history”
Introduction of modern materials
Further impacts to historic workmanship
Loss of National Historic Landmark Designation
Loss of NRHP listing. May not be able to reapply
Land has lost all association/use with original Camp
Douglas
New use may not be conducive to historic use
1+ mile move
Impacts all criterion of integrity
Must be removed from Federal ownership to
private

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Maintains historical Identity
Maintains association with original camp
Structure is preserved in similar location
Less than ¼ mile move
Area has maintained original feeling and
association to the camp
Loss of NHRP listing but retains eligibility for
the future
Maintains National Historic Landmark
Designation and prominence within the
historic district
Interpretation of changes in military housing
New use conducive to original use
Fully restored with historical furnishing s
Retains nearly all criterion of Integrity
Already part of museum complex
Maintains federal ownership (State of Utah
to Utah National Guard ownership)

Moving: The Right Choice?
Old Deseret Village is a good place to house relocated and reconstructed historic structures to interpret the
early territorial history of Utah
BUT…
It was not the right setting to house a unique structure like Building 55
–

Will Building 55 be remembered for its history and sense of location? Or, because of the 4th grade
field trip with limited exposure only to be quickly forgotten?

–

With so many structures will the building be properly maintained or fall victim to demolition by
neglect?

–

Potentially a Section 106 logistic nightmare (Federal holdings to “private” hands)

Whereas…
The Fort Douglas Military Museum grounds will allow the unique structure a permanent home, restoration and
ability to maintain a prominent place in Fort Douglas. It will allow for
–

more opportunities and exposure to its unique history,

–

Will ensure that it will be preserved for future generations.

If Moved to Old Deseret Village

The actual site chosen for Building 55 in 1990 was never disclosed in the documentation.
Building 55 was placed in an arbitrary location within the park.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012 Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

If moved to the Museum Grounds

Sitting in proposed Master Plan location on the museum grounds.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Future Recommendations
The recommendations for Building 55:
1.

Restoration at current site using historically accurate methods
–
Potential for learning opportunities at current site (i.e. Root Cellar)
–
Potential for gaining additional archaeological information from site
–
Root Cellar was nominated as a stand alone NHRP eligible structure in 2008.

2.

Create a viable strategic plan for living history and historic house museum (adaptive use)
–
Prepare plan to cover all preservation issues which may crop up in the next decade
–
Prepare a strategic plan for safely moving Building 55, allowing for historically
accurate restoration and renovation methods.

3.

I

Maintain Building 55 on site
–
Use authentic and historically accurate reproduction pieces
–
Interpretive/Museum use

4.
If and when the time comes, move the structure to the Fort Douglas Military Museum
grounds to maintain current preservation effort
-- Increase opportunities for interpretation of structure
-- Restore back to 1863, and use later additions for storage/office space
-- Allow for living history programs

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Any Questions?

Bibliography
•

Advisory Council Regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR 800) .

•

Anne Racer to Rick Reese, (Email), 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas
Utah

•

Andrus, Cecil B. et al. “Part 6: The National Historic Register of Historic Places.” The Manual for
State Historic Preservation Review Boards. www.nps.gov/nr/bulletins/strevman/strevman6.htm
(accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Exhibit, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Register Nomination Form, 1970.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Landmark Nomination Form, 1974, Building 7 file, Utah State
Historical Preservation Offices, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas Military Museum, Master Plan, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas , Utah.

•

Hardesty, Donald L. and Barbara Little. Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists and
Historians (Lanham, MD.: Altamira Press, 2009).

•

Haws, Greg and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History of Building 55 (7) and its inhabitants.” University
of Utah Graduate School., 12 December 1994, University of Utah Marriott Library Special
Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Loveday, Amos J. “The Decision Makers Guide to Section 106.” Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2) pp. 10-17.

•

Maintenance Records Building 33, 1933, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah .

•

Maintenance Records Building 55, 1938, Fort Douglas Military Museum

•

Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas,
Utah

•

Morgan, Elmo R. “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22October-30 September 1954.” Fort
Douglas Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

National Park Service. Cultural Resource Guidelines (2002).
www.nps.gov/history/online_books nps28/28chap8.htm (accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Parris, Thomas . “Historical Preservation.” Environment Vol. 26 no. 8, (February 2003). P. 3

• Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14
September, 1862, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.
• Plaque, Camp Floyd/Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah.

• Plaque, Deuel Cabin, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt
Lake City, Utah.
• Plaque, Levi Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village, Salt Lake City, Utah.

• “Section 106: Back to the Basics” in Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2).
• University of Utah “From Civil War Building to Entrepreneurial Mecca”,
9 September 2008, http:/unews.utah.edu/old/p/090808-1.html
(accessed 1 August 2012).
• Utah State Historical Society Photograph Collection, Utah State
Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah


Slide 26

In the Shade of Black Locusts:
Preserving the “Silent Sentinel”
of Fort Douglas

Kimberly Buckner
Volunteer Staff
Fort Douglas Military Museum
Salt Lake City, Utah

Photo: Utah State Historical Society

Copyright Notice
© 2012 Kimberly Buckner and Fort
Douglas Military Museum. All
Rights Reserved. No use of any
photographs/information in this
presentation without express
written consent of the copyright
owner(s). All photos used by
permission.

But not all historic properties
are deliberately being
destroyed. Many have fallen
victim to the “ravages of
time.” This structure near
Camp Floyd has completely
collapsed since this picture
was taken in 2010.

Preservation: A National Priority?
Thomas Parris: National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 promotes the preservation of historic
structures as a national priority

And YET thousands of historically significant
properties are being destroyed each year despite
placement on the National Register of Historic
Places
Thomas Parris, “Historic Preservation”, Environment, Vol. 46, no. 8 (February 2003), p. 3

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

A Common Misconception?
A commonly held misconception among public
audiences:
“Preservation is broadly opposed to change and by
extension, that Section 106 is a tool to block
progress.”
Instead:
“Preservation is about controlling and accommodating
change, and the entire network of preservation rules,
beginning with Section 106, is designed to accomplish
that end.”
Amos J. Loveday, “The Decision Maker’s guide to Section 106”, Forum Journal Winter 2012, Vol. 26
(2), p. 17

Preserving Eligibility
Preservation is meant to protect by not diminishing
any characteristic providing eligibility on the
National Register of Historic Places Including (but
not limited to):
• Integrity of Location
• Integrity of Design
• Integrity of Setting
• Integrity of Materials
• Integrity of Workmanship
• Integrity of Feeling
• Integrity of Association
“Section 106: Back to the Basics”, Forum Journal, Winter 2012, Vol. 26, no. 2, p.10; 36 CFR
800.5 (a)(1)

The National Register of
Historic Places
Since 1966, The National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) provides:
• Communal recognition of local, state or national
history in a visual way
• Consideration in federal undertakings and
improvement projects
• Eligibility for tax benefits through the federal
government
• Qualification for monetary funds for preservation
benefits
Donald L. Hardesty and Barbara Little, Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists
and Historians, 2nd edition, (Lanham, MD: Altamira Press, 2009).

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties
Approved treatment
options:
• Preservation
• Rehabilitation
• Reconstruction
In rare conditions:
• Demolition by neglect
• Moving the historic
structure
Historic Cabin Ca. 1860’s
La Sal, Utah
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2010. Edited by Brick R. King, 2010
Colors have been enhanced

Success Stories:
Onsite Preservation of Carson Inn, 1858
Quick Facts:
• Camp Floyd and
Stagecoach Inn State Park
• Fairfield, Utah
• Built in 1858 by John
Carson
• Adobe and Frame
Construction
• Restored June 1959
• Outcome: furnished as a
historic “house” museum

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2011
Plaque, Camp Floyd /Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah

Success Stories: Moving, Restoration and Renovation
Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, 1847 and the Deuel
Family Cabin, 1847
Deuel Cabin
•
•
•

Riter Cabin

Temple Square
Moved ca. 1989
Glass enclosed historic house museum
with period furnishings

Why are they so Important?

•
•
•

Maintained in Old Deseret Village
Moved to Old Deseret Village ca. 1989
Interpreted solely by historical plaque

• Photo

The two oldest
remaining structures
in Utah are these
original
165-year –old cabins

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village

Success Story:
Relocation to Old Deseret Village
Quick Facts:

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Historic Manti Mill,
built ca. 1858 in Manti, Utah
Relocated ca. 1989

• This is the Place Heritage
Park
• Salt Lake City, Utah
• More than 40
structures/buildings
• Buildings consist of
originals, reproductions, or
relocated 19th century
structures
• Outcome: set up as a
historic village to interpret
frontier life in Utah from
1847-1869

Other success stories
ODV

Photos: Kimberly Buckner 2012

Camp Douglas, ca. 1864
“…I found another location, which I like better for
various reasons…”– Patrick Edward Connor
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah
Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14 September 1862,
Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah.

From Camp to Fort
26 October 1862 : established Camp
Douglas
1862: “Connor Tents” and Dugouts
1863: Adobe and Log structures begun
1867: Expansion of Camp’s perimeter
1874-75: $1 Million rebuild from native
red sandstone
1878: Renamed Fort Douglas

Camp Douglas ca. 1866
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884: $63,820 expansion with 5 frame
structures

From Fort to Historic Landmark
1904-1911: $1,140,000 building expansion
1910: Introduction of electricity
1915-16: Addition of detention camp
1930: Final major building expansion
1970: Listed on National Register of Historic
Places as a heritage district
1974: Listed as National Historic Landmark
26 October 1991: Fort Douglas officially
decommissioned
2002: Athlete’s Village, 2002 Winter Olympics

Stillwell Field Looking East, 2012
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Building 55
Characteristics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

Cost $780
Less than 1900 Sq. Feet
Originally 26 ft. by 29 ft.
Adobe with frame additions
First Neoclassical cross-wing in
Utah (symmetrical design)
4 rooms
18” thick walls
3 adobe fireplaces
“Four over four” double hung
sash windows
Pine or Douglas Fir
Wooden shingle roof coated in
slate
“Lath and plastered” interior
Has a stand alone Historic
Register eligible structure below
the original building (1862 Root
Cellar)

Building 55 in 2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Greg Haws and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History
of Building 55 (7) and its Inhabitants.” University of Utah
Graduate School of Architecture,
Fort Douglas Papers, University of Utah
Marriott Library Special Collections,
Salt Lake City, Utah

Building 55, ca. 1865
“In the shadow of Red Butte, the silent sentinel…looks down upon the scene of
[their] labors, at the very spot where [they ]first camped…”
–Lieutenant Colonel Fred B. Rogers at the funeral of General Patrick Edward
Connor
Photo: Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah;
Elmo R. Morgan, “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22 October 1862-30 September 1954”, Fort Douglas
Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah(Brackets added)

Then and Now
ca. 1900

Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner

Preservation of Building 55: Additions
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

North Exterior

South Exterior

1930
Addition

Unknown
addition

1864
Frame
Addition

1862-3
Root
Cellar

1863
Original
Building

1863 Original
Building

1875
Addition
1864 Post
Surgeons
Quarter’s

1930
Addition

Extensive Known Alterations:
1864: addition of two frame rooms
1874: addition of parlor from Post Surgeon’s quarters
Removal of a fireplace
Windows changed
Fireplace enclosed
1903: Plumbing
1910: Electricity
1911-1928: steam heating, telephones, gas lines
1930: frame Lean-to addition
Windows changed
1960: fire damage repairs
Unknown: Building addition
Unknown: Exterior Stucco
Source: Maintenance Records for Building 33, 1933; Maintenance Records for Building 55, 1938

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Preservation

Unknown Addition
Ca. 1930

• Building 55 is believed to have
been the only complete 1863
structure remaining at Fort
Douglas
• In 2003 parts of several other
1863 buildings have been found:
– 1874: Commander’s Quarters
Parlor from 1863 District
Commander’s Residence
– 1864: Building 55
Parlor Post Surgeon’s
Quarters
– 1862-63: Building 55
Root Cellar

1874 Addition

Original 1863 Parlor

1874 Post Commander’s Residence
Source: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Moving Building 55
• First discussed in 1990
• Again in 1994
• The site chosen was Old
Deseret Village
• University of Utah did not
agree for “reasons so
compelling”
• Recommended for
preservation on site
• Discussion never progressed
further into action
• Outcome: remains on site

Old Deseret Village looking east, 2012
First proposed area to move Building 55

Source: Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995; Anne Racer to Rick
Reece, email, 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum,
Fort Douglas, Utah.

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Old Deseret Village:
Historically Camp Douglas
Pros for moving:

Cons for moving Building 55:

• Old Deseret Village was
constructed on the original
grounds of Camp Douglas
(Association)
• Preserves the structure
• Allows “basic” interpretation
of the historic structure
• Provides opportunities for new
use, but not uses the building
was intended for(Design)

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•

Moved off of original location 1+ miles
away (location)
Destroys 150 years of association to
location of the historic camp
(Association/location)
Bears no resemblance to current location
(feeling )
Would remove from NRHP an make it
ineligible for any future attempts
Removes Historic Landmark designation
Costs to move , reconstruct and restore
(materials)
Destruction of original workmanship
(workmanship)
May cause un-repairable damage to the
structure (workmanship/
materials/design)

Fort Douglas Military Museum
1917
Master Plan
POW Barracks (RC)

N: New
RE: Relocated
RC: Reconstructed
E: Existing
D: Drop Building Addition to
Historic Structure

1942
Firehouse (E)

North

1943
Barracks (RE)

and Guard Tower (RC)

Women’s
Memorial (N)

D

1863
Commanders
Home (RE)

D

D

Building 31 and 32
Current Museum (E)
Not connected yet. Black Star
Building has been completed.

1935
Shop (RE)
© 2012 Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884
Officer’s
Quarters
Duplex (RE)

Preservation Problems
• Stress fractures
• Plaster Damage
• Fire Damage
• Foundation damage
• Windows
•Adobe damage

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner , 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos:
Kimberly
Buckner
2012

A Good Move: Moving Building 55 to Fort
Douglas Military Museum Grounds
Pros:

Cons:

• A move of less than ¼ mile
• Maintains association to original
site (Association)
• Preservation of structure
(materials/design)
• Opportunities to interpret local
history of post (location)
• Chosen site provides similar view
to original location (setting)
• Allows for new use (design)
• Maintains feeling of the historic
district (Feeling)

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Removes from primary location and
original foundation (Location)
Potential to damage structure
May destroy the original
workmanship (Workmanship)
To which era of significance will it
be restored?
Original orientation may not be
possible
Will introduce modern materials
into the historic structure
(Materials)
Removes from NRHP but would
allow for reapplication/maintains
historic landmark designation

A Difference in Views
Old Deseret Village

Looking West

Fort Douglas Military
Museum Grounds

Cannon Park looking South
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Lessening the impacts:
When moving is the only Preservation
option
Old Deseret Village

Fort Douglas Military Museum

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Will lose nearly all historical identity
Not on original site, but in association with original
camp
Allows the structure to exist
Would impact the elements of original design
Area not with original feeling but among structures
who have lost their “history”
Introduction of modern materials
Further impacts to historic workmanship
Loss of National Historic Landmark Designation
Loss of NRHP listing. May not be able to reapply
Land has lost all association/use with original Camp
Douglas
New use may not be conducive to historic use
1+ mile move
Impacts all criterion of integrity
Must be removed from Federal ownership to
private

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Maintains historical Identity
Maintains association with original camp
Structure is preserved in similar location
Less than ¼ mile move
Area has maintained original feeling and
association to the camp
Loss of NHRP listing but retains eligibility for
the future
Maintains National Historic Landmark
Designation and prominence within the
historic district
Interpretation of changes in military housing
New use conducive to original use
Fully restored with historical furnishing s
Retains nearly all criterion of Integrity
Already part of museum complex
Maintains federal ownership (State of Utah
to Utah National Guard ownership)

Moving: The Right Choice?
Old Deseret Village is a good place to house relocated and reconstructed historic structures to interpret the
early territorial history of Utah
BUT…
It was not the right setting to house a unique structure like Building 55
–

Will Building 55 be remembered for its history and sense of location? Or, because of the 4th grade
field trip with limited exposure only to be quickly forgotten?

–

With so many structures will the building be properly maintained or fall victim to demolition by
neglect?

–

Potentially a Section 106 logistic nightmare (Federal holdings to “private” hands)

Whereas…
The Fort Douglas Military Museum grounds will allow the unique structure a permanent home, restoration and
ability to maintain a prominent place in Fort Douglas. It will allow for
–

more opportunities and exposure to its unique history,

–

Will ensure that it will be preserved for future generations.

If Moved to Old Deseret Village

The actual site chosen for Building 55 in 1990 was never disclosed in the documentation.
Building 55 was placed in an arbitrary location within the park.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012 Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

If moved to the Museum Grounds

Sitting in proposed Master Plan location on the museum grounds.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Future Recommendations
The recommendations for Building 55:
1.

Restoration at current site using historically accurate methods
–
Potential for learning opportunities at current site (i.e. Root Cellar)
–
Potential for gaining additional archaeological information from site
–
Root Cellar was nominated as a stand alone NHRP eligible structure in 2008.

2.

Create a viable strategic plan for living history and historic house museum (adaptive use)
–
Prepare plan to cover all preservation issues which may crop up in the next decade
–
Prepare a strategic plan for safely moving Building 55, allowing for historically
accurate restoration and renovation methods.

3.

I

Maintain Building 55 on site
–
Use authentic and historically accurate reproduction pieces
–
Interpretive/Museum use

4.
If and when the time comes, move the structure to the Fort Douglas Military Museum
grounds to maintain current preservation effort
-- Increase opportunities for interpretation of structure
-- Restore back to 1863, and use later additions for storage/office space
-- Allow for living history programs

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Any Questions?

Bibliography
•

Advisory Council Regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR 800) .

•

Anne Racer to Rick Reese, (Email), 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas
Utah

•

Andrus, Cecil B. et al. “Part 6: The National Historic Register of Historic Places.” The Manual for
State Historic Preservation Review Boards. www.nps.gov/nr/bulletins/strevman/strevman6.htm
(accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Exhibit, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Register Nomination Form, 1970.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Landmark Nomination Form, 1974, Building 7 file, Utah State
Historical Preservation Offices, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas Military Museum, Master Plan, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas , Utah.

•

Hardesty, Donald L. and Barbara Little. Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists and
Historians (Lanham, MD.: Altamira Press, 2009).

•

Haws, Greg and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History of Building 55 (7) and its inhabitants.” University
of Utah Graduate School., 12 December 1994, University of Utah Marriott Library Special
Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Loveday, Amos J. “The Decision Makers Guide to Section 106.” Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2) pp. 10-17.

•

Maintenance Records Building 33, 1933, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah .

•

Maintenance Records Building 55, 1938, Fort Douglas Military Museum

•

Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas,
Utah

•

Morgan, Elmo R. “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22October-30 September 1954.” Fort
Douglas Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

National Park Service. Cultural Resource Guidelines (2002).
www.nps.gov/history/online_books nps28/28chap8.htm (accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Parris, Thomas . “Historical Preservation.” Environment Vol. 26 no. 8, (February 2003). P. 3

• Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14
September, 1862, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.
• Plaque, Camp Floyd/Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah.

• Plaque, Deuel Cabin, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt
Lake City, Utah.
• Plaque, Levi Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village, Salt Lake City, Utah.

• “Section 106: Back to the Basics” in Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2).
• University of Utah “From Civil War Building to Entrepreneurial Mecca”,
9 September 2008, http:/unews.utah.edu/old/p/090808-1.html
(accessed 1 August 2012).
• Utah State Historical Society Photograph Collection, Utah State
Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah


Slide 27

In the Shade of Black Locusts:
Preserving the “Silent Sentinel”
of Fort Douglas

Kimberly Buckner
Volunteer Staff
Fort Douglas Military Museum
Salt Lake City, Utah

Photo: Utah State Historical Society

Copyright Notice
© 2012 Kimberly Buckner and Fort
Douglas Military Museum. All
Rights Reserved. No use of any
photographs/information in this
presentation without express
written consent of the copyright
owner(s). All photos used by
permission.

But not all historic properties
are deliberately being
destroyed. Many have fallen
victim to the “ravages of
time.” This structure near
Camp Floyd has completely
collapsed since this picture
was taken in 2010.

Preservation: A National Priority?
Thomas Parris: National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 promotes the preservation of historic
structures as a national priority

And YET thousands of historically significant
properties are being destroyed each year despite
placement on the National Register of Historic
Places
Thomas Parris, “Historic Preservation”, Environment, Vol. 46, no. 8 (February 2003), p. 3

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

A Common Misconception?
A commonly held misconception among public
audiences:
“Preservation is broadly opposed to change and by
extension, that Section 106 is a tool to block
progress.”
Instead:
“Preservation is about controlling and accommodating
change, and the entire network of preservation rules,
beginning with Section 106, is designed to accomplish
that end.”
Amos J. Loveday, “The Decision Maker’s guide to Section 106”, Forum Journal Winter 2012, Vol. 26
(2), p. 17

Preserving Eligibility
Preservation is meant to protect by not diminishing
any characteristic providing eligibility on the
National Register of Historic Places Including (but
not limited to):
• Integrity of Location
• Integrity of Design
• Integrity of Setting
• Integrity of Materials
• Integrity of Workmanship
• Integrity of Feeling
• Integrity of Association
“Section 106: Back to the Basics”, Forum Journal, Winter 2012, Vol. 26, no. 2, p.10; 36 CFR
800.5 (a)(1)

The National Register of
Historic Places
Since 1966, The National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) provides:
• Communal recognition of local, state or national
history in a visual way
• Consideration in federal undertakings and
improvement projects
• Eligibility for tax benefits through the federal
government
• Qualification for monetary funds for preservation
benefits
Donald L. Hardesty and Barbara Little, Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists
and Historians, 2nd edition, (Lanham, MD: Altamira Press, 2009).

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties
Approved treatment
options:
• Preservation
• Rehabilitation
• Reconstruction
In rare conditions:
• Demolition by neglect
• Moving the historic
structure
Historic Cabin Ca. 1860’s
La Sal, Utah
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2010. Edited by Brick R. King, 2010
Colors have been enhanced

Success Stories:
Onsite Preservation of Carson Inn, 1858
Quick Facts:
• Camp Floyd and
Stagecoach Inn State Park
• Fairfield, Utah
• Built in 1858 by John
Carson
• Adobe and Frame
Construction
• Restored June 1959
• Outcome: furnished as a
historic “house” museum

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2011
Plaque, Camp Floyd /Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah

Success Stories: Moving, Restoration and Renovation
Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, 1847 and the Deuel
Family Cabin, 1847
Deuel Cabin
•
•
•

Riter Cabin

Temple Square
Moved ca. 1989
Glass enclosed historic house museum
with period furnishings

Why are they so Important?

•
•
•

Maintained in Old Deseret Village
Moved to Old Deseret Village ca. 1989
Interpreted solely by historical plaque

• Photo

The two oldest
remaining structures
in Utah are these
original
165-year –old cabins

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village

Success Story:
Relocation to Old Deseret Village
Quick Facts:

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Historic Manti Mill,
built ca. 1858 in Manti, Utah
Relocated ca. 1989

• This is the Place Heritage
Park
• Salt Lake City, Utah
• More than 40
structures/buildings
• Buildings consist of
originals, reproductions, or
relocated 19th century
structures
• Outcome: set up as a
historic village to interpret
frontier life in Utah from
1847-1869

Other success stories
ODV

Photos: Kimberly Buckner 2012

Camp Douglas, ca. 1864
“…I found another location, which I like better for
various reasons…”– Patrick Edward Connor
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah
Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14 September 1862,
Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah.

