.jpg)
Editorial
The consensus of those who have expressed an opinion publicly about Virginia Military Institute’s plans to raze a couple of architecturally significant 19th century houses at the entrance to the VMI post on Letcher Avenue is to strongly oppose the demolitions. Those holding this view believe this would represent a significant loss for the city’s unique architectural history.
The Lexington Architectural Review Board and the Historic Lexington Foundation have sent letters to the VMI board of visitors stating their opposition to this looming loss of a piece of the city’s history. We have received a number of letters to the editor expressing this view.
We have yet to hear from anyone supporting the demolition of Cabell House (circa 1880) and Neikirk Hall (1870), known as the Archer and Blair houses, respectively, to make way for construction of a large alumni center that would also replace Moody Hall.
According to a story recently published by the VMI Alumni Agencies, VMI is planning to construct a “new center for advancement” -- a $68 million, three-story, 50,000-square-foot facility. “It became evident” some time ago, the article stated, “that a growing alumni base and the increasing demands to support on-post activities meant the current infrastructure needed a major upgrade.” A decision was made, therefore, “to replace the current structures with a single structure to support the important missions of both the Institute and the VMI Alumni Agencies: academics, engagement and philanthropy.”
The Cabell and Neikirk buildings are considered a “contributing resource” to VMI’s and Lexington’s historic districts, according to a letter written by Roger Kirchen, director for the Review and Compliance Division of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, to Aaron T. Gorah, senior project manager for the VMI construction office. The buildings “meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation” and their demolition would be “considered an adverse impact” to the historic districts. Kirchen recommended that “minimization efforts and mitigation” be “memorialized” in a memorandum of understanding between the DHR and the institute.
In its letter to the VMI board, the ARB notes that the houses “have witnessed 150 years of VMI history and continue to provide an important visual transition between the campuses of VMI and Washington and Lee and the city of Lexington generally. We believe that choosing to address a master plan challenge with the demolition of these buildings, rather than with their relocation or adaptive reuse, is a design shortcut and a significant violation of the history, heritage and tradition the VMI post represents to our city, and our state.”
HLF, in its letter to the VMI board, said it was “deeply disappointing … to learn of the Institute’s plan to demolish two of the 19th century houses that form part of the gracious entrance to the [VMI] post. For well over a century, the dignified and historic line of houses on either side of Letcher Avenue, of which these houses are a part, has welcomed cadets and visitors to VMI.” HLF stated that it “stands ready to meet with [VMI] representatives to discuss possible alternatives to the destruction of these beautiful houses and the heritage that they represent.”
We share the views of HLF, the ARB and citizens who are seeking to preserve this small but critical portion of our local history. We ask that VMI respond to these concerns and explain why options to prevent the destruction of these historic houses aren’t feasible.
We know that VMI values the shared history of our community. We can remember instances when it has gone to great lengths to preserve bits of our history when they were in conflict with plans for new construction projects. A historic house on the opposite side of Letcher Avenue was moved down the street when a new VMI science building was constructed. The Knights of Pythias building on Main Street was moved a few years ago to make way for VMI’s new indoor track facility.
Hopefully, a similarly beneficial resolution can be found for the latest conflict between contemporary needs and historic preservation.
