I find it very difficult to consider restorations and replicas as originals.  

The Wren Building is circa 1932 and is a composite replica of first 2 version 
of the building to carry the name "The College"...please note the Chapel was 
added after the completion of the second building, which was built after the 
first one burned down

How do you qualify "architecturally insignificant?"   Would the numerous 
architecturally significant buildings of the Eastern Lunatic Asylum that were 
knocked down to put in the replica of the original 1 building constitute 
insignificant buildings?  Here is a photo of some such architecture and history 
ploughed under to make room for a the replica building.  



More insignificant stuff


In a message dated 3/1/2007 12:27:34 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
[log in to unmask] writes:
Far be it for me to criticise anything about Charleston, for if I did
not live in Williamsburg, Charleston would be my logical next choice.
My comments are not meant to slight Charleston but these are comparing
apples and oranges.

Colonial Williamsburg has 88 buildings that are original to the 18th
century.  To be accurate, one  is from the 17th since the Wren
Building of the College is original to 1695.  Virtually none of the
extant buildings are post-Revolutionary; between wartime shortages and
the capital moving to Richmond in 1780, the bulk of the buildings were
built well before the Revolutionary period.

There were a few 19th century buildings removed by Mr Rockefeller but
most of those were architecturally insignificant except for the 1864
Greek Revival Williamsburg Baptist Church.  Most of those that were
removed were moved to other parts of Williamsburg, not demolished.
While the number of buildings reconstructed by the Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation is vastly higher than the 88 figure, I find
arguments about authenticity to be spurious at best.

Remember that Williamsburg was among the very first planned cities and
was built strictly as governmental center.  There has never been a
deep water port, and at its height in the third quarter of the 18th
century it never surpassed 2000 permanent residents.  Charleston was a
thriving port city, hence its larger size, but I think that you will
find that almost all of the extant historic buildings are from the
first two quarters of the 19th century, which explains the vastly
different architectural styles between the two cities.  I hope that it
is not sacreligious of me to say that I believe Charleston to be the
more interesting city architecturally but that is only an opinion.
Most of the restoration was done privately, without a wealthy
benefactor, and it has been of the highest order.

If Mr Rockefeller were restoring Williamsburg nowadays he might be

pursuaded to preserve more post-Revolutionary buildings in their
original settings, there are really too few of such buildings to merit
a realistic complaint about the focus of the Restoration period.

Regards,

J. S. Freeman
The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation
Member, Williamsburg Baptist Church, est 1828

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html