From Camp to Fort
26 October 1862 : established Camp
Douglas
1862: “Connor Tents” and Dugouts
1863: Adobe and Log structures begun
1867: Expansion of Camp’s perimeter
1874-75: $1 Million rebuild from native
red sandstone
1878: Renamed Fort Douglas

Camp Douglas ca. 1866
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884: $63,820 expansion with 5 frame
structures

From Fort to Historic Landmark
1904-1911: $1,140,000 building expansion
1910: Introduction of electricity
1915-16: Addition of detention camp
1930: Final major building expansion
1970: Listed on National Register of Historic
Places as a heritage district
1974: Listed as National Historic Landmark
26 October 1991: Fort Douglas officially
decommissioned
2002: Athlete’s Village, 2002 Winter Olympics

Stillwell Field Looking East, 2012
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Building 55
Characteristics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

Cost $780
Less than 1900 Sq. Feet
Originally 26 ft. by 29 ft.
Adobe with frame additions
First Neoclassical cross-wing in
Utah (symmetrical design)
4 rooms
18” thick walls
3 adobe fireplaces
“Four over four” double hung
sash windows
Pine or Douglas Fir
Wooden shingle roof coated in
slate
“Lath and plastered” interior
Has a stand alone Historic
Register eligible structure below
the original building (1862 Root
Cellar)

Building 55 in 2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Greg Haws and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History
of Building 55 (7) and its Inhabitants.” University of Utah
Graduate School of Architecture,
Fort Douglas Papers, University of Utah
Marriott Library Special Collections,
Salt Lake City, Utah

Building 55, ca. 1865
“In the shadow of Red Butte, the silent sentinel…looks down upon the scene of
[their] labors, at the very spot where [they ]first camped…”
–Lieutenant Colonel Fred B. Rogers at the funeral of General Patrick Edward
Connor
Photo: Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah;
Elmo R. Morgan, “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22 October 1862-30 September 1954”, Fort Douglas
Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah(Brackets added)

Then and Now
ca. 1900

Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner

Preservation of Building 55: Additions
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

North Exterior

South Exterior

1930
Addition

Unknown
addition

1864
Frame
Addition

1862-3
Root
Cellar

1863
Original
Building

1863 Original
Building

1875
Addition
1864 Post
Surgeons
Quarter’s

1930
Addition

Extensive Known Alterations:
1864: addition of two frame rooms
1874: addition of parlor from Post Surgeon’s quarters
Removal of a fireplace
Windows changed
Fireplace enclosed
1903: Plumbing
1910: Electricity
1911-1928: steam heating, telephones, gas lines
1930: frame Lean-to addition
Windows changed
1960: fire damage repairs
Unknown: Building addition
Unknown: Exterior Stucco
Source: Maintenance Records for Building 33, 1933; Maintenance Records for Building 55, 1938

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Preservation

Unknown Addition
Ca. 1930

• Building 55 is believed to have
been the only complete 1863
structure remaining at Fort
Douglas
• In 2003 parts of several other
1863 buildings have been found:
– 1874: Commander’s Quarters
Parlor from 1863 District
Commander’s Residence
– 1864: Building 55
Parlor Post Surgeon’s
Quarters
– 1862-63: Building 55
Root Cellar

1874 Addition

Original 1863 Parlor

1874 Post Commander’s Residence
Source: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Moving Building 55
• First discussed in 1990
• Again in 1994
• The site chosen was Old
Deseret Village
• University of Utah did not
agree for “reasons so
compelling”
• Recommended for
preservation on site
• Discussion never progressed
further into action
• Outcome: remains on site

Old Deseret Village looking east, 2012
First proposed area to move Building 55

Source: Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995; Anne Racer to Rick
Reece, email, 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum,
Fort Douglas, Utah.

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Old Deseret Village:
Historically Camp Douglas
Pros for moving:

Cons for moving Building 55:

• Old Deseret Village was
constructed on the original
grounds of Camp Douglas
(Association)
• Preserves the structure
• Allows “basic” interpretation
of the historic structure
• Provides opportunities for new
use, but not uses the building
was intended for(Design)

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•

Moved off of original location 1+ miles
away (location)
Destroys 150 years of association to
location of the historic camp
(Association/location)
Bears no resemblance to current location
(feeling )
Would remove from NRHP an make it
ineligible for any future attempts
Removes Historic Landmark designation
Costs to move , reconstruct and restore
(materials)
Destruction of original workmanship
(workmanship)
May cause un-repairable damage to the
structure (workmanship/
materials/design)

Fort Douglas Military Museum
1917
Master Plan
POW Barracks (RC)

N: New
RE: Relocated
RC: Reconstructed
E: Existing
D: Drop Building Addition to
Historic Structure

1942
Firehouse (E)

North

1943
Barracks (RE)

and Guard Tower (RC)

Women’s
Memorial (N)

D

1863
Commanders
Home (RE)

D

D

Building 31 and 32
Current Museum (E)
Not connected yet. Black Star
Building has been completed.

1935
Shop (RE)
© 2012 Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884
Officer’s
Quarters
Duplex (RE)

Preservation Problems
• Stress fractures
• Plaster Damage
• Fire Damage
• Foundation damage
• Windows
•Adobe damage

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner , 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos:
Kimberly
Buckner
2012

A Good Move: Moving Building 55 to Fort
Douglas Military Museum Grounds
Pros:

Cons:

• A move of less than ¼ mile
• Maintains association to original
site (Association)
• Preservation of structure
(materials/design)
• Opportunities to interpret local
history of post (location)
• Chosen site provides similar view
to original location (setting)
• Allows for new use (design)
• Maintains feeling of the historic
district (Feeling)

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Removes from primary location and
original foundation (Location)
Potential to damage structure
May destroy the original
workmanship (Workmanship)
To which era of significance will it
be restored?
Original orientation may not be
possible
Will introduce modern materials
into the historic structure
(Materials)
Removes from NRHP but would
allow for reapplication/maintains
historic landmark designation

A Difference in Views
Old Deseret Village

Looking West

Fort Douglas Military
Museum Grounds

Cannon Park looking South
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Lessening the impacts:
When moving is the only Preservation
option
Old Deseret Village

Fort Douglas Military Museum

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Will lose nearly all historical identity
Not on original site, but in association with original
camp
Allows the structure to exist
Would impact the elements of original design
Area not with original feeling but among structures
who have lost their “history”
Introduction of modern materials
Further impacts to historic workmanship
Loss of National Historic Landmark Designation
Loss of NRHP listing. May not be able to reapply
Land has lost all association/use with original Camp
Douglas
New use may not be conducive to historic use
1+ mile move
Impacts all criterion of integrity
Must be removed from Federal ownership to
private

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Maintains historical Identity
Maintains association with original camp
Structure is preserved in similar location
Less than ¼ mile move
Area has maintained original feeling and
association to the camp
Loss of NHRP listing but retains eligibility for
the future
Maintains National Historic Landmark
Designation and prominence within the
historic district
Interpretation of changes in military housing
New use conducive to original use
Fully restored with historical furnishing s
Retains nearly all criterion of Integrity
Already part of museum complex
Maintains federal ownership (State of Utah
to Utah National Guard ownership)

Moving: The Right Choice?
Old Deseret Village is a good place to house relocated and reconstructed historic structures to interpret the
early territorial history of Utah
BUT…
It was not the right setting to house a unique structure like Building 55
–

Will Building 55 be remembered for its history and sense of location? Or, because of the 4th grade
field trip with limited exposure only to be quickly forgotten?

–

With so many structures will the building be properly maintained or fall victim to demolition by
neglect?

–

Potentially a Section 106 logistic nightmare (Federal holdings to “private” hands)

Whereas…
The Fort Douglas Military Museum grounds will allow the unique structure a permanent home, restoration and
ability to maintain a prominent place in Fort Douglas. It will allow for
–

more opportunities and exposure to its unique history,

–

Will ensure that it will be preserved for future generations.

If Moved to Old Deseret Village

The actual site chosen for Building 55 in 1990 was never disclosed in the documentation.
Building 55 was placed in an arbitrary location within the park.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012 Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

If moved to the Museum Grounds

Sitting in proposed Master Plan location on the museum grounds.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Future Recommendations
The recommendations for Building 55:
1.

Restoration at current site using historically accurate methods
–
Potential for learning opportunities at current site (i.e. Root Cellar)
–
Potential for gaining additional archaeological information from site
–
Root Cellar was nominated as a stand alone NHRP eligible structure in 2008.

2.

Create a viable strategic plan for living history and historic house museum (adaptive use)
–
Prepare plan to cover all preservation issues which may crop up in the next decade
–
Prepare a strategic plan for safely moving Building 55, allowing for historically
accurate restoration and renovation methods.

3.

I

Maintain Building 55 on site
–
Use authentic and historically accurate reproduction pieces
–
Interpretive/Museum use

4.
If and when the time comes, move the structure to the Fort Douglas Military Museum
grounds to maintain current preservation effort
-- Increase opportunities for interpretation of structure
-- Restore back to 1863, and use later additions for storage/office space
-- Allow for living history programs

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Any Questions?

Bibliography
•

Advisory Council Regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR 800) .

•

Anne Racer to Rick Reese, (Email), 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas
Utah

•

Andrus, Cecil B. et al. “Part 6: The National Historic Register of Historic Places.” The Manual for
State Historic Preservation Review Boards. www.nps.gov/nr/bulletins/strevman/strevman6.htm
(accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Exhibit, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Register Nomination Form, 1970.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Landmark Nomination Form, 1974, Building 7 file, Utah State
Historical Preservation Offices, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas Military Museum, Master Plan, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas , Utah.

•

Hardesty, Donald L. and Barbara Little. Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists and
Historians (Lanham, MD.: Altamira Press, 2009).

•

Haws, Greg and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History of Building 55 (7) and its inhabitants.” University
of Utah Graduate School., 12 December 1994, University of Utah Marriott Library Special
Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Loveday, Amos J. “The Decision Makers Guide to Section 106.” Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2) pp. 10-17.

•

Maintenance Records Building 33, 1933, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah .

•

Maintenance Records Building 55, 1938, Fort Douglas Military Museum

•

Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas,
Utah

•

Morgan, Elmo R. “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22October-30 September 1954.” Fort
Douglas Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

National Park Service. Cultural Resource Guidelines (2002).
www.nps.gov/history/online_books nps28/28chap8.htm (accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Parris, Thomas . “Historical Preservation.” Environment Vol. 26 no. 8, (February 2003). P. 3

• Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14
September, 1862, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.
• Plaque, Camp Floyd/Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah.

• Plaque, Deuel Cabin, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt
Lake City, Utah.
• Plaque, Levi Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village, Salt Lake City, Utah.

• “Section 106: Back to the Basics” in Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2).
• University of Utah “From Civil War Building to Entrepreneurial Mecca”,
9 September 2008, http:/unews.utah.edu/old/p/090808-1.html
(accessed 1 August 2012).
• Utah State Historical Society Photograph Collection, Utah State
Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah


Slide 28

In the Shade of Black Locusts:
Preserving the “Silent Sentinel”
of Fort Douglas

Kimberly Buckner
Volunteer Staff
Fort Douglas Military Museum
Salt Lake City, Utah

Photo: Utah State Historical Society

Copyright Notice
© 2012 Kimberly Buckner and Fort
Douglas Military Museum. All
Rights Reserved. No use of any
photographs/information in this
presentation without express
written consent of the copyright
owner(s). All photos used by
permission.

But not all historic properties
are deliberately being
destroyed. Many have fallen
victim to the “ravages of
time.” This structure near
Camp Floyd has completely
collapsed since this picture
was taken in 2010.

Preservation: A National Priority?
Thomas Parris: National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 promotes the preservation of historic
structures as a national priority

And YET thousands of historically significant
properties are being destroyed each year despite
placement on the National Register of Historic
Places
Thomas Parris, “Historic Preservation”, Environment, Vol. 46, no. 8 (February 2003), p. 3

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

A Common Misconception?
A commonly held misconception among public
audiences:
“Preservation is broadly opposed to change and by
extension, that Section 106 is a tool to block
progress.”
Instead:
“Preservation is about controlling and accommodating
change, and the entire network of preservation rules,
beginning with Section 106, is designed to accomplish
that end.”
Amos J. Loveday, “The Decision Maker’s guide to Section 106”, Forum Journal Winter 2012, Vol. 26
(2), p. 17

Preserving Eligibility
Preservation is meant to protect by not diminishing
any characteristic providing eligibility on the
National Register of Historic Places Including (but
not limited to):
• Integrity of Location
• Integrity of Design
• Integrity of Setting
• Integrity of Materials
• Integrity of Workmanship
• Integrity of Feeling
• Integrity of Association
“Section 106: Back to the Basics”, Forum Journal, Winter 2012, Vol. 26, no. 2, p.10; 36 CFR
800.5 (a)(1)

The National Register of
Historic Places
Since 1966, The National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) provides:
• Communal recognition of local, state or national
history in a visual way
• Consideration in federal undertakings and
improvement projects
• Eligibility for tax benefits through the federal
government
• Qualification for monetary funds for preservation
benefits
Donald L. Hardesty and Barbara Little, Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists
and Historians, 2nd edition, (Lanham, MD: Altamira Press, 2009).

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties
Approved treatment
options:
• Preservation
• Rehabilitation
• Reconstruction
In rare conditions:
• Demolition by neglect
• Moving the historic
structure
Historic Cabin Ca. 1860’s
La Sal, Utah
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2010. Edited by Brick R. King, 2010
Colors have been enhanced

Success Stories:
Onsite Preservation of Carson Inn, 1858
Quick Facts:
• Camp Floyd and
Stagecoach Inn State Park
• Fairfield, Utah
• Built in 1858 by John
Carson
• Adobe and Frame
Construction
• Restored June 1959
• Outcome: furnished as a
historic “house” museum

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2011
Plaque, Camp Floyd /Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah

Success Stories: Moving, Restoration and Renovation
Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, 1847 and the Deuel
Family Cabin, 1847
Deuel Cabin
•
•
•

Riter Cabin

Temple Square
Moved ca. 1989
Glass enclosed historic house museum
with period furnishings

Why are they so Important?

•
•
•

Maintained in Old Deseret Village
Moved to Old Deseret Village ca. 1989
Interpreted solely by historical plaque

• Photo

The two oldest
remaining structures
in Utah are these
original
165-year –old cabins

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village

Success Story:
Relocation to Old Deseret Village
Quick Facts:

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Historic Manti Mill,
built ca. 1858 in Manti, Utah
Relocated ca. 1989

• This is the Place Heritage
Park
• Salt Lake City, Utah
• More than 40
structures/buildings
• Buildings consist of
originals, reproductions, or
relocated 19th century
structures
• Outcome: set up as a
historic village to interpret
frontier life in Utah from
1847-1869

Other success stories
ODV

Photos: Kimberly Buckner 2012

Camp Douglas, ca. 1864
“…I found another location, which I like better for
various reasons…”– Patrick Edward Connor
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah
Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14 September 1862,
Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah.

From Camp to Fort
26 October 1862 : established Camp
Douglas
1862: “Connor Tents” and Dugouts
1863: Adobe and Log structures begun
1867: Expansion of Camp’s perimeter
1874-75: $1 Million rebuild from native
red sandstone
1878: Renamed Fort Douglas

Camp Douglas ca. 1866
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884: $63,820 expansion with 5 frame
structures

From Fort to Historic Landmark
1904-1911: $1,140,000 building expansion
1910: Introduction of electricity
1915-16: Addition of detention camp
1930: Final major building expansion
1970: Listed on National Register of Historic
Places as a heritage district
1974: Listed as National Historic Landmark
26 October 1991: Fort Douglas officially
decommissioned
2002: Athlete’s Village, 2002 Winter Olympics

Stillwell Field Looking East, 2012
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Building 55
Characteristics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

Cost $780
Less than 1900 Sq. Feet
Originally 26 ft. by 29 ft.
Adobe with frame additions
First Neoclassical cross-wing in
Utah (symmetrical design)
4 rooms
18” thick walls
3 adobe fireplaces
“Four over four” double hung
sash windows
Pine or Douglas Fir
Wooden shingle roof coated in
slate
“Lath and plastered” interior
Has a stand alone Historic
Register eligible structure below
the original building (1862 Root
Cellar)

Building 55 in 2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Greg Haws and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History
of Building 55 (7) and its Inhabitants.” University of Utah
Graduate School of Architecture,
Fort Douglas Papers, University of Utah
Marriott Library Special Collections,
Salt Lake City, Utah

Building 55, ca. 1865
“In the shadow of Red Butte, the silent sentinel…looks down upon the scene of
[their] labors, at the very spot where [they ]first camped…”
–Lieutenant Colonel Fred B. Rogers at the funeral of General Patrick Edward
Connor
Photo: Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah;
Elmo R. Morgan, “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22 October 1862-30 September 1954”, Fort Douglas
Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah(Brackets added)

Then and Now
ca. 1900

Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner

Preservation of Building 55: Additions
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

North Exterior

South Exterior

1930
Addition

Unknown
addition

1864
Frame
Addition

1862-3
Root
Cellar

1863
Original
Building

1863 Original
Building

1875
Addition
1864 Post
Surgeons
Quarter’s

1930
Addition

Extensive Known Alterations:
1864: addition of two frame rooms
1874: addition of parlor from Post Surgeon’s quarters
Removal of a fireplace
Windows changed
Fireplace enclosed
1903: Plumbing
1910: Electricity
1911-1928: steam heating, telephones, gas lines
1930: frame Lean-to addition
Windows changed
1960: fire damage repairs
Unknown: Building addition
Unknown: Exterior Stucco
Source: Maintenance Records for Building 33, 1933; Maintenance Records for Building 55, 1938

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Preservation

Unknown Addition
Ca. 1930

• Building 55 is believed to have
been the only complete 1863
structure remaining at Fort
Douglas
• In 2003 parts of several other
1863 buildings have been found:
– 1874: Commander’s Quarters
Parlor from 1863 District
Commander’s Residence
– 1864: Building 55
Parlor Post Surgeon’s
Quarters
– 1862-63: Building 55
Root Cellar

1874 Addition

Original 1863 Parlor

1874 Post Commander’s Residence
Source: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Moving Building 55
• First discussed in 1990
• Again in 1994
• The site chosen was Old
Deseret Village
• University of Utah did not
agree for “reasons so
compelling”
• Recommended for
preservation on site
• Discussion never progressed
further into action
• Outcome: remains on site

Old Deseret Village looking east, 2012
First proposed area to move Building 55

Source: Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995; Anne Racer to Rick
Reece, email, 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum,
Fort Douglas, Utah.

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Old Deseret Village:
Historically Camp Douglas
Pros for moving:

Cons for moving Building 55:

• Old Deseret Village was
constructed on the original
grounds of Camp Douglas
(Association)
• Preserves the structure
• Allows “basic” interpretation
of the historic structure
• Provides opportunities for new
use, but not uses the building
was intended for(Design)

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•

Moved off of original location 1+ miles
away (location)
Destroys 150 years of association to
location of the historic camp
(Association/location)
Bears no resemblance to current location
(feeling )
Would remove from NRHP an make it
ineligible for any future attempts
Removes Historic Landmark designation
Costs to move , reconstruct and restore
(materials)
Destruction of original workmanship
(workmanship)
May cause un-repairable damage to the
structure (workmanship/
materials/design)

Fort Douglas Military Museum
1917
Master Plan
POW Barracks (RC)

N: New
RE: Relocated
RC: Reconstructed
E: Existing
D: Drop Building Addition to
Historic Structure

1942
Firehouse (E)

North

1943
Barracks (RE)

and Guard Tower (RC)

Women’s
Memorial (N)

D

1863
Commanders
Home (RE)

D

D

Building 31 and 32
Current Museum (E)
Not connected yet. Black Star
Building has been completed.

1935
Shop (RE)
© 2012 Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884
Officer’s
Quarters
Duplex (RE)

Preservation Problems
• Stress fractures
• Plaster Damage
• Fire Damage
• Foundation damage
• Windows
•Adobe damage

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner , 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos:
Kimberly
Buckner
2012

A Good Move: Moving Building 55 to Fort
Douglas Military Museum Grounds
Pros:

Cons:

• A move of less than ¼ mile
• Maintains association to original
site (Association)
• Preservation of structure
(materials/design)
• Opportunities to interpret local
history of post (location)
• Chosen site provides similar view
to original location (setting)
• Allows for new use (design)
• Maintains feeling of the historic
district (Feeling)

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Removes from primary location and
original foundation (Location)
Potential to damage structure
May destroy the original
workmanship (Workmanship)
To which era of significance will it
be restored?
Original orientation may not be
possible
Will introduce modern materials
into the historic structure
(Materials)
Removes from NRHP but would
allow for reapplication/maintains
historic landmark designation

A Difference in Views
Old Deseret Village

Looking West

Fort Douglas Military
Museum Grounds

Cannon Park looking South
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Lessening the impacts:
When moving is the only Preservation
option
Old Deseret Village

Fort Douglas Military Museum

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Will lose nearly all historical identity
Not on original site, but in association with original
camp
Allows the structure to exist
Would impact the elements of original design
Area not with original feeling but among structures
who have lost their “history”
Introduction of modern materials
Further impacts to historic workmanship
Loss of National Historic Landmark Designation
Loss of NRHP listing. May not be able to reapply
Land has lost all association/use with original Camp
Douglas
New use may not be conducive to historic use
1+ mile move
Impacts all criterion of integrity
Must be removed from Federal ownership to
private

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Maintains historical Identity
Maintains association with original camp
Structure is preserved in similar location
Less than ¼ mile move
Area has maintained original feeling and
association to the camp
Loss of NHRP listing but retains eligibility for
the future
Maintains National Historic Landmark
Designation and prominence within the
historic district
Interpretation of changes in military housing
New use conducive to original use
Fully restored with historical furnishing s
Retains nearly all criterion of Integrity
Already part of museum complex
Maintains federal ownership (State of Utah
to Utah National Guard ownership)

Moving: The Right Choice?
Old Deseret Village is a good place to house relocated and reconstructed historic structures to interpret the
early territorial history of Utah
BUT…
It was not the right setting to house a unique structure like Building 55
–

Will Building 55 be remembered for its history and sense of location? Or, because of the 4th grade
field trip with limited exposure only to be quickly forgotten?

–

With so many structures will the building be properly maintained or fall victim to demolition by
neglect?

–

Potentially a Section 106 logistic nightmare (Federal holdings to “private” hands)

Whereas…
The Fort Douglas Military Museum grounds will allow the unique structure a permanent home, restoration and
ability to maintain a prominent place in Fort Douglas. It will allow for
–

more opportunities and exposure to its unique history,

–

Will ensure that it will be preserved for future generations.

If Moved to Old Deseret Village

The actual site chosen for Building 55 in 1990 was never disclosed in the documentation.
Building 55 was placed in an arbitrary location within the park.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012 Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

If moved to the Museum Grounds

Sitting in proposed Master Plan location on the museum grounds.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Future Recommendations
The recommendations for Building 55:
1.

Restoration at current site using historically accurate methods
–
Potential for learning opportunities at current site (i.e. Root Cellar)
–
Potential for gaining additional archaeological information from site
–
Root Cellar was nominated as a stand alone NHRP eligible structure in 2008.

2.

Create a viable strategic plan for living history and historic house museum (adaptive use)
–
Prepare plan to cover all preservation issues which may crop up in the next decade
–
Prepare a strategic plan for safely moving Building 55, allowing for historically
accurate restoration and renovation methods.

3.

I

Maintain Building 55 on site
–
Use authentic and historically accurate reproduction pieces
–
Interpretive/Museum use

4.
If and when the time comes, move the structure to the Fort Douglas Military Museum
grounds to maintain current preservation effort
-- Increase opportunities for interpretation of structure
-- Restore back to 1863, and use later additions for storage/office space
-- Allow for living history programs

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Any Questions?

Bibliography
•

Advisory Council Regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR 800) .

•

Anne Racer to Rick Reese, (Email), 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas
Utah

•

Andrus, Cecil B. et al. “Part 6: The National Historic Register of Historic Places.” The Manual for
State Historic Preservation Review Boards. www.nps.gov/nr/bulletins/strevman/strevman6.htm
(accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Exhibit, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Register Nomination Form, 1970.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Landmark Nomination Form, 1974, Building 7 file, Utah State
Historical Preservation Offices, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas Military Museum, Master Plan, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas , Utah.

•

Hardesty, Donald L. and Barbara Little. Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists and
Historians (Lanham, MD.: Altamira Press, 2009).

•

Haws, Greg and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History of Building 55 (7) and its inhabitants.” University
of Utah Graduate School., 12 December 1994, University of Utah Marriott Library Special
Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Loveday, Amos J. “The Decision Makers Guide to Section 106.” Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2) pp. 10-17.

•

Maintenance Records Building 33, 1933, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah .

•

Maintenance Records Building 55, 1938, Fort Douglas Military Museum

•

Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas,
Utah

•

Morgan, Elmo R. “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22October-30 September 1954.” Fort
Douglas Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

National Park Service. Cultural Resource Guidelines (2002).
www.nps.gov/history/online_books nps28/28chap8.htm (accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Parris, Thomas . “Historical Preservation.” Environment Vol. 26 no. 8, (February 2003). P. 3

• Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14
September, 1862, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.
• Plaque, Camp Floyd/Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah.

• Plaque, Deuel Cabin, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt
Lake City, Utah.
• Plaque, Levi Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village, Salt Lake City, Utah.

• “Section 106: Back to the Basics” in Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2).
• University of Utah “From Civil War Building to Entrepreneurial Mecca”,
9 September 2008, http:/unews.utah.edu/old/p/090808-1.html
(accessed 1 August 2012).
• Utah State Historical Society Photograph Collection, Utah State
Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah


Slide 29

In the Shade of Black Locusts:
Preserving the “Silent Sentinel”
of Fort Douglas

Kimberly Buckner
Volunteer Staff
Fort Douglas Military Museum
Salt Lake City, Utah

Photo: Utah State Historical Society

Copyright Notice
© 2012 Kimberly Buckner and Fort
Douglas Military Museum. All
Rights Reserved. No use of any
photographs/information in this
presentation without express
written consent of the copyright
owner(s). All photos used by
permission.

But not all historic properties
are deliberately being
destroyed. Many have fallen
victim to the “ravages of
time.” This structure near
Camp Floyd has completely
collapsed since this picture
was taken in 2010.

Preservation: A National Priority?
Thomas Parris: National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 promotes the preservation of historic
structures as a national priority

And YET thousands of historically significant
properties are being destroyed each year despite
placement on the National Register of Historic
Places
Thomas Parris, “Historic Preservation”, Environment, Vol. 46, no. 8 (February 2003), p. 3

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

A Common Misconception?
A commonly held misconception among public
audiences:
“Preservation is broadly opposed to change and by
extension, that Section 106 is a tool to block
progress.”
Instead:
“Preservation is about controlling and accommodating
change, and the entire network of preservation rules,
beginning with Section 106, is designed to accomplish
that end.”
Amos J. Loveday, “The Decision Maker’s guide to Section 106”, Forum Journal Winter 2012, Vol. 26
(2), p. 17

Preserving Eligibility
Preservation is meant to protect by not diminishing
any characteristic providing eligibility on the
National Register of Historic Places Including (but
not limited to):
• Integrity of Location
• Integrity of Design
• Integrity of Setting
• Integrity of Materials
• Integrity of Workmanship
• Integrity of Feeling
• Integrity of Association
“Section 106: Back to the Basics”, Forum Journal, Winter 2012, Vol. 26, no. 2, p.10; 36 CFR
800.5 (a)(1)

The National Register of
Historic Places
Since 1966, The National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) provides:
• Communal recognition of local, state or national
history in a visual way
• Consideration in federal undertakings and
improvement projects
• Eligibility for tax benefits through the federal
government
• Qualification for monetary funds for preservation
benefits
Donald L. Hardesty and Barbara Little, Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists
and Historians, 2nd edition, (Lanham, MD: Altamira Press, 2009).

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties
Approved treatment
options:
• Preservation
• Rehabilitation
• Reconstruction
In rare conditions:
• Demolition by neglect
• Moving the historic
structure
Historic Cabin Ca. 1860’s
La Sal, Utah
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2010. Edited by Brick R. King, 2010
Colors have been enhanced

Success Stories:
Onsite Preservation of Carson Inn, 1858
Quick Facts:
• Camp Floyd and
Stagecoach Inn State Park
• Fairfield, Utah
• Built in 1858 by John
Carson
• Adobe and Frame
Construction
• Restored June 1959
• Outcome: furnished as a
historic “house” museum

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2011
Plaque, Camp Floyd /Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah

Success Stories: Moving, Restoration and Renovation
Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, 1847 and the Deuel
Family Cabin, 1847
Deuel Cabin
•
•
•

Riter Cabin

Temple Square
Moved ca. 1989
Glass enclosed historic house museum
with period furnishings

Why are they so Important?

•
•
•

Maintained in Old Deseret Village
Moved to Old Deseret Village ca. 1989
Interpreted solely by historical plaque

• Photo

The two oldest
remaining structures
in Utah are these
original
165-year –old cabins

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village

Success Story:
Relocation to Old Deseret Village
Quick Facts:

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Historic Manti Mill,
built ca. 1858 in Manti, Utah
Relocated ca. 1989

• This is the Place Heritage
Park
• Salt Lake City, Utah
• More than 40
structures/buildings
• Buildings consist of
originals, reproductions, or
relocated 19th century
structures
• Outcome: set up as a
historic village to interpret
frontier life in Utah from
1847-1869

Other success stories
ODV

Photos: Kimberly Buckner 2012

Camp Douglas, ca. 1864
“…I found another location, which I like better for
various reasons…”– Patrick Edward Connor
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah
Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14 September 1862,
Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah.

From Camp to Fort
26 October 1862 : established Camp
Douglas
1862: “Connor Tents” and Dugouts
1863: Adobe and Log structures begun
1867: Expansion of Camp’s perimeter
1874-75: $1 Million rebuild from native
red sandstone
1878: Renamed Fort Douglas

Camp Douglas ca. 1866
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884: $63,820 expansion with 5 frame
structures

From Fort to Historic Landmark
1904-1911: $1,140,000 building expansion
1910: Introduction of electricity
1915-16: Addition of detention camp
1930: Final major building expansion
1970: Listed on National Register of Historic
Places as a heritage district
1974: Listed as National Historic Landmark
26 October 1991: Fort Douglas officially
decommissioned
2002: Athlete’s Village, 2002 Winter Olympics

Stillwell Field Looking East, 2012
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Building 55
Characteristics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

Cost $780
Less than 1900 Sq. Feet
Originally 26 ft. by 29 ft.
Adobe with frame additions
First Neoclassical cross-wing in
Utah (symmetrical design)
4 rooms
18” thick walls
3 adobe fireplaces
“Four over four” double hung
sash windows
Pine or Douglas Fir
Wooden shingle roof coated in
slate
“Lath and plastered” interior
Has a stand alone Historic
Register eligible structure below
the original building (1862 Root
Cellar)

Building 55 in 2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Greg Haws and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History
of Building 55 (7) and its Inhabitants.” University of Utah
Graduate School of Architecture,
Fort Douglas Papers, University of Utah
Marriott Library Special Collections,
Salt Lake City, Utah

Building 55, ca. 1865
“In the shadow of Red Butte, the silent sentinel…looks down upon the scene of
[their] labors, at the very spot where [they ]first camped…”
–Lieutenant Colonel Fred B. Rogers at the funeral of General Patrick Edward
Connor
Photo: Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah;
Elmo R. Morgan, “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22 October 1862-30 September 1954”, Fort Douglas
Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah(Brackets added)

Then and Now
ca. 1900

Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner

Preservation of Building 55: Additions
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

North Exterior

South Exterior

1930
Addition

Unknown
addition

1864
Frame
Addition

1862-3
Root
Cellar

1863
Original
Building

1863 Original
Building

1875
Addition
1864 Post
Surgeons
Quarter’s

1930
Addition

Extensive Known Alterations:
1864: addition of two frame rooms
1874: addition of parlor from Post Surgeon’s quarters
Removal of a fireplace
Windows changed
Fireplace enclosed
1903: Plumbing
1910: Electricity
1911-1928: steam heating, telephones, gas lines
1930: frame Lean-to addition
Windows changed
1960: fire damage repairs
Unknown: Building addition
Unknown: Exterior Stucco
Source: Maintenance Records for Building 33, 1933; Maintenance Records for Building 55, 1938

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Preservation

Unknown Addition
Ca. 1930

• Building 55 is believed to have
been the only complete 1863
structure remaining at Fort
Douglas
• In 2003 parts of several other
1863 buildings have been found:
– 1874: Commander’s Quarters
Parlor from 1863 District
Commander’s Residence
– 1864: Building 55
Parlor Post Surgeon’s
Quarters
– 1862-63: Building 55
Root Cellar

1874 Addition

Original 1863 Parlor

1874 Post Commander’s Residence
Source: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Moving Building 55
• First discussed in 1990
• Again in 1994
• The site chosen was Old
Deseret Village
• University of Utah did not
agree for “reasons so
compelling”
• Recommended for
preservation on site
• Discussion never progressed
further into action
• Outcome: remains on site

Old Deseret Village looking east, 2012
First proposed area to move Building 55

Source: Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995; Anne Racer to Rick
Reece, email, 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum,
Fort Douglas, Utah.

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Old Deseret Village:
Historically Camp Douglas
Pros for moving:

Cons for moving Building 55:

• Old Deseret Village was
constructed on the original
grounds of Camp Douglas
(Association)
• Preserves the structure
• Allows “basic” interpretation
of the historic structure
• Provides opportunities for new
use, but not uses the building
was intended for(Design)

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•

Moved off of original location 1+ miles
away (location)
Destroys 150 years of association to
location of the historic camp
(Association/location)
Bears no resemblance to current location
(feeling )
Would remove from NRHP an make it
ineligible for any future attempts
Removes Historic Landmark designation
Costs to move , reconstruct and restore
(materials)
Destruction of original workmanship
(workmanship)
May cause un-repairable damage to the
structure (workmanship/
materials/design)

Fort Douglas Military Museum
1917
Master Plan
POW Barracks (RC)

N: New
RE: Relocated
RC: Reconstructed
E: Existing
D: Drop Building Addition to
Historic Structure

1942
Firehouse (E)

North

1943
Barracks (RE)

and Guard Tower (RC)

Women’s
Memorial (N)

D

1863
Commanders
Home (RE)

D

D

Building 31 and 32
Current Museum (E)
Not connected yet. Black Star
Building has been completed.

1935
Shop (RE)
© 2012 Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884
Officer’s
Quarters
Duplex (RE)

Preservation Problems
• Stress fractures
• Plaster Damage
• Fire Damage
• Foundation damage
• Windows
•Adobe damage

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner , 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos:
Kimberly
Buckner
2012

A Good Move: Moving Building 55 to Fort
Douglas Military Museum Grounds
Pros:

Cons:

• A move of less than ¼ mile
• Maintains association to original
site (Association)
• Preservation of structure
(materials/design)
• Opportunities to interpret local
history of post (location)
• Chosen site provides similar view
to original location (setting)
• Allows for new use (design)
• Maintains feeling of the historic
district (Feeling)

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Removes from primary location and
original foundation (Location)
Potential to damage structure
May destroy the original
workmanship (Workmanship)
To which era of significance will it
be restored?
Original orientation may not be
possible
Will introduce modern materials
into the historic structure
(Materials)
Removes from NRHP but would
allow for reapplication/maintains
historic landmark designation

A Difference in Views
Old Deseret Village

Looking West

Fort Douglas Military
Museum Grounds

Cannon Park looking South
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Lessening the impacts:
When moving is the only Preservation
option
Old Deseret Village

Fort Douglas Military Museum

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Will lose nearly all historical identity
Not on original site, but in association with original
camp
Allows the structure to exist
Would impact the elements of original design
Area not with original feeling but among structures
who have lost their “history”
Introduction of modern materials
Further impacts to historic workmanship
Loss of National Historic Landmark Designation
Loss of NRHP listing. May not be able to reapply
Land has lost all association/use with original Camp
Douglas
New use may not be conducive to historic use
1+ mile move
Impacts all criterion of integrity
Must be removed from Federal ownership to
private

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Maintains historical Identity
Maintains association with original camp
Structure is preserved in similar location
Less than ¼ mile move
Area has maintained original feeling and
association to the camp
Loss of NHRP listing but retains eligibility for
the future
Maintains National Historic Landmark
Designation and prominence within the
historic district
Interpretation of changes in military housing
New use conducive to original use
Fully restored with historical furnishing s
Retains nearly all criterion of Integrity
Already part of museum complex
Maintains federal ownership (State of Utah
to Utah National Guard ownership)

Moving: The Right Choice?
Old Deseret Village is a good place to house relocated and reconstructed historic structures to interpret the
early territorial history of Utah
BUT…
It was not the right setting to house a unique structure like Building 55
–

Will Building 55 be remembered for its history and sense of location? Or, because of the 4th grade
field trip with limited exposure only to be quickly forgotten?

–

With so many structures will the building be properly maintained or fall victim to demolition by
neglect?

–

Potentially a Section 106 logistic nightmare (Federal holdings to “private” hands)

Whereas…
The Fort Douglas Military Museum grounds will allow the unique structure a permanent home, restoration and
ability to maintain a prominent place in Fort Douglas. It will allow for
–

more opportunities and exposure to its unique history,

–

Will ensure that it will be preserved for future generations.

If Moved to Old Deseret Village

The actual site chosen for Building 55 in 1990 was never disclosed in the documentation.
Building 55 was placed in an arbitrary location within the park.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012 Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

If moved to the Museum Grounds

Sitting in proposed Master Plan location on the museum grounds.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Future Recommendations
The recommendations for Building 55:
1.

Restoration at current site using historically accurate methods
–
Potential for learning opportunities at current site (i.e. Root Cellar)
–
Potential for gaining additional archaeological information from site
–
Root Cellar was nominated as a stand alone NHRP eligible structure in 2008.

2.

Create a viable strategic plan for living history and historic house museum (adaptive use)
–
Prepare plan to cover all preservation issues which may crop up in the next decade
–
Prepare a strategic plan for safely moving Building 55, allowing for historically
accurate restoration and renovation methods.

3.

I

Maintain Building 55 on site
–
Use authentic and historically accurate reproduction pieces
–
Interpretive/Museum use

4.
If and when the time comes, move the structure to the Fort Douglas Military Museum
grounds to maintain current preservation effort
-- Increase opportunities for interpretation of structure
-- Restore back to 1863, and use later additions for storage/office space
-- Allow for living history programs

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Any Questions?

Bibliography
•

Advisory Council Regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR 800) .

•

Anne Racer to Rick Reese, (Email), 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas
Utah

•

Andrus, Cecil B. et al. “Part 6: The National Historic Register of Historic Places.” The Manual for
State Historic Preservation Review Boards. www.nps.gov/nr/bulletins/strevman/strevman6.htm
(accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Exhibit, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Register Nomination Form, 1970.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Landmark Nomination Form, 1974, Building 7 file, Utah State
Historical Preservation Offices, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas Military Museum, Master Plan, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas , Utah.

•

Hardesty, Donald L. and Barbara Little. Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists and
Historians (Lanham, MD.: Altamira Press, 2009).

•

Haws, Greg and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History of Building 55 (7) and its inhabitants.” University
of Utah Graduate School., 12 December 1994, University of Utah Marriott Library Special
Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Loveday, Amos J. “The Decision Makers Guide to Section 106.” Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2) pp. 10-17.

•

Maintenance Records Building 33, 1933, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah .

•

Maintenance Records Building 55, 1938, Fort Douglas Military Museum

•

Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas,
Utah

•

Morgan, Elmo R. “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22October-30 September 1954.” Fort
Douglas Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

National Park Service. Cultural Resource Guidelines (2002).
www.nps.gov/history/online_books nps28/28chap8.htm (accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Parris, Thomas . “Historical Preservation.” Environment Vol. 26 no. 8, (February 2003). P. 3

• Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14
September, 1862, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.
• Plaque, Camp Floyd/Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah.

• Plaque, Deuel Cabin, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt
Lake City, Utah.
• Plaque, Levi Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village, Salt Lake City, Utah.

• “Section 106: Back to the Basics” in Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2).
• University of Utah “From Civil War Building to Entrepreneurial Mecca”,
9 September 2008, http:/unews.utah.edu/old/p/090808-1.html
(accessed 1 August 2012).
• Utah State Historical Society Photograph Collection, Utah State
Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah


Slide 30

In the Shade of Black Locusts:
Preserving the “Silent Sentinel”
of Fort Douglas

Kimberly Buckner
Volunteer Staff
Fort Douglas Military Museum
Salt Lake City, Utah

Photo: Utah State Historical Society

Copyright Notice
© 2012 Kimberly Buckner and Fort
Douglas Military Museum. All
Rights Reserved. No use of any
photographs/information in this
presentation without express
written consent of the copyright
owner(s). All photos used by
permission.

But not all historic properties
are deliberately being
destroyed. Many have fallen
victim to the “ravages of
time.” This structure near
Camp Floyd has completely
collapsed since this picture
was taken in 2010.

Preservation: A National Priority?
Thomas Parris: National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 promotes the preservation of historic
structures as a national priority

And YET thousands of historically significant
properties are being destroyed each year despite
placement on the National Register of Historic
Places
Thomas Parris, “Historic Preservation”, Environment, Vol. 46, no. 8 (February 2003), p. 3

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

A Common Misconception?
A commonly held misconception among public
audiences:
“Preservation is broadly opposed to change and by
extension, that Section 106 is a tool to block
progress.”
Instead:
“Preservation is about controlling and accommodating
change, and the entire network of preservation rules,
beginning with Section 106, is designed to accomplish
that end.”
Amos J. Loveday, “The Decision Maker’s guide to Section 106”, Forum Journal Winter 2012, Vol. 26
(2), p. 17

Preserving Eligibility
Preservation is meant to protect by not diminishing
any characteristic providing eligibility on the
National Register of Historic Places Including (but
not limited to):
• Integrity of Location
• Integrity of Design
• Integrity of Setting
• Integrity of Materials
• Integrity of Workmanship
• Integrity of Feeling
• Integrity of Association
“Section 106: Back to the Basics”, Forum Journal, Winter 2012, Vol. 26, no. 2, p.10; 36 CFR
800.5 (a)(1)

The National Register of
Historic Places
Since 1966, The National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) provides:
• Communal recognition of local, state or national
history in a visual way
• Consideration in federal undertakings and
improvement projects
• Eligibility for tax benefits through the federal
government
• Qualification for monetary funds for preservation
benefits
Donald L. Hardesty and Barbara Little, Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists
and Historians, 2nd edition, (Lanham, MD: Altamira Press, 2009).

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties
Approved treatment
options:
• Preservation
• Rehabilitation
• Reconstruction
In rare conditions:
• Demolition by neglect
• Moving the historic
structure
Historic Cabin Ca. 1860’s
La Sal, Utah
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2010. Edited by Brick R. King, 2010
Colors have been enhanced

Success Stories:
Onsite Preservation of Carson Inn, 1858
Quick Facts:
• Camp Floyd and
Stagecoach Inn State Park
• Fairfield, Utah
• Built in 1858 by John
Carson
• Adobe and Frame
Construction
• Restored June 1959
• Outcome: furnished as a
historic “house” museum

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2011
Plaque, Camp Floyd /Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah

Success Stories: Moving, Restoration and Renovation
Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, 1847 and the Deuel
Family Cabin, 1847
Deuel Cabin
•
•
•

Riter Cabin

Temple Square
Moved ca. 1989
Glass enclosed historic house museum
with period furnishings

Why are they so Important?

•
•
•

Maintained in Old Deseret Village
Moved to Old Deseret Village ca. 1989
Interpreted solely by historical plaque

• Photo

The two oldest
remaining structures
in Utah are these
original
165-year –old cabins

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village

Success Story:
Relocation to Old Deseret Village
Quick Facts:

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Historic Manti Mill,
built ca. 1858 in Manti, Utah
Relocated ca. 1989

• This is the Place Heritage
Park
• Salt Lake City, Utah
• More than 40
structures/buildings
• Buildings consist of
originals, reproductions, or
relocated 19th century
structures
• Outcome: set up as a
historic village to interpret
frontier life in Utah from
1847-1869

Other success stories
ODV

Photos: Kimberly Buckner 2012

Camp Douglas, ca. 1864
“…I found another location, which I like better for
various reasons…”– Patrick Edward Connor
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah
Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14 September 1862,
Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah.

From Camp to Fort
26 October 1862 : established Camp
Douglas
1862: “Connor Tents” and Dugouts
1863: Adobe and Log structures begun
1867: Expansion of Camp’s perimeter
1874-75: $1 Million rebuild from native
red sandstone
1878: Renamed Fort Douglas

Camp Douglas ca. 1866
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884: $63,820 expansion with 5 frame
structures

From Fort to Historic Landmark
1904-1911: $1,140,000 building expansion
1910: Introduction of electricity
1915-16: Addition of detention camp
1930: Final major building expansion
1970: Listed on National Register of Historic
Places as a heritage district
1974: Listed as National Historic Landmark
26 October 1991: Fort Douglas officially
decommissioned
2002: Athlete’s Village, 2002 Winter Olympics

Stillwell Field Looking East, 2012
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Building 55
Characteristics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

Cost $780
Less than 1900 Sq. Feet
Originally 26 ft. by 29 ft.
Adobe with frame additions
First Neoclassical cross-wing in
Utah (symmetrical design)
4 rooms
18” thick walls
3 adobe fireplaces
“Four over four” double hung
sash windows
Pine or Douglas Fir
Wooden shingle roof coated in
slate
“Lath and plastered” interior
Has a stand alone Historic
Register eligible structure below
the original building (1862 Root
Cellar)

Building 55 in 2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Greg Haws and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History
of Building 55 (7) and its Inhabitants.” University of Utah
Graduate School of Architecture,
Fort Douglas Papers, University of Utah
Marriott Library Special Collections,
Salt Lake City, Utah

Building 55, ca. 1865
“In the shadow of Red Butte, the silent sentinel…looks down upon the scene of
[their] labors, at the very spot where [they ]first camped…”
–Lieutenant Colonel Fred B. Rogers at the funeral of General Patrick Edward
Connor
Photo: Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah;
Elmo R. Morgan, “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22 October 1862-30 September 1954”, Fort Douglas
Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah(Brackets added)

Then and Now
ca. 1900

Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner

Preservation of Building 55: Additions
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

North Exterior

South Exterior

1930
Addition

Unknown
addition

1864
Frame
Addition

1862-3
Root
Cellar

1863
Original
Building

1863 Original
Building

1875
Addition
1864 Post
Surgeons
Quarter’s

1930
Addition

Extensive Known Alterations:
1864: addition of two frame rooms
1874: addition of parlor from Post Surgeon’s quarters
Removal of a fireplace
Windows changed
Fireplace enclosed
1903: Plumbing
1910: Electricity
1911-1928: steam heating, telephones, gas lines
1930: frame Lean-to addition
Windows changed
1960: fire damage repairs
Unknown: Building addition
Unknown: Exterior Stucco
Source: Maintenance Records for Building 33, 1933; Maintenance Records for Building 55, 1938

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Preservation

Unknown Addition
Ca. 1930

• Building 55 is believed to have
been the only complete 1863
structure remaining at Fort
Douglas
• In 2003 parts of several other
1863 buildings have been found:
– 1874: Commander’s Quarters
Parlor from 1863 District
Commander’s Residence
– 1864: Building 55
Parlor Post Surgeon’s
Quarters
– 1862-63: Building 55
Root Cellar

1874 Addition

Original 1863 Parlor

1874 Post Commander’s Residence
Source: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Moving Building 55
• First discussed in 1990
• Again in 1994
• The site chosen was Old
Deseret Village
• University of Utah did not
agree for “reasons so
compelling”
• Recommended for
preservation on site
• Discussion never progressed
further into action
• Outcome: remains on site

Old Deseret Village looking east, 2012
First proposed area to move Building 55

Source: Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995; Anne Racer to Rick
Reece, email, 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum,
Fort Douglas, Utah.

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Old Deseret Village:
Historically Camp Douglas
Pros for moving:

Cons for moving Building 55:

• Old Deseret Village was
constructed on the original
grounds of Camp Douglas
(Association)
• Preserves the structure
• Allows “basic” interpretation
of the historic structure
• Provides opportunities for new
use, but not uses the building
was intended for(Design)

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•

Moved off of original location 1+ miles
away (location)
Destroys 150 years of association to
location of the historic camp
(Association/location)
Bears no resemblance to current location
(feeling )
Would remove from NRHP an make it
ineligible for any future attempts
Removes Historic Landmark designation
Costs to move , reconstruct and restore
(materials)
Destruction of original workmanship
(workmanship)
May cause un-repairable damage to the
structure (workmanship/
materials/design)

Fort Douglas Military Museum
1917
Master Plan
POW Barracks (RC)

N: New
RE: Relocated
RC: Reconstructed
E: Existing
D: Drop Building Addition to
Historic Structure

1942
Firehouse (E)

North

1943
Barracks (RE)

and Guard Tower (RC)

Women’s
Memorial (N)

D

1863
Commanders
Home (RE)

D

D

Building 31 and 32
Current Museum (E)
Not connected yet. Black Star
Building has been completed.

1935
Shop (RE)
© 2012 Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884
Officer’s
Quarters
Duplex (RE)

Preservation Problems
• Stress fractures
• Plaster Damage
• Fire Damage
• Foundation damage
• Windows
•Adobe damage

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner , 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos:
Kimberly
Buckner
2012

A Good Move: Moving Building 55 to Fort
Douglas Military Museum Grounds
Pros:

Cons:

• A move of less than ¼ mile
• Maintains association to original
site (Association)
• Preservation of structure
(materials/design)
• Opportunities to interpret local
history of post (location)
• Chosen site provides similar view
to original location (setting)
• Allows for new use (design)
• Maintains feeling of the historic
district (Feeling)

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Removes from primary location and
original foundation (Location)
Potential to damage structure
May destroy the original
workmanship (Workmanship)
To which era of significance will it
be restored?
Original orientation may not be
possible
Will introduce modern materials
into the historic structure
(Materials)
Removes from NRHP but would
allow for reapplication/maintains
historic landmark designation

A Difference in Views
Old Deseret Village

Looking West

Fort Douglas Military
Museum Grounds

Cannon Park looking South
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Lessening the impacts:
When moving is the only Preservation
option
Old Deseret Village

Fort Douglas Military Museum

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Will lose nearly all historical identity
Not on original site, but in association with original
camp
Allows the structure to exist
Would impact the elements of original design
Area not with original feeling but among structures
who have lost their “history”
Introduction of modern materials
Further impacts to historic workmanship
Loss of National Historic Landmark Designation
Loss of NRHP listing. May not be able to reapply
Land has lost all association/use with original Camp
Douglas
New use may not be conducive to historic use
1+ mile move
Impacts all criterion of integrity
Must be removed from Federal ownership to
private

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Maintains historical Identity
Maintains association with original camp
Structure is preserved in similar location
Less than ¼ mile move
Area has maintained original feeling and
association to the camp
Loss of NHRP listing but retains eligibility for
the future
Maintains National Historic Landmark
Designation and prominence within the
historic district
Interpretation of changes in military housing
New use conducive to original use
Fully restored with historical furnishing s
Retains nearly all criterion of Integrity
Already part of museum complex
Maintains federal ownership (State of Utah
to Utah National Guard ownership)

Moving: The Right Choice?
Old Deseret Village is a good place to house relocated and reconstructed historic structures to interpret the
early territorial history of Utah
BUT…
It was not the right setting to house a unique structure like Building 55
–

Will Building 55 be remembered for its history and sense of location? Or, because of the 4th grade
field trip with limited exposure only to be quickly forgotten?

–

With so many structures will the building be properly maintained or fall victim to demolition by
neglect?

–

Potentially a Section 106 logistic nightmare (Federal holdings to “private” hands)

Whereas…
The Fort Douglas Military Museum grounds will allow the unique structure a permanent home, restoration and
ability to maintain a prominent place in Fort Douglas. It will allow for
–

more opportunities and exposure to its unique history,

–

Will ensure that it will be preserved for future generations.

If Moved to Old Deseret Village

The actual site chosen for Building 55 in 1990 was never disclosed in the documentation.
Building 55 was placed in an arbitrary location within the park.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012 Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

If moved to the Museum Grounds

Sitting in proposed Master Plan location on the museum grounds.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Future Recommendations
The recommendations for Building 55:
1.

Restoration at current site using historically accurate methods
–
Potential for learning opportunities at current site (i.e. Root Cellar)
–
Potential for gaining additional archaeological information from site
–
Root Cellar was nominated as a stand alone NHRP eligible structure in 2008.

2.

Create a viable strategic plan for living history and historic house museum (adaptive use)
–
Prepare plan to cover all preservation issues which may crop up in the next decade
–
Prepare a strategic plan for safely moving Building 55, allowing for historically
accurate restoration and renovation methods.

3.

I

Maintain Building 55 on site
–
Use authentic and historically accurate reproduction pieces
–
Interpretive/Museum use

4.
If and when the time comes, move the structure to the Fort Douglas Military Museum
grounds to maintain current preservation effort
-- Increase opportunities for interpretation of structure
-- Restore back to 1863, and use later additions for storage/office space
-- Allow for living history programs

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Any Questions?

Bibliography
•

Advisory Council Regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR 800) .

•

Anne Racer to Rick Reese, (Email), 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas
Utah

•

Andrus, Cecil B. et al. “Part 6: The National Historic Register of Historic Places.” The Manual for
State Historic Preservation Review Boards. www.nps.gov/nr/bulletins/strevman/strevman6.htm
(accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Exhibit, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Register Nomination Form, 1970.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Landmark Nomination Form, 1974, Building 7 file, Utah State
Historical Preservation Offices, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas Military Museum, Master Plan, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas , Utah.

•

Hardesty, Donald L. and Barbara Little. Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists and
Historians (Lanham, MD.: Altamira Press, 2009).

•

Haws, Greg and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History of Building 55 (7) and its inhabitants.” University
of Utah Graduate School., 12 December 1994, University of Utah Marriott Library Special
Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Loveday, Amos J. “The Decision Makers Guide to Section 106.” Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2) pp. 10-17.

•

Maintenance Records Building 33, 1933, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah .

•

Maintenance Records Building 55, 1938, Fort Douglas Military Museum

•

Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas,
Utah

•

Morgan, Elmo R. “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22October-30 September 1954.” Fort
Douglas Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

National Park Service. Cultural Resource Guidelines (2002).
www.nps.gov/history/online_books nps28/28chap8.htm (accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Parris, Thomas . “Historical Preservation.” Environment Vol. 26 no. 8, (February 2003). P. 3

• Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14
September, 1862, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.
• Plaque, Camp Floyd/Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah.

• Plaque, Deuel Cabin, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt
Lake City, Utah.
• Plaque, Levi Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village, Salt Lake City, Utah.

• “Section 106: Back to the Basics” in Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2).
• University of Utah “From Civil War Building to Entrepreneurial Mecca”,
9 September 2008, http:/unews.utah.edu/old/p/090808-1.html
(accessed 1 August 2012).
• Utah State Historical Society Photograph Collection, Utah State
Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah


Slide 31

In the Shade of Black Locusts:
Preserving the “Silent Sentinel”
of Fort Douglas

Kimberly Buckner
Volunteer Staff
Fort Douglas Military Museum
Salt Lake City, Utah

Photo: Utah State Historical Society

Copyright Notice
© 2012 Kimberly Buckner and Fort
Douglas Military Museum. All
Rights Reserved. No use of any
photographs/information in this
presentation without express
written consent of the copyright
owner(s). All photos used by
permission.

But not all historic properties
are deliberately being
destroyed. Many have fallen
victim to the “ravages of
time.” This structure near
Camp Floyd has completely
collapsed since this picture
was taken in 2010.

Preservation: A National Priority?
Thomas Parris: National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 promotes the preservation of historic
structures as a national priority

And YET thousands of historically significant
properties are being destroyed each year despite
placement on the National Register of Historic
Places
Thomas Parris, “Historic Preservation”, Environment, Vol. 46, no. 8 (February 2003), p. 3

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

A Common Misconception?
A commonly held misconception among public
audiences:
“Preservation is broadly opposed to change and by
extension, that Section 106 is a tool to block
progress.”
Instead:
“Preservation is about controlling and accommodating
change, and the entire network of preservation rules,
beginning with Section 106, is designed to accomplish
that end.”
Amos J. Loveday, “The Decision Maker’s guide to Section 106”, Forum Journal Winter 2012, Vol. 26
(2), p. 17

Preserving Eligibility
Preservation is meant to protect by not diminishing
any characteristic providing eligibility on the
National Register of Historic Places Including (but
not limited to):
• Integrity of Location
• Integrity of Design
• Integrity of Setting
• Integrity of Materials
• Integrity of Workmanship
• Integrity of Feeling
• Integrity of Association
“Section 106: Back to the Basics”, Forum Journal, Winter 2012, Vol. 26, no. 2, p.10; 36 CFR
800.5 (a)(1)

The National Register of
Historic Places
Since 1966, The National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) provides:
• Communal recognition of local, state or national
history in a visual way
• Consideration in federal undertakings and
improvement projects
• Eligibility for tax benefits through the federal
government
• Qualification for monetary funds for preservation
benefits
Donald L. Hardesty and Barbara Little, Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists
and Historians, 2nd edition, (Lanham, MD: Altamira Press, 2009).

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties
Approved treatment
options:
• Preservation
• Rehabilitation
• Reconstruction
In rare conditions:
• Demolition by neglect
• Moving the historic
structure
Historic Cabin Ca. 1860’s
La Sal, Utah
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2010. Edited by Brick R. King, 2010
Colors have been enhanced

Success Stories:
Onsite Preservation of Carson Inn, 1858
Quick Facts:
• Camp Floyd and
Stagecoach Inn State Park
• Fairfield, Utah
• Built in 1858 by John
Carson
• Adobe and Frame
Construction
• Restored June 1959
• Outcome: furnished as a
historic “house” museum

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2011
Plaque, Camp Floyd /Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah

Success Stories: Moving, Restoration and Renovation
Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, 1847 and the Deuel
Family Cabin, 1847
Deuel Cabin
•
•
•

Riter Cabin

Temple Square
Moved ca. 1989
Glass enclosed historic house museum
with period furnishings

Why are they so Important?

•
•
•

Maintained in Old Deseret Village
Moved to Old Deseret Village ca. 1989
Interpreted solely by historical plaque

• Photo

The two oldest
remaining structures
in Utah are these
original
165-year –old cabins

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village

Success Story:
Relocation to Old Deseret Village
Quick Facts:

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Historic Manti Mill,
built ca. 1858 in Manti, Utah
Relocated ca. 1989

• This is the Place Heritage
Park
• Salt Lake City, Utah
• More than 40
structures/buildings
• Buildings consist of
originals, reproductions, or
relocated 19th century
structures
• Outcome: set up as a
historic village to interpret
frontier life in Utah from
1847-1869

Other success stories
ODV

Photos: Kimberly Buckner 2012

Camp Douglas, ca. 1864
“…I found another location, which I like better for
various reasons…”– Patrick Edward Connor
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah
Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14 September 1862,
Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah.

From Camp to Fort
26 October 1862 : established Camp
Douglas
1862: “Connor Tents” and Dugouts
1863: Adobe and Log structures begun
1867: Expansion of Camp’s perimeter
1874-75: $1 Million rebuild from native
red sandstone
1878: Renamed Fort Douglas

Camp Douglas ca. 1866
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884: $63,820 expansion with 5 frame
structures

From Fort to Historic Landmark
1904-1911: $1,140,000 building expansion
1910: Introduction of electricity
1915-16: Addition of detention camp
1930: Final major building expansion
1970: Listed on National Register of Historic
Places as a heritage district
1974: Listed as National Historic Landmark
26 October 1991: Fort Douglas officially
decommissioned
2002: Athlete’s Village, 2002 Winter Olympics

Stillwell Field Looking East, 2012
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Building 55
Characteristics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

Cost $780
Less than 1900 Sq. Feet
Originally 26 ft. by 29 ft.
Adobe with frame additions
First Neoclassical cross-wing in
Utah (symmetrical design)
4 rooms
18” thick walls
3 adobe fireplaces
“Four over four” double hung
sash windows
Pine or Douglas Fir
Wooden shingle roof coated in
slate
“Lath and plastered” interior
Has a stand alone Historic
Register eligible structure below
the original building (1862 Root
Cellar)

Building 55 in 2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Greg Haws and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History
of Building 55 (7) and its Inhabitants.” University of Utah
Graduate School of Architecture,
Fort Douglas Papers, University of Utah
Marriott Library Special Collections,
Salt Lake City, Utah

Building 55, ca. 1865
“In the shadow of Red Butte, the silent sentinel…looks down upon the scene of
[their] labors, at the very spot where [they ]first camped…”
–Lieutenant Colonel Fred B. Rogers at the funeral of General Patrick Edward
Connor
Photo: Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah;
Elmo R. Morgan, “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22 October 1862-30 September 1954”, Fort Douglas
Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah(Brackets added)

Then and Now
ca. 1900

Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner

Preservation of Building 55: Additions
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

North Exterior

South Exterior

1930
Addition

Unknown
addition

1864
Frame
Addition

1862-3
Root
Cellar

1863
Original
Building

1863 Original
Building

1875
Addition
1864 Post
Surgeons
Quarter’s

1930
Addition

Extensive Known Alterations:
1864: addition of two frame rooms
1874: addition of parlor from Post Surgeon’s quarters
Removal of a fireplace
Windows changed
Fireplace enclosed
1903: Plumbing
1910: Electricity
1911-1928: steam heating, telephones, gas lines
1930: frame Lean-to addition
Windows changed
1960: fire damage repairs
Unknown: Building addition
Unknown: Exterior Stucco
Source: Maintenance Records for Building 33, 1933; Maintenance Records for Building 55, 1938

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Preservation

Unknown Addition
Ca. 1930

• Building 55 is believed to have
been the only complete 1863
structure remaining at Fort
Douglas
• In 2003 parts of several other
1863 buildings have been found:
– 1874: Commander’s Quarters
Parlor from 1863 District
Commander’s Residence
– 1864: Building 55
Parlor Post Surgeon’s
Quarters
– 1862-63: Building 55
Root Cellar

1874 Addition

Original 1863 Parlor

1874 Post Commander’s Residence
Source: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Moving Building 55
• First discussed in 1990
• Again in 1994
• The site chosen was Old
Deseret Village
• University of Utah did not
agree for “reasons so
compelling”
• Recommended for
preservation on site
• Discussion never progressed
further into action
• Outcome: remains on site

Old Deseret Village looking east, 2012
First proposed area to move Building 55

Source: Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995; Anne Racer to Rick
Reece, email, 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum,
Fort Douglas, Utah.

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Old Deseret Village:
Historically Camp Douglas
Pros for moving:

Cons for moving Building 55:

• Old Deseret Village was
constructed on the original
grounds of Camp Douglas
(Association)
• Preserves the structure
• Allows “basic” interpretation
of the historic structure
• Provides opportunities for new
use, but not uses the building
was intended for(Design)

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•

Moved off of original location 1+ miles
away (location)
Destroys 150 years of association to
location of the historic camp
(Association/location)
Bears no resemblance to current location
(feeling )
Would remove from NRHP an make it
ineligible for any future attempts
Removes Historic Landmark designation
Costs to move , reconstruct and restore
(materials)
Destruction of original workmanship
(workmanship)
May cause un-repairable damage to the
structure (workmanship/
materials/design)

Fort Douglas Military Museum
1917
Master Plan
POW Barracks (RC)

N: New
RE: Relocated
RC: Reconstructed
E: Existing
D: Drop Building Addition to
Historic Structure

1942
Firehouse (E)

North

1943
Barracks (RE)

and Guard Tower (RC)

Women’s
Memorial (N)

D

1863
Commanders
Home (RE)

D

D

Building 31 and 32
Current Museum (E)
Not connected yet. Black Star
Building has been completed.

1935
Shop (RE)
© 2012 Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884
Officer’s
Quarters
Duplex (RE)

Preservation Problems
• Stress fractures
• Plaster Damage
• Fire Damage
• Foundation damage
• Windows
•Adobe damage

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner , 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos:
Kimberly
Buckner
2012

A Good Move: Moving Building 55 to Fort
Douglas Military Museum Grounds
Pros:

Cons:

• A move of less than ¼ mile
• Maintains association to original
site (Association)
• Preservation of structure
(materials/design)
• Opportunities to interpret local
history of post (location)
• Chosen site provides similar view
to original location (setting)
• Allows for new use (design)
• Maintains feeling of the historic
district (Feeling)

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Removes from primary location and
original foundation (Location)
Potential to damage structure
May destroy the original
workmanship (Workmanship)
To which era of significance will it
be restored?
Original orientation may not be
possible
Will introduce modern materials
into the historic structure
(Materials)
Removes from NRHP but would
allow for reapplication/maintains
historic landmark designation

A Difference in Views
Old Deseret Village

Looking West

Fort Douglas Military
Museum Grounds

Cannon Park looking South
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Lessening the impacts:
When moving is the only Preservation
option
Old Deseret Village

Fort Douglas Military Museum

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Will lose nearly all historical identity
Not on original site, but in association with original
camp
Allows the structure to exist
Would impact the elements of original design
Area not with original feeling but among structures
who have lost their “history”
Introduction of modern materials
Further impacts to historic workmanship
Loss of National Historic Landmark Designation
Loss of NRHP listing. May not be able to reapply
Land has lost all association/use with original Camp
Douglas
New use may not be conducive to historic use
1+ mile move
Impacts all criterion of integrity
Must be removed from Federal ownership to
private

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Maintains historical Identity
Maintains association with original camp
Structure is preserved in similar location
Less than ¼ mile move
Area has maintained original feeling and
association to the camp
Loss of NHRP listing but retains eligibility for
the future
Maintains National Historic Landmark
Designation and prominence within the
historic district
Interpretation of changes in military housing
New use conducive to original use
Fully restored with historical furnishing s
Retains nearly all criterion of Integrity
Already part of museum complex
Maintains federal ownership (State of Utah
to Utah National Guard ownership)

Moving: The Right Choice?
Old Deseret Village is a good place to house relocated and reconstructed historic structures to interpret the
early territorial history of Utah
BUT…
It was not the right setting to house a unique structure like Building 55
–

Will Building 55 be remembered for its history and sense of location? Or, because of the 4th grade
field trip with limited exposure only to be quickly forgotten?

–

With so many structures will the building be properly maintained or fall victim to demolition by
neglect?

–

Potentially a Section 106 logistic nightmare (Federal holdings to “private” hands)

Whereas…
The Fort Douglas Military Museum grounds will allow the unique structure a permanent home, restoration and
ability to maintain a prominent place in Fort Douglas. It will allow for
–

more opportunities and exposure to its unique history,

–

Will ensure that it will be preserved for future generations.

If Moved to Old Deseret Village

The actual site chosen for Building 55 in 1990 was never disclosed in the documentation.
Building 55 was placed in an arbitrary location within the park.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012 Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

If moved to the Museum Grounds

Sitting in proposed Master Plan location on the museum grounds.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Future Recommendations
The recommendations for Building 55:
1.

Restoration at current site using historically accurate methods
–
Potential for learning opportunities at current site (i.e. Root Cellar)
–
Potential for gaining additional archaeological information from site
–
Root Cellar was nominated as a stand alone NHRP eligible structure in 2008.

2.

Create a viable strategic plan for living history and historic house museum (adaptive use)
–
Prepare plan to cover all preservation issues which may crop up in the next decade
–
Prepare a strategic plan for safely moving Building 55, allowing for historically
accurate restoration and renovation methods.

3.

I

Maintain Building 55 on site
–
Use authentic and historically accurate reproduction pieces
–
Interpretive/Museum use

4.
If and when the time comes, move the structure to the Fort Douglas Military Museum
grounds to maintain current preservation effort
-- Increase opportunities for interpretation of structure
-- Restore back to 1863, and use later additions for storage/office space
-- Allow for living history programs

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Any Questions?

Bibliography
•

Advisory Council Regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR 800) .

•

Anne Racer to Rick Reese, (Email), 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas
Utah

•

Andrus, Cecil B. et al. “Part 6: The National Historic Register of Historic Places.” The Manual for
State Historic Preservation Review Boards. www.nps.gov/nr/bulletins/strevman/strevman6.htm
(accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Exhibit, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Register Nomination Form, 1970.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Landmark Nomination Form, 1974, Building 7 file, Utah State
Historical Preservation Offices, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas Military Museum, Master Plan, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas , Utah.

•

Hardesty, Donald L. and Barbara Little. Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists and
Historians (Lanham, MD.: Altamira Press, 2009).

•

Haws, Greg and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History of Building 55 (7) and its inhabitants.” University
of Utah Graduate School., 12 December 1994, University of Utah Marriott Library Special
Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Loveday, Amos J. “The Decision Makers Guide to Section 106.” Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2) pp. 10-17.

•

Maintenance Records Building 33, 1933, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah .

•

Maintenance Records Building 55, 1938, Fort Douglas Military Museum

•

Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas,
Utah

•

Morgan, Elmo R. “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22October-30 September 1954.” Fort
Douglas Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

National Park Service. Cultural Resource Guidelines (2002).
www.nps.gov/history/online_books nps28/28chap8.htm (accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Parris, Thomas . “Historical Preservation.” Environment Vol. 26 no. 8, (February 2003). P. 3

• Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14
September, 1862, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.
• Plaque, Camp Floyd/Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah.

• Plaque, Deuel Cabin, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt
Lake City, Utah.
• Plaque, Levi Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village, Salt Lake City, Utah.

• “Section 106: Back to the Basics” in Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2).
• University of Utah “From Civil War Building to Entrepreneurial Mecca”,
9 September 2008, http:/unews.utah.edu/old/p/090808-1.html
(accessed 1 August 2012).
• Utah State Historical Society Photograph Collection, Utah State
Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah


Slide 32

In the Shade of Black Locusts:
Preserving the “Silent Sentinel”
of Fort Douglas

Kimberly Buckner
Volunteer Staff
Fort Douglas Military Museum
Salt Lake City, Utah

Photo: Utah State Historical Society

Copyright Notice
© 2012 Kimberly Buckner and Fort
Douglas Military Museum. All
Rights Reserved. No use of any
photographs/information in this
presentation without express
written consent of the copyright
owner(s). All photos used by
permission.

But not all historic properties
are deliberately being
destroyed. Many have fallen
victim to the “ravages of
time.” This structure near
Camp Floyd has completely
collapsed since this picture
was taken in 2010.

Preservation: A National Priority?
Thomas Parris: National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 promotes the preservation of historic
structures as a national priority

And YET thousands of historically significant
properties are being destroyed each year despite
placement on the National Register of Historic
Places
Thomas Parris, “Historic Preservation”, Environment, Vol. 46, no. 8 (February 2003), p. 3

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

A Common Misconception?
A commonly held misconception among public
audiences:
“Preservation is broadly opposed to change and by
extension, that Section 106 is a tool to block
progress.”
Instead:
“Preservation is about controlling and accommodating
change, and the entire network of preservation rules,
beginning with Section 106, is designed to accomplish
that end.”
Amos J. Loveday, “The Decision Maker’s guide to Section 106”, Forum Journal Winter 2012, Vol. 26
(2), p. 17

Preserving Eligibility
Preservation is meant to protect by not diminishing
any characteristic providing eligibility on the
National Register of Historic Places Including (but
not limited to):
• Integrity of Location
• Integrity of Design
• Integrity of Setting
• Integrity of Materials
• Integrity of Workmanship
• Integrity of Feeling
• Integrity of Association
“Section 106: Back to the Basics”, Forum Journal, Winter 2012, Vol. 26, no. 2, p.10; 36 CFR
800.5 (a)(1)

The National Register of
Historic Places
Since 1966, The National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) provides:
• Communal recognition of local, state or national
history in a visual way
• Consideration in federal undertakings and
improvement projects
• Eligibility for tax benefits through the federal
government
• Qualification for monetary funds for preservation
benefits
Donald L. Hardesty and Barbara Little, Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists
and Historians, 2nd edition, (Lanham, MD: Altamira Press, 2009).

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties
Approved treatment
options:
• Preservation
• Rehabilitation
• Reconstruction
In rare conditions:
• Demolition by neglect
• Moving the historic
structure
Historic Cabin Ca. 1860’s
La Sal, Utah
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2010. Edited by Brick R. King, 2010
Colors have been enhanced

Success Stories:
Onsite Preservation of Carson Inn, 1858
Quick Facts:
• Camp Floyd and
Stagecoach Inn State Park
• Fairfield, Utah
• Built in 1858 by John
Carson
• Adobe and Frame
Construction
• Restored June 1959
• Outcome: furnished as a
historic “house” museum

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2011
Plaque, Camp Floyd /Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah

Success Stories: Moving, Restoration and Renovation
Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, 1847 and the Deuel
Family Cabin, 1847
Deuel Cabin
•
•
•

Riter Cabin

Temple Square
Moved ca. 1989
Glass enclosed historic house museum
with period furnishings

Why are they so Important?

•
•
•

Maintained in Old Deseret Village
Moved to Old Deseret Village ca. 1989
Interpreted solely by historical plaque

• Photo

The two oldest
remaining structures
in Utah are these
original
165-year –old cabins

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village

Success Story:
Relocation to Old Deseret Village
Quick Facts:

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Historic Manti Mill,
built ca. 1858 in Manti, Utah
Relocated ca. 1989

• This is the Place Heritage
Park
• Salt Lake City, Utah
• More than 40
structures/buildings
• Buildings consist of
originals, reproductions, or
relocated 19th century
structures
• Outcome: set up as a
historic village to interpret
frontier life in Utah from
1847-1869

Other success stories
ODV

Photos: Kimberly Buckner 2012

Camp Douglas, ca. 1864
“…I found another location, which I like better for
various reasons…”– Patrick Edward Connor
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah
Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14 September 1862,
Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah.

From Camp to Fort
26 October 1862 : established Camp
Douglas
1862: “Connor Tents” and Dugouts
1863: Adobe and Log structures begun
1867: Expansion of Camp’s perimeter
1874-75: $1 Million rebuild from native
red sandstone
1878: Renamed Fort Douglas

Camp Douglas ca. 1866
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884: $63,820 expansion with 5 frame
structures

From Fort to Historic Landmark
1904-1911: $1,140,000 building expansion
1910: Introduction of electricity
1915-16: Addition of detention camp
1930: Final major building expansion
1970: Listed on National Register of Historic
Places as a heritage district
1974: Listed as National Historic Landmark
26 October 1991: Fort Douglas officially
decommissioned
2002: Athlete’s Village, 2002 Winter Olympics

Stillwell Field Looking East, 2012
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Building 55
Characteristics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

Cost $780
Less than 1900 Sq. Feet
Originally 26 ft. by 29 ft.
Adobe with frame additions
First Neoclassical cross-wing in
Utah (symmetrical design)
4 rooms
18” thick walls
3 adobe fireplaces
“Four over four” double hung
sash windows
Pine or Douglas Fir
Wooden shingle roof coated in
slate
“Lath and plastered” interior
Has a stand alone Historic
Register eligible structure below
the original building (1862 Root
Cellar)

Building 55 in 2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Greg Haws and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History
of Building 55 (7) and its Inhabitants.” University of Utah
Graduate School of Architecture,
Fort Douglas Papers, University of Utah
Marriott Library Special Collections,
Salt Lake City, Utah

Building 55, ca. 1865
“In the shadow of Red Butte, the silent sentinel…looks down upon the scene of
[their] labors, at the very spot where [they ]first camped…”
–Lieutenant Colonel Fred B. Rogers at the funeral of General Patrick Edward
Connor
Photo: Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah;
Elmo R. Morgan, “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22 October 1862-30 September 1954”, Fort Douglas
Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah(Brackets added)

Then and Now
ca. 1900

Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner

Preservation of Building 55: Additions
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

North Exterior

South Exterior

1930
Addition

Unknown
addition

1864
Frame
Addition

1862-3
Root
Cellar

1863
Original
Building

1863 Original
Building

1875
Addition
1864 Post
Surgeons
Quarter’s

1930
Addition

Extensive Known Alterations:
1864: addition of two frame rooms
1874: addition of parlor from Post Surgeon’s quarters
Removal of a fireplace
Windows changed
Fireplace enclosed
1903: Plumbing
1910: Electricity
1911-1928: steam heating, telephones, gas lines
1930: frame Lean-to addition
Windows changed
1960: fire damage repairs
Unknown: Building addition
Unknown: Exterior Stucco
Source: Maintenance Records for Building 33, 1933; Maintenance Records for Building 55, 1938

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Preservation

Unknown Addition
Ca. 1930

• Building 55 is believed to have
been the only complete 1863
structure remaining at Fort
Douglas
• In 2003 parts of several other
1863 buildings have been found:
– 1874: Commander’s Quarters
Parlor from 1863 District
Commander’s Residence
– 1864: Building 55
Parlor Post Surgeon’s
Quarters
– 1862-63: Building 55
Root Cellar

1874 Addition

Original 1863 Parlor

1874 Post Commander’s Residence
Source: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Moving Building 55
• First discussed in 1990
• Again in 1994
• The site chosen was Old
Deseret Village
• University of Utah did not
agree for “reasons so
compelling”
• Recommended for
preservation on site
• Discussion never progressed
further into action
• Outcome: remains on site

Old Deseret Village looking east, 2012
First proposed area to move Building 55

Source: Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995; Anne Racer to Rick
Reece, email, 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum,
Fort Douglas, Utah.

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Old Deseret Village:
Historically Camp Douglas
Pros for moving:

Cons for moving Building 55:

• Old Deseret Village was
constructed on the original
grounds of Camp Douglas
(Association)
• Preserves the structure
• Allows “basic” interpretation
of the historic structure
• Provides opportunities for new
use, but not uses the building
was intended for(Design)

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•

Moved off of original location 1+ miles
away (location)
Destroys 150 years of association to
location of the historic camp
(Association/location)
Bears no resemblance to current location
(feeling )
Would remove from NRHP an make it
ineligible for any future attempts
Removes Historic Landmark designation
Costs to move , reconstruct and restore
(materials)
Destruction of original workmanship
(workmanship)
May cause un-repairable damage to the
structure (workmanship/
materials/design)

Fort Douglas Military Museum
1917
Master Plan
POW Barracks (RC)

N: New
RE: Relocated
RC: Reconstructed
E: Existing
D: Drop Building Addition to
Historic Structure

1942
Firehouse (E)

North

1943
Barracks (RE)

and Guard Tower (RC)

Women’s
Memorial (N)

D

1863
Commanders
Home (RE)

D

D

Building 31 and 32
Current Museum (E)
Not connected yet. Black Star
Building has been completed.

1935
Shop (RE)
© 2012 Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884
Officer’s
Quarters
Duplex (RE)

Preservation Problems
• Stress fractures
• Plaster Damage
• Fire Damage
• Foundation damage
• Windows
•Adobe damage

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner , 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos:
Kimberly
Buckner
2012

A Good Move: Moving Building 55 to Fort
Douglas Military Museum Grounds
Pros:

Cons:

• A move of less than ¼ mile
• Maintains association to original
site (Association)
• Preservation of structure
(materials/design)
• Opportunities to interpret local
history of post (location)
• Chosen site provides similar view
to original location (setting)
• Allows for new use (design)
• Maintains feeling of the historic
district (Feeling)

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Removes from primary location and
original foundation (Location)
Potential to damage structure
May destroy the original
workmanship (Workmanship)
To which era of significance will it
be restored?
Original orientation may not be
possible
Will introduce modern materials
into the historic structure
(Materials)
Removes from NRHP but would
allow for reapplication/maintains
historic landmark designation

A Difference in Views
Old Deseret Village

Looking West

Fort Douglas Military
Museum Grounds

Cannon Park looking South
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Lessening the impacts:
When moving is the only Preservation
option
Old Deseret Village

Fort Douglas Military Museum

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Will lose nearly all historical identity
Not on original site, but in association with original
camp
Allows the structure to exist
Would impact the elements of original design
Area not with original feeling but among structures
who have lost their “history”
Introduction of modern materials
Further impacts to historic workmanship
Loss of National Historic Landmark Designation
Loss of NRHP listing. May not be able to reapply
Land has lost all association/use with original Camp
Douglas
New use may not be conducive to historic use
1+ mile move
Impacts all criterion of integrity
Must be removed from Federal ownership to
private

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Maintains historical Identity
Maintains association with original camp
Structure is preserved in similar location
Less than ¼ mile move
Area has maintained original feeling and
association to the camp
Loss of NHRP listing but retains eligibility for
the future
Maintains National Historic Landmark
Designation and prominence within the
historic district
Interpretation of changes in military housing
New use conducive to original use
Fully restored with historical furnishing s
Retains nearly all criterion of Integrity
Already part of museum complex
Maintains federal ownership (State of Utah
to Utah National Guard ownership)

Moving: The Right Choice?
Old Deseret Village is a good place to house relocated and reconstructed historic structures to interpret the
early territorial history of Utah
BUT…
It was not the right setting to house a unique structure like Building 55
–

Will Building 55 be remembered for its history and sense of location? Or, because of the 4th grade
field trip with limited exposure only to be quickly forgotten?

–

With so many structures will the building be properly maintained or fall victim to demolition by
neglect?

–

Potentially a Section 106 logistic nightmare (Federal holdings to “private” hands)

Whereas…
The Fort Douglas Military Museum grounds will allow the unique structure a permanent home, restoration and
ability to maintain a prominent place in Fort Douglas. It will allow for
–

more opportunities and exposure to its unique history,

–

Will ensure that it will be preserved for future generations.

If Moved to Old Deseret Village

The actual site chosen for Building 55 in 1990 was never disclosed in the documentation.
Building 55 was placed in an arbitrary location within the park.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012 Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

If moved to the Museum Grounds

Sitting in proposed Master Plan location on the museum grounds.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Future Recommendations
The recommendations for Building 55:
1.

Restoration at current site using historically accurate methods
–
Potential for learning opportunities at current site (i.e. Root Cellar)
–
Potential for gaining additional archaeological information from site
–
Root Cellar was nominated as a stand alone NHRP eligible structure in 2008.

2.

Create a viable strategic plan for living history and historic house museum (adaptive use)
–
Prepare plan to cover all preservation issues which may crop up in the next decade
–
Prepare a strategic plan for safely moving Building 55, allowing for historically
accurate restoration and renovation methods.

3.

I

Maintain Building 55 on site
–
Use authentic and historically accurate reproduction pieces
–
Interpretive/Museum use

4.
If and when the time comes, move the structure to the Fort Douglas Military Museum
grounds to maintain current preservation effort
-- Increase opportunities for interpretation of structure
-- Restore back to 1863, and use later additions for storage/office space
-- Allow for living history programs

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Any Questions?

Bibliography
•

Advisory Council Regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR 800) .

•

Anne Racer to Rick Reese, (Email), 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas
Utah

•

Andrus, Cecil B. et al. “Part 6: The National Historic Register of Historic Places.” The Manual for
State Historic Preservation Review Boards. www.nps.gov/nr/bulletins/strevman/strevman6.htm
(accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Exhibit, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Register Nomination Form, 1970.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Landmark Nomination Form, 1974, Building 7 file, Utah State
Historical Preservation Offices, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas Military Museum, Master Plan, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas , Utah.

•

Hardesty, Donald L. and Barbara Little. Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists and
Historians (Lanham, MD.: Altamira Press, 2009).

•

Haws, Greg and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History of Building 55 (7) and its inhabitants.” University
of Utah Graduate School., 12 December 1994, University of Utah Marriott Library Special
Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Loveday, Amos J. “The Decision Makers Guide to Section 106.” Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2) pp. 10-17.

•

Maintenance Records Building 33, 1933, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah .

•

Maintenance Records Building 55, 1938, Fort Douglas Military Museum

•

Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas,
Utah

•

Morgan, Elmo R. “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22October-30 September 1954.” Fort
Douglas Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

National Park Service. Cultural Resource Guidelines (2002).
www.nps.gov/history/online_books nps28/28chap8.htm (accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Parris, Thomas . “Historical Preservation.” Environment Vol. 26 no. 8, (February 2003). P. 3

• Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14
September, 1862, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.
• Plaque, Camp Floyd/Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah.

• Plaque, Deuel Cabin, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt
Lake City, Utah.
• Plaque, Levi Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village, Salt Lake City, Utah.

• “Section 106: Back to the Basics” in Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2).
• University of Utah “From Civil War Building to Entrepreneurial Mecca”,
9 September 2008, http:/unews.utah.edu/old/p/090808-1.html
(accessed 1 August 2012).
• Utah State Historical Society Photograph Collection, Utah State
Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah


Slide 33

In the Shade of Black Locusts:
Preserving the “Silent Sentinel”
of Fort Douglas

Kimberly Buckner
Volunteer Staff
Fort Douglas Military Museum
Salt Lake City, Utah

Photo: Utah State Historical Society

Copyright Notice
© 2012 Kimberly Buckner and Fort
Douglas Military Museum. All
Rights Reserved. No use of any
photographs/information in this
presentation without express
written consent of the copyright
owner(s). All photos used by
permission.

But not all historic properties
are deliberately being
destroyed. Many have fallen
victim to the “ravages of
time.” This structure near
Camp Floyd has completely
collapsed since this picture
was taken in 2010.

Preservation: A National Priority?
Thomas Parris: National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 promotes the preservation of historic
structures as a national priority

And YET thousands of historically significant
properties are being destroyed each year despite
placement on the National Register of Historic
Places
Thomas Parris, “Historic Preservation”, Environment, Vol. 46, no. 8 (February 2003), p. 3

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

A Common Misconception?
A commonly held misconception among public
audiences:
“Preservation is broadly opposed to change and by
extension, that Section 106 is a tool to block
progress.”
Instead:
“Preservation is about controlling and accommodating
change, and the entire network of preservation rules,
beginning with Section 106, is designed to accomplish
that end.”
Amos J. Loveday, “The Decision Maker’s guide to Section 106”, Forum Journal Winter 2012, Vol. 26
(2), p. 17

Preserving Eligibility
Preservation is meant to protect by not diminishing
any characteristic providing eligibility on the
National Register of Historic Places Including (but
not limited to):
• Integrity of Location
• Integrity of Design
• Integrity of Setting
• Integrity of Materials
• Integrity of Workmanship
• Integrity of Feeling
• Integrity of Association
“Section 106: Back to the Basics”, Forum Journal, Winter 2012, Vol. 26, no. 2, p.10; 36 CFR
800.5 (a)(1)

The National Register of
Historic Places
Since 1966, The National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) provides:
• Communal recognition of local, state or national
history in a visual way
• Consideration in federal undertakings and
improvement projects
• Eligibility for tax benefits through the federal
government
• Qualification for monetary funds for preservation
benefits
Donald L. Hardesty and Barbara Little, Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists
and Historians, 2nd edition, (Lanham, MD: Altamira Press, 2009).

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties
Approved treatment
options:
• Preservation
• Rehabilitation
• Reconstruction
In rare conditions:
• Demolition by neglect
• Moving the historic
structure
Historic Cabin Ca. 1860’s
La Sal, Utah
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2010. Edited by Brick R. King, 2010
Colors have been enhanced

Success Stories:
Onsite Preservation of Carson Inn, 1858
Quick Facts:
• Camp Floyd and
Stagecoach Inn State Park
• Fairfield, Utah
• Built in 1858 by John
Carson
• Adobe and Frame
Construction
• Restored June 1959
• Outcome: furnished as a
historic “house” museum

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2011
Plaque, Camp Floyd /Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah

Success Stories: Moving, Restoration and Renovation
Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, 1847 and the Deuel
Family Cabin, 1847
Deuel Cabin
•
•
•

Riter Cabin

Temple Square
Moved ca. 1989
Glass enclosed historic house museum
with period furnishings

Why are they so Important?

•
•
•

Maintained in Old Deseret Village
Moved to Old Deseret Village ca. 1989
Interpreted solely by historical plaque

• Photo

The two oldest
remaining structures
in Utah are these
original
165-year –old cabins

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village

Success Story:
Relocation to Old Deseret Village
Quick Facts:

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Historic Manti Mill,
built ca. 1858 in Manti, Utah
Relocated ca. 1989

• This is the Place Heritage
Park
• Salt Lake City, Utah
• More than 40
structures/buildings
• Buildings consist of
originals, reproductions, or
relocated 19th century
structures
• Outcome: set up as a
historic village to interpret
frontier life in Utah from
1847-1869

Other success stories
ODV

Photos: Kimberly Buckner 2012

Camp Douglas, ca. 1864
“…I found another location, which I like better for
various reasons…”– Patrick Edward Connor
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah
Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14 September 1862,
Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah.

From Camp to Fort
26 October 1862 : established Camp
Douglas
1862: “Connor Tents” and Dugouts
1863: Adobe and Log structures begun
1867: Expansion of Camp’s perimeter
1874-75: $1 Million rebuild from native
red sandstone
1878: Renamed Fort Douglas

Camp Douglas ca. 1866
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884: $63,820 expansion with 5 frame
structures

From Fort to Historic Landmark
1904-1911: $1,140,000 building expansion
1910: Introduction of electricity
1915-16: Addition of detention camp
1930: Final major building expansion
1970: Listed on National Register of Historic
Places as a heritage district
1974: Listed as National Historic Landmark
26 October 1991: Fort Douglas officially
decommissioned
2002: Athlete’s Village, 2002 Winter Olympics

Stillwell Field Looking East, 2012
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Building 55
Characteristics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

Cost $780
Less than 1900 Sq. Feet
Originally 26 ft. by 29 ft.
Adobe with frame additions
First Neoclassical cross-wing in
Utah (symmetrical design)
4 rooms
18” thick walls
3 adobe fireplaces
“Four over four” double hung
sash windows
Pine or Douglas Fir
Wooden shingle roof coated in
slate
“Lath and plastered” interior
Has a stand alone Historic
Register eligible structure below
the original building (1862 Root
Cellar)

Building 55 in 2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Greg Haws and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History
of Building 55 (7) and its Inhabitants.” University of Utah
Graduate School of Architecture,
Fort Douglas Papers, University of Utah
Marriott Library Special Collections,
Salt Lake City, Utah

Building 55, ca. 1865
“In the shadow of Red Butte, the silent sentinel…looks down upon the scene of
[their] labors, at the very spot where [they ]first camped…”
–Lieutenant Colonel Fred B. Rogers at the funeral of General Patrick Edward
Connor
Photo: Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah;
Elmo R. Morgan, “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22 October 1862-30 September 1954”, Fort Douglas
Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah(Brackets added)

Then and Now
ca. 1900

Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner

Preservation of Building 55: Additions
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

North Exterior

South Exterior

1930
Addition

Unknown
addition

1864
Frame
Addition

1862-3
Root
Cellar

1863
Original
Building

1863 Original
Building

1875
Addition
1864 Post
Surgeons
Quarter’s

1930
Addition

Extensive Known Alterations:
1864: addition of two frame rooms
1874: addition of parlor from Post Surgeon’s quarters
Removal of a fireplace
Windows changed
Fireplace enclosed
1903: Plumbing
1910: Electricity
1911-1928: steam heating, telephones, gas lines
1930: frame Lean-to addition
Windows changed
1960: fire damage repairs
Unknown: Building addition
Unknown: Exterior Stucco
Source: Maintenance Records for Building 33, 1933; Maintenance Records for Building 55, 1938

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Preservation

Unknown Addition
Ca. 1930

• Building 55 is believed to have
been the only complete 1863
structure remaining at Fort
Douglas
• In 2003 parts of several other
1863 buildings have been found:
– 1874: Commander’s Quarters
Parlor from 1863 District
Commander’s Residence
– 1864: Building 55
Parlor Post Surgeon’s
Quarters
– 1862-63: Building 55
Root Cellar

1874 Addition

Original 1863 Parlor

1874 Post Commander’s Residence
Source: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Moving Building 55
• First discussed in 1990
• Again in 1994
• The site chosen was Old
Deseret Village
• University of Utah did not
agree for “reasons so
compelling”
• Recommended for
preservation on site
• Discussion never progressed
further into action
• Outcome: remains on site

Old Deseret Village looking east, 2012
First proposed area to move Building 55

Source: Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995; Anne Racer to Rick
Reece, email, 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum,
Fort Douglas, Utah.

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Old Deseret Village:
Historically Camp Douglas
Pros for moving:

Cons for moving Building 55:

• Old Deseret Village was
constructed on the original
grounds of Camp Douglas
(Association)
• Preserves the structure
• Allows “basic” interpretation
of the historic structure
• Provides opportunities for new
use, but not uses the building
was intended for(Design)

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•

Moved off of original location 1+ miles
away (location)
Destroys 150 years of association to
location of the historic camp
(Association/location)
Bears no resemblance to current location
(feeling )
Would remove from NRHP an make it
ineligible for any future attempts
Removes Historic Landmark designation
Costs to move , reconstruct and restore
(materials)
Destruction of original workmanship
(workmanship)
May cause un-repairable damage to the
structure (workmanship/
materials/design)

Fort Douglas Military Museum
1917
Master Plan
POW Barracks (RC)

N: New
RE: Relocated
RC: Reconstructed
E: Existing
D: Drop Building Addition to
Historic Structure

1942
Firehouse (E)

North

1943
Barracks (RE)

and Guard Tower (RC)

Women’s
Memorial (N)

D

1863
Commanders
Home (RE)

D

D

Building 31 and 32
Current Museum (E)
Not connected yet. Black Star
Building has been completed.

1935
Shop (RE)
© 2012 Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884
Officer’s
Quarters
Duplex (RE)

Preservation Problems
• Stress fractures
• Plaster Damage
• Fire Damage
• Foundation damage
• Windows
•Adobe damage

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner , 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos:
Kimberly
Buckner
2012

A Good Move: Moving Building 55 to Fort
Douglas Military Museum Grounds
Pros:

Cons:

• A move of less than ¼ mile
• Maintains association to original
site (Association)
• Preservation of structure
(materials/design)
• Opportunities to interpret local
history of post (location)
• Chosen site provides similar view
to original location (setting)
• Allows for new use (design)
• Maintains feeling of the historic
district (Feeling)

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Removes from primary location and
original foundation (Location)
Potential to damage structure
May destroy the original
workmanship (Workmanship)
To which era of significance will it
be restored?
Original orientation may not be
possible
Will introduce modern materials
into the historic structure
(Materials)
Removes from NRHP but would
allow for reapplication/maintains
historic landmark designation

A Difference in Views
Old Deseret Village

Looking West

Fort Douglas Military
Museum Grounds

Cannon Park looking South
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Lessening the impacts:
When moving is the only Preservation
option
Old Deseret Village

Fort Douglas Military Museum

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Will lose nearly all historical identity
Not on original site, but in association with original
camp
Allows the structure to exist
Would impact the elements of original design
Area not with original feeling but among structures
who have lost their “history”
Introduction of modern materials
Further impacts to historic workmanship
Loss of National Historic Landmark Designation
Loss of NRHP listing. May not be able to reapply
Land has lost all association/use with original Camp
Douglas
New use may not be conducive to historic use
1+ mile move
Impacts all criterion of integrity
Must be removed from Federal ownership to
private

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Maintains historical Identity
Maintains association with original camp
Structure is preserved in similar location
Less than ¼ mile move
Area has maintained original feeling and
association to the camp
Loss of NHRP listing but retains eligibility for
the future
Maintains National Historic Landmark
Designation and prominence within the
historic district
Interpretation of changes in military housing
New use conducive to original use
Fully restored with historical furnishing s
Retains nearly all criterion of Integrity
Already part of museum complex
Maintains federal ownership (State of Utah
to Utah National Guard ownership)

Moving: The Right Choice?
Old Deseret Village is a good place to house relocated and reconstructed historic structures to interpret the
early territorial history of Utah
BUT…
It was not the right setting to house a unique structure like Building 55
–

Will Building 55 be remembered for its history and sense of location? Or, because of the 4th grade
field trip with limited exposure only to be quickly forgotten?

–

With so many structures will the building be properly maintained or fall victim to demolition by
neglect?

–

Potentially a Section 106 logistic nightmare (Federal holdings to “private” hands)

Whereas…
The Fort Douglas Military Museum grounds will allow the unique structure a permanent home, restoration and
ability to maintain a prominent place in Fort Douglas. It will allow for
–

more opportunities and exposure to its unique history,

–

Will ensure that it will be preserved for future generations.

If Moved to Old Deseret Village

The actual site chosen for Building 55 in 1990 was never disclosed in the documentation.
Building 55 was placed in an arbitrary location within the park.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012 Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

If moved to the Museum Grounds

Sitting in proposed Master Plan location on the museum grounds.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Future Recommendations
The recommendations for Building 55:
1.

Restoration at current site using historically accurate methods
–
Potential for learning opportunities at current site (i.e. Root Cellar)
–
Potential for gaining additional archaeological information from site
–
Root Cellar was nominated as a stand alone NHRP eligible structure in 2008.

2.

Create a viable strategic plan for living history and historic house museum (adaptive use)
–
Prepare plan to cover all preservation issues which may crop up in the next decade
–
Prepare a strategic plan for safely moving Building 55, allowing for historically
accurate restoration and renovation methods.

3.

I

Maintain Building 55 on site
–
Use authentic and historically accurate reproduction pieces
–
Interpretive/Museum use

4.
If and when the time comes, move the structure to the Fort Douglas Military Museum
grounds to maintain current preservation effort
-- Increase opportunities for interpretation of structure
-- Restore back to 1863, and use later additions for storage/office space
-- Allow for living history programs

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Any Questions?

Bibliography
•

Advisory Council Regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR 800) .

•

Anne Racer to Rick Reese, (Email), 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas
Utah

•

Andrus, Cecil B. et al. “Part 6: The National Historic Register of Historic Places.” The Manual for
State Historic Preservation Review Boards. www.nps.gov/nr/bulletins/strevman/strevman6.htm
(accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Exhibit, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Register Nomination Form, 1970.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Landmark Nomination Form, 1974, Building 7 file, Utah State
Historical Preservation Offices, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas Military Museum, Master Plan, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas , Utah.

•

Hardesty, Donald L. and Barbara Little. Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists and
Historians (Lanham, MD.: Altamira Press, 2009).

•

Haws, Greg and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History of Building 55 (7) and its inhabitants.” University
of Utah Graduate School., 12 December 1994, University of Utah Marriott Library Special
Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Loveday, Amos J. “The Decision Makers Guide to Section 106.” Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2) pp. 10-17.

•

Maintenance Records Building 33, 1933, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah .

•

Maintenance Records Building 55, 1938, Fort Douglas Military Museum

•

Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas,
Utah

•

Morgan, Elmo R. “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22October-30 September 1954.” Fort
Douglas Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

National Park Service. Cultural Resource Guidelines (2002).
www.nps.gov/history/online_books nps28/28chap8.htm (accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Parris, Thomas . “Historical Preservation.” Environment Vol. 26 no. 8, (February 2003). P. 3

• Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14
September, 1862, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.
• Plaque, Camp Floyd/Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah.

• Plaque, Deuel Cabin, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt
Lake City, Utah.
• Plaque, Levi Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village, Salt Lake City, Utah.

• “Section 106: Back to the Basics” in Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2).
• University of Utah “From Civil War Building to Entrepreneurial Mecca”,
9 September 2008, http:/unews.utah.edu/old/p/090808-1.html
(accessed 1 August 2012).
• Utah State Historical Society Photograph Collection, Utah State
Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah


Slide 34

In the Shade of Black Locusts:
Preserving the “Silent Sentinel”
of Fort Douglas

Kimberly Buckner
Volunteer Staff
Fort Douglas Military Museum
Salt Lake City, Utah

Photo: Utah State Historical Society

Copyright Notice
© 2012 Kimberly Buckner and Fort
Douglas Military Museum. All
Rights Reserved. No use of any
photographs/information in this
presentation without express
written consent of the copyright
owner(s). All photos used by
permission.

But not all historic properties
are deliberately being
destroyed. Many have fallen
victim to the “ravages of
time.” This structure near
Camp Floyd has completely
collapsed since this picture
was taken in 2010.

Preservation: A National Priority?
Thomas Parris: National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 promotes the preservation of historic
structures as a national priority

And YET thousands of historically significant
properties are being destroyed each year despite
placement on the National Register of Historic
Places
Thomas Parris, “Historic Preservation”, Environment, Vol. 46, no. 8 (February 2003), p. 3

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

A Common Misconception?
A commonly held misconception among public
audiences:
“Preservation is broadly opposed to change and by
extension, that Section 106 is a tool to block
progress.”
Instead:
“Preservation is about controlling and accommodating
change, and the entire network of preservation rules,
beginning with Section 106, is designed to accomplish
that end.”
Amos J. Loveday, “The Decision Maker’s guide to Section 106”, Forum Journal Winter 2012, Vol. 26
(2), p. 17

Preserving Eligibility
Preservation is meant to protect by not diminishing
any characteristic providing eligibility on the
National Register of Historic Places Including (but
not limited to):
• Integrity of Location
• Integrity of Design
• Integrity of Setting
• Integrity of Materials
• Integrity of Workmanship
• Integrity of Feeling
• Integrity of Association
“Section 106: Back to the Basics”, Forum Journal, Winter 2012, Vol. 26, no. 2, p.10; 36 CFR
800.5 (a)(1)

The National Register of
Historic Places
Since 1966, The National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) provides:
• Communal recognition of local, state or national
history in a visual way
• Consideration in federal undertakings and
improvement projects
• Eligibility for tax benefits through the federal
government
• Qualification for monetary funds for preservation
benefits
Donald L. Hardesty and Barbara Little, Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists
and Historians, 2nd edition, (Lanham, MD: Altamira Press, 2009).

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties
Approved treatment
options:
• Preservation
• Rehabilitation
• Reconstruction
In rare conditions:
• Demolition by neglect
• Moving the historic
structure
Historic Cabin Ca. 1860’s
La Sal, Utah
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2010. Edited by Brick R. King, 2010
Colors have been enhanced

Success Stories:
Onsite Preservation of Carson Inn, 1858
Quick Facts:
• Camp Floyd and
Stagecoach Inn State Park
• Fairfield, Utah
• Built in 1858 by John
Carson
• Adobe and Frame
Construction
• Restored June 1959
• Outcome: furnished as a
historic “house” museum

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2011
Plaque, Camp Floyd /Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah

Success Stories: Moving, Restoration and Renovation
Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, 1847 and the Deuel
Family Cabin, 1847
Deuel Cabin
•
•
•

Riter Cabin

Temple Square
Moved ca. 1989
Glass enclosed historic house museum
with period furnishings

Why are they so Important?

•
•
•

Maintained in Old Deseret Village
Moved to Old Deseret Village ca. 1989
Interpreted solely by historical plaque

• Photo

The two oldest
remaining structures
in Utah are these
original
165-year –old cabins

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village

Success Story:
Relocation to Old Deseret Village
Quick Facts:

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Historic Manti Mill,
built ca. 1858 in Manti, Utah
Relocated ca. 1989

• This is the Place Heritage
Park
• Salt Lake City, Utah
• More than 40
structures/buildings
• Buildings consist of
originals, reproductions, or
relocated 19th century
structures
• Outcome: set up as a
historic village to interpret
frontier life in Utah from
1847-1869

Other success stories
ODV

Photos: Kimberly Buckner 2012

Camp Douglas, ca. 1864
“…I found another location, which I like better for
various reasons…”– Patrick Edward Connor
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah
Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14 September 1862,
Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah.

From Camp to Fort
26 October 1862 : established Camp
Douglas
1862: “Connor Tents” and Dugouts
1863: Adobe and Log structures begun
1867: Expansion of Camp’s perimeter
1874-75: $1 Million rebuild from native
red sandstone
1878: Renamed Fort Douglas

Camp Douglas ca. 1866
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884: $63,820 expansion with 5 frame
structures

From Fort to Historic Landmark
1904-1911: $1,140,000 building expansion
1910: Introduction of electricity
1915-16: Addition of detention camp
1930: Final major building expansion
1970: Listed on National Register of Historic
Places as a heritage district
1974: Listed as National Historic Landmark
26 October 1991: Fort Douglas officially
decommissioned
2002: Athlete’s Village, 2002 Winter Olympics

Stillwell Field Looking East, 2012
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Building 55
Characteristics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

Cost $780
Less than 1900 Sq. Feet
Originally 26 ft. by 29 ft.
Adobe with frame additions
First Neoclassical cross-wing in
Utah (symmetrical design)
4 rooms
18” thick walls
3 adobe fireplaces
“Four over four” double hung
sash windows
Pine or Douglas Fir
Wooden shingle roof coated in
slate
“Lath and plastered” interior
Has a stand alone Historic
Register eligible structure below
the original building (1862 Root
Cellar)

Building 55 in 2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Greg Haws and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History
of Building 55 (7) and its Inhabitants.” University of Utah
Graduate School of Architecture,
Fort Douglas Papers, University of Utah
Marriott Library Special Collections,
Salt Lake City, Utah

Building 55, ca. 1865
“In the shadow of Red Butte, the silent sentinel…looks down upon the scene of
[their] labors, at the very spot where [they ]first camped…”
–Lieutenant Colonel Fred B. Rogers at the funeral of General Patrick Edward
Connor
Photo: Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah;
Elmo R. Morgan, “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22 October 1862-30 September 1954”, Fort Douglas
Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah(Brackets added)

Then and Now
ca. 1900

Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner

Preservation of Building 55: Additions
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

North Exterior

South Exterior

1930
Addition

Unknown
addition

1864
Frame
Addition

1862-3
Root
Cellar

1863
Original
Building

1863 Original
Building

1875
Addition
1864 Post
Surgeons
Quarter’s

1930
Addition

Extensive Known Alterations:
1864: addition of two frame rooms
1874: addition of parlor from Post Surgeon’s quarters
Removal of a fireplace
Windows changed
Fireplace enclosed
1903: Plumbing
1910: Electricity
1911-1928: steam heating, telephones, gas lines
1930: frame Lean-to addition
Windows changed
1960: fire damage repairs
Unknown: Building addition
Unknown: Exterior Stucco
Source: Maintenance Records for Building 33, 1933; Maintenance Records for Building 55, 1938

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Preservation

Unknown Addition
Ca. 1930

• Building 55 is believed to have
been the only complete 1863
structure remaining at Fort
Douglas
• In 2003 parts of several other
1863 buildings have been found:
– 1874: Commander’s Quarters
Parlor from 1863 District
Commander’s Residence
– 1864: Building 55
Parlor Post Surgeon’s
Quarters
– 1862-63: Building 55
Root Cellar

1874 Addition

Original 1863 Parlor

1874 Post Commander’s Residence
Source: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Moving Building 55
• First discussed in 1990
• Again in 1994
• The site chosen was Old
Deseret Village
• University of Utah did not
agree for “reasons so
compelling”
• Recommended for
preservation on site
• Discussion never progressed
further into action
• Outcome: remains on site

Old Deseret Village looking east, 2012
First proposed area to move Building 55

Source: Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995; Anne Racer to Rick
Reece, email, 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum,
Fort Douglas, Utah.

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Old Deseret Village:
Historically Camp Douglas
Pros for moving:

Cons for moving Building 55:

• Old Deseret Village was
constructed on the original
grounds of Camp Douglas
(Association)
• Preserves the structure
• Allows “basic” interpretation
of the historic structure
• Provides opportunities for new
use, but not uses the building
was intended for(Design)

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•

Moved off of original location 1+ miles
away (location)
Destroys 150 years of association to
location of the historic camp
(Association/location)
Bears no resemblance to current location
(feeling )
Would remove from NRHP an make it
ineligible for any future attempts
Removes Historic Landmark designation
Costs to move , reconstruct and restore
(materials)
Destruction of original workmanship
(workmanship)
May cause un-repairable damage to the
structure (workmanship/
materials/design)

Fort Douglas Military Museum
1917
Master Plan
POW Barracks (RC)

N: New
RE: Relocated
RC: Reconstructed
E: Existing
D: Drop Building Addition to
Historic Structure

1942
Firehouse (E)

North

1943
Barracks (RE)

and Guard Tower (RC)

Women’s
Memorial (N)

D

1863
Commanders
Home (RE)

D

D

Building 31 and 32
Current Museum (E)
Not connected yet. Black Star
Building has been completed.

1935
Shop (RE)
© 2012 Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884
Officer’s
Quarters
Duplex (RE)

Preservation Problems
• Stress fractures
• Plaster Damage
• Fire Damage
• Foundation damage
• Windows
•Adobe damage

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner , 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos:
Kimberly
Buckner
2012

A Good Move: Moving Building 55 to Fort
Douglas Military Museum Grounds
Pros:

Cons:

• A move of less than ¼ mile
• Maintains association to original
site (Association)
• Preservation of structure
(materials/design)
• Opportunities to interpret local
history of post (location)
• Chosen site provides similar view
to original location (setting)
• Allows for new use (design)
• Maintains feeling of the historic
district (Feeling)

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Removes from primary location and
original foundation (Location)
Potential to damage structure
May destroy the original
workmanship (Workmanship)
To which era of significance will it
be restored?
Original orientation may not be
possible
Will introduce modern materials
into the historic structure
(Materials)
Removes from NRHP but would
allow for reapplication/maintains
historic landmark designation

A Difference in Views
Old Deseret Village

Looking West

Fort Douglas Military
Museum Grounds

Cannon Park looking South
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Lessening the impacts:
When moving is the only Preservation
option
Old Deseret Village

Fort Douglas Military Museum

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Will lose nearly all historical identity
Not on original site, but in association with original
camp
Allows the structure to exist
Would impact the elements of original design
Area not with original feeling but among structures
who have lost their “history”
Introduction of modern materials
Further impacts to historic workmanship
Loss of National Historic Landmark Designation
Loss of NRHP listing. May not be able to reapply
Land has lost all association/use with original Camp
Douglas
New use may not be conducive to historic use
1+ mile move
Impacts all criterion of integrity
Must be removed from Federal ownership to
private

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Maintains historical Identity
Maintains association with original camp
Structure is preserved in similar location
Less than ¼ mile move
Area has maintained original feeling and
association to the camp
Loss of NHRP listing but retains eligibility for
the future
Maintains National Historic Landmark
Designation and prominence within the
historic district
Interpretation of changes in military housing
New use conducive to original use
Fully restored with historical furnishing s
Retains nearly all criterion of Integrity
Already part of museum complex
Maintains federal ownership (State of Utah
to Utah National Guard ownership)

Moving: The Right Choice?
Old Deseret Village is a good place to house relocated and reconstructed historic structures to interpret the
early territorial history of Utah
BUT…
It was not the right setting to house a unique structure like Building 55
–

Will Building 55 be remembered for its history and sense of location? Or, because of the 4th grade
field trip with limited exposure only to be quickly forgotten?

–

With so many structures will the building be properly maintained or fall victim to demolition by
neglect?

–

Potentially a Section 106 logistic nightmare (Federal holdings to “private” hands)

Whereas…
The Fort Douglas Military Museum grounds will allow the unique structure a permanent home, restoration and
ability to maintain a prominent place in Fort Douglas. It will allow for
–

more opportunities and exposure to its unique history,

–

Will ensure that it will be preserved for future generations.

If Moved to Old Deseret Village

The actual site chosen for Building 55 in 1990 was never disclosed in the documentation.
Building 55 was placed in an arbitrary location within the park.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012 Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

If moved to the Museum Grounds

Sitting in proposed Master Plan location on the museum grounds.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Future Recommendations
The recommendations for Building 55:
1.

Restoration at current site using historically accurate methods
–
Potential for learning opportunities at current site (i.e. Root Cellar)
–
Potential for gaining additional archaeological information from site
–
Root Cellar was nominated as a stand alone NHRP eligible structure in 2008.

2.

Create a viable strategic plan for living history and historic house museum (adaptive use)
–
Prepare plan to cover all preservation issues which may crop up in the next decade
–
Prepare a strategic plan for safely moving Building 55, allowing for historically
accurate restoration and renovation methods.

3.

I

Maintain Building 55 on site
–
Use authentic and historically accurate reproduction pieces
–
Interpretive/Museum use

4.
If and when the time comes, move the structure to the Fort Douglas Military Museum
grounds to maintain current preservation effort
-- Increase opportunities for interpretation of structure
-- Restore back to 1863, and use later additions for storage/office space
-- Allow for living history programs

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Any Questions?

Bibliography
•

Advisory Council Regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR 800) .

•

Anne Racer to Rick Reese, (Email), 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas
Utah

•

Andrus, Cecil B. et al. “Part 6: The National Historic Register of Historic Places.” The Manual for
State Historic Preservation Review Boards. www.nps.gov/nr/bulletins/strevman/strevman6.htm
(accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Exhibit, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Register Nomination Form, 1970.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Landmark Nomination Form, 1974, Building 7 file, Utah State
Historical Preservation Offices, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas Military Museum, Master Plan, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas , Utah.

•

Hardesty, Donald L. and Barbara Little. Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists and
Historians (Lanham, MD.: Altamira Press, 2009).

•

Haws, Greg and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History of Building 55 (7) and its inhabitants.” University
of Utah Graduate School., 12 December 1994, University of Utah Marriott Library Special
Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Loveday, Amos J. “The Decision Makers Guide to Section 106.” Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2) pp. 10-17.

•

Maintenance Records Building 33, 1933, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah .

•

Maintenance Records Building 55, 1938, Fort Douglas Military Museum

•

Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas,
Utah

•

Morgan, Elmo R. “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22October-30 September 1954.” Fort
Douglas Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

National Park Service. Cultural Resource Guidelines (2002).
www.nps.gov/history/online_books nps28/28chap8.htm (accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Parris, Thomas . “Historical Preservation.” Environment Vol. 26 no. 8, (February 2003). P. 3

• Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14
September, 1862, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.
• Plaque, Camp Floyd/Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah.

• Plaque, Deuel Cabin, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt
Lake City, Utah.
• Plaque, Levi Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village, Salt Lake City, Utah.

• “Section 106: Back to the Basics” in Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2).
• University of Utah “From Civil War Building to Entrepreneurial Mecca”,
9 September 2008, http:/unews.utah.edu/old/p/090808-1.html
(accessed 1 August 2012).
• Utah State Historical Society Photograph Collection, Utah State
Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah


Slide 35

In the Shade of Black Locusts:
Preserving the “Silent Sentinel”
of Fort Douglas

Kimberly Buckner
Volunteer Staff
Fort Douglas Military Museum
Salt Lake City, Utah

Photo: Utah State Historical Society

Copyright Notice
© 2012 Kimberly Buckner and Fort
Douglas Military Museum. All
Rights Reserved. No use of any
photographs/information in this
presentation without express
written consent of the copyright
owner(s). All photos used by
permission.

But not all historic properties
are deliberately being
destroyed. Many have fallen
victim to the “ravages of
time.” This structure near
Camp Floyd has completely
collapsed since this picture
was taken in 2010.

Preservation: A National Priority?
Thomas Parris: National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 promotes the preservation of historic
structures as a national priority

And YET thousands of historically significant
properties are being destroyed each year despite
placement on the National Register of Historic
Places
Thomas Parris, “Historic Preservation”, Environment, Vol. 46, no. 8 (February 2003), p. 3

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

A Common Misconception?
A commonly held misconception among public
audiences:
“Preservation is broadly opposed to change and by
extension, that Section 106 is a tool to block
progress.”
Instead:
“Preservation is about controlling and accommodating
change, and the entire network of preservation rules,
beginning with Section 106, is designed to accomplish
that end.”
Amos J. Loveday, “The Decision Maker’s guide to Section 106”, Forum Journal Winter 2012, Vol. 26
(2), p. 17

Preserving Eligibility
Preservation is meant to protect by not diminishing
any characteristic providing eligibility on the
National Register of Historic Places Including (but
not limited to):
• Integrity of Location
• Integrity of Design
• Integrity of Setting
• Integrity of Materials
• Integrity of Workmanship
• Integrity of Feeling
• Integrity of Association
“Section 106: Back to the Basics”, Forum Journal, Winter 2012, Vol. 26, no. 2, p.10; 36 CFR
800.5 (a)(1)

The National Register of
Historic Places
Since 1966, The National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) provides:
• Communal recognition of local, state or national
history in a visual way
• Consideration in federal undertakings and
improvement projects
• Eligibility for tax benefits through the federal
government
• Qualification for monetary funds for preservation
benefits
Donald L. Hardesty and Barbara Little, Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists
and Historians, 2nd edition, (Lanham, MD: Altamira Press, 2009).

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties
Approved treatment
options:
• Preservation
• Rehabilitation
• Reconstruction
In rare conditions:
• Demolition by neglect
• Moving the historic
structure
Historic Cabin Ca. 1860’s
La Sal, Utah
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2010. Edited by Brick R. King, 2010
Colors have been enhanced

Success Stories:
Onsite Preservation of Carson Inn, 1858
Quick Facts:
• Camp Floyd and
Stagecoach Inn State Park
• Fairfield, Utah
• Built in 1858 by John
Carson
• Adobe and Frame
Construction
• Restored June 1959
• Outcome: furnished as a
historic “house” museum

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2011
Plaque, Camp Floyd /Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah

Success Stories: Moving, Restoration and Renovation
Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, 1847 and the Deuel
Family Cabin, 1847
Deuel Cabin
•
•
•

Riter Cabin

Temple Square
Moved ca. 1989
Glass enclosed historic house museum
with period furnishings

Why are they so Important?

•
•
•

Maintained in Old Deseret Village
Moved to Old Deseret Village ca. 1989
Interpreted solely by historical plaque

• Photo

The two oldest
remaining structures
in Utah are these
original
165-year –old cabins

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village

Success Story:
Relocation to Old Deseret Village
Quick Facts:

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Historic Manti Mill,
built ca. 1858 in Manti, Utah
Relocated ca. 1989

• This is the Place Heritage
Park
• Salt Lake City, Utah
• More than 40
structures/buildings
• Buildings consist of
originals, reproductions, or
relocated 19th century
structures
• Outcome: set up as a
historic village to interpret
frontier life in Utah from
1847-1869

Other success stories
ODV

Photos: Kimberly Buckner 2012

Camp Douglas, ca. 1864
“…I found another location, which I like better for
various reasons…”– Patrick Edward Connor
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah
Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14 September 1862,
Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah.

From Camp to Fort
26 October 1862 : established Camp
Douglas
1862: “Connor Tents” and Dugouts
1863: Adobe and Log structures begun
1867: Expansion of Camp’s perimeter
1874-75: $1 Million rebuild from native
red sandstone
1878: Renamed Fort Douglas

Camp Douglas ca. 1866
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884: $63,820 expansion with 5 frame
structures

From Fort to Historic Landmark
1904-1911: $1,140,000 building expansion
1910: Introduction of electricity
1915-16: Addition of detention camp
1930: Final major building expansion
1970: Listed on National Register of Historic
Places as a heritage district
1974: Listed as National Historic Landmark
26 October 1991: Fort Douglas officially
decommissioned
2002: Athlete’s Village, 2002 Winter Olympics

Stillwell Field Looking East, 2012
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Building 55
Characteristics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

Cost $780
Less than 1900 Sq. Feet
Originally 26 ft. by 29 ft.
Adobe with frame additions
First Neoclassical cross-wing in
Utah (symmetrical design)
4 rooms
18” thick walls
3 adobe fireplaces
“Four over four” double hung
sash windows
Pine or Douglas Fir
Wooden shingle roof coated in
slate
“Lath and plastered” interior
Has a stand alone Historic
Register eligible structure below
the original building (1862 Root
Cellar)

Building 55 in 2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Greg Haws and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History
of Building 55 (7) and its Inhabitants.” University of Utah
Graduate School of Architecture,
Fort Douglas Papers, University of Utah
Marriott Library Special Collections,
Salt Lake City, Utah

Building 55, ca. 1865
“In the shadow of Red Butte, the silent sentinel…looks down upon the scene of
[their] labors, at the very spot where [they ]first camped…”
–Lieutenant Colonel Fred B. Rogers at the funeral of General Patrick Edward
Connor
Photo: Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah;
Elmo R. Morgan, “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22 October 1862-30 September 1954”, Fort Douglas
Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah(Brackets added)

Then and Now
ca. 1900

Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner

Preservation of Building 55: Additions
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

North Exterior

South Exterior

1930
Addition

Unknown
addition

1864
Frame
Addition

1862-3
Root
Cellar

1863
Original
Building

1863 Original
Building

1875
Addition
1864 Post
Surgeons
Quarter’s

1930
Addition

Extensive Known Alterations:
1864: addition of two frame rooms
1874: addition of parlor from Post Surgeon’s quarters
Removal of a fireplace
Windows changed
Fireplace enclosed
1903: Plumbing
1910: Electricity
1911-1928: steam heating, telephones, gas lines
1930: frame Lean-to addition
Windows changed
1960: fire damage repairs
Unknown: Building addition
Unknown: Exterior Stucco
Source: Maintenance Records for Building 33, 1933; Maintenance Records for Building 55, 1938

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Preservation

Unknown Addition
Ca. 1930

• Building 55 is believed to have
been the only complete 1863
structure remaining at Fort
Douglas
• In 2003 parts of several other
1863 buildings have been found:
– 1874: Commander’s Quarters
Parlor from 1863 District
Commander’s Residence
– 1864: Building 55
Parlor Post Surgeon’s
Quarters
– 1862-63: Building 55
Root Cellar

1874 Addition

Original 1863 Parlor

1874 Post Commander’s Residence
Source: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Moving Building 55
• First discussed in 1990
• Again in 1994
• The site chosen was Old
Deseret Village
• University of Utah did not
agree for “reasons so
compelling”
• Recommended for
preservation on site
• Discussion never progressed
further into action
• Outcome: remains on site

Old Deseret Village looking east, 2012
First proposed area to move Building 55

Source: Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995; Anne Racer to Rick
Reece, email, 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum,
Fort Douglas, Utah.

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Old Deseret Village:
Historically Camp Douglas
Pros for moving:

Cons for moving Building 55:

• Old Deseret Village was
constructed on the original
grounds of Camp Douglas
(Association)
• Preserves the structure
• Allows “basic” interpretation
of the historic structure
• Provides opportunities for new
use, but not uses the building
was intended for(Design)

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•

Moved off of original location 1+ miles
away (location)
Destroys 150 years of association to
location of the historic camp
(Association/location)
Bears no resemblance to current location
(feeling )
Would remove from NRHP an make it
ineligible for any future attempts
Removes Historic Landmark designation
Costs to move , reconstruct and restore
(materials)
Destruction of original workmanship
(workmanship)
May cause un-repairable damage to the
structure (workmanship/
materials/design)

Fort Douglas Military Museum
1917
Master Plan
POW Barracks (RC)

N: New
RE: Relocated
RC: Reconstructed
E: Existing
D: Drop Building Addition to
Historic Structure

1942
Firehouse (E)

North

1943
Barracks (RE)

and Guard Tower (RC)

Women’s
Memorial (N)

D

1863
Commanders
Home (RE)

D

D

Building 31 and 32
Current Museum (E)
Not connected yet. Black Star
Building has been completed.

1935
Shop (RE)
© 2012 Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884
Officer’s
Quarters
Duplex (RE)

Preservation Problems
• Stress fractures
• Plaster Damage
• Fire Damage
• Foundation damage
• Windows
•Adobe damage

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner , 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos:
Kimberly
Buckner
2012

A Good Move: Moving Building 55 to Fort
Douglas Military Museum Grounds
Pros:

Cons:

• A move of less than ¼ mile
• Maintains association to original
site (Association)
• Preservation of structure
(materials/design)
• Opportunities to interpret local
history of post (location)
• Chosen site provides similar view
to original location (setting)
• Allows for new use (design)
• Maintains feeling of the historic
district (Feeling)

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Removes from primary location and
original foundation (Location)
Potential to damage structure
May destroy the original
workmanship (Workmanship)
To which era of significance will it
be restored?
Original orientation may not be
possible
Will introduce modern materials
into the historic structure
(Materials)
Removes from NRHP but would
allow for reapplication/maintains
historic landmark designation

A Difference in Views
Old Deseret Village

Looking West

Fort Douglas Military
Museum Grounds

Cannon Park looking South
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Lessening the impacts:
When moving is the only Preservation
option
Old Deseret Village

Fort Douglas Military Museum

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Will lose nearly all historical identity
Not on original site, but in association with original
camp
Allows the structure to exist
Would impact the elements of original design
Area not with original feeling but among structures
who have lost their “history”
Introduction of modern materials
Further impacts to historic workmanship
Loss of National Historic Landmark Designation
Loss of NRHP listing. May not be able to reapply
Land has lost all association/use with original Camp
Douglas
New use may not be conducive to historic use
1+ mile move
Impacts all criterion of integrity
Must be removed from Federal ownership to
private

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Maintains historical Identity
Maintains association with original camp
Structure is preserved in similar location
Less than ¼ mile move
Area has maintained original feeling and
association to the camp
Loss of NHRP listing but retains eligibility for
the future
Maintains National Historic Landmark
Designation and prominence within the
historic district
Interpretation of changes in military housing
New use conducive to original use
Fully restored with historical furnishing s
Retains nearly all criterion of Integrity
Already part of museum complex
Maintains federal ownership (State of Utah
to Utah National Guard ownership)

Moving: The Right Choice?
Old Deseret Village is a good place to house relocated and reconstructed historic structures to interpret the
early territorial history of Utah
BUT…
It was not the right setting to house a unique structure like Building 55
–

Will Building 55 be remembered for its history and sense of location? Or, because of the 4th grade
field trip with limited exposure only to be quickly forgotten?

–

With so many structures will the building be properly maintained or fall victim to demolition by
neglect?

–

Potentially a Section 106 logistic nightmare (Federal holdings to “private” hands)

Whereas…
The Fort Douglas Military Museum grounds will allow the unique structure a permanent home, restoration and
ability to maintain a prominent place in Fort Douglas. It will allow for
–

more opportunities and exposure to its unique history,

–

Will ensure that it will be preserved for future generations.

If Moved to Old Deseret Village

The actual site chosen for Building 55 in 1990 was never disclosed in the documentation.
Building 55 was placed in an arbitrary location within the park.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012 Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

If moved to the Museum Grounds

Sitting in proposed Master Plan location on the museum grounds.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Future Recommendations
The recommendations for Building 55:
1.

Restoration at current site using historically accurate methods
–
Potential for learning opportunities at current site (i.e. Root Cellar)
–
Potential for gaining additional archaeological information from site
–
Root Cellar was nominated as a stand alone NHRP eligible structure in 2008.

2.

Create a viable strategic plan for living history and historic house museum (adaptive use)
–
Prepare plan to cover all preservation issues which may crop up in the next decade
–
Prepare a strategic plan for safely moving Building 55, allowing for historically
accurate restoration and renovation methods.

3.

I

Maintain Building 55 on site
–
Use authentic and historically accurate reproduction pieces
–
Interpretive/Museum use

4.
If and when the time comes, move the structure to the Fort Douglas Military Museum
grounds to maintain current preservation effort
-- Increase opportunities for interpretation of structure
-- Restore back to 1863, and use later additions for storage/office space
-- Allow for living history programs

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Any Questions?

Bibliography
•

Advisory Council Regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR 800) .

•

Anne Racer to Rick Reese, (Email), 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas
Utah

•

Andrus, Cecil B. et al. “Part 6: The National Historic Register of Historic Places.” The Manual for
State Historic Preservation Review Boards. www.nps.gov/nr/bulletins/strevman/strevman6.htm
(accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Exhibit, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Register Nomination Form, 1970.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Landmark Nomination Form, 1974, Building 7 file, Utah State
Historical Preservation Offices, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas Military Museum, Master Plan, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas , Utah.

•

Hardesty, Donald L. and Barbara Little. Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists and
Historians (Lanham, MD.: Altamira Press, 2009).

•

Haws, Greg and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History of Building 55 (7) and its inhabitants.” University
of Utah Graduate School., 12 December 1994, University of Utah Marriott Library Special
Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Loveday, Amos J. “The Decision Makers Guide to Section 106.” Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2) pp. 10-17.

•

Maintenance Records Building 33, 1933, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah .

•

Maintenance Records Building 55, 1938, Fort Douglas Military Museum

•

Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas,
Utah

•

Morgan, Elmo R. “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22October-30 September 1954.” Fort
Douglas Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

National Park Service. Cultural Resource Guidelines (2002).
www.nps.gov/history/online_books nps28/28chap8.htm (accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Parris, Thomas . “Historical Preservation.” Environment Vol. 26 no. 8, (February 2003). P. 3

• Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14
September, 1862, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.
• Plaque, Camp Floyd/Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah.

• Plaque, Deuel Cabin, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt
Lake City, Utah.
• Plaque, Levi Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village, Salt Lake City, Utah.

• “Section 106: Back to the Basics” in Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2).
• University of Utah “From Civil War Building to Entrepreneurial Mecca”,
9 September 2008, http:/unews.utah.edu/old/p/090808-1.html
(accessed 1 August 2012).
• Utah State Historical Society Photograph Collection, Utah State
Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah


Slide 36

In the Shade of Black Locusts:
Preserving the “Silent Sentinel”
of Fort Douglas

Kimberly Buckner
Volunteer Staff
Fort Douglas Military Museum
Salt Lake City, Utah

Photo: Utah State Historical Society

Copyright Notice
© 2012 Kimberly Buckner and Fort
Douglas Military Museum. All
Rights Reserved. No use of any
photographs/information in this
presentation without express
written consent of the copyright
owner(s). All photos used by
permission.

But not all historic properties
are deliberately being
destroyed. Many have fallen
victim to the “ravages of
time.” This structure near
Camp Floyd has completely
collapsed since this picture
was taken in 2010.

Preservation: A National Priority?
Thomas Parris: National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 promotes the preservation of historic
structures as a national priority

And YET thousands of historically significant
properties are being destroyed each year despite
placement on the National Register of Historic
Places
Thomas Parris, “Historic Preservation”, Environment, Vol. 46, no. 8 (February 2003), p. 3

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

A Common Misconception?
A commonly held misconception among public
audiences:
“Preservation is broadly opposed to change and by
extension, that Section 106 is a tool to block
progress.”
Instead:
“Preservation is about controlling and accommodating
change, and the entire network of preservation rules,
beginning with Section 106, is designed to accomplish
that end.”
Amos J. Loveday, “The Decision Maker’s guide to Section 106”, Forum Journal Winter 2012, Vol. 26
(2), p. 17

Preserving Eligibility
Preservation is meant to protect by not diminishing
any characteristic providing eligibility on the
National Register of Historic Places Including (but
not limited to):
• Integrity of Location
• Integrity of Design
• Integrity of Setting
• Integrity of Materials
• Integrity of Workmanship
• Integrity of Feeling
• Integrity of Association
“Section 106: Back to the Basics”, Forum Journal, Winter 2012, Vol. 26, no. 2, p.10; 36 CFR
800.5 (a)(1)

The National Register of
Historic Places
Since 1966, The National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) provides:
• Communal recognition of local, state or national
history in a visual way
• Consideration in federal undertakings and
improvement projects
• Eligibility for tax benefits through the federal
government
• Qualification for monetary funds for preservation
benefits
Donald L. Hardesty and Barbara Little, Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists
and Historians, 2nd edition, (Lanham, MD: Altamira Press, 2009).

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties
Approved treatment
options:
• Preservation
• Rehabilitation
• Reconstruction
In rare conditions:
• Demolition by neglect
• Moving the historic
structure
Historic Cabin Ca. 1860’s
La Sal, Utah
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2010. Edited by Brick R. King, 2010
Colors have been enhanced

Success Stories:
Onsite Preservation of Carson Inn, 1858
Quick Facts:
• Camp Floyd and
Stagecoach Inn State Park
• Fairfield, Utah
• Built in 1858 by John
Carson
• Adobe and Frame
Construction
• Restored June 1959
• Outcome: furnished as a
historic “house” museum

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2011
Plaque, Camp Floyd /Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah

Success Stories: Moving, Restoration and Renovation
Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, 1847 and the Deuel
Family Cabin, 1847
Deuel Cabin
•
•
•

Riter Cabin

Temple Square
Moved ca. 1989
Glass enclosed historic house museum
with period furnishings

Why are they so Important?

•
•
•

Maintained in Old Deseret Village
Moved to Old Deseret Village ca. 1989
Interpreted solely by historical plaque

• Photo

The two oldest
remaining structures
in Utah are these
original
165-year –old cabins

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village

Success Story:
Relocation to Old Deseret Village
Quick Facts:

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Historic Manti Mill,
built ca. 1858 in Manti, Utah
Relocated ca. 1989

• This is the Place Heritage
Park
• Salt Lake City, Utah
• More than 40
structures/buildings
• Buildings consist of
originals, reproductions, or
relocated 19th century
structures
• Outcome: set up as a
historic village to interpret
frontier life in Utah from
1847-1869

Other success stories
ODV

Photos: Kimberly Buckner 2012

Camp Douglas, ca. 1864
“…I found another location, which I like better for
various reasons…”– Patrick Edward Connor
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah
Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14 September 1862,
Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah.

From Camp to Fort
26 October 1862 : established Camp
Douglas
1862: “Connor Tents” and Dugouts
1863: Adobe and Log structures begun
1867: Expansion of Camp’s perimeter
1874-75: $1 Million rebuild from native
red sandstone
1878: Renamed Fort Douglas

Camp Douglas ca. 1866
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884: $63,820 expansion with 5 frame
structures

From Fort to Historic Landmark
1904-1911: $1,140,000 building expansion
1910: Introduction of electricity
1915-16: Addition of detention camp
1930: Final major building expansion
1970: Listed on National Register of Historic
Places as a heritage district
1974: Listed as National Historic Landmark
26 October 1991: Fort Douglas officially
decommissioned
2002: Athlete’s Village, 2002 Winter Olympics

Stillwell Field Looking East, 2012
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Building 55
Characteristics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

Cost $780
Less than 1900 Sq. Feet
Originally 26 ft. by 29 ft.
Adobe with frame additions
First Neoclassical cross-wing in
Utah (symmetrical design)
4 rooms
18” thick walls
3 adobe fireplaces
“Four over four” double hung
sash windows
Pine or Douglas Fir
Wooden shingle roof coated in
slate
“Lath and plastered” interior
Has a stand alone Historic
Register eligible structure below
the original building (1862 Root
Cellar)

Building 55 in 2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Greg Haws and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History
of Building 55 (7) and its Inhabitants.” University of Utah
Graduate School of Architecture,
Fort Douglas Papers, University of Utah
Marriott Library Special Collections,
Salt Lake City, Utah

Building 55, ca. 1865
“In the shadow of Red Butte, the silent sentinel…looks down upon the scene of
[their] labors, at the very spot where [they ]first camped…”
–Lieutenant Colonel Fred B. Rogers at the funeral of General Patrick Edward
Connor
Photo: Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah;
Elmo R. Morgan, “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22 October 1862-30 September 1954”, Fort Douglas
Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah(Brackets added)

Then and Now
ca. 1900

Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner

Preservation of Building 55: Additions
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

North Exterior

South Exterior

1930
Addition

Unknown
addition

1864
Frame
Addition

1862-3
Root
Cellar

1863
Original
Building

1863 Original
Building

1875
Addition
1864 Post
Surgeons
Quarter’s

1930
Addition

Extensive Known Alterations:
1864: addition of two frame rooms
1874: addition of parlor from Post Surgeon’s quarters
Removal of a fireplace
Windows changed
Fireplace enclosed
1903: Plumbing
1910: Electricity
1911-1928: steam heating, telephones, gas lines
1930: frame Lean-to addition
Windows changed
1960: fire damage repairs
Unknown: Building addition
Unknown: Exterior Stucco
Source: Maintenance Records for Building 33, 1933; Maintenance Records for Building 55, 1938

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Preservation

Unknown Addition
Ca. 1930

• Building 55 is believed to have
been the only complete 1863
structure remaining at Fort
Douglas
• In 2003 parts of several other
1863 buildings have been found:
– 1874: Commander’s Quarters
Parlor from 1863 District
Commander’s Residence
– 1864: Building 55
Parlor Post Surgeon’s
Quarters
– 1862-63: Building 55
Root Cellar

1874 Addition

Original 1863 Parlor

1874 Post Commander’s Residence
Source: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Moving Building 55
• First discussed in 1990
• Again in 1994
• The site chosen was Old
Deseret Village
• University of Utah did not
agree for “reasons so
compelling”
• Recommended for
preservation on site
• Discussion never progressed
further into action
• Outcome: remains on site

Old Deseret Village looking east, 2012
First proposed area to move Building 55

Source: Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995; Anne Racer to Rick
Reece, email, 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum,
Fort Douglas, Utah.

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Old Deseret Village:
Historically Camp Douglas
Pros for moving:

Cons for moving Building 55:

• Old Deseret Village was
constructed on the original
grounds of Camp Douglas
(Association)
• Preserves the structure
• Allows “basic” interpretation
of the historic structure
• Provides opportunities for new
use, but not uses the building
was intended for(Design)

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•

Moved off of original location 1+ miles
away (location)
Destroys 150 years of association to
location of the historic camp
(Association/location)
Bears no resemblance to current location
(feeling )
Would remove from NRHP an make it
ineligible for any future attempts
Removes Historic Landmark designation
Costs to move , reconstruct and restore
(materials)
Destruction of original workmanship
(workmanship)
May cause un-repairable damage to the
structure (workmanship/
materials/design)

Fort Douglas Military Museum
1917
Master Plan
POW Barracks (RC)

N: New
RE: Relocated
RC: Reconstructed
E: Existing
D: Drop Building Addition to
Historic Structure

1942
Firehouse (E)

North

1943
Barracks (RE)

and Guard Tower (RC)

Women’s
Memorial (N)

D

1863
Commanders
Home (RE)

D

D

Building 31 and 32
Current Museum (E)
Not connected yet. Black Star
Building has been completed.

1935
Shop (RE)
© 2012 Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884
Officer’s
Quarters
Duplex (RE)

Preservation Problems
• Stress fractures
• Plaster Damage
• Fire Damage
• Foundation damage
• Windows
•Adobe damage

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner , 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos:
Kimberly
Buckner
2012

A Good Move: Moving Building 55 to Fort
Douglas Military Museum Grounds
Pros:

Cons:

• A move of less than ¼ mile
• Maintains association to original
site (Association)
• Preservation of structure
(materials/design)
• Opportunities to interpret local
history of post (location)
• Chosen site provides similar view
to original location (setting)
• Allows for new use (design)
• Maintains feeling of the historic
district (Feeling)

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Removes from primary location and
original foundation (Location)
Potential to damage structure
May destroy the original
workmanship (Workmanship)
To which era of significance will it
be restored?
Original orientation may not be
possible
Will introduce modern materials
into the historic structure
(Materials)
Removes from NRHP but would
allow for reapplication/maintains
historic landmark designation

A Difference in Views
Old Deseret Village

Looking West

Fort Douglas Military
Museum Grounds

Cannon Park looking South
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Lessening the impacts:
When moving is the only Preservation
option
Old Deseret Village

Fort Douglas Military Museum

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Will lose nearly all historical identity
Not on original site, but in association with original
camp
Allows the structure to exist
Would impact the elements of original design
Area not with original feeling but among structures
who have lost their “history”
Introduction of modern materials
Further impacts to historic workmanship
Loss of National Historic Landmark Designation
Loss of NRHP listing. May not be able to reapply
Land has lost all association/use with original Camp
Douglas
New use may not be conducive to historic use
1+ mile move
Impacts all criterion of integrity
Must be removed from Federal ownership to
private

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Maintains historical Identity
Maintains association with original camp
Structure is preserved in similar location
Less than ¼ mile move
Area has maintained original feeling and
association to the camp
Loss of NHRP listing but retains eligibility for
the future
Maintains National Historic Landmark
Designation and prominence within the
historic district
Interpretation of changes in military housing
New use conducive to original use
Fully restored with historical furnishing s
Retains nearly all criterion of Integrity
Already part of museum complex
Maintains federal ownership (State of Utah
to Utah National Guard ownership)

Moving: The Right Choice?
Old Deseret Village is a good place to house relocated and reconstructed historic structures to interpret the
early territorial history of Utah
BUT…
It was not the right setting to house a unique structure like Building 55
–

Will Building 55 be remembered for its history and sense of location? Or, because of the 4th grade
field trip with limited exposure only to be quickly forgotten?

–

With so many structures will the building be properly maintained or fall victim to demolition by
neglect?

–

Potentially a Section 106 logistic nightmare (Federal holdings to “private” hands)

Whereas…
The Fort Douglas Military Museum grounds will allow the unique structure a permanent home, restoration and
ability to maintain a prominent place in Fort Douglas. It will allow for
–

more opportunities and exposure to its unique history,

–

Will ensure that it will be preserved for future generations.

If Moved to Old Deseret Village

The actual site chosen for Building 55 in 1990 was never disclosed in the documentation.
Building 55 was placed in an arbitrary location within the park.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012 Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

If moved to the Museum Grounds

Sitting in proposed Master Plan location on the museum grounds.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Future Recommendations
The recommendations for Building 55:
1.

Restoration at current site using historically accurate methods
–
Potential for learning opportunities at current site (i.e. Root Cellar)
–
Potential for gaining additional archaeological information from site
–
Root Cellar was nominated as a stand alone NHRP eligible structure in 2008.

2.

Create a viable strategic plan for living history and historic house museum (adaptive use)
–
Prepare plan to cover all preservation issues which may crop up in the next decade
–
Prepare a strategic plan for safely moving Building 55, allowing for historically
accurate restoration and renovation methods.

3.

I

Maintain Building 55 on site
–
Use authentic and historically accurate reproduction pieces
–
Interpretive/Museum use

4.
If and when the time comes, move the structure to the Fort Douglas Military Museum
grounds to maintain current preservation effort
-- Increase opportunities for interpretation of structure
-- Restore back to 1863, and use later additions for storage/office space
-- Allow for living history programs

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Any Questions?

Bibliography
•

Advisory Council Regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR 800) .

•

Anne Racer to Rick Reese, (Email), 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas
Utah

•

Andrus, Cecil B. et al. “Part 6: The National Historic Register of Historic Places.” The Manual for
State Historic Preservation Review Boards. www.nps.gov/nr/bulletins/strevman/strevman6.htm
(accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Exhibit, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Register Nomination Form, 1970.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Landmark Nomination Form, 1974, Building 7 file, Utah State
Historical Preservation Offices, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas Military Museum, Master Plan, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas , Utah.

•

Hardesty, Donald L. and Barbara Little. Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists and
Historians (Lanham, MD.: Altamira Press, 2009).

•

Haws, Greg and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History of Building 55 (7) and its inhabitants.” University
of Utah Graduate School., 12 December 1994, University of Utah Marriott Library Special
Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Loveday, Amos J. “The Decision Makers Guide to Section 106.” Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2) pp. 10-17.

•

Maintenance Records Building 33, 1933, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah .

•

Maintenance Records Building 55, 1938, Fort Douglas Military Museum

•

Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas,
Utah

•

Morgan, Elmo R. “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22October-30 September 1954.” Fort
Douglas Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

National Park Service. Cultural Resource Guidelines (2002).
www.nps.gov/history/online_books nps28/28chap8.htm (accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Parris, Thomas . “Historical Preservation.” Environment Vol. 26 no. 8, (February 2003). P. 3

• Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14
September, 1862, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.
• Plaque, Camp Floyd/Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah.

• Plaque, Deuel Cabin, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt
Lake City, Utah.
• Plaque, Levi Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village, Salt Lake City, Utah.

• “Section 106: Back to the Basics” in Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2).
• University of Utah “From Civil War Building to Entrepreneurial Mecca”,
9 September 2008, http:/unews.utah.edu/old/p/090808-1.html
(accessed 1 August 2012).
• Utah State Historical Society Photograph Collection, Utah State
Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah


Slide 37

In the Shade of Black Locusts:
Preserving the “Silent Sentinel”
of Fort Douglas

Kimberly Buckner
Volunteer Staff
Fort Douglas Military Museum
Salt Lake City, Utah

Photo: Utah State Historical Society

Copyright Notice
© 2012 Kimberly Buckner and Fort
Douglas Military Museum. All
Rights Reserved. No use of any
photographs/information in this
presentation without express
written consent of the copyright
owner(s). All photos used by
permission.

But not all historic properties
are deliberately being
destroyed. Many have fallen
victim to the “ravages of
time.” This structure near
Camp Floyd has completely
collapsed since this picture
was taken in 2010.

Preservation: A National Priority?
Thomas Parris: National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 promotes the preservation of historic
structures as a national priority

And YET thousands of historically significant
properties are being destroyed each year despite
placement on the National Register of Historic
Places
Thomas Parris, “Historic Preservation”, Environment, Vol. 46, no. 8 (February 2003), p. 3

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

A Common Misconception?
A commonly held misconception among public
audiences:
“Preservation is broadly opposed to change and by
extension, that Section 106 is a tool to block
progress.”
Instead:
“Preservation is about controlling and accommodating
change, and the entire network of preservation rules,
beginning with Section 106, is designed to accomplish
that end.”
Amos J. Loveday, “The Decision Maker’s guide to Section 106”, Forum Journal Winter 2012, Vol. 26
(2), p. 17

Preserving Eligibility
Preservation is meant to protect by not diminishing
any characteristic providing eligibility on the
National Register of Historic Places Including (but
not limited to):
• Integrity of Location
• Integrity of Design
• Integrity of Setting
• Integrity of Materials
• Integrity of Workmanship
• Integrity of Feeling
• Integrity of Association
“Section 106: Back to the Basics”, Forum Journal, Winter 2012, Vol. 26, no. 2, p.10; 36 CFR
800.5 (a)(1)

The National Register of
Historic Places
Since 1966, The National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) provides:
• Communal recognition of local, state or national
history in a visual way
• Consideration in federal undertakings and
improvement projects
• Eligibility for tax benefits through the federal
government
• Qualification for monetary funds for preservation
benefits
Donald L. Hardesty and Barbara Little, Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists
and Historians, 2nd edition, (Lanham, MD: Altamira Press, 2009).

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties
Approved treatment
options:
• Preservation
• Rehabilitation
• Reconstruction
In rare conditions:
• Demolition by neglect
• Moving the historic
structure
Historic Cabin Ca. 1860’s
La Sal, Utah
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2010. Edited by Brick R. King, 2010
Colors have been enhanced

Success Stories:
Onsite Preservation of Carson Inn, 1858
Quick Facts:
• Camp Floyd and
Stagecoach Inn State Park
• Fairfield, Utah
• Built in 1858 by John
Carson
• Adobe and Frame
Construction
• Restored June 1959
• Outcome: furnished as a
historic “house” museum

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2011
Plaque, Camp Floyd /Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah

Success Stories: Moving, Restoration and Renovation
Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, 1847 and the Deuel
Family Cabin, 1847
Deuel Cabin
•
•
•

Riter Cabin

Temple Square
Moved ca. 1989
Glass enclosed historic house museum
with period furnishings

Why are they so Important?

•
•
•

Maintained in Old Deseret Village
Moved to Old Deseret Village ca. 1989
Interpreted solely by historical plaque

• Photo

The two oldest
remaining structures
in Utah are these
original
165-year –old cabins

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village

Success Story:
Relocation to Old Deseret Village
Quick Facts:

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Historic Manti Mill,
built ca. 1858 in Manti, Utah
Relocated ca. 1989

• This is the Place Heritage
Park
• Salt Lake City, Utah
• More than 40
structures/buildings
• Buildings consist of
originals, reproductions, or
relocated 19th century
structures
• Outcome: set up as a
historic village to interpret
frontier life in Utah from
1847-1869

Other success stories
ODV

Photos: Kimberly Buckner 2012

Camp Douglas, ca. 1864
“…I found another location, which I like better for
various reasons…”– Patrick Edward Connor
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah
Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14 September 1862,
Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah.

From Camp to Fort
26 October 1862 : established Camp
Douglas
1862: “Connor Tents” and Dugouts
1863: Adobe and Log structures begun
1867: Expansion of Camp’s perimeter
1874-75: $1 Million rebuild from native
red sandstone
1878: Renamed Fort Douglas

Camp Douglas ca. 1866
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884: $63,820 expansion with 5 frame
structures

From Fort to Historic Landmark
1904-1911: $1,140,000 building expansion
1910: Introduction of electricity
1915-16: Addition of detention camp
1930: Final major building expansion
1970: Listed on National Register of Historic
Places as a heritage district
1974: Listed as National Historic Landmark
26 October 1991: Fort Douglas officially
decommissioned
2002: Athlete’s Village, 2002 Winter Olympics

Stillwell Field Looking East, 2012
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Building 55
Characteristics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

Cost $780
Less than 1900 Sq. Feet
Originally 26 ft. by 29 ft.
Adobe with frame additions
First Neoclassical cross-wing in
Utah (symmetrical design)
4 rooms
18” thick walls
3 adobe fireplaces
“Four over four” double hung
sash windows
Pine or Douglas Fir
Wooden shingle roof coated in
slate
“Lath and plastered” interior
Has a stand alone Historic
Register eligible structure below
the original building (1862 Root
Cellar)

Building 55 in 2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Greg Haws and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History
of Building 55 (7) and its Inhabitants.” University of Utah
Graduate School of Architecture,
Fort Douglas Papers, University of Utah
Marriott Library Special Collections,
Salt Lake City, Utah

Building 55, ca. 1865
“In the shadow of Red Butte, the silent sentinel…looks down upon the scene of
[their] labors, at the very spot where [they ]first camped…”
–Lieutenant Colonel Fred B. Rogers at the funeral of General Patrick Edward
Connor
Photo: Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah;
Elmo R. Morgan, “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22 October 1862-30 September 1954”, Fort Douglas
Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah(Brackets added)

Then and Now
ca. 1900

Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner

Preservation of Building 55: Additions
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

North Exterior

South Exterior

1930
Addition

Unknown
addition

1864
Frame
Addition

1862-3
Root
Cellar

1863
Original
Building

1863 Original
Building

1875
Addition
1864 Post
Surgeons
Quarter’s

1930
Addition

Extensive Known Alterations:
1864: addition of two frame rooms
1874: addition of parlor from Post Surgeon’s quarters
Removal of a fireplace
Windows changed
Fireplace enclosed
1903: Plumbing
1910: Electricity
1911-1928: steam heating, telephones, gas lines
1930: frame Lean-to addition
Windows changed
1960: fire damage repairs
Unknown: Building addition
Unknown: Exterior Stucco
Source: Maintenance Records for Building 33, 1933; Maintenance Records for Building 55, 1938

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Preservation

Unknown Addition
Ca. 1930

• Building 55 is believed to have
been the only complete 1863
structure remaining at Fort
Douglas
• In 2003 parts of several other
1863 buildings have been found:
– 1874: Commander’s Quarters
Parlor from 1863 District
Commander’s Residence
– 1864: Building 55
Parlor Post Surgeon’s
Quarters
– 1862-63: Building 55
Root Cellar

1874 Addition

Original 1863 Parlor

1874 Post Commander’s Residence
Source: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Moving Building 55
• First discussed in 1990
• Again in 1994
• The site chosen was Old
Deseret Village
• University of Utah did not
agree for “reasons so
compelling”
• Recommended for
preservation on site
• Discussion never progressed
further into action
• Outcome: remains on site

Old Deseret Village looking east, 2012
First proposed area to move Building 55

Source: Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995; Anne Racer to Rick
Reece, email, 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum,
Fort Douglas, Utah.

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Old Deseret Village:
Historically Camp Douglas
Pros for moving:

Cons for moving Building 55:

• Old Deseret Village was
constructed on the original
grounds of Camp Douglas
(Association)
• Preserves the structure
• Allows “basic” interpretation
of the historic structure
• Provides opportunities for new
use, but not uses the building
was intended for(Design)

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•

Moved off of original location 1+ miles
away (location)
Destroys 150 years of association to
location of the historic camp
(Association/location)
Bears no resemblance to current location
(feeling )
Would remove from NRHP an make it
ineligible for any future attempts
Removes Historic Landmark designation
Costs to move , reconstruct and restore
(materials)
Destruction of original workmanship
(workmanship)
May cause un-repairable damage to the
structure (workmanship/
materials/design)

Fort Douglas Military Museum
1917
Master Plan
POW Barracks (RC)

N: New
RE: Relocated
RC: Reconstructed
E: Existing
D: Drop Building Addition to
Historic Structure

1942
Firehouse (E)

North

1943
Barracks (RE)

and Guard Tower (RC)

Women’s
Memorial (N)

D

1863
Commanders
Home (RE)

D

D

Building 31 and 32
Current Museum (E)
Not connected yet. Black Star
Building has been completed.

1935
Shop (RE)
© 2012 Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884
Officer’s
Quarters
Duplex (RE)

Preservation Problems
• Stress fractures
• Plaster Damage
• Fire Damage
• Foundation damage
• Windows
•Adobe damage

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner , 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos:
Kimberly
Buckner
2012

A Good Move: Moving Building 55 to Fort
Douglas Military Museum Grounds
Pros:

Cons:

• A move of less than ¼ mile
• Maintains association to original
site (Association)
• Preservation of structure
(materials/design)
• Opportunities to interpret local
history of post (location)
• Chosen site provides similar view
to original location (setting)
• Allows for new use (design)
• Maintains feeling of the historic
district (Feeling)

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Removes from primary location and
original foundation (Location)
Potential to damage structure
May destroy the original
workmanship (Workmanship)
To which era of significance will it
be restored?
Original orientation may not be
possible
Will introduce modern materials
into the historic structure
(Materials)
Removes from NRHP but would
allow for reapplication/maintains
historic landmark designation

A Difference in Views
Old Deseret Village

Looking West

Fort Douglas Military
Museum Grounds

Cannon Park looking South
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Lessening the impacts:
When moving is the only Preservation
option
Old Deseret Village

Fort Douglas Military Museum

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Will lose nearly all historical identity
Not on original site, but in association with original
camp
Allows the structure to exist
Would impact the elements of original design
Area not with original feeling but among structures
who have lost their “history”
Introduction of modern materials
Further impacts to historic workmanship
Loss of National Historic Landmark Designation
Loss of NRHP listing. May not be able to reapply
Land has lost all association/use with original Camp
Douglas
New use may not be conducive to historic use
1+ mile move
Impacts all criterion of integrity
Must be removed from Federal ownership to
private

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Maintains historical Identity
Maintains association with original camp
Structure is preserved in similar location
Less than ¼ mile move
Area has maintained original feeling and
association to the camp
Loss of NHRP listing but retains eligibility for
the future
Maintains National Historic Landmark
Designation and prominence within the
historic district
Interpretation of changes in military housing
New use conducive to original use
Fully restored with historical furnishing s
Retains nearly all criterion of Integrity
Already part of museum complex
Maintains federal ownership (State of Utah
to Utah National Guard ownership)

Moving: The Right Choice?
Old Deseret Village is a good place to house relocated and reconstructed historic structures to interpret the
early territorial history of Utah
BUT…
It was not the right setting to house a unique structure like Building 55
–

Will Building 55 be remembered for its history and sense of location? Or, because of the 4th grade
field trip with limited exposure only to be quickly forgotten?

–

With so many structures will the building be properly maintained or fall victim to demolition by
neglect?

–

Potentially a Section 106 logistic nightmare (Federal holdings to “private” hands)

Whereas…
The Fort Douglas Military Museum grounds will allow the unique structure a permanent home, restoration and
ability to maintain a prominent place in Fort Douglas. It will allow for
–

more opportunities and exposure to its unique history,

–

Will ensure that it will be preserved for future generations.

If Moved to Old Deseret Village

The actual site chosen for Building 55 in 1990 was never disclosed in the documentation.
Building 55 was placed in an arbitrary location within the park.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012 Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

If moved to the Museum Grounds

Sitting in proposed Master Plan location on the museum grounds.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Future Recommendations
The recommendations for Building 55:
1.

Restoration at current site using historically accurate methods
–
Potential for learning opportunities at current site (i.e. Root Cellar)
–
Potential for gaining additional archaeological information from site
–
Root Cellar was nominated as a stand alone NHRP eligible structure in 2008.

2.

Create a viable strategic plan for living history and historic house museum (adaptive use)
–
Prepare plan to cover all preservation issues which may crop up in the next decade
–
Prepare a strategic plan for safely moving Building 55, allowing for historically
accurate restoration and renovation methods.

3.

I

Maintain Building 55 on site
–
Use authentic and historically accurate reproduction pieces
–
Interpretive/Museum use

4.
If and when the time comes, move the structure to the Fort Douglas Military Museum
grounds to maintain current preservation effort
-- Increase opportunities for interpretation of structure
-- Restore back to 1863, and use later additions for storage/office space
-- Allow for living history programs

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Any Questions?

Bibliography
•

Advisory Council Regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR 800) .

•

Anne Racer to Rick Reese, (Email), 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas
Utah

•

Andrus, Cecil B. et al. “Part 6: The National Historic Register of Historic Places.” The Manual for
State Historic Preservation Review Boards. www.nps.gov/nr/bulletins/strevman/strevman6.htm
(accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Exhibit, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Register Nomination Form, 1970.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Landmark Nomination Form, 1974, Building 7 file, Utah State
Historical Preservation Offices, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas Military Museum, Master Plan, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas , Utah.

•

Hardesty, Donald L. and Barbara Little. Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists and
Historians (Lanham, MD.: Altamira Press, 2009).

•

Haws, Greg and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History of Building 55 (7) and its inhabitants.” University
of Utah Graduate School., 12 December 1994, University of Utah Marriott Library Special
Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Loveday, Amos J. “The Decision Makers Guide to Section 106.” Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2) pp. 10-17.

•

Maintenance Records Building 33, 1933, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah .

•

Maintenance Records Building 55, 1938, Fort Douglas Military Museum

•

Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas,
Utah

•

Morgan, Elmo R. “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22October-30 September 1954.” Fort
Douglas Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

National Park Service. Cultural Resource Guidelines (2002).
www.nps.gov/history/online_books nps28/28chap8.htm (accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Parris, Thomas . “Historical Preservation.” Environment Vol. 26 no. 8, (February 2003). P. 3

• Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14
September, 1862, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.
• Plaque, Camp Floyd/Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah.

• Plaque, Deuel Cabin, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt
Lake City, Utah.
• Plaque, Levi Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village, Salt Lake City, Utah.

• “Section 106: Back to the Basics” in Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2).
• University of Utah “From Civil War Building to Entrepreneurial Mecca”,
9 September 2008, http:/unews.utah.edu/old/p/090808-1.html
(accessed 1 August 2012).
• Utah State Historical Society Photograph Collection, Utah State
Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah


Slide 38

In the Shade of Black Locusts:
Preserving the “Silent Sentinel”
of Fort Douglas

Kimberly Buckner
Volunteer Staff
Fort Douglas Military Museum
Salt Lake City, Utah

Photo: Utah State Historical Society

Copyright Notice
© 2012 Kimberly Buckner and Fort
Douglas Military Museum. All
Rights Reserved. No use of any
photographs/information in this
presentation without express
written consent of the copyright
owner(s). All photos used by
permission.

But not all historic properties
are deliberately being
destroyed. Many have fallen
victim to the “ravages of
time.” This structure near
Camp Floyd has completely
collapsed since this picture
was taken in 2010.

Preservation: A National Priority?
Thomas Parris: National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 promotes the preservation of historic
structures as a national priority

And YET thousands of historically significant
properties are being destroyed each year despite
placement on the National Register of Historic
Places
Thomas Parris, “Historic Preservation”, Environment, Vol. 46, no. 8 (February 2003), p. 3

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

A Common Misconception?
A commonly held misconception among public
audiences:
“Preservation is broadly opposed to change and by
extension, that Section 106 is a tool to block
progress.”
Instead:
“Preservation is about controlling and accommodating
change, and the entire network of preservation rules,
beginning with Section 106, is designed to accomplish
that end.”
Amos J. Loveday, “The Decision Maker’s guide to Section 106”, Forum Journal Winter 2012, Vol. 26
(2), p. 17

Preserving Eligibility
Preservation is meant to protect by not diminishing
any characteristic providing eligibility on the
National Register of Historic Places Including (but
not limited to):
• Integrity of Location
• Integrity of Design
• Integrity of Setting
• Integrity of Materials
• Integrity of Workmanship
• Integrity of Feeling
• Integrity of Association
“Section 106: Back to the Basics”, Forum Journal, Winter 2012, Vol. 26, no. 2, p.10; 36 CFR
800.5 (a)(1)

The National Register of
Historic Places
Since 1966, The National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) provides:
• Communal recognition of local, state or national
history in a visual way
• Consideration in federal undertakings and
improvement projects
• Eligibility for tax benefits through the federal
government
• Qualification for monetary funds for preservation
benefits
Donald L. Hardesty and Barbara Little, Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists
and Historians, 2nd edition, (Lanham, MD: Altamira Press, 2009).

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties
Approved treatment
options:
• Preservation
• Rehabilitation
• Reconstruction
In rare conditions:
• Demolition by neglect
• Moving the historic
structure
Historic Cabin Ca. 1860’s
La Sal, Utah
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2010. Edited by Brick R. King, 2010
Colors have been enhanced

Success Stories:
Onsite Preservation of Carson Inn, 1858
Quick Facts:
• Camp Floyd and
Stagecoach Inn State Park
• Fairfield, Utah
• Built in 1858 by John
Carson
• Adobe and Frame
Construction
• Restored June 1959
• Outcome: furnished as a
historic “house” museum

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2011
Plaque, Camp Floyd /Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah

Success Stories: Moving, Restoration and Renovation
Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, 1847 and the Deuel
Family Cabin, 1847
Deuel Cabin
•
•
•

Riter Cabin

Temple Square
Moved ca. 1989
Glass enclosed historic house museum
with period furnishings

Why are they so Important?

•
•
•

Maintained in Old Deseret Village
Moved to Old Deseret Village ca. 1989
Interpreted solely by historical plaque

• Photo

The two oldest
remaining structures
in Utah are these
original
165-year –old cabins

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Levi and Rebecca Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village

Success Story:
Relocation to Old Deseret Village
Quick Facts:

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Historic Manti Mill,
built ca. 1858 in Manti, Utah
Relocated ca. 1989

• This is the Place Heritage
Park
• Salt Lake City, Utah
• More than 40
structures/buildings
• Buildings consist of
originals, reproductions, or
relocated 19th century
structures
• Outcome: set up as a
historic village to interpret
frontier life in Utah from
1847-1869

Other success stories
ODV

Photos: Kimberly Buckner 2012

Camp Douglas, ca. 1864
“…I found another location, which I like better for
various reasons…”– Patrick Edward Connor
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah
Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14 September 1862,
Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah.

From Camp to Fort
26 October 1862 : established Camp
Douglas
1862: “Connor Tents” and Dugouts
1863: Adobe and Log structures begun
1867: Expansion of Camp’s perimeter
1874-75: $1 Million rebuild from native
red sandstone
1878: Renamed Fort Douglas

Camp Douglas ca. 1866
Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884: $63,820 expansion with 5 frame
structures

From Fort to Historic Landmark
1904-1911: $1,140,000 building expansion
1910: Introduction of electricity
1915-16: Addition of detention camp
1930: Final major building expansion
1970: Listed on National Register of Historic
Places as a heritage district
1974: Listed as National Historic Landmark
26 October 1991: Fort Douglas officially
decommissioned
2002: Athlete’s Village, 2002 Winter Olympics

Stillwell Field Looking East, 2012
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Building 55
Characteristics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

Cost $780
Less than 1900 Sq. Feet
Originally 26 ft. by 29 ft.
Adobe with frame additions
First Neoclassical cross-wing in
Utah (symmetrical design)
4 rooms
18” thick walls
3 adobe fireplaces
“Four over four” double hung
sash windows
Pine or Douglas Fir
Wooden shingle roof coated in
slate
“Lath and plastered” interior
Has a stand alone Historic
Register eligible structure below
the original building (1862 Root
Cellar)

Building 55 in 2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Greg Haws and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History
of Building 55 (7) and its Inhabitants.” University of Utah
Graduate School of Architecture,
Fort Douglas Papers, University of Utah
Marriott Library Special Collections,
Salt Lake City, Utah

Building 55, ca. 1865
“In the shadow of Red Butte, the silent sentinel…looks down upon the scene of
[their] labors, at the very spot where [they ]first camped…”
–Lieutenant Colonel Fred B. Rogers at the funeral of General Patrick Edward
Connor
Photo: Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah;
Elmo R. Morgan, “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22 October 1862-30 September 1954”, Fort Douglas
Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah(Brackets added)

Then and Now
ca. 1900

Photo: Fort Douglas Military Museum

2012

Photo: Kimberly Buckner

Preservation of Building 55: Additions
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

North Exterior

South Exterior

1930
Addition

Unknown
addition

1864
Frame
Addition

1862-3
Root
Cellar

1863
Original
Building

1863 Original
Building

1875
Addition
1864 Post
Surgeons
Quarter’s

1930
Addition

Extensive Known Alterations:
1864: addition of two frame rooms
1874: addition of parlor from Post Surgeon’s quarters
Removal of a fireplace
Windows changed
Fireplace enclosed
1903: Plumbing
1910: Electricity
1911-1928: steam heating, telephones, gas lines
1930: frame Lean-to addition
Windows changed
1960: fire damage repairs
Unknown: Building addition
Unknown: Exterior Stucco
Source: Maintenance Records for Building 33, 1933; Maintenance Records for Building 55, 1938

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Preservation

Unknown Addition
Ca. 1930

• Building 55 is believed to have
been the only complete 1863
structure remaining at Fort
Douglas
• In 2003 parts of several other
1863 buildings have been found:
– 1874: Commander’s Quarters
Parlor from 1863 District
Commander’s Residence
– 1864: Building 55
Parlor Post Surgeon’s
Quarters
– 1862-63: Building 55
Root Cellar

1874 Addition

Original 1863 Parlor

1874 Post Commander’s Residence
Source: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Moving Building 55
• First discussed in 1990
• Again in 1994
• The site chosen was Old
Deseret Village
• University of Utah did not
agree for “reasons so
compelling”
• Recommended for
preservation on site
• Discussion never progressed
further into action
• Outcome: remains on site

Old Deseret Village looking east, 2012
First proposed area to move Building 55

Source: Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995; Anne Racer to Rick
Reece, email, 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum,
Fort Douglas, Utah.

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Old Deseret Village:
Historically Camp Douglas
Pros for moving:

Cons for moving Building 55:

• Old Deseret Village was
constructed on the original
grounds of Camp Douglas
(Association)
• Preserves the structure
• Allows “basic” interpretation
of the historic structure
• Provides opportunities for new
use, but not uses the building
was intended for(Design)

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•

Moved off of original location 1+ miles
away (location)
Destroys 150 years of association to
location of the historic camp
(Association/location)
Bears no resemblance to current location
(feeling )
Would remove from NRHP an make it
ineligible for any future attempts
Removes Historic Landmark designation
Costs to move , reconstruct and restore
(materials)
Destruction of original workmanship
(workmanship)
May cause un-repairable damage to the
structure (workmanship/
materials/design)

Fort Douglas Military Museum
1917
Master Plan
POW Barracks (RC)

N: New
RE: Relocated
RC: Reconstructed
E: Existing
D: Drop Building Addition to
Historic Structure

1942
Firehouse (E)

North

1943
Barracks (RE)

and Guard Tower (RC)

Women’s
Memorial (N)

D

1863
Commanders
Home (RE)

D

D

Building 31 and 32
Current Museum (E)
Not connected yet. Black Star
Building has been completed.

1935
Shop (RE)
© 2012 Fort Douglas Military Museum

1884
Officer’s
Quarters
Duplex (RE)

Preservation Problems
• Stress fractures
• Plaster Damage
• Fire Damage
• Foundation damage
• Windows
•Adobe damage

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner , 2012

Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Photos:
Kimberly
Buckner
2012

A Good Move: Moving Building 55 to Fort
Douglas Military Museum Grounds
Pros:

Cons:

• A move of less than ¼ mile
• Maintains association to original
site (Association)
• Preservation of structure
(materials/design)
• Opportunities to interpret local
history of post (location)
• Chosen site provides similar view
to original location (setting)
• Allows for new use (design)
• Maintains feeling of the historic
district (Feeling)

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Removes from primary location and
original foundation (Location)
Potential to damage structure
May destroy the original
workmanship (Workmanship)
To which era of significance will it
be restored?
Original orientation may not be
possible
Will introduce modern materials
into the historic structure
(Materials)
Removes from NRHP but would
allow for reapplication/maintains
historic landmark designation

A Difference in Views
Old Deseret Village

Looking West

Fort Douglas Military
Museum Grounds

Cannon Park looking South
Photos: Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Lessening the impacts:
When moving is the only Preservation
option
Old Deseret Village

Fort Douglas Military Museum

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Will lose nearly all historical identity
Not on original site, but in association with original
camp
Allows the structure to exist
Would impact the elements of original design
Area not with original feeling but among structures
who have lost their “history”
Introduction of modern materials
Further impacts to historic workmanship
Loss of National Historic Landmark Designation
Loss of NRHP listing. May not be able to reapply
Land has lost all association/use with original Camp
Douglas
New use may not be conducive to historic use
1+ mile move
Impacts all criterion of integrity
Must be removed from Federal ownership to
private

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Maintains historical Identity
Maintains association with original camp
Structure is preserved in similar location
Less than ¼ mile move
Area has maintained original feeling and
association to the camp
Loss of NHRP listing but retains eligibility for
the future
Maintains National Historic Landmark
Designation and prominence within the
historic district
Interpretation of changes in military housing
New use conducive to original use
Fully restored with historical furnishing s
Retains nearly all criterion of Integrity
Already part of museum complex
Maintains federal ownership (State of Utah
to Utah National Guard ownership)

Moving: The Right Choice?
Old Deseret Village is a good place to house relocated and reconstructed historic structures to interpret the
early territorial history of Utah
BUT…
It was not the right setting to house a unique structure like Building 55
–

Will Building 55 be remembered for its history and sense of location? Or, because of the 4th grade
field trip with limited exposure only to be quickly forgotten?

–

With so many structures will the building be properly maintained or fall victim to demolition by
neglect?

–

Potentially a Section 106 logistic nightmare (Federal holdings to “private” hands)

Whereas…
The Fort Douglas Military Museum grounds will allow the unique structure a permanent home, restoration and
ability to maintain a prominent place in Fort Douglas. It will allow for
–

more opportunities and exposure to its unique history,

–

Will ensure that it will be preserved for future generations.

If Moved to Old Deseret Village

The actual site chosen for Building 55 in 1990 was never disclosed in the documentation.
Building 55 was placed in an arbitrary location within the park.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012 Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

If moved to the Museum Grounds

Sitting in proposed Master Plan location on the museum grounds.
Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Future Recommendations
The recommendations for Building 55:
1.

Restoration at current site using historically accurate methods
–
Potential for learning opportunities at current site (i.e. Root Cellar)
–
Potential for gaining additional archaeological information from site
–
Root Cellar was nominated as a stand alone NHRP eligible structure in 2008.

2.

Create a viable strategic plan for living history and historic house museum (adaptive use)
–
Prepare plan to cover all preservation issues which may crop up in the next decade
–
Prepare a strategic plan for safely moving Building 55, allowing for historically
accurate restoration and renovation methods.

3.

I

Maintain Building 55 on site
–
Use authentic and historically accurate reproduction pieces
–
Interpretive/Museum use

4.
If and when the time comes, move the structure to the Fort Douglas Military Museum
grounds to maintain current preservation effort
-- Increase opportunities for interpretation of structure
-- Restore back to 1863, and use later additions for storage/office space
-- Allow for living history programs

Photo: Kimberly Buckner, 2012
Edited by Kimberly Buckner, 2012

Any Questions?

Bibliography
•

Advisory Council Regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR 800) .

•

Anne Racer to Rick Reese, (Email), 10 September 1998, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas
Utah

•

Andrus, Cecil B. et al. “Part 6: The National Historic Register of Historic Places.” The Manual for
State Historic Preservation Review Boards. www.nps.gov/nr/bulletins/strevman/strevman6.htm
(accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Exhibit, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Register Nomination Form, 1970.

•

Fort Douglas National Historic Landmark Nomination Form, 1974, Building 7 file, Utah State
Historical Preservation Offices, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Fort Douglas Military Museum, Master Plan, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas , Utah.

•

Hardesty, Donald L. and Barbara Little. Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists and
Historians (Lanham, MD.: Altamira Press, 2009).

•

Haws, Greg and Adam Diehl. “A Brief History of Building 55 (7) and its inhabitants.” University
of Utah Graduate School., 12 December 1994, University of Utah Marriott Library Special
Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

Loveday, Amos J. “The Decision Makers Guide to Section 106.” Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2) pp. 10-17.

•

Maintenance Records Building 33, 1933, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah .

•

Maintenance Records Building 55, 1938, Fort Douglas Military Museum

•

Mike Barker to Jess McCall, 10 February 1995, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas,
Utah

•

Morgan, Elmo R. “History of Fort Douglas, Utah, 22October-30 September 1954.” Fort
Douglas Papers, University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, Salt Lake City, Utah.

•

National Park Service. Cultural Resource Guidelines (2002).
www.nps.gov/history/online_books nps28/28chap8.htm (accessed 1 August 2012).

•

Parris, Thomas . “Historical Preservation.” Environment Vol. 26 no. 8, (February 2003). P. 3

• Patrick Edward Connor to Major R.C. Drum, Washington, 14
September, 1862, Fort Douglas Military Museum, Fort Douglas, Utah.
• Plaque, Camp Floyd/Stagecoach Inn State Park, Fairfield, Utah.

• Plaque, Deuel Cabin, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt
Lake City, Utah.
• Plaque, Levi Riter Cabin, Old Deseret Village, Salt Lake City, Utah.

• “Section 106: Back to the Basics” in Forum Journal, Section 106:
Uncensored: The Insider’s Perspective, Winter 2012 , Vol. 26 (2).
• University of Utah “From Civil War Building to Entrepreneurial Mecca”,
9 September 2008, http:/unews.utah.edu/old/p/090808-1.html
(accessed 1 August 2012).
• Utah State Historical Society Photograph Collection, Utah State
Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah