Transactions of the American Society of Landscape Architects 1899-1908 ®fj* •& £L JItU pbrarg ^ortl| (Carolina js>iale College *5b463 This book must not be taken from the Library building. TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS Transactions of The American Society of Landscape Architects From its inception in 1899 to the end of 1908 Edited by the Committee appointed for the purpose: HAROLD A. CAPARN JAMES STURGIS PRAY DOWNING VAUX J. Horace McFarland Company Mt. Pleasant Press Harrisburc, Pennsylvania Preface THE Committee on Editing Transactions has considered that this volume will be useful chiefly as a book of reference to the events and current thought of the A. S. L. A., not only for its members but for others. Con- ciseness has therefore been sought and repetition avoided; matters that seemed of merely temporary interest have been omitted, and facts placed so as to be easily accessible. Lists of members, executive and special committees, and treasurer's reports have been tabulated so that the standing of members, officers, committees, and finances of any year can be quickly found and compared with those of other years. Reports of meetings have been standardized, attention being paid even to such details as the order of statement of time and place of meeting, the omission of initials of those present (which can be found in the membership list) and of the chairman, who is the highest officer present. The membership list has been brought up to January, 191 2, the year of publication, in order to make it as useful as possible. It has been thought best to record the meetings separately, not only because they form a sequential history of the Society, but because of the individual and intimate character which they still retain. It has been a common practice for members to bring plans of work in progress to the meetings for criticism; but, as the discussions of these plans have not been preserved, it is held sufficient to refer to the custom in these general terms. The papers have been printed entire, abbreviated or even rewritten and, in several cases, revised by the authors; but it is believed that nothing of permanent value has been lost. In two instances (papers by Mr. J. C. Olmsted and Mr. F. L. Olmsted on the Boston Park System, and by Mr. Vitale on Italian Gardens) illustrations have been added to elucidate the text. The subject of exhibitions of works of members has often been discussed and several committees have been appointed; but only two meetings have been held, one in 1902 and one as part of the exhibition of the Municipal Art Society, in 1907. The catalogue of the former, as the only one yet held by the Society alone, is printed entire. An index to the whole, with many cross references, is given. It has not always been easy to decide what material should be rejected and what retained, and complete consistency therein is not claimed. It is only to be expected that opinions will differ as to judgment in selection, but it is hoped that the book may aid in establishing a standard for revised Transactions and thus lighten the labors of future editing committees. 1 27132 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2009 with funding from NCSU Libraries http://www.archive.org/details/transactionsofaOOamer LIST OF MEMBERS FROM 1899, THE FIRST YEAR OF THE A. S. L. A., TO JANUARY, 1912 F — Fellow. J — Junior Member. * — Original Members. Aldrich, Raymond W., 89 State Street, Boston, Mass J 1908 Armstrong, E. Maitland, New York City J 1899-1901 Auten, Andrew, Rose Building, Cleveland, Ohio J 1904 'Barrett, Nathan F., New Rochelle, N. Y F 1899-1907 Brinckerhoff, Arthur Freeman, 103 Park Avenue, New York City J 1903 Brinley, John R., 156 Fifth Avenue, New York City F 1908 *Bullard, Miss Elizabeth, Bridgeport, Conn F 1899 Button, Frank M., 1 101 Buena Avenue, Chicago, III J 1902, F 1910 Caparn, Harold A., 156 Fifth Avenue, New York City F 1905 Chamberlin, N., Gramercy Park, New York City J IQ07 Child, Stephen, 6 Beacon Street, Boston, Mass J 1910, F 1912 Coffin, Miss Marion Cruger, 119 East 19th Street, New York City J 1906 Comey, Arthur C, Harvard Square, Cambridge, Mass J 1910 Cook, Wilbur David, Jr., Story Building, Los Angeles, Cal J 1906, F 1910 Cox, Laurie D., 704 Breitmeyer Building, Detroit, Mich J 1912 Craven, Truxton, care of G. F. Pentecost, Yonkers, N. Y J 1903-1904 Dawson, J. Frederick, care of Olmsted Bros., Brookline, Mass J 1905 DeForest, Alling S., Sibley Block, Rochester, N. Y . . . . F 1908 Dow, Dana F., Ipswich, Mass j I( . , Field, Tracey C, 23 Park Street, Park Lane W., London, England . . . . J 1903-1904 Fitz-Randolph, Edgar, 31 East 27th Street, New York City J 1908 Fleming, Bryant, Prudential Building, Buffalo, N. Y. . . . . . J 1903, F 191 1 Gallagher, Percival, care of Olmsted Bros., Brookline, Mass J 1904, F 1910 Gatringer, Joseph, The Arsenal, Central Park, New York City J 1906 Gay, Wiuard, W., care of Brinley & Holbrook, 156 Fifth Avenue, New York City . . . J 1906 Goodrich, J. E., 1326 Prudential Building, Buffalo, N. Y J 1906- 1907 Greenleaf, James L., i Broadway, New York City .... F 1904 Holton, Arthur T., 42 Broadway, New York City .... J 1902 Hoth, Frederick C, 103 Park Avenue, New York City J1904-1911 Hubbard, Henry V., 101 Tremont Street, Boston, Mass. . . . J 1905, F 1910 * Jones, Miss Beatrix, 21 East nth Street, New York City F 1899 Kellaway, Herbert John, 2a Park Street, Boston, Mass . . J 1908, F 1912 Kennard, Frederick H., 220 Devonshire Street, Boston, Mass F 1905 *Langton, Daniel W., New York City . .F1899-1909 Lay, Charles Downing, 103 Park Avenue, New York City J 1904, F 1910 Leavttt, Charles W., Jr., 220 Broadway, New York City ... . . . . F 1904 Lollesgaard, Svend, 156 West Washington Street, Chicago, III J 1902 *Lowrie, Charles N., 103 Park Avenue, New York City F 1899 Manning, J. Woodward, Boston, Mass J 1903-1904 'Manning, Warren H., Tremont Building, Boston, Mass F 1899 Mische, Emanuel T., Portland, Oregon J 1905 Morell, Anthony Urban, Palace Building, Minneapolis, Minn J 1906 Movius, Hallam Leonard, 89 State Street, Boston, Mass J 1907 Munson, J. Pomeroy, Grand Rapids, Mich J 1906 Negus, Samuel P., 6 Beacon Street, Boston, Mass J ^03 Nichols, Arthur Richardson, Palace Building, Minneapolis, Minn J 1906 Nolen, John, Harvard Square, Cambridge, Mass J 1905, F 1910 *Olmsted, Frederick Law, Jr., Brookline, Mass F 1899 (7) 8 AMERICAN SOCIETY OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS *Olmsted, John Charles, Brookline, Mass F Outhet, Rickson A., 3 Beaver Hall Square, Montreal, Canada J 1910, F Parce, William W., Boulder, Colorado (reinstated 1907) F 1900- Parker, Carl R., Fidelity Building, Portland, Maine J *Parsons, Samuel, Jr., St. James Building, New York City F *Pentecost, George F., Jr., 119 East 19th Street, New York City F Phillips, T. G., 603 Breitmeyer Building, Detroit, Mich J Pilat, C. F., 52 Broadway, New York City J 1903, F Pray, James Sturgis, *e-Garden Street, Cambridge, Mass J 190J3F Punchard, Chas. P., Jr., Schofield Building, Cleveland, Ohio J Roy, Wm. Ormiston, Montreal, Canada J Russell, Albert B., New York City J 1899- Saltus, Rollin Sanford, 9 East 41st Street, New York City J Schermerhorn, Richard, Jr., 347 Fifth Avenue, New York City J Sears, Thomas W., 2 Charles Street, Brookline, Mass J Shurtleff, Arthur A., 89 State Street, Boston, Mass J 1899, F *Simonds, Ossian C, Buena Avenue, Chicago F Taylor, Albert D., care of W. H. Manning, Tremont Building, Boston, Mass J Tealdi, Aubrey, University Club, Ann Arbor, Mich J Todd, Frederick G., Montreal, Canada J 1900, F 1905- Townsend, Frederick de Peyster, Prudential Building, Buffalo, N. Y. Underhill, Arthur, 103 Park Avenue, New York City J *Vaux, Downing, 143 Liberty Street, New York City F Vitale, Ferruccio, St. James Building, New York City J 1904, F Weinrichter, Ralph M., 542 Fifth Avenue, New York City J Wheelwright, Robert, 103 Park Avenue, New York City J White, Henry P., 101 Tremont Street, Boston, Mass J 1905- Williams, Howard S., Prudential Building, Buffalo, N. Y J 1906- Wyman, Alanson Phelps, 923 Lumber Exchange, Minneapolis, Minn J 1905, F Q12 902 907 912 906 912 906 904 906 905 899 908 912 907 905 906 899 908 905 910 911 907 912 EXHIBITIONS American Society of Landscape Architects. First Annual Exhibition Catalogue, 1002. From March 26 to April 10. Room 1328, St. James Building, Broadway and 26th Street, New York City, Downing Vaux, Secretary, 68 Bible House, New York City. Miss Beatrix Jones, New York City. Plan of Grounds, Anson Phelps Stokes, Esq., Darien, Conn. Isometric Drawing of same. Perspective Sketch of same. Manning Brothers, Boston, Mass. Topographical Map of Hampton Normal and Agricultural Institute, Hampton, Va. General Plan for Improvement of same. Bird's-eye View of Plan of same. Olmsted Brothers, Brookline, Mass. Topographical Map of West Side Park, Newark, N. J. General Plan for same. Grading Plan for same. Planting Plan for same. Topographical Map of Grounds of Mrs. Wm. Thaw, Jr., Sewickley, Pa. General Plan for Improvement of same. Grading Plan for same. Planting Plan for same. General Plan for Improvement of Grounds of Mr. Charles S. Guthrie, New London, Conn. Three drawings, colored, in competition. Samuel Parsons, Jr., New York City. Grounds of J. B. Haggin, Lexington, Ky. Contour Map of same. General Plan of same. Drainage Plan of same. Perspective Sketch of same. Planting Plan of same. Grounds of James Clark, Mamaroneck, N. Y. General Plan, including Drainage Scheme. Geo. F. Pentecost, Jr., New York City. Grounds of F. W. R. Eschmann, Yonkers, N. Y. Sketch of Pergola for same. Isometric Sketch of Lawn and Garden. Formal Design for Grounds. O. C. Simonds, Chicago, III. Plans of a subdivision. Two Plans of Drives, with Photographs of same. Downing Vaux, New York City. General Plan for College Hill Park, Poughkeepsk-, N. Y. General Plan for Grounds of Home for the Friendless, Scranton, Pa. Sheet showing six separate Designs for Laying Out Grounds. Exhibition of works of members of the A. S. L. A., as part of the Sixth Annual Exhibition of the Mu- nicipal Art Society of New York, March 13-31, 1907. Names of exhibitors : G. F. Pentecost, F. Vitale, Charles N. Lowrie, and D. W. Langton associated, Downing Vaux, Townsend and Fleming, Thomas W. Sears, Harold A. Caparn, Olmsted Bros., C. W. Leavitt, James L. Greenleaf, Hinchman, Pilat and Tooker. (9) CONSTITUTION ADOPTED MARCH 6, 1899 i. The name of this organization shall be the American Society of Landscape Architects. 2. The objects of this society shall be to promote good fellowship among its members and increase the efficiency of the profession. 3. The membership shall consist of Fellows, Juniors, and Associates. 4. Fellows shall be landscape architects or landscape gardeners in good standing. A landscape architect or a landscape gardener in good standing is one who practises the art of arranging land and landscape for use and enjoyment, whose compensation is received directly from his client, and not directly or indirectly from labor, plants, or other material used in fitting land for use, or from persons supplying the same. Fellows retiring from the practice of the profession and not engaging in business may be continued as Fellows by vote of the Society. A Fellow shall be at least thirty years of age and shall have prac- tised the profession for five years. 5. Juniors shall be students who are preparing to practise the profession; they shall have no vote and shall not be eligible to office. A Junior shall be at least twenty-one years of age, and shall cease to be a Junior ten years after election. 6. Associates shall be persons who have performed notable service in advancing the interest of the profession; they shall have no vote and shall not be eligible to office. 7. The officers shall be a President, a Vice-President, a Treasurer, and a Secretary, who with three others shall constitute an Executive Committee. 8. These officers shall hold office until their successors are elected and have qualified. 9. Officers and members shall be elected by the ballot of a majority of the Fellows, mailed or handed to the Secretary. 10. There shall be an annual meeting in the month of January for the election of officers and the transaction of business. 11. One-third of the Fellows shall constitute a quorum at the annual meeting. 12. All business shall be reported upon by the Executive Committee before being voted upon by the Society. 13. Any public expression of opinion intended to represent the collective opinion of the Society must receive a majority vote of all the Fellows by ballot mailed or handed to the Secretary. 14. Proposed amendments to this Constitution must be submitted in writing by the Secretary to all members at least two months before a regular meeting, and to be adopted must receive the ballots of two-thirds of all the Fellows, said ballots to be mailed or handed to the Secretary at said meeting. BY-LAWS ARTICLE I DUTIES OF OFFICERS Section i. The President, or in his absence, the Vice-President, shall preside at all meetings of the Society and of the Executive Committee. (10) AMERICAN SOCIETY OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS n Sec. 2. The Secretary shall keep a record of all proceedings of the Society, notify members of their election, and issue all notices and perform such other duties as may be assigned to him by the Executive Committee. Sec. 3. The Treasurer shall receive all money due the Society and receipt for the same. He shall disburse the funds only upon the order of the President. He shall keep the accounts, which shall at all times be open to the inspection of the officers and shall report at the annual meeting. His accounts shall be audited by a committee chosen by the Executive Committee. ARTICLE II EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Section i. Four members of the Executive Committee shall constitute a quorum. Sec. 2. At the meeting at which this Constitution is adopted there shall be elected a member of the Executive Committee to serve until the meeting in January 1900; one to serve until the meeting in January, 1901, and one until the meeting in January, 1902; and at each Annual Meeting of the Society there shall be elected a member of the Executive Committee to serve three years. The Executive Committee shall put into effect the votes of the Society; shall be the custodian of all its property; shall authorize contracts and purchases, but shall not incur any liabilities exceeding the amount of the unappropriated funds in the hands of the Treasurer; shall consider and report upon all business to be acted upon by the Society; shall inquire into the standing and qualifications of all applicants; shall present to the Society for its vote such applicants as they approve with a statement of their qualifica- tions, and shall establish rules for the regulation of its proceedings. ARTICLE III EXPULSIONS A member may be expelled by a majority vote of the Fellows. ARTICLE IV DUES The yearly dues of Fellows shall be ten dollars, of Junior members five dollars, and of Associate members ten dollars. Persons joining after July 1st shall be exempt from dues until after the following January. ARTICLE V MEETING The annual meeting shall be the second Tuesday in January, at an hour and place to be determined by the Executive Committee thirty days before said meeting, of which notice shall be given all members. ARTICLE VI AMENDMENTS Amendments to these By-Laws may be made with the approval of the Executive Committee by a majority vote of the members present at a regular meeting after having 12 TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY been submitted to all members in writing by the Secretary at least thirty days before said meeting. AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION Article 4. Amended by adding the following, proposed by F. L. Olmsted, March 5, 1907: Provided, however, that candidates who shall have practised the profession while Juniors of the Society for not less than two years and who shall have produced work sufficient in amount, in kind and in quality to afford conclusive evidence of professional competence may be elected Fellows before having completed five years of professional practice. (Printed, 1909.) Art. 5. Amendment proposed by the Executive Committee, November 20, 1901. Adopted January 14, 1902: Juniors shall be landscape architects who have practised less than five years, or students who are preparing to practise the profession; they shall have no vote and shall not be eligible to office. A Junior shall be at least twenty-one years of age, and shall cease to be a Junior ten years after election. (Printed, 1902.) Art. 5. Proposed by F. L. Olmsted, March 5, 1907: Juniors shall be landscape architects, or landscape gardeners who may not have practised the profession sufficiently long to comply with the requirements for Fellowship, or students, or landscape architects' assistants, who are preparing to practise the profes- sion; they shall have no vote and shall not be eligible to office. A Junior shall be at least twenty-one years of age, and shall cease to be a Junior ten years after election. Art. 9. Officers shall be elected by the ballot of a majority of the Fellows; mem- bers shall be elected by the ballot of two-thirds of the Fellows, mailed or handed to the Secretary. (Printed, 1902.) AMENDMENTS TO THE BY-LAWS Moved by F. L. Olmsted, March 5, 1907: ARTICLE III MEMBERSHIP Section i. The name of any candidate for membership shall be submitted to a sub- committee, to be known as the Examining Board, consisting of three members of the Executive Committee, one of whom shall be the Secretary, and not more than two of whom shall have their place of business in the same state. It shall be the duty of the Examining Board to inquire diligently into the fitness of each candidate, and to report favorably to the Executive Committee the names of those of whose fitness they find satisfactory evidence. As one means of securing information in regard to candidates the Examining Board shall mail to each member of every class in the Society an inquiry in regard to each candidate, asking for an expression of opinion as to the probable fitness of the candidate in respect to professional attainment and hon- orable personal and professional standing. The Examining Board shall not act upon the name of a candidate within less than one month after asking for the opinion of members in regard to him. OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS i 3 Sec. 2. Before reporting favorably upon the name of a candidate for Fellowship, the Examining Board shall secure explicit information in regard to works of landscape architecture done by the candidate in the practice of the profession, sufficient in amount, in kind and in quality to afford satisfactory evidence of professional competence. The term "shall have practised the profession," as used in Article 4 of the Consti- tution, shall be interpreted to mean that the candidate's chief occupation shall have been the practice of landscape architecture upon his or her independent professional respon- sibility, and directly for his or her own clients or those of a firm in which the candidate shall have been at the time a responsible member. A year during which a candidate shall have thus practised landscape architecture occasionally or in part while mainly engaged in other occupations or in the employ of another landscape architect shall not be reckoned as a year of professional practice. In recommending a candidate for fellowship the Examining Board shall report in writing the grounds upon which the recommendation is based. Sec. 3. Before reporting favorably upon the name of a candidate for Junior mem- bership the Examining Board shall satisfy themselves that the candidate's professional training, capacity and aims are such as may reasonably be expected after further expe- rience to fit the candidate for successful practice as a landscape architect and for fellowship in the Society. The Examining Board shall require the candidate for Junior membership or his proposer to submit evidence of the extent of his professional training in artistic design and of his technical attainment in respect to plants and the making and execution of planting plans, in respect to grading and the designing and direction of minor engineer- ing work, and in respect to the designing of such minor architectural structures as occur in landscape architecture. In recommending a candidate for Junior membership the Examining Board shall report in writing the grounds upon which the recommendation is based. Sec. 4. The names of candidates favorably reported by the Examining Board shall, upon the vote of the Executive Committee, be mailed by the Secretary, with copies of the reports of the Examining Board and with blank ballots, to all the Fellows of the Society not less than one month before the regular meeting of the Society at which the candidates will come up for election, together with a notice of the date of meeting. Ballots for or against the election of a candidate shall be submitted to the Secretary by mail or otherwise before the closing of the polls at the meeting specified in the notice. Sec. 5. A member may be expelled by a two-thirds vote of all the Fellows mailed or handed to the Secretary at a regular meeting. (Printed, 1909.) Amendment proposed by the Executive Committee, November 20, 1901. Adopted January 14, 1902: ARTICLE VI AMENDMENTS Amendments to these By-Laws may be made, with the approval of the Executive Committee, by a majority vote of the members present at a regular meeting, or by letter ballots after having been submitted to all members in writing by the Secretary at least thirty days before said meeting. (Printed, 1902.) TREASURER'S ACCOUNT Receipts brought forward $548 10 Receipts $1 10 00 Expenditures: Expenditures: Stationery, printing, sundries . $38 15 Stationery, printing, sundries . $32 05 Rent of room, National Arts 32 05 Club 8 77 46 92 Balance, December 31 $77 95 Balance, December 31 $501 18 1900 Balance forward $77 95 1904 Receipts 1 50 00 Balance forward $501 18 $227 95 Receipts 190 00 Expenditures: D. W. Langton, traveling $691 18 expenses $17 12 Expenditures: Printing, stationery, sundries . 1979 Olmsted- Vaux Memorial $43 45 Periodicals 7 00 Stationery, printing, sundries . 36 20 ■ 43 Qj Room rent, National Arts Club, incidentals 26 06 Balance, December 31 $184 04 1901 Balance, December 31 $585 47 Balance forward. Receipts $585 47 Expenditures: Keceipts 235 00 Printing, stationery, sundries . $10 20 Balance, December 31 1902 $184 04 140 00 1905 Balance forward Receipts S3 24 04 IO 20 Expenditures: S313 84 Stationery, printing, sundries S136 80 Reporting meetings 44 «5 Annual meeting expenses 12 66 Lantern-slides 8 85 $313 84 155 OO $468 84 1906 80 84 Balance forward Receipts Balance forward $313 84 202 .5 Receipts Expenditures: Stationery, printing, sundries . $18 34 Expenses of exhibition 62 50 355 28 Balance, December 31 S388 00 $973 29 Expenditures: Stationery, printing, sundries .$149 64 Balance forward $388 00 Reporting meetings 177 15 Receipts 160 jo 32679 $548 10 Balance, December 51 S646 50 (14) AMERICAN SOCIETY OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 13 Balance forward. Receipts Expenditures: Stationery, printing, sundries .$156 15 Reporting meetings 127 75 Committee on Seal 6 34 Balance, December 31. 1908 $646 50 Balance forward 280 25 Receipts: Annual dues $360 10 $926 75 Profits from sale of Repton .... 125 00 Interest on bank deposit 26 24 290 24 $636 51 $636 51 $1147 85 Expenditures: Stationery, printing, sundries .$294 59 Expenses on sale of Repton 125 50 Stereopticon 1 o 00 C. H. Walker, traveling ex- penses 14 00 A. A. Shurtleff, illustrations of paper 15 00 C. D. Lay, Ass't. Secretary.. . . 50 00 Balance, December 31. Note: Receipts include annual dues and interest on bank deposits, unless otherwise itemized, writing and mimeographing. Sundries include stamps, exchange on out-of-town checks, etc. 36 3 8 76 eludes type- COMMITTEES AND DELEGATES 1899 Constitution. — S. Parsons, W. H. Manning, D. Vaux, J. C. Olmsted, O. C. Simonds. January 4, March 6, 1899 D. Soldiers' and Sailors' Monument, Location of — C. N. Lowrie, D. W. Langton. December 12, Jan- uary 9, 1900. 1900 Riverside Park, Assembly Bill 1643. — J. C. Olmsted, D. W. Langton. April 10. Paris Exposition, iqoo, Report on — C. N. Lowrie. April 10, September 26, 1900. Sherman Statue, Location of — S. Parsons, D. W. Langton, D. Vaux. April 10, September 26, 1900. Fine Arts Federation. — S. Parsons. April 10. Exhibition. — S. Parsons, D. Vaux. January 8, November 20, 1901. Note: The first date given is that of announcement of appointment, when known. Other dates 1 which reference to committee is reported. R — report. D — discharged. 1903 Schedule oj Charges and Practice. — J. C. Olmsted, W. H. Manning, N. Barrett. January 13, March 5, 1903, January 12, 1904 R. Application Blank Jor Admissions. — J. C. Olmsted, W. H. Manning, N. Barrett. March 5, March 14, 1905 R. Memorial Tablet to Olmsted and Vaux. — S. Parsons, C. N. Lowrie, D. W. Langton. December 5, January 12, 1904, January 17, 1905 D. 1904 Exhibition. — N. Barrett, S. Parsons, D. W. Langton, D. Vaux. January 12, February 9, 1904, February 17, 1905 D. 1906 Rudolph Ulricb, Resolution of Sympathy on Death 0/ — ■ F. L. Olmsted, D. W. Langton, S. Parsons. November 13. those of meetings 1 1 6 AMERICAN SOCIETY OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 1906, continued Editing Reprints o] Classics. — J. Nolen. November 13, February 5, 1907, December 10, 1907 R. History oj Central Park. — Samuel Parsons. Decem- ber 1906. 1907 Editing Proceedings. — H. A. Caparn, J. S. Pray, D. Vaux. January 8. Delegate to Washington, 50th anniversary A. I. A. — H. A. Caparn. January 8. Seal. — Miss Jones, F. L. Olmsted, J. Nolen. January 8, February 5, 1907 R, March 5, 1907 R, December 29, 1908. Nursery Slock, Raising Standard o] — W. H. Man- ning, J. F. Dawson (Olmsted Bros.), O. C. Simonds. Nurserymen : Charles J. Maloy (Ellwanger & Barry), W. W. Harper (Andorra Nursery Co.), J. H. Dayton (Storrs & Har- rison). February 5, 1907. Associate Members, Admission of — C. W. Leavitt, F. L. Olmsted, C. N. Lowrie. March 5. Invitation from American Institute of Architects. — C. N. Lowrie. November 12. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES -President, John C. Olmsted. Vice-President, Samuel Parsons, Jr. Secretary, Daniel W. Langton. Treasurer, Charles N. Lowrie. Downing Vaux, 1902. O. C. Simonds, 1901. Warren H. Manning, 1900. -President, John C. Olmsted. Vice-President, Samuel Parsons, Jr. Treasurer, Charles N. Lowrie. Secretary, Downing Vaux. Warren H. Manning, 1903. -President, John C. Olmsted. Vice-President, Samuel Parsons, Jr. Treasurer, Charles N. Lowrie. Secretary, Downing Vaux. O. C. Simonds, 1904. -President, Samuel Parsons, Jr. Vice-President, Nathan F. Barrett. Treasurer, Charles N. Lowrie. Secretary, Downing Vaux. John C. Olmsted, 1905. 1904. — President, John C. Olmsted. Vice-President, Samuel Parsons, Jr. Treasurer, Charles N. Lowrie. Secretary, Downing Vaux. O. C. Simonds, 1907. 1905. — President, John C. Olmsted. Vice-President, Samuel Parsons, Jr. Treasurer, Charles N. Lowrie. Secretary, Downing Vaux. James L. Greenleaf, 1908. -President, Samuel Parsons, Jr. Vice-President, John C. Olmsted. Treasurer, Charles N. Lowrie. Secretary, Downing Vaux. Charles W. Leavitt, Jr., 1909. -President, Samuel Parsons, Jr. Vice-President, John C. Olmsted. Treasurer, Charles N. Lowrie. Secretary, Downing Vaux. Harold A. Caparn, 1910. 1903. — President, Nathan F. Barrett. Vice-President, Samuel Parsons, Jr. Treasurer, Charles N. Lowrie. Secretary, George F. Pentecost, Jr. Warren H. Manning, 1906. -President, Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. Vice-President, Ossian C. Simonds. Treasurer, Charles N. Lowrie. Secretary, Downing Vaux. James L. Greenleaf, 191 1. Transactions of The American Society of Landscape Architects from its Inception in 1899 to the End of 1908 January 4, 1899. Meeting at the office of Parsons & Pentecost, St. James Building, New York City, for the purpose of organizing the American Society of Landscape Architects, in pursuance of a circular letter sent out about February, 1898, by Samuel Parsons, Jr., and afterwards signed by Downing Vaux, Charles W. Lowrie, George F. Pentecost, Jr., and Daniel W. Langton. Present: Nathan F. Barrett, New Rochelle, N. Y.; Beatrix Jones, East 11th Street, New York City; Daniel W. Langton, East 23d Street, New York City; Charles N. Lowrie, 1 56 Fifth Avenue, New York City; Warren H. Manning, Boston, Mass.; John C. Olmsted, Brookline, Mass.; Samuel Parsons, Jr., St. James Building, New York City; George F. Pentecost, Jr., St. James Building, New York City; Ossian C. Simonds, Station X, Chicago, III., and Downing Vaux, Bible House, New York City. Mr. John Charles Olmsted was elected President, pro tern., and Mr. Daniel W. Langton, Secretary, pro tern. Messrs. Parsons, Vaux, Manning, J. C. Olmsted, and Simonds were constituted a committee to draft a constitution, and report at the next meeting. The following resolution, presented by Mr. Parsons, was adopted: That the Secretary be authorized to write to the proper authorities, asking if the plans offered in competition for League Island Park, Philadelphia, are to be exhibited. March 6, 1899. Meeting at the office of Parsons & Pentecost, St. James Building, New York City. Present: Messrs. Langton, Lowrie, Manning, J. C. Olmsted, Parsons, Pentecost, and Vaux. The committee on drafting a constitution presented its report which, with slight modifications, was adopted and the committee discharged. The following officers were then elected by acclamation to serve until the next regular election pro- vided by the constitution: President, John C. Olmsted; Vice-President, Samuel Parsons, Jr.; Secretary, Daniel W. Langton; Treasurer, Charles N. Lowrie; additional members of the Executive Committee, Downing Vaux, O. C. Simonds, and Warren H. Manning. December 12, 1899. Meeting of the Executive Committee at the office of Parsons & Pentecost, St. James Building, New York City. Present: Messrs. J. C. Olmsted, Parsons, Lowrie, Langton, and Vaux. Voted: That the Executive Committee, A. S. L. A., is opposed to the location of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Monument at present proposed, for the following reasons: (1) A monument of such importance in this locality should be placed on the axis of 89th Street as well as that of the Riverside Drive. (2) The monument, as at present designed, cannot be placed at the intersection of the axes of 89th Street and Riverside Drive without blocking the promenade of Riverside Drive. (3) The character of the design contemplated obviously requires a much larger area of land about it treated architecturally in harmony with it. The Secretary was instructed to transmit copies of the same to the following: Hon. A. Van Wyck, Mayor, City Hall, New York City; Hon. Randolph Guggenheimer, President City Council, City Hall, New York City; Hon. Bird C. Coler, Controller, 14 Stewart Building, New York City; Hon. Thomas L. Feitner, President Tax Board, 280 Broadway, New York City, and Hon. John Whalen, Corporation Counsel, Tryon Row, New York City. January 9, 1900. First annual meeting and first dinner of the Society, at the Hotel Martin, 9th Street and University Place, New York City. Present: Miss Bullard, Miss Jones, and Messrs. J. C. Olmsted, Parsons, Lowrie, Langton, Vaux, (17) 18 TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY Manning, Pentecost, and F. L. Olmsted, Jr., and, at the dinner, Mr. Albert B. Russell, Junior Member, and Mr. F. E. Carle, editor of the "Commercial Advertiser." Among the other matters discussed was the important one of the relation of the Society to Municipal Art, and especially to the location of the proposed Soldiers' and Sailors' Monument. February 13, 1900. First stated meeting and dinner at Hotel Jefferson, New York. Present: Miss BuIIard and Messrs. Lowrie, F. L. Olmsted, Jr., and Vaux. Official action deferred on account of lack of quorum. Letter from Mr. Fred S. Lamb regarding preservation of Palisades read and Secretary requested to write to Albany for copy of the bill. February 27, 1900. Meeting of the Executive Committee at National Arts Club, 37 West 34th Street, New York City. Present: Miss Jones and Messrs. Lowrie, J. C. Olmsted, and Vaux. Assembly Bill No. 651 N. Y., dated February 1, 1900, having been called to the attention of the Society by Mr. Fred S. Lamb, Secretary of the Palisades Committee of the Society for the Preser- vation of Scenic and Historic Places and Objects, the following letter was signed by members and sent, and also copies of the letter were sent to all Fellows of the Society with request to sign and forward to Albany: "New York, February 16, 1900. "Hon. J. P. Allds, Chairman Ways and Means Committee, Albany, N. Y. "Dear Sir: We have read Assembly Act No. 651 Int., dated February 1, 1900, and entitled, 'An Act to provide for the selection, location, appropriation, and management of certain lands along the Pali- sades of the Hudson River for an Interstate Park and thereby preserve the scenery of the Palisades, and we hereby approve of its measures and urge the members of the Assembly to pass the act at the present session. Yours truly, [Signed] "John C. Olmsted, President; Samuel Parsons, Jr., Vice-President; Charles N. Lowrie, Treasurer; Downing Vaux, Secretary; Beatrix Jones, Member of Executive Committee; Daniel W. Langton, j Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr., V Members." Geo. F. Pentecost, Jr., ) March 13, 1900. Meeting and dinner at National Arts Club House, New York City. Present: Miss Bullard, Miss Jones, and Messrs. Barrett, Langton, J. C. Olmsted and Parsons. The question being raised by Mr. Langton, it was unanimously decided that Junior Members should be admitted to subscription dinners. Mr. Parsons having reported to the Secretary that there was a question whether there would be a public exhibition of the competitive plans for parks at Yonkers, N. Y., for which parks several members had submitted plans; the following letter was approved by the Society and directed to be sent to the President of the Park Commission at Yonkers, N. Y.: "Dear Sir: I am directed by the American Society of Landscape Architects to write to you and urge that a public exhibition be given of the plans submitted in the park competition, which you are about to decide. "It is customary to hold such an exhibition when a profession is invited to enter a competition, and a chance to see and compare the plans is certainly due to the public and to those competing. "Yours truly, Downing Vaux, Secretary." Mr. Langton called attention to Assembly Bill No. 1643, Int. 1293, introduced at Albany, March 1, 1900, "To regulate the use of grounds," etc., and intended to preserve the Riverside Park. The act was read by the Secretary, and the following resolutions unanimously passed, the Secretary being directed to send a copy of same to Assemblyman Weekes, at Albany, N. Y.: "Whereas, There has recently been introduced into the Legislature of the State of New York a bill OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 19 (No. 1643, Int. 1293) for the purpose of preserving Riverside Drive and Park by presenting the erection of such structures as would sensibly intercept the view and mar the natural beauty of the scenery, therefore "Resolved, That this association heartily endorses such efforts to protect Riverside Drive and Park, and "Resolved, That this resolution be transmitted to Assemblyman Weekes who introduced such bill, and "Resolved, That a committee be appointed by the President, which shall be authorized to attend any hearing on said bill and represent the views of the association." The question of holding a spring exhibition in the National Arts Club gallery, the use of the gallery having been offered by said club, was raised, and it was decided to thank Mr. Lamb for the offer and report that the spring work was so near that the Society had decided to postpone the exhibition until autumn when the Executive Committee would report on same. Voted: That in future, before the Executive Committee nominates new members, the names and qualifications of same be sent to all members, and ninety days allowed to elapse before said names be again taken up by the Executive Committee. April 10, 1900. Meeting and dinner at National Arts Club, New York City. Present: Messrs. J. C. Olmsted, Pentecost, Langton, Lowrie, Parce, Parsons, Simonds, and Vaux, Fellows; Messrs. Armstrong and Russell, Juniors. Mr. Langton reported that, on the President's appointment by telegraph, he had attended the hearing at Albany on Assembly Bill No. 1643, that the bill had been reported to committee, and that favorable action was anticipated. Mr. J. C. Olmsted and Mr. Langton were appointed a committee to follow up the matter. Voted: That Mr. Lowrie be authorized to represent the Society at the Paris Exposition, and report on same. Messrs. Parsons, Langton, and Vaux were appointed a committee to report on the location of the Sherman statue. Voted: On motion of Mr. Parsons, that a committee be appointed to wait on the President of the Fine Arts Federation to ask that the A. S. L. A. have a representative on the Fine Arts Federation Committee. Voted: On motion of Mr. Olmsted, that members send to the Secretary a list of their works, both those that have been carried out and those that have not, said list to be for the information of the Society only. Voted: That an exhibition be held in New York between January 1 and March 31, 1901, said exhi- bition to be open to members and others and to comprise plans, views, photographs, etc., of works that have been executed, or are in course of execution, and that the Executive Committee formulate rules for this exhibition. September 26, 1900. Special meeting at offices of Parsons & Pentecost, New York City. Present: Messrs. J. C. Olmsted, Parsons, Lowrie, Langton, and Vaux. Mr. Langton reported that Assembly Bill No. 1643 had been killed in committee at Albany. Mr. Lowrie reported on his trip to the Paris Exposition, and that there were no meetings of Landscape Architects while he was in France. Mr. Parsons reported that the chances were that the Sherman statue would not be located on the Mall in Central Park. Mr. Parsons reported that he had talked with the President and Secretary of the Fine Arts Federation, and that they consider their society a national one. As this was questioned, Mr. Parsons was requested to write for a copy of the constitution of the Fine Arts Federation. November 13, 1900. Meeting and dinner at National Arts Club, New York City. Present: Miss BuIIard, Messrs. Lowrie, Langton, Parsons, and Vaux. December 11, 1900. Meeting and dinner at National Arts Club, New York City. Present: Messrs. J. C. Olmsted, Lowrie, Manning, F. L. Olmsted, Jr., and Vaux. Voted: To discontinue subscriptions to "American Florist," "Gardening," "Park and Cemetery," "Municipal Affairs," and "American Gardening." 20 TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY January 8, 1901. Second annual meeting and dinner at the National Arts Club, New York City. Present: Miss BuIIard, Miss Jones, and Messrs. J. C. Olmsted, Parsons, Lowrie, Pentecost, and Vaux. Voted: That the meetings of the Executive Committee should be held subject to call, the first meeting being set for January 22, 1901, at 8.00 p.m., at the offices of Messrs. Parsons & Pentecost. March 5, 1901. Meeting and dinner at National Arts Club, New York City. Present: Messrs. Barrett, Simonds, Lowrie, and Vaux. Mr. Simonds suggested papers by volunteers at meetings, names to be selected by Secretary. Mr. Simonds suggested a summer meeting at Milwaukee in connection with that of the American Park and Outdoor Art Association. He was also in favor of an exhibition. November 20, 1901. Meeting and dinner at the National Arts Club, New York City. Present: Miss Jones and Miss BuIIard, Messrs. Lowrie, J. C. Olmsted, F. L. Olmsted, Jr., Pentecost, Vaux, and Mr. John S. Holbrook, guest of F. L. Olmsted, Jr. Voted: That the Committee on Exhibition (Messrs. Parsons and Vaux) should consult with the National Sculpture Society about a joint exhibition, and that if that cannot be arranged, the Society hold private exhibition in a small room to be rented for two weeks about the time of the March meeting, and have models exhibited, if possible. January 14, 1902. Third annual meeting and dinner at the National Arts Club, New York City. Present: Miss Jones and Messrs. J. C. Olmsted, Parsons, Lowrie, F. L. Olmsted, Jr., Manning, and Vaux. The invitation of the Municipal Art Society to take part in their coming exhibition during the end of January in the National Arts Club House was declined with thanks on account of lack of time to prepare exhibits. Voted: That the Secretary prepare a draft of questions to be asked those applying for membership, and that the applicants for Junior membership be required to name some work of construction on which they have been engaged. January 13, 1903. The fourth annual meeting and dinner at the National Arts Club, New York City. Present: Messrs. Parsons, Barrett, Lowrie, Vaux, Manning, J. C. Olmsted, F. L. Olmsted, Jr., and Pentecost. During the evening the following subjects were discussed: (1) The actual benefit to artistic interests resulting from the American Park and Outdoor Art Association. (2) A formal invitation from the Executive Committee of the Architectural League of America to the A. S. L. A. to join said society. (3) The ideal relation between Architecture and Landscape Architecture. March 5, 1903. Meeting and dinner at the National Arts Club, New York City. Present: Messrs. Parsons, Barrett, J. C. Olmsted, Lowrie, and Pentecost, Fellows; Messrs. Fleming, Negus, and J. Woodward Manning, Juniors. Mr. J. C. Olmsted, as Chairman of the Committee on a Schedule of Charges and Practice, submitted his report. Voted: That the report be printed and circulated among the Fellows for consideration. Mr. Barrett introduced Mr. Lamb, President of the Architectural League of America. Mr. Lamb, on behalf of his society, extended a formal invitation to the A. S. L. A. to join the Architectural League of America. It was decided that the subject was of such importance that all the Fellows of the A. S. L. A. should have an opportunity of discussing the question, so no formal action was taken. December 5, 1903. Meeting and dinner at the National Arts Club, New York City. Present: Messrs. Barrett, Lowrie, J. C. Olmsted, Langton, Parsons, and Vaux. The offer of the American Institute of Architects to exchange publications was accepted, and the Secretary instructed to so notify the Institute. OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 21 January 12, 1904. Fifth annual meeting and dinner at the National Arts Club, New York City. Present: Messrs. Barrett, J. C. Olmsted, Parsons, Lowrie, Manning, Langton, and Vaux, and, at the dinner, Mr. Montgomery Schuyler, of the "New York Times," guest of the Society. The Committee on the Memorial Tablet to Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux reported prog- ress, and presented a design which, with slight modifications, was approved and the question of site left open. Proofs of the report of the Committee on Professional Practice were submitted. The report was not to be made public, but was for the information of members, and was to be sent to them for revision and correction. The invitation from the Architectural League of New York to take part in their coming exhibition was discussed, and it was decided that the Society would not act, but that members might exhibit as individuals. Voted: That an Exhibition Committee of four be appointed to report on the time and place for holding an exhibition to be open to members of the Society, and others on invitation. February 9, 1904. Meeting and dinner at the National Arts Club, New York City. Present: Messrs. Greenleaf, Langton, Leavitt, Lowrie, J. C. Olmsted, Parsons, and Vaux, Fellows; Messrs. Holton, Hoth, Lay, and J. W. Manning, Juniors. As the Committee on Exhibition (Barrett, Langton, Parsons, and Vaux) asked for discussion on a place for holding same, the National Arts Club galleries were selected. The date was left open on account of lack of time for preparation of an exhibition this spring. Voted: That the minutes of the meetings of the past five years be printed. January 17, 1905. Sixth annual meeting and dinner at the Hotel Astor, New York City. Present: Miss Jones and Messrs. Barrett, Greenleaf, Langton, Leavitt, Lowrie, F. L. Olmsted, Jr., J. C. Olmsted, Parsons, Pentecost, and Vaux, Fellows; Messrs. Dawson, Fleming, Hoth, Lay, Pilat, Scher- merhorn, Vitale, Juniors; and Mr. W. H. Merrill, editor "New York World," guest. The Committee on a Memorial Tablet to Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux asked to be dis- charged, as they found the idea not agreeable to the families of the deceased. Their request was granted. Mr. Langton brought up for discussion the subject of a medal to be offered for the best executed design, said design to have been completed within the preceding five years, and the matter was considered at some length. This medal would be given with the other medals under the auspices of the Architectural League of New York. No vote taken. February 17, 1905. Meeting at the Hotel Lafayette, New York City. Present: Messrs. Greenleaf, Langton, Leavitt, Lowrie, J. C. Olmsted, Parsons, Pentecost, and Vaux, Fellows; Messrs. Hoth and Vitale, Juniors. Voted: On motion of Mr. Langton, that, as there seems to be no general wish for an exhibition at this time, the Committee on Exhibition be discharged. Voted: On motion of Mr. Leavitt, that the Executive Committee arrange for a short paper to be pre- pared one month before each meeting, and copies to be sent to all members for discussion at said meeting. Voted: On motion of Mr. Langton, that the subject of proposed medal be referred to the Executive Committee for formulation. Voted: On motion of Mr. Vaux, that in future all motions made at a meeting of the Society shall be submitted in writing to the presiding officer and to the Secretary before the motion is put to vote. It being reported that a movement had been started to have Congress appropriate a sum of money to build a monument in memory of Major L'Enfant, who made the plans on which the cities of Washing- ton and Buffalo were laid out, it was voted, on motion of Mr. Langton, that letters be sent to all Congressmen from New York City urging the desirability of such a monument, and advocating the early favorable action of Congress on the matter. Voted: On motion of Mr. Leavitt, that Article IV of the By-Laws be amended by reducing the dues of Associate Members from $io to $5. Motion afterwards sent to members in writing to be voted on. March 14, 1905. Meeting and dinner at Hotel Lafayette, New York City. Present: Miss Jones, Messrs. Langton, Leavitt, Lowrie, J. C. Olmsted, and Parsons, Fellows; Messrs. Hoth, Schermerhorn, and Vitale, Juniors. A paper, "Large Tree Planting," by Mr. James L. Greenleaf, was read and followed by discussion. (See page 29.) 22 TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY April 18, 1905. Meeting at Hotel Lafayette, New York City. Present: Miss Jones, Messrs. J. C. Olmsted, Vaux, Fellows; Messrs. Vitale, Gallagher, Hoth, Dawson, and Holton, Juniors. A paper, "Italian Gardens," by Ferruccio Vitale, was read (see page 37), followed by discussion. July 7, 8, and 9, 1905. Summer meeting, with headquarters at Somerset Hotel, Boston, Mass. Present: Messrs. Greenleaf, Kennard, Langton, Lowrie, Manning, F. L. Olmsted, J. C. Olmsted, Simonds, and Vaux, Fellows; Messrs. Dawson, Gallagher, Hoth, Hubbard, Lay, Mische, Negus, Pilat, Shurtleff, and White, Juniors. Guests, Mr. Sylvester Baxter, Mr. William Duncan, Secretary of "The American Florist," Mr. Guy Lowell, Mr. G. A. Parker, Superintendent of Hartford Parks, Mr. Charles Mulford Robinson, of Rochester, Mr. Robeson Sargent, Mr. William J. Stewart, Mr. Herbert Wise. Friday, July 7. Excursions through the largest boulevards and parkways of Boston, the Riverside Recreation Club and Boston Athletic Club-grounds, Robinson Hall, Harvard University (Courses in Archi- tecture and Landscape Architecture), new Harvard Stadium. Private Place excursion through the grounds of Mrs. John L. Gardner and Brookline, the richest town in proportion to population in the country (assessor's valuation, 1904, $88,000,000; population, 22,000), especially Holmlea (Prof. C. S. Sargent), Weld and Faulkner Farms. Visit to the Olmsted office. Dinner at the hotel and lecture in the evening by Mr. John C. Olmsted on "The Boston Park System." (See page 42.) Saturday, July 8. Excursion through the Boston Park System and part of the Metropolitan System. Dinner at the hotel, and lecture in the evening by Prof. Frederick Law Olmsted on "The Metropolitan Park System." (See page 56.) Sunday, July 9. Excursion through the Mystic River Reservation, Fellsway East, Revere Beach Parkway to Revere Beach Reservation. Visits to Wood Island Park, North End Park, and Charlesbank, much-used parks in the poorest section of the city, the Common, and Public Gardens. November 14, 1905. Meeting and dinner at Hotel Lafayette, New York. Present: Miss Bullard, Messrs. J. C. Olmsted, Caparn, Greenleaf, Kennard, Langton, Leavitt, Par- sons, Pentecost, and Vaux, Fellows; Messrs. Holton, Hoth, Lay, and Vitale, Juniors. Also guests of Miss Bullard and Mr. Langton. Followed by paper on "A Visit to Paris," by Harold A. Caparn, and subsequent discussion. (See page 56.) December 12, 1905. Meeting and dinner held at Hotel Lafayette, New York City. Present: Messrs. Caparn, Kennard, Langton, Leavitt, Lowrie, Parsons, and Vaux, Fellows; Mr. Hoth, Junior. A paper, "Cost of Landscape Development," by Charles W. Leavitt, Jr. (see page 69), was read, followed by discussion. January 9, 1906. Seventh annual meeting and dinner at the Hotel St. Denis, New York City. Present: Miss Jones, Messrs. Greenleaf, Langton, Leavitt, Lowrie, J. C. Olmsted, Pentecost, and Vaux, Fellows; Messrs. Dawson, Fleming, Holton, Hoth, Hubbard, Lay, Nolen, Vitale, White, and Weinrichter, Juniors. Report of Committee on Schedule of Charges and Practice and subsequent discussion omitted. This report was intended for private circulation among members. February 6, 1906. Meeting and dinner at the Hotel Lafayette, New York City. Present: Messrs. Caparn, Greenleaf, Langton, Lowrie, Olmsted, Parsons, and Vaux, Fellows; Messrs. Hoth and Weinrichter, Juniors. The editing of the minutes was advocated by Messrs. Greenleaf and Langton because of the discursive and slipshod character of the speeches as recorded by the stenographer. A discussion was begun by Mr. Parsons on the Society sending an exhibit to the Jamestown Exposition. OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 23 The general sentiment of the meeting seemed to be that care ought to be taken to preserve the identity of the exhibit, if any should be sent, and there was some doubt whether, at the present stage, the Society ought to exhibit at all. The question was referred to the Executive Committee. Then followed a paper, "Description of a Design for West Side Park, Jersey City, N. J.," by Charles N. Lowrie and Daniel W. Langton. (See page 72.) March 6, 1906. Meeting and dinner at the Hotel Lafayette, New York City. Present: Messrs. Leavitt, Lowrie, Olmsted, Parsons, and Vaux, Fellows; Messrs. Brinckerhoff, Lay, Nolen, and Pilat, Juniors. Also Mr. Joseph Gatringer, guest of Mr. Parsons. A paper, "Small City Parks," by Samuel Parsons, Jr. (see page 75), was read. November 13, 1906. Meeting and dinner at the Transportation Club, New York City. Present: Messrs. Caparn, Greenleaf, Kennard, Langton, Lowrie, F. L. Olmsted, Parsons, Pentecost, and Vaux, Fellows; Miss Coffin, Messrs. Brinckerhoff, Gallagher, Gay, Holton, Hoth, Nolen, Pilat, Vitale, and Weinrichter, Juniors. A letter was read from Mr. Charles W. Leavitt, Jr., recommending that a resolution of sympathy on the death of Mr. Rudolph Ulrich be passed by the Society, and a copy sent to the widow. Mr. Langton opposed the resolution on the ground that it would be officious to pass such a resolution on a man who was not a member of the A. S. L. A., nor a conspicuously notable member of the profession. Mr. F. L. Olmsted asked whether there was any precedent for such action with regard to a non- member, and pointed out the risk of establishing one. Mr. Vaux replied that such a resolution had been passed on the death of Mr. Samuel Parsons. Mr. Langton pointed out that this was proper, as Mr. Parsons was the foremost of that generation who had contributed to our present stock of material, but was not a landscape architect. On motion of Mr. Olmsted, a committee of three, Mr. Olmsted, Mr. Langton, and Mr. Parsons, was appointed to consider the question. An invitation to participate in the Alaska-Yukon and Pacific Exposition in 1909 was read. Then followed a paper, "Historical Notes," by Downing Vaux (see page 81) and discussion. Mr. Langton advised that Mr. Nolen's suggestion of reprints of classics in landscape architecture, under the auspices of the A. S. L. A., be accepted with acclaim, as many of the books were practically unobtainable, and few public libraries had them. It would give a reply to questions about the use of the A. S. L. A., which had been in existence several years without accomplishing anything. It was generally agreed that the Fellows use personal endeavor to get the books placed in libraries of all kinds. Mr. Parsons said that there were unknown books of value in French and German which could be translated. On motion of Mr. Langton, Mr. Nolen was appointed a committee of one to act for the Society in editing or passing on the editing of any book to be published in this way. Mr. Parsons suggested that an official seal be obtained, and on motion of Mr. Langton it was agreed that the Executive Committee report at the next annual meeting on some form of seal to be used by the A. S. L. A. in its publications. December 11, 1906. Meeting and dinner at the Transportation Club, New York City. Present: Miss Jones, Messrs. Caparn, Greenleaf, Kennard, Langton, Lowrie, Manning, Parsons, and Vaux, Fellows; Messrs. Brinckerhoff, Gay, Hoth, Lay, Nichols, Pilat, Schermerhorn, and Weinrichter, Juniors. An amendment to the constitution was discussed, in which Mr. Langton, as proposer, explained that his object was to enable Juniors to qualify for Fellows by allowing three of their years of experience as Juniors in the offices of Fellows to count as two of independent practice. In this way they would become Fellows after three years of independent practice instead of five. As the meeting was unable, under the constitution, to pass upon the amendment, it was returned to Mr. Langton, at his request, for revision. The following notice and letters were then presented: 24 TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY "The Octagon, Washington, D. C. "The American Institute of Architects, founded in the year 1857, will commemorate the Fiftieth Anniversary of this date, in the City of Washington, on the eighth of January, 1907, and will esteem it an honor if the American Society of Landscape Architects can be represented on this occasion." Also a letter from Mr. Seeler: "Philadelphia, December 8, 1906. "American Society of Landscape Architects, "New York City, N. Y. "Sirs: — I beg to supplement the invitation of the American Institute of Architects, that you be represented on the occasion of the exercises commemorative of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Foundation of the Institute, by enclosing a preliminary program of the Institute convention. "The Secretary of the Institute would be pleased to know the name and address of your representative, should you decide to have one present, in order that an invitation to the Annual Banquet may be forwarded him. "Yours very truly, Edgar V. Seeler." On motion of Mr. Langton, it was decided that the invitation of the A. I. A. be accepted, and a representative sent. Part of a letter from Mr. F. L. Olmsted, Jr., to the Secretary, suggesting that a candidate for membership be proposed by two Fellows instead of applying for admission, on the ground that it would be a more dignified and satisfactory attitude for the Society to adopt. In the discussion which followed, Mr. Greenleaf and Mr. Kennard spoke in favor of Mr. Olmsted's view, and Mr. Langton opposed it on the ground that in becoming a member the man was honored — not the Society. Mr. Pilat made the point that proposals for membership would be appropriate in a social club, but not in a Society such as the A. S. L. A. The matter was laid on the table. A paper, "The Jamestown Exposition," by Warren H. Manning (see page 83), was read. January 8, 1907. Ninth annual meeting and dinner at the Transportation Club, New York City. Present: Miss Jones, Messrs. Caparn, Kennard, Lowrie, J. C. Olmsted, Parsons, and Vaux, Fellows; Miss Coffin, Messrs. Brinkerhoff, Dawson, Dow, Fleming, Gatringer, Gay, Hoth, Morell, Nichols, Nolen, Saltus, Townsend, Underhill, and Vitale, Juniors. Guests, Mr. C. W. Barry, Mr. P. R. Jones. Mr. Nolen spoke of the suggestion of the publishers, Houghton, Mifflin Company, for the use of a seal on the cover of the proposed reprints of classics in landscape architecture, and within the book an appropriate inscription. After discussion, the following inscription was approved: "This is the first volume of a series of Classics in Landscape Architecture which has been undertaken at the suggestion and with the cooperation of the American Society of Landscape Architects." Mr. C. W. Barry, of Rochester, made a speech on the "Relations of the Horticulturist and the Landscape Architect," which he afterward revised. (See page 89.) February 5, 1907. Meeting and dinner at the Transportation Club, New York City. Present: Miss Jones, Messrs. Caparn, Lowrie, F. L. Olmsted, Parsons, Simonds, and Vaux, Fellows; Messrs. Gay, Lay, Morell, Nolen, and Pilat, Juniors. In a discussion on the reprint of Repton, Mr. Nolen and Miss Jones referred to the obsolete character of many of the Repton illustrations. Mr. Nolen said the new Repton would contain photographs of Repton's work done a hundred years ago. Miss Jones advised the translation and republishing of Dezalliers d'Agenville's "Theorie et Pratique de Jardinage" as an admirable book, and very difficult to get. Then followed the report of the Committee on Seal: "As the result of a considerable amount of insistence on the part of the committee, a few suggestions for the Seal of the Society, have been received. These ideas may be roughly divided into two classes, one pictorial, the other conventional. "In the first crude stage the pictorial may seem the most attractive. However, as the problem is more carefully considered with regard to its limitations, the pictorial element seems less adapted to the purpose. These limitations are many; the space is necessarily small, therefore the design must be repre- sented in comparatively few lines, because minute lines or spaces cannot be successfully reproduced in printing. f«0P£RTT L9MAKY OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 25 "This disposes of the possibility of a complicated design, as a collection of objects purporting to repre- sent the different sides of the profession would make too large and confused a design to carry out artisti- cally. Also emblems or attributes of any reasonable number must necessarily be only partially expressive and therefore would emphasize phases of the profession. "One member might criticize a certain emblem or design as accentuating too strongly only the formal side of our profession, and another would find certain objects as representing only the uncontrollable aspects of Nature. "Pictorial representation requires the treatment of objects in different planes. Messrs. St. Gaudens and French object to this treatment as impossible of artistic execution and inappropriate to the design, object, and purpose of a medal or seal. The committee, therefore, concludes that a conventional treatment is more likely to be successful, not only in execution, but by avoiding invidious emphasis upon necessarily partial aspects of the profession. "We are proceeding upon these lines, and will report and submit an actual design at the earliest possible moment. Respectfully submitted, [Signed] Beatrix Jones Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. John Nolen." Then followed a talk on "Western Notes" by Mr. Ossian C. Simonds. (See synopsis of talk on page 90.) This was followed by a discussion of photographs brought by Mr. Simonds. March 5, 1907. Meeting and dinner at the Transportation Club, New York City. Present: Miss Jones, Messrs. Caparn, Greenleaf, Leavitt, Lowrie, F. L. Olmsted, J. C. Olmsted, and Vaux, Fellows; Messrs. Dawson, Gay, Morell, Pilat, Saltus, Schermerhorn, Underhill, and Vitale, Juniors. Discussion on the admission of Associate Members, a question already considered by the Executive Committee. Mr. Caparn spoke in favor of making the conditions of admission as inclusive as possible, as our art and ourselves would profit by the contact with interested and sympathetic people, and by the publicity and financial aid they would bring. He cited the National Sculpture Society as an instance of the benefits to be gained from lay members. Mr. F. L. Olmsted said that this is a technical organization, and the profit of meetings lies in their restriction to technical subjects. The admission of Associate Members, as a legal means of adding occasional members otherwise ineligible, might be of distinct advantage to the Society; but he thought that the attitude of the American Institute of Architects, or of the American Society of Civil Engineers, should be more our aim. Miss Jones opposed and Mr. Leavitt supported the admission of lay members. In reply to a question by Mr. Leavitt, it was explained that the stenographer was given up for reasons of economy. The Committee on Seal reported that many schemes had been tried, and three general classes consid- ered: (i) Decorated inscription. (2) Allegorical figure. (3) Conventional decorative design with emblems. They exhibited various experimental designs of more or less merit, of which, perhaps, the best was an ingenious conventionalization of the reverse curve. It had been found that material objects, such as trees, vegetation, and construction, were difficult to conventionalize without preponderance of the idea of formal work. Mr. Leavitt suggested a profile of a master of the art, a view of a well-known and typical garden such as the Villa d'Este, the Garden of Eden, the Creation of the World, or Time, as fit subjects for the seal. Mr. F. L. Olmsted moved that it is the sense of this meeting that the Executive Committee adopt a Seal for the Society after the Committee on Seal shall have secured the assent of a majority of the Fellows to a design, and that the expense of having a satisfactory design prepared be met by the Society, if not in excess of $250. Motion carried. November 12, 1907. Meeting and dinner at the Transportation Club, New York City. Present: Miss Jones, Messrs. Caparn, Greenleaf, Lowrie, F. L. Olmsted, Parsons, Pray, and Vaux, Fellows; Messrs. Brinckerhoff, Gay, Lay, and Underhill, Juniors. Mr. Lowrie, on behalf of the Committee on Invitation from American Institute of Architects, reported 26 TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY that conferences had been held with architects who asked that a Special Committee be appointed to confer with a committee from the American Institute of Architects. A paper, "A Great Water Park in Jamaica Bay, New York," by Mr. Harold A. Caparn (see page 92), was read. December 10, 1907. Meeting and dinner at the Transportation Club, New York City. Present: Miss Jones, Messrs. Caparn, Leavitt, Lowrie, F. L. Olmsted, Parsons, and Vaux, Fellows; Miss Coffin, Messrs. Chamberlin, Gay, Gallagher, Lay, Morell, and Nolen, Juniors. REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON REPRINTS OF WORK ON LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE The actual appearance in tangible form of a 1907 "Repton" invites a brief look backward to the origin of this edition, and a consideration of the steps leading to its publication. The suggestion originated with Mr. Parsons in the spring of 1906, at a meeting of the Society, to which he brought a copy of a volume describing the work of Puckler Von Muskau. The question arose in an informal discussion after the meeting: Why shouldn't the Society try to bring about the re-publication of some of these old classics? As a result of this suggestion, I presented a proposal to Messrs. Houghton Mifflin Company to reprint several of the best of the old garden books as a test of the public demand, and that, if these proved successful, to continue the series. It was proposed, as a start, to print Whately, Repton, and Puckler Von Muskau, and to follow them with some others to be agreed upon later, including, perhaps, the Essays of Mason, Horace Walpole, Scott, Pope, and Addison, and a translation of Girardin's work. It was believed that such volumes would make an interesting and, in many ways, an authoritative library on landscape architecture. After carrying on negotiations for some time, Houghton Mifflin Company agreed to issue Repton and Whately, taking all the financial responsibility themselves, except that the Society was to agree to back the enterprise to the extent of $400 worth of books on each volume issued. On this basis the preparation of the Repton was definitely taken up. It was decided to go back of the Loudon edition of Repton, which was issued many years after Repton's death, to the original edition. A careful examination of all of Repton's works showed that his best books were "Sketches and Hints," issued in 1795, when he was forty-three years old, and "Theory and Practice," issued in 1803, when he was fifty-one. The only other volume of importance was that entitled "Fragments," issued in 1816, and believed to be largely the work of Repton's son. The illustrations in the new volume are all reproduced from the original editions and, with one or two exceptions, are very satisfactory. Some compromises had to be made on account of the cost, the desire of the Society and the publishers both being to keep the price of the book down to $3, so that it might have a wider circulation. In editing the book the main idea was to make as few changes as possible and, with the exception of the elimination of some material clearly without interest or value at the present day, and the transference of the notes to the end of the book, there are few changes of any importance. The controlling principle was to retain the real flavor and integrity of the original work, so that even Repton himself, resting in the old churchyard at Aylsham in Norfolkshire, amid sweet-smelling roses and boxwood borders, would have no inclination to rise in his grave, or, if he did, it would simply be to give approval to our action. Importance now attaches to the sale of the book: The publishers are giving it wide and appropriate advertisement, and it is probable that the result for them will be such that they will be inclined, with less hesitation, to take up the other volumes. The Society has its guarantee to meet, and has already made substantial progress toward that end. Although the canvass has been on for less than two weeks there are already one hundred volumes subscribed for, which is more than half of the number for which we are responsible. The book is to be sold at $3 net, and the Society will deliver it postpaid at that price, so that it can be bought as cheap through the Society as at a bookstore. Moreover, the publishers have agreed to allow the Society a discount of 30 per cent on all volumes sold by it. This means that, if the Society should sell two hundred copies, it would have a profit of $180 less only the cost of handling and postage- It is hoped that the Society will be able to pass its guarantee and dispose of an even larger number. A special circular has been prepared with an order-blank on the Society, and these are available for the members' use. OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 27 It would seem that the work and trouble and responsibility involved in the publication of this series is justified on several grounds: (1) It is an honor to Repton and ourselves; it is an indication to the general public that the Society is a constructive influence collectively. (2) If this and the other books succeed even measurably, it will be a vindication of the good taste of the people. (3) Above all, the re-issue of such works as Repton and Whately will help to demonstrate to a larger public that the art to which we are dedicated is a fine one, founded upon great principles which, in the past, have had wide application and which, in the future, if we are to do great and permanent things, must increasingly prevail. Respectfully submitted, (Signed) John Nolen. Mr. Leavitt said that the American Institute of Architecture had recently added a schedule of not less than 10 per cent for works of landscape architecture. He spoke of the difficulties of fixing charges, as the varied character of our work precludes a charge always based on cost of execution; also of the difficulties of the landscape architect's position when called in to correct mistakes of the architect, which he was compelled to point out. He wished that means could be found by which such friction could be avoided. Mr. F. L. Olmsted suggested a committee to confer tentatively with the Institute, and find out why they adopted the new schedule for the work of landscape architects. He pointed out that it is not possible for us to take the attitude of trades-unions. He thought it unimportant whether a man be called architect or landscape architect, so long as he does the work well. There is no line of cleavage between them, and the time might come when a landscape architect might, as some architects do now, for instance, make a specialty of designing both house and grounds in small country and suburban places. Then followed a paper, "Cost of Landscape Development," by Mr. F. L. Olmsted. (See page 96.) January 14, 1908. Tenth annual meeting and dinner at the Transportation Club, New York City. Present: Miss Jones, Messrs. Caparn, Greenleaf, Lowrie, F. L. Olmsted, Parsons, Pentecost, and Vaux, Fellows; Miss Coffin, Messrs. Brinckerhoff, Chamberlin, Dow, Gatringer, Lay, Schermerhorn, Underhill, and Vitale, Juniors. Guest, Mr. C. Howard Walker. Report of Treasurer. — Total expenses for 1907, $290.24; Balance on hand, $636.51. The Treasurer stated that the greater part of this balance of $636.51 was at present tied up in the Knickerbocker Trust Company, now insolvent, which had been the depository of the A. S. L. A. since its organization, and that a new account had been opened at the Second National Bank. The Secretary reported that he had received $534.00 for 178 copies of the new edition of Repton, on which there was a profit of $43.08. There were, besides, thirty books sold and unsold, not yet paid for, to the value of $90. Then followed a speech, "The Relations of the Architect and the Landscape Architect," by Mr. C. Howard Walker, of Boston. (See page 103.) February 11, 1908. Meeting and dinner at the Transportation Club, New York City. Present: Miss Jones, Messrs. Caparn, Greenleaf, Lowrie, Parsons, J. C. Olmsted, and Vaux, Fellows; Messrs. Brinckerhoff, Gatringer, Gay, Hoth, Lay and Underhill, Juniors. Guest, Mr. C. Bowyer Vaux. A paper, "Interesting Facts in Regard to the Inception and Development of Central Park," by Samuel Parsons, Jr., City Landscape Architect of New York (see page 105), was read, accompanied by numerous photographs and plans explained by Mr. Gatringer. March 10, 1908. Meeting and dinner at the Hotel Brunswick, Boston, Mass. Present: Messrs. Kennard, Manning, F. L. Olmsted, J. C. Olmsted, Pray, Shurtleff, and Vaux, Fellows; Messrs. Brinckerhoff, Dawson, Gallagher, Hubbard, Kellaway, Lay, Movius, Negus, and Nolen, Juniors. Guest, Mr. T. M. Clark. Mr. Shurtleff spoke on schemes for Municipal Improvements in Boston, and the way in which these schemes would be regarded by German experts. The pamphlet published by a committee of the Boston Society of Architects made the first move for improvement, a move which has resulted in the appointment of a Commission by the Mayor. This 28 AMERICAN SOCIETY OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS Committee did not endorse any of the schemes, but simply gave them publicity in the hope of provoking discussion. Mr. Shurtleff's remarks were essentially as given on page m, in which the notes refer to lantern-slides reproduced elsewhere. Mr. H. J. Clark was then introduced, and spoke of his scheme for new docks in Boston. He said there was a certain prospect of having such things to design. "Two years ago Hill said that the United States had reached its capacity for exporting. The railroads have felt this, and we hear of congestion in freight yards, and schemes for larger docks in New York have been proposed, as in Jamaica Bay, where it is said every trunk-line railroad has promised to build tunnels and connections. "The railroads feel the necessity of better water transportation. "The railroads should come to the steamer to deliver goods instead of lightering or carting. But it is difficult to bring the railroads to the steamers. "Hamburg is three hundred miles farther from the sea than Antwerp, its rival, where there are four miles of piers with parallel warehouse. There is a track next to the water, then the warehouse, then four more tracks. There is great trouble in getting across the tracks. "At Hamburg perpendicular, or finger-piers, one kilo long, were built with tracks and warehouses on the piers. This made it easier to get the goods on the steamers, and Hamburg is now the first port in the world. "Antwerp is now trying the same plan with nine piers 1,200 meters long. "Where shall we put such piers in Boston? At South Boston, where they will be easily reached from the President Roads and where they can be a mile long, which is necessary for our freight trains. The modern steamer is 1,000 feet long. The Commercial pier, the longest on the coast, is 1,200 feet. "Loading is best done at Liverpool where the steamer unloads into a shed, moves ahead and fills with waiting cargo. It takes four days there, and ten days in Boston." Mr. Clark then discussed various types of cranes for loading. December 29, 1908. Meeting and dinner at the Transportation Club, New York City. Present: Miss Jones, Messrs. Caparn, Greenleaf, Lowrie, Parsons, and Vitale, Fellows; Messrs. Gay, Lay, Morell and Nichols, Juniors. The Committee on Seal reported progress, and Miss Jones was empowered (on motion of Mr. Vitale) "to consult with some specialist in design in regard to the character of the seal, and the cost of the design," and was allowed $100.00 for this purpose. Mr. Nichols showed some photographs of the G. B. Post, Jr., house in Bernardsville, illustrating his contention that a formal setting, or base, is necessary for a large house set on a hill-top, just as a statue must have a pedestal. Mr. Caparn thought there were cases where an informal or naturalesque setting would be not only preferable, but the only one possible. Following this it was admitted that in some cases the landscape and setting must dominate, as in the picturesque castles of the Rhine, and that in other cases the landscape must be subordinate to the formality and architectural qualities of the house. LARGE TREE PLANTING* By JAMES L. GREENLEAF (Meeting of March 14. 1905) MY desire is to bring out the opinions of others on the subject of large tree planting. Some of these I fully anticipate will be in opposition to all large tree moving. When a client some time ago was expressing to me his desire to have results quickly, I remarked to him that it required a young landscape architect to plan for planting large trees. The older men knew better than to do it. I think there is a great deal of truth in this, because it does not stand to reason that a growth long established can be violently taken from its environment and plunged into new conditions without something of a shock. We know how hard it is to teach an old dog new tricks, and if a tree had a voice to speak, I do not doubt it would enter even louder protests against being interfered with. Nevertheless, conditions and not theories confront us; and it is doubtless the general experience that numerous cases arise where the inducements to use large trees for immediate effect are imperative. Assuming that work of this character must be done more or less frequently, what are the best methods of handling it, under various conditions? We all know that it is possible successfully to move large trees, although success will not invariably follow the most earnest efforts. I should like to hear from anyone who has had experience of this nature in hotter and drier climates than ours. Is large tree moving feasible in Nebraska, for example, and under what conditions? I imagine the necessity for moving big trees has not arisen to any extent on the Pacific coast, but has any work of that nature been done there? Can any one tell us of big tree moving in the far South? And how about handling palmetto trees, for example? Returing to the consideration of large tree moving, as we meet the problem in this region, I presume we are all agreed upon the value of root-pruning a year or two previous to moving, by digging a circular trench around the tree. If this is filled back with good soil the tree is induced to throw into it a large amount of fresh, young, fibrous roots. Of course, the more fibrous the root-system, the greater the facility with which the tree will take hold upon its new conditions after planting. But I have known cases in which the root-pruning did not work to any material advantage, and for the following reason: Suppose the root-pruned tree is to be moved in winter, when it is impracticable to rake out and preserve the lateral fibers, then the course of procedure is to dig the ball larger than the root-pruning ball, in order to include the new fiber, but this practically results in the breaking, or slumping off, of the sides of the ball formed of the material into which the new fiber has grown. As the sides loosen and fall off, they take the fibrous roots with them and, after all, the ball is reduced practically to the dimensions of the root-pruning ball. Of course, so far as the tree has been forced into throwing out fresh fiber into this ball, the conditions for moving it have been improved. I have, perhaps, sketched an extreme situation in the foregoing remarks, and yet, is it not more or less the case whenever one tries to move a recently root-pruned tree under freezing conditions? *Paper sent out to members in advance of the meeting of March 14, 1905, for discussion at that meeting. (29) 3 o TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY Of course, if the root-pruned tree is moved in fall or spring, and the dirt is raked out from among the fibers on the sides of the ball to whatever extent is necessary to prevent their being broken off, then these projecting fibrous roots may be of very considerable value. These thoughts lead naturally to the discussion of the relative merits of moving with a solid ball of earth, and the opposite course, which is to rake out pretty much all the earth and preserve all the roots. The latter method is the better theory, but the question is whether it is always the better practice. The ideal, as proclaimed by a planter on Long Island, is to preserve all the roots to their uttermost limit, tying them up carefully. Of course, by this means the weight to be handled is greatly reduced, and it may be pos- sible to transport trees that would otherwise be out of the question, except with special engineering appliances. Arriving at the place of planting, every root is supposed to be carefully spread out and firmly tamped in good soil, when they will take up again the operations for which nature intended them. It is for such reasons that I have stated this to be the more perfect theory of transplanting. The other method may be defined as an arbitrary chopping off of all roots outside of a certain limit, and transporting everything within that circumference, keeping undis- turbed as much as possible all contained roots and soil. Of course, it is a great advantage to keep the roots in the actual material in which they have grown, and if it were possible to get all the roots by this method there would be nothing to say against it. This is not practicable, however, because of the enormous weight of the balls, and, therefore, roots are chopped off and a great shock is given to the constitution of the tree. In theory, this method is inferior to the other; but, I repeat, it is a question if it is not often preferable. The raking-out method, by which all the roots are saved, is a beautiful idea, and, in some cases can perhaps be nearly attained. If one is working in the open, level or undu- lating country, with easy problems of transportation, a tree may possibly be so dug, the roots protected and kept moist, and the tree planted without delay. In hilly regions, however, and where all sorts of delays are possible, where trees have very likely to be hauled through some narrow lane, and widely projecting masses of roots would be injured, it is a grave question whether one will actually attain the ideal conditions that the raking out and preserving of all the roots calls for. It is the unexpected that happens in tree planting, particularly if you are working in a mountainous district, and one can generally count upon having delays caused by breakdown and no end of little difficulties. For reasons such as these, I am inclined to advocate the solid-ball method of moving large trees. There are arguments for and against the moving of trees in winter weather. In case of very sandy soils it is impossible to carry balls except when they are frozen solid. The conditions of weather that freeze them, however, are not the best for handling them. It is very injurious to an exposed ball to have the roots alternately thawing and freezing, and it is a very difficult matter absolutely to protect them against exposure during trans- portation. Then, again, the conditions for planting are not of the best. Special care has to be taken to keep a quantity of unfrozen loam on hand with which to tamp around and under the ball. For these and other reasons, I am inclined to advocate the moving in late fall or the early spring, in case the conditions of soil make it possible to transport a sufficient ball. On the whole, conditions generally combine to make the fall a better time for work. The roads are very uncertain in springtime, and the ground is liable to cut up to a great depth. Of course the system whereby the earth is raked out and all the roots preserved is impossible to use in winter weather. OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 31 My own practice has been to move large trees with balls. I, for one, would like very much to hear of the actual experience of some of our members with the other method of tree moving. There are practical men who strongly advocate the moving of such trees as maples in the spring, just before the buds break, using the process of raking out and saving all the roots. Speaking of what others advocate, we doubtless all have met the tree mover who will undertake to "move trees any month of the year, but who prefers not to move in July and August." Has any one of us ever had the nerve to move trees in midsummer? Big tree moving as applied to conifers is an even more serious problem. In this region we look upon the conifers as among the most difficult of our trees to plant and raise, and I think very few want to undertake the transplanting of really large ones. There are regions, however, where the conifers grow more readily and the climate seems kinder to them, where one comes to have little more hesitation in handling the native evergreens than we feel here with the maple. Experience on the New England coast has hardened me to transplanting conifers, which I would not do more than dream about handling in this region. I am confident that on certain portions of the New England coast, at least, there is no difficulty at all in transplanting conifers 20 or 25 feet in height with entire safety. They are best taken with frozen balls. I have seen a planting made two years ago down east by one of the founders of this society, in which a large quantity of spruce and pine from 15 to 25 feet in height were used. This planting has been very successful and is looking well. The one responsible for it can doubtless give us some valuable information, based on his experience, if he is so inclined. I feel quite sure that if the planting referred to was near New York many of the larger trees would have had to be replaced. Big evergreen moving is a very different problem in New Jersey from what it is on the Maine coast. I think one reason for this is the climate; the damp, foggy weather of Maine is more favorable to conifers. Another reason lies in the steady cold of the winter. One can count there upon a couple of months or more in which the roots will remain frozen, and balls of the trees will be solid lumps of ice and frozen dirt. The contractors up there think nothing of hauling a lot of trees out, either deciduous or evergreen, and leaving them around on the ground like so much building material, until they are ready to plant them. I must admit that while it gives one a shock to see this, yet when everything is frozen solid and the entire ball is absolutely inert and remains so, whether in the air or in the ground, I can find no very strong argument against allowing the trees to stand around awaiting the convenience of the planter. All this is very different from the anxiety with which we hurry trees into the ground in this region in winter weather for fear a thaw may come, if for no other reason. I have, however, at this writing, two or three deciduous trees stranded in the snow-drifts along a roadside in New Jersey. I have not abandoned hope, but I have ceased worrying about them. I feel that it is entirely feasible to move moderate-sized evergreens in this region up to, say, 15 or 20 feet in height, by proper handling, provided great care is given them; but, when it comes to large trees, the only way to move them successfully, if at all, is to treat each tree as an engineering problem and take all that belongs to it. To be sure, we occasionally see large pines and spruces moved even here. I have in mind some spruces which I happened to pass when they were being moved last fall, not far from New York, 32 TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY that were certainly 40 feet high, and I am safe in saying that the balls were not over 7 feet in diameter. The man for whom they were moved is doubtless congratulating himself on the beauty of his evergreens this winter. I think we all know what his sentiments will be next season, if not sooner. I once had a tree-moving firm offer to transplant for me a great hemlock some two feet in diameter, growing on a steep bank, and to guarantee it. Needless to say, I did not accept, but the incident serves to show the optimism of the average tree-moving firm; that is, the initial optimism instinctive with them when talking of a prospective deal. I am trying, this winter, some moving of a rather critical nature in New England; and, while I have a great degree of confidence in the results, yet at the same time I do not feel so sure as with work that I already have abundant precedent for. There is now on the skids, moving over frozen ground, a spruce over 40 feet in height — a specimen branched to the ground. This tree may fail me, but I think I have reason for con- siderable confidence. The frozen ball contains practically all its roots. The fact that its weight is estimated at twenty tons is demonstration that a serious attempt is being made to do justice to the tree. I should greatly like to hear the views of others about the feasibility of transplanting large evergreens, and if I could look into the future with greater certainty, I would give you the results of the experience I am preparing for myself this winter. Doubtless there are some who will say they would rather I should take the experience and they will take the results. In regard to the details of planting, has anyone facts to give us concerning planting in conditions different from those in which the tree grew? How about planting on a hillside a tree which grew naturally on a level, and thus burying one side of the ball perhaps 4 or 5 feet deep? What is there in the old-country idea that a tree should always be planted in the same relations to the points of the compass as those in which it grew? Do you advocate the mingling of well-rotted manure in the loam with which the tree is planted, or would you use it as a mulch after planting, relying on watering and rains to carry it to the roots? Do you advocate the use of ground bone mingled with the loam? Do you think it worth while to lay a series of tile carrying water about the ball? Or would you set tile upright in the ground about the ball, to be filled with water? Or would you depend solely upon the water soaking through from the surface? What does experience dictate concerning the moving of trees from a low-lying wet ground to upland situations? Is it advisable to cut back the branches when a large tree is transplanted? Would you simply give a general shearing off of the outermost twigs, or would you leave the tree absolutely untrimmed until it had a chance to establish new roots? I have seen maples which had been rather severely topped in order to maintain a certain height in a formal scheme where they were transplanted, fail absolutely within a year. It was not conclusively demonstrated that the failure was due to topping, but I strongly suspect this was the principal cause. The practice is advocated by some of wrapping the trunks of newly transplanted trees with canvas or with straw rope, the object being to minimize evaporation from the bark OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 33 and keep it cool. The advantage claimed for the straw rope is that it will gradually waste away and accustom the bark to exposure. The careful guying or anchoring of large trees I consider an important matter, although I know many rely upon careful planting or the weight of the ball to hold the tree in place. Often this will suffice, but it is the exceptional for which one must provide. I have seen large trees which had been planted the previous fall and were doing well, tilted at an angle of 20 degrees from the vertical by the wind of a July thunderstorm. In many cases, doubtless, the weight of the ball does sufficiently anchor the tree, but it is not to be depended upon. One disadvantage of a winter transplanting is that unequal settling is very liable to occur in the following spring. Of course, every precaution should be taken to true the beds and fit them to the ball before planting; but the chances are that in any case where vertical alignment is essential, some readjustment will be necessary the next season. A great deal might be said regarding the relative suitability of different kinds of trees for transplanting, about the shape, character of branching, and conditions of health advisable in any specimen to be moved, etc.; but, perhaps, enough has been suggested for immediate discussion. I trust this paper will induce discussion. I hope that not everyone will agree with such opinions as I have expressed. After all is said and done, I come back to the safe and con- servative stand that, unless circumstances make it especially desirable, I prefer to plant small trees in the best possible manner and await results. Mr. Langton: The large tree seems to be rampant in the land, and very few of us there are who- are not possessed of clients who are desirous of having a full-grown tree put in their ground while they wait. Whether or not this is to be a success only the future can tell. To my mind, the success or lack of success will depend largely upon whether the tree has been prepared beforehand for this heroic treatment. I saw, only the past week, on a large estate, two maples that must have been twelve inches in diameter, and a pin oak that was twelve inches or fourteen inches in diameter, that had been moved now about three years, and they have every evidence of thriving. This last year's growth was vigorous. In my own practice some conifers 16 to 18 feet high were moved without any setback at all, and seem to have gotten ahead. Those who are sufficiently intelligent to be patient, and take medium-sized trees, will usually get the best results; but, if laborers and superintendents can be had who are sufficiently painstaking in taking out the roots, there seems to be no reason, from the experience 1 have had, why, if preliminary arrange- ments be made to move the tree, and the tree be prepared for this ordeal, the largest of trees may not be moved successfully. Mr. Vaux: My experience in moving trees of large size first occurred about twenty years ago near Newport. Mr. Edwin Booth wanted some large trees at a place he had at Seconnet, and he was willing to pay what it would cost to get the trees over there and plant them. He had first to find trees in the neigh- borhood. There were some large elms, about a foot in diameter, and they were moved in the winter with a ball and put in very carefully — some eight or ten of them — and did very well the first year. They were about ten inches in diameter, and the ball was twelve feet across — about as large as could be moved without having a wagon. I went down and looked the trees over about eight years after they had been moved. They had just about held their own, with no growth in the eight years, and they looked rather feeble; but the immediate effect was attained, and it seems to me that, where people want the immediate effect and are willing to pay for it, we shall certainly have to use the new appliances for moving trees. The popular idea of taking a tree about six inches in diameter, which you can move easily, is the best way, of course but those who are rich do not want to do that. In a great many cases, we shall have to meet the want of the people for an immediate effect, and it seems to me that that can be done, if we replace the trees that die. Of course, we cannot do that along an avenue. That can be done only on grounds where there is irreg- ular planting. I think there is a pretty sure failure where the avenue trees are moved, because they will not come up to the standard. 34 TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY Mr. Parsons: I am one of the individuals who does not believe in moving big trees. I believe that a tree, if properly prepared (that is, by one, two, or three years' root-pruning) and properly nourished and stimulated to develop a new set of fibers (which is very rarely done) can be moved with a reasonable degree of success. But, when I say that I do not believe in moving large trees, I am governed by the experience I have had. I commenced to move large trees twenty-five years ago for Mr. Dana. Some of them were eight, ten, and eighteen inches in diameter. I moved one large cut-leaved beech (or superintended it) at that time that was probably forty feet high and thirty-five feet in diameter. It took ten horses to move it on a sled, and three days, and that tree stands today on Mr. Dana's lawn and is alive. But I do not want such trees. In that whole time these trees have not grown as much as three or four feet, and they have a certain stunted appearance. They are not good trees, and it is of no use pretending that they are good trees. I contend that the percentage of trees that really thrive in transplanting — and I mean by "thrive," grow — is so small that it is not just to spend money in that way for a client. If those who move trees always took exactly the right tree, with the right roots, and the right condition of fiber and used the right appliances, and had the necessary experience, — and I do not deny that the ideal tree can be found, — it might be reason- able to spend money on it. The percentage of large trees moved successfully is, however, likely to be very small, as these ideal trees are very rare. The chances of success are too small, therefore, for me to believe in using large trees. Miss Jones: My experience in moving large trees has been very much the same as Mr. Parsons, — that the large trees do not grow, and they do not pay for themselves in any way. The question that interests me, especially, is the moving of trees from low-lying, wet ground to upland situations, which I have done with considerable success; that is, trees which are as large as I care to move, say eight inches in diameter. I have moved some maples from a swamp in which they grew so that their roots were up in the ground, to an upland hill, quite dry, some years ago, and those trees have done as well as if they were still in a swamp. As to other trees, I have no knowledge, as I have never transplanted them. I thought I would try these trees, as they were out of the ground, and two of them were needed on a hill. My practice is not to cut back the branches, but to leave the tree as it comes out of the ground, so as to see which branches will grow, and then, of course, to thin out the ones that die. I have never topped trees, simply because I have never happened to plant big trees where they needed to be topped, and I should certainly dislike to do it very much. Mr. Greenleaf does not say that failure was due to topping, but he sus- pects that this was the case. In all my personal experience, I have never laid tile around the ball, nor have I put tile into the ball to carry water. The trees have always been watered carefully — at least the men have been told to water them carefully every evening; and, then, of course, where it is possible, the tree is prepared for about two years in advance. Personally, I try to move trees without the balls — without the frozen balls — because my experience has been that trees moved with the roots taken out succeed better than those moved in winter, with the exception of a very few which I have moved in Maine, and there the winter is so long that you run no risk of having the ball thaw away. It seems practically the only sensible way of having them moved in that part of the country, and there it succeeds admirably. Mr. Leavitt: I feel, with regard to large tree moving, that it is desirable only where quick results are absolutely demanded. I have occasionally transplanted trees from eight to ten inches in diameter successfully, but I have very rarely attempted it. Wherever I have done it, I have always tried to plant small trees in case of failure, as I did not have any confidence in it. I feel that the moving of trees in the west, or dry countries, is practically impossible, as the evaporation from the bark and the lack of moisture to replace the evaporation impose too severe a strain. Furthermore, from some observations that I have made in Colorado, I am convinced that not only the trees which are planted, whether small or large, but also the trees which are growing naturally are put to a severe test every spring by lack of moisture, on account of the frozen ground. The ditches from which these trees are irrigated are almost entirely cut off late in autumn, and the water not turned in again until the spring, and the people wonder why the trees die. As a matter of fact, they are without any moisture at all, for the cold period, in Denver, and I under- stand that this is so in other irrigation districts, though I am not familiar with them. In regard to moving trees with a ball, or by means of taking out the roots and tying them up, my experience has been that it is better to try the ball in any case, and then handle as many of the roots as you can beside, since the roots are so bruised and twisted by attempting to take care of them, and they are so dried out and exposed ordi- narily, that they are rendered practically useless. If a proper cradle can be made, and the roots absolutely protected by moss or burlap, I think that the theory of doing away with the ball would be practicable; but it is so difficult to get workmen to do it that it is almost out of the question. OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 35 In regard to the time, it seems to me that the autumn is the best time, if the roots can be protected, as the tree is well set and, if puddled with water, which I have found an excellent thing to get the earth entirely around the roots, the tree starts off in the spring without any delay and, if it is properly guyed, it has not had the little rootlets rubbed off. Whereas, if it is planted in midwinter or early spring, the ground being frozen, it is difficult to pack the soil about the rootlets, and it never gets a firm hold In regard to the orientation of the tree, I believe thoroughly that there is something in that. A tree growing has certain structural strength in its roots and in its branches, and it has grown to withstand the winds coming generally from one direction — the hardest winds. When it is transplanted and all its strength is reversed, the structure must be subjected to a disastrous strain, which may have a great deal to do with its dying. I have noticed in many places, where the sparse growths were trimmed off, leaving a few trees which I hoped to maintain and have branch out, that they very often blew down or died when the protection was removed. They had evidently grown for one condition, and when submitted to another, — though the ground had not been disturbed, — they failed, and I think that is something to be considered in orienting a tree. Mr. Lowrie: One fact has not been specially touched upon, and that is the desirability of having large trees in certain instances. By large trees, I do not mean a tree which is a foot or eighteen inches in diameter, necessarily, but one which may be from four to eight inches in diameter, and I think there are cases where such a tree is very desirable, and almost any expense can properly be incurred in order to secure it. Take, for instance, a case where you have a house in an absolutely treeless plot of ground — a new house, say. I think if you can get two or three fairly good-sized trees established near that house, it will give an effect of age; and I am of the opinion that they are far better than all the shrubbery and small trees you could plant. I have in mind one particular instance of a fern-leaved beech, which I transplanted about twelve years ago. It was a tree about fifteen or eighteen feet high, and about five inches in diameter at the butt. I moved it with a ball, and for about two years it stood still, but was in a fairly live condition; after that, it grew very successfully, and is now, I suppose, twenty-five feet high and, say, eight inches in diameter, and a very fresh and very handsome fern-leaved beech. The success of that work was due to the careful securing of the roots — it not being an easy tree to move — and the plentiful use of water during the first year or so. I think that one-half the cause of success in moving large trees is the thorough watering. Miss Bullard not being present, a letter from her was read by the President from which the following is quoted: I am sure we all agree with the author of the paper on one point, i. e., that we should prefer to plant small trees in the best possible manner and await results. Personally I have endeavored, and generally succeeded, in avoiding the risk, and the long-continued nervous strain involved in the other course, the securing of "immediate effect" by moving large trees, although sometimes it is insisted upon, and attended with varying results. As a bit of ancient history, I recall the apparently reckless way in which the large trees were moved about during the construction days of Prospect Park in Brooklyn, when it became necessary to break up the hard lines and solid blocks of woodland, left by the market-garden farms. The large maples and other trees were whirled out of the wood-edges into the open meadows, on the large-wheeled apparatus, invented, I believe, by one of the master-gardeners. As I remember it, very large forces of men were then employed, and the work was being rushed to please the tax-payers, by opening up the long "West Drive," and the meadows and woodlands. Each operation was rushed with amazing rapidity but with military precision and there was no hesitation about remaining after hours to complete the work. Most of the Park officers, and many of the men, had been with the armies of the Civil War, and the discipline was perfect. These conditions may have helped in some measure to insure the success which attended most of these transplant- ings. No doubt, infinite care was exercised by those in authority in the selection of the trees, and in the times of planting, which, as I recall, were in the spring, the fall, and sometimes, in the winter with immense frozen balls. My very youthful interest in it all at the time, was chiefly in the spectacular effect of the transformation scenes, as the hard wood-edges were broken into natural lines, and the fine individual trees took their places upon the lawns and meadows and along the driveways, with so little apparent disturbance of their comfort and well-being. What was the exact proportion of loss I am, naturally, unable to state, but I do remember the stress which was laid upon the careful preparation of the immense holes, the good clean loam, and the top dressing, and the mulching; this last, especially, seemed to be a matter of great moment and careful attention until the tree had become thoroughly established. 36 AMERICAN SOCIETY OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS A very successful tree planter whom I used to employ made determined effort to retain the normal position of the trees with regard to points of compass, whatever may have been my wish with regard to the artistic effect. He generally "cut back" much less severely than is usually the custom. He had no rule or formula, that I could discover, but a sort of instinct, one might almost fancy it a sympathy, for the needs and requirements of the individual specimens. And his plantings were very successful, where the subse- quent care was at all adequate. This, of course, we could not always control. He would never permit the rich fertilizer to come in contact, directly, with the roots, but used it on top of the "clean loam" in which the tree was planted. Mr. Olmsted: My experience has been of rather a vague character. That is to say, I have not had personal direction of tree moving, but have had practically all the experiences that have been mentioned going on under my general direction. I think that there is no question but that every landscape architect ought to do what he can in the majority of cases to dissuade clients from undertaking the removal of large trees, and, if he cannot do that, at least he ought to reduce the number to be moved as much as possible, so as to avoid the waste of money and lack of success which cannot fail to be injurious to landscape architects, as well as to the practical men engaged in moving the trees. I think a great many tree-moving concerns have sprung up all over the country, ready to move large trees, because they can get employment in that way from clients who have money and no experience, and, from my knowledge of the results, I think they ought to be discouraged. I think that there are cases, as Mr. Lowrie says, when landscape architects may con- cede that the moving of a few trees is worth the effort; but I think the effort, in such cases, ought to be very much more thorough than it often has been. I am rather accustomed to tell clients who want large trees that it is a matter of $1,000 to $2,000 per tree. If they can put up with that, then I am willing to have it done, provided there are some chances of success. There are two trees which surprise me with the success of their moving in Graceland Cemetery. They are elms and stand near the crematory. One was moved fourteen miles. They were shown to me, and they are an actual success. One was eighteen inches in diam- eter and the other twenty inches. They are large in appearance, about sixty feet high, and with an equal spread of branches. They were moved, of course, at great expense. I was told the cost. I think it was $3,000. In that case, all the roots were removed, saved very carefully to the extreme end, and the result was that there were over fifty large roots that were from thirty to forty or fifty feet long sticking out in all directions. They were carefully wrapped in moss and burlap, and kept moist and protected from breaking in the moving and were tied up to the upper part of the trunk one by one. It was a very heavy thing to move, and they had to take away the telegraph wires and telegraph poles, as well as some trees along the road, which, of course, added a great deal to the expense; but, with the thorough preparation of the ground, and the extreme care in putting the roots in moss, and all that, and spreading them carefully, and watering them thoroughly for several years, they actually were a perfect success. Wild plants were planted under them — such as the aster and golden rod and ferns, and near-by were some bushes, so that the total effect was remarkably picturesque and natural. I do not think anyone would suspect that they had been moved. The great difficulty in moving trees is to find men who will take the necessary pains; it is almost impossible to give instructions to anybody else, and the landscape architect has to direct everything himself, with the sense of responsibility for the result, and practically regardless of expense. The contract system is to be condemned. The matter of protecting the trunk from the sun has not been touched upon. I think it is important in respect to any trunk, and it seems to me that if the protection could be properly removed the trees would not die; but it is simply let fall off, and then very often it causes the tree to decay, and does more harm than good. ITALIAN GARDENS By FERRUCCIO VITALE (Meeting of April 18. 1905) IF I should be asked what an Italian garden is, it would be difficult to reply. It would be much easier to say what it is not. It is not such a concentration of stone or marble benches, wells, statues, and pergolas, in a small, geometrically shaped and generally flat piece of ground, as I have mostly seen called by the name. A nation, as a whole, produces the art which the nature of its land, the character of its people, and the climate suggest. An artist, individually, produces what his environment, what his personality, and what his studies dictate; but the influence of the surroundings in which he was born and raised is much more intense and tenacious than all the others. It is perhaps for this reason that, although we are willing to give up, so to speak, in matters of engineering and detail, which were determined in our minds after training and experience, we are not equally willing to give up in matters of conception and design. Italy, if we study its architecture or anything else, must be considered as an aggregation of parts more or less different from each other, and not as a whole. The political divisions, which have kept the country for centuries under different rules and rulers, have divided, also, the people of the various provinces, and radically molded in different ways their intellectual and artistic tendencies. Moreover, the geographical form of Italy, its enormous length in proportion to its width, its large northern plains, and its hilly or mountainous aspect in the central and southern parts, cause a much greater variety of climate than is commonly recognized when one speaks of its blue skies and sunny slopes. I would, therefore, begin by making the following division: Lombardy; Venice; Genoa and the Riviera; Tuscany; the Pontifical States; the ex-kingdom of the two Sicilies. I do not think it worth while to take into separate account the gardens of Piedmont, because, in my opinion, they might, with but few exceptions, be more properly included among French rather than among Italian gardens; for France, Piedmont's close neighbor, has at all times exercised a great influence upon that small province. Lombardy, the Venetian States, Genoa and its Riviera, differ considerably in their physical aspect. The first is a wide and continuous plain, crowned by the lake region; the second is partly covered by picturesque volcanic hills, while the third may be considered as a narrow strip of mountainous land which forms a frame of granite to one of the most beautiful bays in the world. But all three have a point in common — and a very influential one for the purpose of our study — namely, the character of the people in the days when landscape architecture was in its bloom. All three of these provinces possessed a large number of very wealthy nobles, engaged in maritime commerce or speculation, who patron- ized art as a diversion from their daily cares in business. Foreign influence was necessarily very strong with these men who, as a rule, traveled widely. The most striking effect of this influence may be seen in Genoese and Venetian architecture where the French, Spanish, and Moorish styles are frequently very evident. Outside of this wealthy coterie, the people took no interest whatsoever in art. Thrifty and industrious, they attended only to the art of making money; the great artists, therefore, were, with few exceptions, imported from other provinces. The same character has pre- (37) 38 TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY vailed to this day with the people of Genoa and Lombardy, and the same effects may readily be seen in their modern products of art. Commercialism is everywhere the basis of the work. To please the client's taste, and to make a show of his wealth is the sole object of the artist, who derives large profits from his adulation. The Venetian State has had the advantage over the others in giving birth to an architect who may be considered a star of the first class — Palladio. To this man, and to him alone, is due a real type of Venetian conception in architecture, and everyone of you, I feel sure, remembers the Palazzo dei Signori and the Villa Giacomelli. Vicenza, Verona, Padua, and Venice have many examples of his work, and the summer country residences for the wealthy Venetians, ancient and modern alike, have all borrowed, more or less, from the beautiful construction of the gardens of Villa Giacomelli at Maser. I should like to consider this villa in detail, as it belonged to my ancestors for centuries, but I cannot stop to enlarge upon it now as I have more important work to consider. In Tuscany, we find, in my opinion, the truest exponents of a simple, pure, unpre- tentious, and sincerely inspired architecture, one which I believe worthy of constituting a standard for all those who desire today to engage in the art of gardening. Tuscany forms a curious-enough exception in the world of art. It is a country of self-made people, where everyone, both rich and poor, noble and civilian, educated and ignorant, take, and have always taken, an active interest in art. Its people consider literature, painting, sculpture, music, and architecture as something that cannot be the private property of a few privileged men, but a property that belongs to the world at large and to each of them in particular. Tuscany has never had a nobility of the blood, and its entire history is a history of democ- racy. Especially is this true of Florence; her wealthy merchants, the Pitti, the Strozzi, the Riccardi, the Serristori, and others— all men of considerable taste, and continually thrown into contact with all classes of people on account of the political system of those times, had a staff of artists of all kinds at their permanent service, who lived with them and studied with them the problems they had to solve. The rest of the people were "taken in," so to speak, in this collective work through the nightly discussions at the "Arti" gatherings; or, to use a modern term, at the meetings of the trades-unions of those days. The natural result of such a system is obvious. In the first place, it made possible a homo- geneity of work and, in the second place, the masses of the people were continually being educated and kept in condition to produce new artists at all times. Whoever is familiar with Florentine architecture, or the architecture of Pisa, Lucca, and Siena, will undoubtedly recollect the uniformity of style, the simplicity, the lack of pretense, even in such a colossal work as the Pitti Palace. Equally pure in line and sober in ornamentation is the Tuscan art of gardening, although today very few of the old gardens stand as they were originally laid out, many villas having fallen into the hands of foreigners who have introduced "modern improvements" into the old fabrics, and have, more or less, altered the original design. However, the main features of the works still survive to show the conceptions of the different architects. The site for the villa was almost invari- ably selected at the top of a hill or well up its sunny slope, so as to command the largest possible view from every window of the house and from as many points of the garden as its architectural features would allow. This is a very essential point. Water conditions, nature of soil, etc., were, of course, taken into consideration, but were factors quite secondary to the one I have mentioned. Once determined where to build, the next problem to solve OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 39 was bow to build, and to the solution of this problem the artist's mind was entirely devoted for a long time. At this point of the study enter into play taste, sentiment, and personality, and, for this reason, it is impossible to analyze these works of art, or to derive a rule or a formula from them. Three characteristics we invariably find, and they, together with the beau- tiful vistas the place could afford, constituted two-thirds of their charm. These three characteristics are simplicity, an intimate relation between garden and house, and complete seclusion. Their simplicity was due to the instinctive and intense dislike that all Tuscans feel toward any exterior display or ornamentation. No matter how superb the interior of the house, or how rich and vast the property might be, the outside appearances were invariably demure and sober — straight lines, vast terraces sustained by undecorated walls, wide alleys and walks, a few statues and fountains. The planting outside the flower- garden was also simple: high hedges along the walks; beautiful indigenous trees, especially to form alleys; formal beds wherever there was a concourse or a fountain; many terra- cotta vases holding lemon trees; plenty of shaded walks and corners where a stone or marble seat offered timely rest, and, in most cases, the enjoyment of a beautiful view. A close relation between the house and grounds always existed, so that villa and garden were harmoniously united. To this effect, around the house, an esplanade, or first terrace, was, more or less laboriously, architecturally treated, and was connected by a staircase with a lower terrace designed as a flower-garden, so that two main objects were obtained: to have a connecting link between house and garden, and to have a part of the grounds (the nearest to the residence) whence the eye could embrace at a glance the whole of the design and enjoy its beauty and fascination of color. Very often, a third still lower terrace was less elaborately treated, as if the intention of the architect was gradually to prepare the visitor for the end of the formal design, and for the beginning of the picturesque surroundings of nature. It is necessary to emphasize the essentiality of seclusion. In general, the Italian style of landscape architecture is formal, and in its formality consist its originality and beauty. By enclosing the garden, a frame, or setting, is created which gives relief to the design, limits the area from which the eye can "take in" the effect, and compels it to abstract the enclosed part from the rest of the environment; and, last but not least, seclusion gives privacy. The good old continental practice of making a closed-in estate a little world of one's own is set at naught by the average builder. The absence of fences and tree-screens throws what should be the owner's exclusive domain open to public invasion, and his neighbor's business becomes as important as his own. This is particularly true of the suburban "lot," a poor little beast, bestraddled by a good, healthy house, the tendency of which to reach out is nipped by circumstances which compel it to pull in both knees and elbows to escape its neighbors. This seclusion is especially desirable in the flower-gardens proper, where I like to fancy the dames of old spending part of their day's time with their most cherished flowers enjoying them, petting them, as it were, to make them respond to their wishes. This part of the estate is, in the open air, what the drawing-room is in the house, and as no one would like to have outsiders look into the living part of the residence, in the same way no one should want outsiders to look into the living part of the garden. Many a Tuscan villa had a small flower-garden, well screened by high walls, and 4 o TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY immediately accessible by a side entrance of the house. Here the lady's favorite flowers were cultivated, mainly by herself for her own pleasure; a pergola or "berceau" was provided to shade a comfortable place wherein to lounge and read and escape the oppres- sion of indoor air during the hot season. In my opinion, every villa garden should have such a flower-garden as something apart from, though contiguous to, the residence, not completely shadeless (as most flower-gardens are built today), but close to the villa, even at the expense of the kitchen-yard or the drying-ground, which, for the convenience of the servants, and with very little artistic sense, are often located where they become a nuisance and a real blot in the garden. A characteristic of almost all Tuscan villa gardens is that they are small; the main part of the estate connected with the residence being the "podere" or farm, is devoted entirely to the cultivation of grape vines and olives, in which Tuscan gentlemen took great interest. Whenever the grounds devoted to the villa garden were more than three to five acres, a part of them was treated as a park, and the fundamental principle governing their treatment consisted in selecting the most prominent points of the estate whereon to build something in the nature of a feature for the park grounds. Vistas, berceaux, chapels, kiosks, water-basins, etc., constituted such features, and the roads and paths, often completely shaded, were made to lead to these points. The Boboli gardens, which furnish, perhaps, the best illustration of this point, are too well known to you to require more than passing mention. A villa garden, which I fancy is not known at all, is the Villa La Fortezza, of which I am sorry to possess only a few photographs. They are, however, sufficient to show the features of the estate, which form an original curiosity, for every- one of them represents a monument to the memory of illustrious Tuscan men — one is a "pantheon." A few words will suffice in reference to the Roman gardens. They have been so thoroughly studied, photographed, and widely published that it would be superfluous to speak of Villa Lante, or the Vatican Gardens, Villa d'Este, Borghese, Falconieri, and others. I desire only to say that they are the most grandiose gardens in Italy, the most imposing but not the most elaborate. The reason for their "magnificence" is that Roman people are "magnificent" — they view life on a vaster scale and with a broader mind than the rest of mortals. The grandeur of the Roman Empire, so far as architecture could express it, is still before the eyes of the people of every class, and their eye is used to an environ- ment which does not allow of petty things. In a Roman garden one feels a sense of awe, feels his very soul lifted to higher spheres in the same way as when one finds himself under the superb arcades of St. Peter's, or among the ruins of the Colosseum. The farther south one proceeds in Italy, and about in proportion with the increase of heat, one finds a gradual increase of fancy and imagination in every branch of art. The Neapolitan nature is brilliant, gay, fond of display, of ornaments, or what the French, with an untranslatable word, call "la blague." Many centuries of Spanish dominion have but increased a hundred-fold this natural tendency. The result of this fact in architecture is a tendency to depart from the pure and simple lines, and to let the pencil of the artist run more wildly over the drawing-board. I must hasten to say, however, that the splendid models of architecture left all over the ex-kingdom of the Two Sicilies by the many Greek settlements have done much toward keeping the fervid native imagination within reasonable bounds. To show more clearly this idea, I beg to illustrate it with a somewhat curious example, Villa d'Este, T The Grandeur and Austerity of Roman Design OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 41 which I select almost as a connecting link between the little I have to say of southern gardens and the main part of this paper, which is chiefly devoted to Tuscan gardens. Almost at the entrance of the village of Collodi, near Pescia, on the southern slope of a very pictur- esque and wood-covered hill, was built, during the early part of the fifteenth century, the villa of the Marquis Garzoni. The palace is a very plain structure about 200 feet long, but in extremely good taste in its interior construction and decoration, and especially famous for a large collection of antique furniture. The garden was built a long time after- ward by a gentleman of Lucca, by the name of Ottaviano Diodati, who devoted his energies to the art of architecture as a pastime. This gentleman spent a good part of his life at the court of Naples, and was at one time engaged in preparing for Charles Third, King of the Two Sicilies, a drawing for the royal palace at Caserta, which, the chronicles say, was never built for lack of funds! At any rate, Diodati had, in Naples, ample time and opportunity to acquire a taste for exaggeration, as the illustrations, of the Villa Garzoni, will demonstrate to anyone who is familiar with such simple Tuscan villas as Gamberaia, or Petraia, or Castello. The photographs flatten considerably the perspective, and, while this tends to emphasize the point I wish to bring out, I must add that on the ground the work appears more harmonious, especially in the central part. The garden has the general form of an amphitheatre with a double row of ter- races about 300 feet long and 25 feet wide. The center is occupied by three stately flights of double staircases with a grotto between each pair. The lower part of the garden is divided into two equal parts of the same length as the terraces, and about 150 feet wide, forming two levels. One slopes gently from the terraces and is covered with evergreens and beds with the typical designs of the renaissance style; the other is flat and almost entirely devoted to flowers. Two fountains on this lower part of the garden, together with some vases and statues, break the monotony of the ground design. Curious (and made evidently at a much later date) is the topiary work along the hedges that bound three sides of the garden. From the densest part of the wood, overhanging the amphi- theatre and forming the center of the design, a large cascade is built in the form of a stair- case. Water pours from the bugle of a huge statue representing "Fame" about to take her flight through space, placed at the very top and blowing her bugle. Does this not remind one (though, of course, on a much smaller scale) of the exaggerated conception of the cascade of the royal gardens at Caserta? The two have probably no relation to each other, but, in my opinion, the Garzoni cascade, fantastic and attractive as it is, would probably not have found its way through the vine-clad hills of Tuscany had not the architect lived and worked in the excitable land of Vesuvius. There are as many different Italian gardens in my country as there have been artists; they are so different that it is far easier to find similarity in details than in general con- ception. I hope I have made clear the point that each architectural type of garden in Italy is characteristic only of one section of the country, and of the artistic inclinations of its people. As a conclusion, therefore, I would say that rather than copy them as a whole or in detail, we should draw a lesson from them — an inspiration. Before engaging in a large landscape construction, the architect should make himself thoroughly familiar with the country at large where the estate lies, and with the estate in particular; he should engage himself in that work and in that work alone, giving to it all his best intelligence, his sen- timent, and his energies; trying to conceive something of his own, rather than copying 42 TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY or patching-up copied details; believing that an inspiration will readily come to him who stops thinking "business" and thinks "art;" and finally getting acquainted, to the best of his abilities, with the client so as to study his character, inclinations, and needs. Miss Jones: Terraces are not an essential feature of Italian gardens, as they were always made to fit the conditions. People copy details, not the grand idea, and think they have a garden. The Italian design is homogeneous; we are apt to go to extremes in one detail. Seclusion is typical of Italian gardens. In English gardens the flowers are the important thing; in Italian, the layout. The lemon tree can be used there outdoors from May to October. Mr. Dawson spoke of the possibilities of seclusion in the garden (which may be considered as part of the house), and of water in Italian gardens, used to the utmost, and the beauty attained by the free use of walls at different levels. Mr. J. C. Olmsted does not approve of the name, "Italian Garden," in America; would call it "Formal Garden." Mr. Vaux: The need for the formal garden is so universal in America that the near future is going to see a great demand for artistic designs. Mr. Gallagher contrasted the lack of views to be had from Italian houses, with the American house set on a hill, getting the view and also more air in summer. Mr. Hoth: Men build gardens because others have built them. Let us develop a garden of our own. Miss BuIIard writes: "I would particularly endorse what is said of the seclusion of the garden, for I have long felt that much of the audacity of our young American public is due to the frightful publicity of the daily life, in which the thought of any sort of seclusion is conspicuously absent." THE BOSTON PARK SYSTEM By JOHN C. OLMSTED (Meeiine of July 7. 1905) AT this, the first summer meeting of the American Society of Landscape Archi- J-\ tects, it seems appropriate that considerable attention should be given to the parks of this city. Because I had a more or less responsible share in, and at all times took part in the designing of them, it has fallen to me to tell you, before we visit the parks together, some points of design which may aid you somewhat toward under- standing what you will see tomorrow. I shall avoid, in the main, statistical and other information which you can read in the reports and other printed matter. THE COMMON The Common — the pride of patriotic Bostonians — is part of a farm bought of William Blackstone, the first settler who bought of the Indians, by the "Town of Boston," in 1634. The Town, thereupon, reserved from sale substantially the present Common for a public cow-pasture and training-field for the militia. Charles Street was laid out by description in a vote of the Town in 1694, as was also an extension of Boylston Street westward to the channel. In 1830 only was the pasturing of cows upon the Common stopped. There had, however, long been a charge of two dollars for the privilege. THE PUBLIC GARDEN What is now the Public Garden was originally a part of the Common, but it was cut off by the vote defining Charles Street, passed in 1694. This vote seemed to have INSERT FOLDOUT HERE OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 43 been intended to define and limit the Common proper, and to leave the area west of Charles Street to be treated simply as a piece of real estate to be sold off from time to time, as land south of Boylston Street had been, and continued to be, sold. At any rate, the same vote authorized the selectmen to sell, and they did sell, land west of Charles Street, begin- ning 500 feet south of Beacon Street, for rope-walks, which it was desired to get located out of the built-up part of the Town, as they were dangerous because of fire. However, the land where these rope-walks stood was purchased back by the Town in 1824. In 1856 an agreement was entered into between the Commonwealth, the City, and the Boston & Roxbury Mill Corporation, by which Arlington Street was defined and some strips of land conveyed to the City for the purpose of extending what is now the Public Garden westward to Arlington Street and northward to Beacon Street. At that time there was a little upland in what is now the Public Garden, but it was mostly beach and salt marsh and mud flat exposed at low water. THE BACK BAY The district of Boston known from early days as the Back Bay, extending from the Common on the east to Brookline, and from Charles River on the north to the neck south of the Boston and Providence Railroad, was formerly salt-marsh and mud-flats broken here and there by winding tidal channels. Before steam engines were much used, and before coal became cheap, there was a strong movement for the utilization of any con- venient water-power. During this movement the Boston & Roxbury Mill Corporation acquired by law the right to use the Back Bay for tidal water-power. In 1821 a causeway was completed along the south margin of Charles River from the corner of Beacon and Charles Streets, where the upland ended, westerly to Brookline. This causeway, being known as the Mill Dam and now as Beacon Street, was made wide enough for a toll road, which not only became at once an important thoroughfare to Brookline, Brighton, and other suburban towns, but, as it began at the most fashionable residence district of Boston — Beacon Hill — it was for many years the main pleasure drive of the city. Its usefulness and prestige for this purpose has been such that no street railway tracks have ever been permitted in this extension of Beacon Street east of Massachusetts Avenue. The various salt-marshes within this area remained private property, having always been valued for the sake of the salt-hay crop. Gradually, with the growth of population and the filling in and sale of lots in the other tidal mill ponds and shallow margins about the original city, this Back Bay district became valuable enough to warrant the cost of filling. The Commonwealth undertook the work, and did it on an unusually extensive scale. The simple rectangular street system was presumably devised by the engineer of the Harbor and Land Commission — a State Board. COMMONWEALTH AVENUE It is said that the late Arthur Gilman, architect of the City Hall, suggested Common- wealth Avenue from the Public Garden to Massachusetts Avenue as the central feature of the new residential district. It is 250 feet wide between house fronts, and the central lawns are 100 feet wide, including a central promenade in which at intervals are the fol- lowing monuments: Statue of Alexander Hamilton, by William Rimmer; of General 44 TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY Stephen Glover, by Martin Milmore; of William Lloyd Garrison, by Olin L. Warner. Unfortunately this section of Commonwealth Avenue is lacking in suitable terminal features, doubtless because of the excessive utilitarianism of the commissioners and engineer of the Commonwealth. When the next section of the Back Bay district west of Massachusetts Avenue came to be filled, the engineer in charge, for utilitarian reasons — to avoid a very long diagonal bridge over the Boston and Albany Railroad, and to afford regular blocks of land parallel with the railroad — diverted Commonwealth Avenue and again ignored the opportunity to create a dignified feature, such as a "public square" or circle, which would have afforded a suitable site for a great monument or public building facing east toward the older portion of Commonwealth Avenue. THE NEW PARK MOVEMENT Stimulated, no doubt, by the great success of Central Park in New York City, and of Prospect Park in Brooklyn, and other park projects in other cities of the country, and by the land-boom which culminated in 1873, a petition was widely circulated and signed by citizens during 1869 in favor of a new public park. As a result of this petition and of the speeches and newspaper articles, a joint special committee of the City Council on a New Public Park was appointed. After various public hearings, this committee reported to the City Council, December 20, 1869. The report was adopted, and the Mayor presented to the Legislature a draft of a bill to establish a Park Commission. The bill as amended was passed, but required a two-thirds vote of the people accepting it. The subject of parks had not, however, been sufficiently agitated, and conservatism and the usual dread of increased taxation, aided, no doubt, by a democratic dislike for a provision of the bill which required part of the members of the Board to be appointed by the Governor, resulted in the failure of the bill to secure the requisite two-thirds vote in the election of 1870. After various other efforts, a different Park Commission Act was finally passed and accepted by popular vote in 1875. This act, however, left the supplying of funds to the City Council, requiring a two-thirds vote of each chamber. This practically blocked further progress until 1877, when, after much agitation, the City Council, fairly driven by public opinion and by the even more effective lobbying of land-owners and speculators, who expected to derive a profit thereby, finally authorized the laying out of a park in the unimproved portion of the Back Bay, and provided, by borrowing, the funds necessary to pay for the land. This was the Back Bay Park, later called the Fens. THE BOSTON PARK SYSTEM The old Common and the newer Public Garden, together with numerous public squares which it was the custom for the land-owners to dedicate when they subdivided their lands into streets and lots, had been managed by a joint committee of the City Council. Not- withstanding the appointment of a Park Commission in 1875, tms arrangement still con- tinues. It is desirable for the practical reason that it keeps the later park system out of politics. Most of the parks and parkways of Boston form a connected system. One can drive, OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 45 without going out of lands controlled by the Park Commission, from the Public Garden, through Commonwealth Avenue, the Fens, Riverway, Olmsted Park (Arborway, Arnold Arboretum), Franklin Park, Columbia Road, and Strandway, to Marine Park. Blue Hill Avenue has been widened to a double roadway Boulevard from Franklin Park to Mattapan, where it connects with a boulevard of the Metropolitan Park Commission extending to the Blue Hills Reservation. From the Riverway, a park- way drive branches off to Audubon Circle, whence one may drive in a park- way 160 feet wide (Beacon Street) to Chestnut Hill Reservoir, or by Commonwealth Avenue, 200 feet wide, to the same point, and thence by Newton Boulevard, 120 feet wide, to the Charles River at Auburndale. Land was secured years ago, but has not yet been developed, for a parkway with wide, picturesque margins from Arnold Arboretum to Stony Brook Reservation. It connects with the parkway system of the Metropolitan Park Commission. THE FENS The shape of the Fens can only be defined briefly as shapeless. It has an irregular central body averaging about 1,000 feet wide, with a length, from Boylston Bridge to Mrs. John L. Gardner's "Fenway Place," of about 3,500 feet. From this body project six arms. Northward of Boylston Bridge is the arm called Charlesgate. This was laid out as a so-called "entrance" to the Park. It originally extended, for this reason, north- ward only to Beacon Street; but, when the waterway plan was adopted, it was extended a block further north to Charles River. It is now about 1,500 feet long. Its width was arbitrarily established at 300 feet, but as the land-owners neglected to stipulate for a street within this area, the Park Commission later secured a strip 50 feet wide on each side for streets, on condition of completely improving them at the expense of the park fund. The other entrances are Boylston Entrance, 30 feet wide, to Massachusetts Avenue; Westland Entrance, 300 feet wide, to Parker Street; Huntington Entrance, 200 feet wide, to Huntington Avenue; Parker Hill Entrance, from 300 to 500 feet wide, to Huntington Avenue; and Longwood Entrance, originally 200 feet wide, but, after the waterway plan was adopted, increased to 350 feet wide. The peculiar shape of the Fens and its entrances was due mainly to the limitations of cost for land which the opponents of the project in the City Council succeeded in fasten- ing upon the ordinance authorizing the park. The limit of price of ten cents per square foot for the land was stipulated. It is probable that some of those who voted for this limitation fully believed that it would indirectly kill the whole scheme, thus saving the city much money. Not only did it not save money, but it resulted in a very great increase in the cost of construction in proportion to area. The original area of this park was about one hundred acres. This, at ten cents per square foot, made the cost of land, $435,000, or $4,356 per acre. But the cost for construction has been over $18,500 per acre, a cost probably without precedent in the history of park making. Franklin Park, which is well supplied with stone bridges, buildings and other expensive structures, cost only S4,6oo per acre for construction. The cost of filling the park in the Back Bay, had it been located on salt marshes not complicated by the channels of Stony Brook and Muddy River, would probably not have been more than $4,000 per acre; so it is safe to say that the necessity forced upon the Park Commission, of locating and shaping the park to suit the demand of the land-owners, even allowing for a greater price for salt marshes else- 46 TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY where but near-by, cost the city, so far as the park is concerned, over a million dollars more than it would if the Park Commission had been left free to act on its own judgment. It is true the city in that case would have had to construct the Stony Brook flood-channel, now nearing completion, sooner than it did. Even if this park had to be located, as it was, where the deepest and widest channels intersected the salt marshes, and even if it had to be improved in such a way that the floods of Stony Brook could be taken care of in and through it, the park might have been twice as large, yet less expensive, if the shape had been a rectangle, with its length, say, three times its width. The present periphery of the park and its entrances is nearly three miles. If the park had been a rec- tangle half a mile wide and one mile long, its boundary drives would have been only a trifle longer than they now are, yet the park, including border streets, would have had an area of 320 acres, instead of only 115 acres as at present. The enormous advantages of this increase of 205 acres in size may be gathered from the statement that it would have afforded space for a play-field of nearly that area, a most important feature in which the present park is necessarily entirely lacking. Or, as an alternative, this park, if limited to its present area (115 acres), might have been a rectangle as long as the present main body of the park (3,500 feet), and 430 feet wider than at present; yet, in that case, the boundary street would have had a total length of one and three-quarters miles instead of two and seven-eighths miles. As by far the greater part of the expense of construction of this park has been its borders, it is obvious that a park having the same area could have been provided for about two-thirds of the actual cost of construction. The saving, amount- ing to some $700,000, might have been put into one or more great play-fields. The acquirement of the land for the Fens was begun in 1877, and in deference to local political opinion a competition for plans was held. An outsider, Mr. Frederick Law Olmsted, was invited to act as judge of the competition, after having refused to submit a plan in competition; but the proposed duty did not appeal to him and he declined. After the competition had taken place, and after the prize had been awarded, the same New York landscape architect was employed to review the problem and give some general advice. One of the first things he did was to have a thorough consultation with the City Engineer. He thus discovered, what the competitors who submitted plans had apparently not thought to ascertain, that there was a very serious problem as to what should be done with the floods of the Stony Brook. This brook ran through the low part of Roxbury at such a low level that the water in it was set back by the tides. As usually happens, the brook had been cribbed and confined by private land-owners and careless street-builders, and the buildings on adjoining lands had been set so low that cellars were frequently flooded, especially in the spring, and at intervals of a few years these floods occurring coincidently with extra-high tides when the sea-water is driven into the harbor by easterly gales, flooded not only cellars but streets, deep enough for boating. The radical remedy since adopted — namely, the construction of a more direct underground channel as big as a double track subway tunnel — was at that time deemed utterly out of the question owing to the cost, which was estimated at several million dollars. The City Engineer's idea was that the new park should be treated frankly as a storage basin, the water in it being ordinarily kept salt and the shores steeply sloped and pitched with large stones in the manner usual for reservoirs. By tide-gates the water-surface could be kept so low that the water of Stony Brook could be received and stored during high tide at a low-enough level to prevent much of the damage to the low portion of Roxbury. This simple but ugly improvement OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 47 was, of course, felt to be extremely objectionable by the New York landscape architect, and he set himself the problem of devising some modification of it which, while answering fairly well the engineering requirements of the case, would appear natural and beautiful. A basin at a low elevation was taken for granted. It was assumed, too, that some sacrifice of area could be made for the sake of securing irregular shores and varying slopes such as would look natural and agreeable. The difficulty was to protect these banks from wash when they were partly submerged by floods and when violent storms would create considerable waves. The idea was then adopted of dividing the basin by curving across drives (which would eventually be much needed by the dense population which is expected to surround the park) and to still further diversify the water-suface by small, irregular islets. As a still further deterrent of destructive waves, a large portion of the surface was planned to be kept in salt marsh-grass but at a level two feet below the natural level, which is everywhere close to the elevation of mean high water. In figures the existing salt marsh was at elevation 10.5, and it was to be lowered to elevation 8.5. The City Engineer, after this scheme had been pleasantly explained and discussed, gave it his approval, in spite of the reduction of storage capacity of storm-water which it involved; and the Park Commission, impressed by the ingenious marriage of engineer- ing requirements and park landscape beauty, employed its author to make plans for carry- ing it out. The preliminary plans were presented and approved in 1878, and published later in the annual report for that year. The working drawing included a grading plan with one foot contours, which showed every irregularity of the surface desired to simulate a natural appearance, and which was implicitly and mechanically followed by the engineers of the City Engineer's office in setting stakes for the guidance of the foremen in charge of the distributing of the filling. The portion of Commonwealth Avenue from Massachusetts Avenue to Brookline Avenue and Beacon Street had been turned over to the Park Com- mission for improvement; consequently its driveway was planned with long, sweeping curves to harmonize with and lead into the Fenway. The two driveways of Common- wealth Avenue were extended on curves and brought together with one driveway at Charles- gate, thus enabling the waterway of that extension of the Fens to be crossed by a single bridge instead of two bridges or one bridge 200 feet wide, either of which would have greatly diminished the landscape value of the waterway. The point between the two driveways has been used for an ideal statue of Leif Ericson, by Miss Anne Whitney. The curvilinear driveway west of Charlesgate to Brookline Avenue, designed at that time and completely improved, was later torn up by direction of Mayor Matthews to satisfy the demands of land speculators owning land on the south side of Commonwealth Avenue, who objected to having the main driveway swing toward the north side, leaving their land on a narrower and less direct driveway. The change greatly diminished the lawn area and increased the area of ugly macadam. The bridge over the waterway at Commonwealth Avenue had to be kept closely down to the standard elevation of the city streets which closely adjoin it; but the main drive thence southward had to rise rapidly to the elevation required for a bridge over the Boston and Albany Railroad, which, to gain distance, was placed on the westerly boundary road of Charlesgate. It was not thought worth what it would cost to carry the easterly boundary road over this railroad by a bridge. Boylston Bridge was designed with a much wider and higher span than the engineer- ing requirements called for, especially in order to afford a particularly attractive view 48 TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY of the Fens landscape southward of it through the arch from the important viewpoint on Commonwealth Avenue Bridge. Care was taken to design the railroad bridge (which, of course, had to be paid for out of the park fund) without side parapets or fences. With the usual obtuseness as to the beauties of landscape, the beautiful view has been blocked by high board fences. It only remains now to paint staring advertising signs on these fences to complete the offensive obtrusion. It is to be hoped the Park Commission will some day substitute a woven wire fence on the south side (none is needed on the north side) of this railroad. Agassiz Road, which crosses the main basin of the park, was dipped down to the lowest possible elevation to keep open the view through the length of the park. The Fen- way, which is the main drive, being wide and accompanied by a bridle path, was made to swing to the east boundary and follow it, in spite of its greater length, because the borings in the salt marsh and mud flats showed hard bottom to be very much deeper down along the west side of the park than the east side. Incidentally there are more numerous and more important entrances on this east or cityward side. The waterway was made crooked to simulate the windings natural for a channel through a salt marsh, and while the boundaries prevented the retention of the original channel, part of them were availed of. As is usual in park designing in the naturalistic style, more variety of scenery was compressed into the design than would ordinarily be found in nature. Agassiz Bridge was designed with five small arches, so as to gain headroom by dimin- ishing the thickness of the arch in order to permit canoeing. The channels being narrow and tortuous, and the railroad bridges having been divided into three spans, likewise to gain headroom, it was designed to limit boating to canoes. Five arches were used partly for picturesque effect, but partly as expressing the greater accommodations seemingly needed for the waterway, which had to pass the floods of Stony Brook rapidly during the low stages of the tide. Not being necessarily an imposing mass of masonry like Boylston Bridge, it was designed in an ultra-picturesque style, almost suggesting the interesting effect of a partly ruined, but still standing and useful, ancient piece of comparatively unskilled masonwork. The banks about it were planted, for the sake of harmony with this idea, as widely as possible. Such art motives do not usually occur to gardeners nor, if they exist, are they apt to be appreciated, and one may therefore expect to see the plantations on these slopes gradually transformed to tall, bare-trunked trees, with smooth, tame turf covering the ground under them, if indeed, with the excessive shade, any ground- cover is maintained. The five-arch bridge at Huntington Entrance was designed with as marked formality as Agassiz Bridge was with complete informality. The reason for this marked contrast of motives arose from the circumstances of the case. Huntington Entrance was formal and the walks under and the foot bridge closely associated with this five-arch bridge, and the greater width and importance of the drive and walks and bridle-path tended to artificialize the surroundings and called, in the aggregate, for a more dignified treatment. The walks under this bridge were introduced in order to afford access from this impor- tant entrance, near a large population in which children abound, to the important shore- path. This would not only lessen the danger, and feeling of danger, of women and children, but would do away with the unpleasant alertness which drivers and riders have to exer- cise at a grade crossing, and would, especially, enable equestrians to "let out" their horses freely from the Agassiz Road crossing to the Parker Hill Entrance. A foot subway was OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 49 even contemplated at this latter crossing. It is always exceedingly desirable to have bridle-paths with long stretches from grade crossings, so cantering can be safely indulged in. The Fenway Bridge and the facing of the culvert are modest pieces of boulder masonry intended to be almost concealed by vines. It is usually suggestive of quaint homeliness to use the characteristic materials and mechanicals of the locality in which a structure is built. This locality is covered with a network of stone walls put up by the farmers with the boulders which encumbered their fields; hence hereabouts a lowly structure of no great size or importance may well be built of boulders. The Fens proper end at the Fens Bridge; hence its name. The waterway from Fens Bridge to the culvert at Brook- line Avenue, although supplied like the Fens with salt water at every tide, is intended to take on more of the character of a river than of Fens or salt marshes. This section was originally called the Longwood Entrance. As the design developed, its name was change to Riverway, better to express its designed character, and it had also to be con- siderably widened. The Parker Hill Entrance at the time the land was taken, and before the final designer was employed, was intended as the start of a broad parkway to the top of Parker Hill and down the opposite side and thence to Jamaica Pond; but it would have been very steep, and the comparatively level Riverway affords a far more convenient and pleasurable drive. A plan for a branch parkway to the top of Parker Hill was actually studied. It was desirable to afford a pleasure drive approach to this fine viewpoint, but the expense for land and construction was considered prohibitive. THE RIVERWAY The idea of having the Riverway and the Leverett Pond section of Olmsted Park, instead of the proposed formal boulevard by way of Parker Hill, originated from the creative imagination of the designer of the Fens, Frederick Law Olmsted. The idea was based on the general principle of looking for every available opportunity for preserving, in connection with park work, such beautiful elements of existing scenery as can be used directly or by adaptation. Here was a salt creek fringed with salt marshes. The boundary between the City of Boston and the Town of Brookline followed the thread of the stream. A good part of the Boston side had a beautiful tree-clad bank with suburban residences above it. Farther south it was marshy. On the Brookline side, below Aspin- wall Avenue, the beautiful valley was disfigured by the railroad with the usual steep gravel slope covered with cinders and weeds, and fenced. At Longwood Station there was, in addition, a group of cheap dwellings. For some distance north of Washington Street the cheapest kind of dwellings and tenements pressed upon and practically obliter- ated the stream. About forty houses were condemned in this locality, Most of these houses were unpainted and more or less dilapidated. The citizens who occupied them were commonly referred to at town meetings and elsewhere as "from the marsh." Unless some extensive and expensive improvement of the whole valley were to be soon made, it was seemingly inevitable that this squalid and unsanitary occupation of it would cover all parts of this valley and discourage good occupation of the neighborhood. The idea of preserving the valley and making it a feature of the parkway system was accepted. The greatest care had to be taken to adjust the boundary on the Boston side, 50 TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY which was also the line of the main drive, between the trees and topographical conditions on the one hand and the houses and demands of land-owners on the other. The water- way was changed to fresh water, being supplied by abundant springs and by the brook flowing through Brookline. Various bridges were introduced where necessary or desirable. The preliminary designs for these were prepared by the landscape architects and put in proper architectural shape by Messrs. Shepley, Rutan & Coolidge, and the City Engi- neer's office, except the great Longwood Bridge, the engineering part of which was done by Messrs. French & Bryant, of Brookline. The exigencies of design required most of the old creek channel to be filled and a new waterway to be created. A border mound was raised along the railroad to hide it. The shores of the waterway were everywhere filled with gravel, to hold back the more or less movable mud. As in the case of the Fens, every portion of the surface, except such limited areas as had trees growing upon them, were regarded according to carefully studied grading plans. OLMSTED PARK The two parks originally named Leverett Park and Jamaica Park were combined and named Olmsted Park out of compliment to Frederick Law Olmsted, after he retired owing to feeble health. This park comprises an unusual variety of scenery, including Jamaica Pond, Leverett Pond, and other ponds and pools, two wooded knolls, a brook and extensive wooded banks. With so many interesting and picturesque scenes, the main effort of the designers was to preserve and develop each according to its essential characteristics. The site of Leverett Pond was a much larger cat-tail swamp, extending on the west to Pond Avenue. To provide an attractive, secluded drive and walk entirely within the park on this side of the swamp, a rather wide strip had to be filled in. The mud was excavated 8 feet deep and gravel dikes filled along the shore where mud was left, to prevent the mud from sliding. Where land was cheaper, east of Leverett Pond, the bordering parkway was swung well up the hillside, to broaden the park. Above Leverett Pond, in addition to the existing brook and ponds, a number of pools were created, in the expec- tation that this part of the park would be used by the Natural History Society for a Zoo- logical Garden in which aquatic birds and animals would be the principal features. As the society failed to raise the necessary funds, the superfluous pools have been filled up. Willow Pond, the next pond above Leverett Pond, was relocated, but in such away that it looks just as natural as before, in fact more so, because it originally had a narrow dam with a row of willow trees growing upon it. The brook, too, existed, yet is now quite different. It is not quite natural in appearance, because it was thought preferable to introduce into it a series of little boulder dams, so as to hold back enough water to show. Ward's Pond, the next pond below Jamaica Pond, was less radically changed. A walk was filled in around the margin, and the narrow dam was widened, so as to disguise its artificial character. All these and other changes were carefully planned on paper and carried out by means of plans and specifications by a contractor. The engineer in charge estimated that the grading would have cost 25 per cent more if done by the regular park day's-work gangs. Jamaica Pond is in general landscape effect what it was, except that numerous houses and two great ranges of ice-houses were removed, and that a good deal of the margin OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 51 had to be filled to afford room for a shore walk below the steep banks where most visitors like to go. The only house originally on the park which was retained was Pinebanks. This house was burned out after the land was acquired, but its walls were so well built that it was remodeled for a public shelter and for the business offices of the Park System. It would have been a satisfaction to have preserved also the home of Francis Parkman, the historian, which stood on the opposite side of Jamaica Pond; but its rooms were small, the construction was of wood and not of the best, so it was decided to tear it down and to have a commemorative monument on its site. An interesting fact about Jamaica Pond is that it is so deep that at one spot its bottom is actually several feet below sea-level, THE ARBORWAY This parkway was designed to connect Jamaica Pond, the Arnold Arboretum, and Franklin Park. The land where it had to run, being already in the main provided with streets, was expensive, so it was limited to a uniform width of 200 feet. It is an excellent example of what seems to be the best way to utilize that width where the main object is to provide a through line of pleasure driving, walking, and riding between parks where there is no brook or other interesting natural feature to be preserved. The private property is given frontage on side roads as commodious as is customary in the neighborhood. There is a wide pleasure drive in the center of the parkway, and on one side of it a bridle-path with a wide promenade on the other. Both bridle-path and promenade are separated from the roadways on each side of them by tree-planting strips of liberal width, and these are further planted with shrubs forming a mixed and informal hedge. These hedges relieve the effect of flatness and extreme simplicity common in similar parkways, besides affording much enrichment and beauty of foliage, flowers, fruit and, in winter, color of twigs. Moreover, they conceal the ugly macadam strips to a considerable extent, while permitting views to and from the houses below the foliage of the trees. It is true that many people, especially owners of abutting real estate, prefer that a parkway 200 feet wide should have only two driveways instead of three, and there is much to be said in favor of that arrangement, especially if abutting private land is restricted against buildings less than 50 feet or so from the parkway; but the first question for the Park Commission to decide is whether they are expending the money the parkway cost primarily for the benefit of those who are using the parkway to get pleasantly from one park to another; that is, for the greatest good of the greatest number, or, primarily, for the benefit of abutting real estate. If the land-owners are fully compensated for the land taken for the parkway, and are not assessed more than half the cost of the parkway, justice to them would warrant, in most cases, denying their demand for limiting the driveways to two only; but if land-owners give the land for the parkway and make a considerable contribution voluntarily, or through assessment, toward the cost of con- struction, it might be just to heed their preference in the matter. Incidentally it may be mentioned that the idea of laying the dust and preserving the bond by means of crude petroleum was tried on this parkway a few years ago; but, although a saving in expense of watering, the scheme was objected to because the oily clots picked up more or less on wheels and horses' feet and were thrown on people's clothes. The experiment has not been repeated. 52 TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY ARNOLD ARBORETUM The greater part of this beautiful park belonged to Harvard University, having been bequeathed to it by Mr. Bussey. It was named after Mr. Arnold, however, because he bequeathed to the University a fund, the income of which was assigned by the University for a professorship of Arboriculture and for the maintenance of the Arboretum. When the landscape architect took up the planning of the Arboretum on behalf of the University, it was of course understood that, so far as was compatible with its scien- tific and educational purposes, it was to be made beautiful and to be adapted for enjoy- ment by the public, and the parkway had, from the beginning, been intended to connect it with the Boston Park System. Study soon developed the fact that its boundaries were not everywhere suitable, and that there were no funds available for drives and walks and other usual park improvements; also that there was only a very remote prospect of sufficient funds becoming available from private munificence. It was then suggested that the Park Commission should add the needed land, should build and maintain drives and walks, water-supply, drainage and other construction, and police and maintain them, leaving the University to attend to planting and gardening matters and to care for the grounds, except certain reservations intended for the exclusive use of the public, and to erect and maintain the museum. The city took title to the land and leased to the Uni- versity the parks intended to be developed and maintained by it. The arrangement has worked well. The city has a park of two hundred and twenty-three acres, at a cost for land of about $80,000, including that covered by the parkway. The scenery of the Arnold Arboretum is varied and interesting, the principal features being two hills of considerable size, one of which commands extensive and beautiful views, and the other is valuable because extremely rugged and wild, having upon one part the largest patch of wild hemlock woods in the vicinity of Boston. Partly, perhaps, because of the rarity of a hemlock wood close to a dense population, owing to the ease and completeness with which it is destroyed by forest fires, and partly because of the fact that hemlocks are abundant in remote mountainous districts, the effect of a remote, wild forest could hardly be as well produced by any other tree. FRANKLIN PARK As an illustration of park designing, the plan and report on Franklin Park is probably the best piece of work, in spite of some disappointments in execution, done by its designer, Frederick Law Olmsted. The topography and ledges and trees lent themselves not only to many pictuesque bits of landscape designing, but afforded, with moderate grading, excellent fields for such sports as are permissible in a landscape park. It is fair to say that much of the landscape was designed, because in its original state it was decidedly different in effect. It was a district of suburban and country residences, with all the usual artificial improvements of similar suburban districts, such as houses, stables, greenhouses, barns, sheds, retaining walls, earth terracing, flower- and vegetable-gardens, orchards, drives, rows of shade trees, walls, fences, streets, electric poles, gas-lamp posts, hydrants, quarries, fields, and woodlots. One primary condition of the design was self-imposed; namely, the idea that the greater part of the park should be left unlighted and closed, after a certain hour, for the OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 53 night. This idea, no doubt, was a sound one, while the park had only a small population about it and while the cost of lighting and policing the park efficiently remains almost prohibitive. But already, yielding to the characteristic American hatred of restraint, and willingness to take chances of robbery and even murder, this theory of shutting the greater part of the park during the latter half of the night has been abandoned, even to the extent of tearing down the gateways. Another less vital feature of the plan of Franklin Park — The Greeting — has never been carried out, but appears to have been definitely abandoned, presumably owing to a preference for extending the open-field treatment and a dislike for such artificial aids to enjoyment as the Mall in Central Park, New York, the Rotten Row in Hyde Park, in London, and the corresponding drive in the Bois de Boulogne, in Paris. The idea in each case is a social congregating place, and in such a case a considerable degree of arti- ficiality is not only appropriate, but actually essential for neatness and convenience. Another feature designed in contiguity to The Greeting was The Little Folks' Fair. This was intended to contain the means of amusement permissible, or more or less customary, in parks, such as a path for pony riding, another for goat carriages, smoothly paved places for scups and swings, and the like. Sooner or later experience proves that such things get into parks, and the prudent designer will plan a suitable concentration of them in a place where they will do the general rural landscape of the park little or no harm, rather than leave them to be scattered here and there haphazard and often with no regard to the effect upon the general design or the need of reserving certain parts of the park for quiet enjoyment of the landscape. It was for this sort of protection of the park proper that The Parade was created as an adjunct to Prospect Park, Brooklyn, and Franklin Field as a supplement to Franklin Park. Another feature of the plan was the assignment of a considerable area along the north or cityward margin of the park for the use at some future time by a Zoological Society for a popular exhibit of living animals. It was, however, strongly urged that the collec- tion include only hardy animals, or such as would require only occasional or slight pro- tection. The occupation of part of the park by anything like the jumble of large but cheap and unlovely buildings of the usual Zoological Gardens was, of course, repugnant to the designer of the park; yet experience indicated that it was more prudent to endeavor to guide and select what might otherwise be done badly some day in response to popular demand. However, not even a start was made; so the plan amounts to nothing more than the assignment of a site for some such thing. The idea, it must be confessed, has one element of weakness; namely that, being on the border of the park, which is develop- ing as a good residential district, the noises and smells of some of the animals may come to be so strongly objected to by some of the neighbors that the administration of the park may be driven to move some of the animals further into the park where they have no business to be. The introduction of golf-playing is an unwise sacrifice of the pleasure and comfort of many in the quiet enjoyment of the park. Not only are the attractive and harmless sheep driven out, but the gently rolling slope, with the picturesque slight roughness incident to sheep pasturage, and so appropriately suggestive, to the nerve-wearied visitor, of the peace and quiet of the real country, is replaced by the hard, artificially smooth surface made by constant clipping and rolling, and, what is worse, the nerves of the visitor are still further irritated by the anxiety as to being hit by the hard and swiftly driven 54 TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY balls. It seems too bad that a few scores of people should be allowed practically to monop- olize a hundred acres, or perhaps two hundred acres, of the most beautiful park pastures, excluding, or at any rate causing discomfort to, thousands of other visitors. COLUMBIA ROAD Following the connected chain of parks and parkways, the next link is Columbia Road. Owing to certain exigencies of local politics and city finance, this avenue was laid out under the authority of the street department, and subsequently its maintenance was put upon the Park Commission. Like Huntington Avenue and Blue Hill Avenue, it was laid out with a central grass-plot occupied by a double-track railway, but so narrow that there is no room for trees, making the central trolley-poles and wires very conspic- uous. The two roadways, although wide enough for present traffic and even for that of the near future, are certainly not wide enough to afford any adequate expression of dignity or liberality. One of the roadways is reserved for pleasure traffic, while the other is open to commercial traffic. There is a grass strip between the two roadways wide enough for a double track electric railway and one row of trees. In this respect it is markedly superior to Huntington Avenue, which has a grassy reservation for car-tracks between two roadways but no trees. Without shade trees to afford a picturesque umbrageous- ness which would make the narrowness of the roadways a minor matter (to the eye at least), the duplex narrow parkway is assuredly an esthetic failure compared with an avenue of the same total width, but with one wide roadway with flush car-tracks in the middle, and with the trolley-poles on the curb along with the sidewalk row of trees. However, whatever its defects, this parkway does actually perform a useful link in con- necting Franklin Park with Marine Park. It was built mainly by widening previous streets— Columbia Street and part of Boston Street. It runs through a well built up part of Dorchester and is and will be very citified in the character of buildings along it. Other routes for a parkway from Franklin Park to the shore were carefully studied; but this, as the shortest route, was preferred in spite of its expense. It connects with the next link of parkway at one of the civic centers of Dorchester — Edward Everett Square. DORCHESTERWAY This connects with Columbia Road at Edward Everett Square, and extends to The Strandway, having been laid out by the Park Commission. It crosses the Old Colony Railroad by a simple but substantial bridge, and then turns abruptly toward South Bos- ton. The original design was to have it extend by a long curve to the shore of Dor- chester Bay, but the city, having acquired the road-bed and right-of-way of the former location of the Old Colony Railroad in this locality, the less desirable route was followed as a matter of economy. THE STRANDWAY This will certainly be a very imposing parkway when completed and when the trees have grown. It has two roadways, one on the landward side for access to house-lots, the other adjoining a wide, gently sloping gravel beach, artificially formed. There are fine views over Boston Harbor except where it was thought best to locate several yacht- OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 55 club houses. The long curves and changing views will tend to relieve the formal monotony of the parallel, level roadways and rows of trees, as will also various scraps of land on the landward side due to making the boundary follow old lot lines in some places. Large areas in the shallow bay are being dredged to improve the anchorage ground for yachts. The myriads of little yachts and sailboats here constitute one of the sights of Boston. MARINE PARK Probably few of those engaged in determining upon a park at City Point, the east end of South Boston, had the faintest conception of what was to result from the imagination of the lansdcape architect, for there was practically nothing to guide the imagination. There was a small fringe of upland outside Q Street, with a few small boating establish- ments and wharves upon and attached to it. The rest was mud flats at low water, and shallow water. The first thought was to have a shore drive and beach, the next to extend the drive across the shallow water to Castle Island; then to run out a point and a long promenade pier at the other end. The beach between the two naturally took on in the mind of the designer a convex curve, and hence followed the idea of Pleasure Bay. Dredg- ing the bay to supply material for filling, and adding a great bathing establishment and refreshment pavilion for the populace, brought the design nearly to completion; but there were many difficulties and a vast expense involved. The plan is not yet entirely executed, even with the expenditure of a million dollars; but the plan was cordially approved, and the city has an original and magnificent recreation place which is immensely patronized on warm, pleasant holidays by the populace, but not much visited by the well-to-do of the other districts of the city. It is a worthy terminal for one of the most varied and picturesque continuous park systems of the country. Time is lacking for describing other parks and playgrounds belonging to the city. As a concluding statement, the city has paid out for parks up to a year and a half ago just about $18,000,000, and is satisfied she got her money's worth. THE METROPOLITAN PARK SYSTEM OF BOSTON By FREDERICK LAW OLMSTED fMeeting of July 8. 1905) AN address on the Metropolitan Park System of Boston was part of the program /-% of the summer meeting of July 8, 1905. This address was not reported. As it seems very desirable to have a complete and authoritative description of the entire Boston Park System as one of the most interesting and important in the world, the following pages are reprinted from "A History and Description of the Boston Metropolitan Parks," written by Mr. A. A. Shurtleff under the general direction of Mr. F. L. Olmsted, and published in 1900 under the authority of the Metropolitan Park Commissioners, by the Board of Paris Exposition Managers, Boston, Mass., as part of the Exhibition of the Public Works Boston Metropolitan District, U. S. Section, Group VI, Champ de Mars. To illustrate and bring it up-to-date, a map of the Boston Park System, furnished by the courtesy of the Metro- politan Park Commission of Boston, and revised up to 191 o, and a table of areas taken from the report of the Metropolitan Park Commission, of 1910, have been added. METROPOLITAN BOSTON In outlining the growth of the original settlement which became the great city of Boston, it was mentioned that various small settlements sprang up near the young city and grew to be of considerable size. Certain of these towns were gathered into counties as early as 1640, and the limits of each township were defined. These early townships included large tracts within their boundaries, and villages soon appeared in them, which increased so rapidly in size and influence as to become unwieldy and unwilling precincts of the original township. Such villages secured division from the original body, and established smaller townships of their own. It thus came about that the number of inde- pendent municipalities within a radius of eleven miles of Boston, in 1890, numbered thirty- seven, of which twelve were cities. The population of this district was approximately a million souls, of which number half were citizens of Boston. The interests of the entire district centered in this great heart of commerce and industry. Except for the arbitrary boundary line and political separation of the smaller municipalties from Boston, all the inhabitants of the district constituted one metropolis. Their real political separation however, was made plain, and the disadvantages of it were evident, when it was discovered that works for the advantage of the whole community could not be undertaken because of the barrier between the parts. In 1875 ** became apparent that this great population had at least one problem before it which could not be solved effectively by the independent action of the separate municipalities. That problem was the problem of sewage disposal. At that time the health of a large part of the district was menaced by the discharge of countless sewers into tide water along the harbor front and along the borders of entering streams. The city of Boston was able to take independent action at once for herself, and installed a system of sewers within her own boundaries, discharging into the outer harbor. This improvement only partially relieved the nuisance affecting the community at large, but it made the advantages of further action more evident. The situation of the towns (56) AMERICAN SOCIETY OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 57 rendered it impossible for them to find proper points for sewage discharge within their own boundaries. Commission after commission was appointed to investigate the problem, until the State Legislature at last authorized the formation of a Metropolitan Sewerage Commission, to construct and operate a system of trunk sewers for the relief of the whole district. The appointment of a commission by the State to undertake the solution of a problem affecting a number of communities closely related to one another and yet unable to help themselves by independent effort, marks an important period in the history of the Boston district. The Commission effectively carried out the improvements entrusted to it, and the sanitary disabilities of the various towns and cities were relieved. CONDITIONS DEMANDING METROPOLITAN PARKS IN 1892 During the period between 1869 and 1892, while the city of Boston was securing a park system for itself by argument, legislative act, and actual construction, the district about Boston which had been described as a part of the central city to all intents, except in name, was taking on a congested growth similar to that which made parks necessary for Boston in 1869. The arguments that had been advanced for Boston parks were re-stated with nearly equal force for each of the near cities. Houses had covered the face of the country, and the outlying districts, which had always furnished a field for recreation, were being built upon until town was touching town. Only upon the outermost borders of the district could out-of-door recreation be enjoyed among natural sourroundings, and the town-dwellers found these places too expensive and too difficult of access for frequent visits. Few of the towns and cities of the district possessed open spaces within their own limits which were larger than small squares, and these areas were often ill provided with facilities for the utilization of their precincts as playgrounds or even as resting-places. Vacant lots here and there furnished playgrounds for children; but when these lots were built upon, streets and sidewalks were the only resource left to them. Many of the towns were traversed by rivers whose borders were already occupied to an alarming extent by a class of cheap dwellings that threatened to obliterate what little beauty remained to the abused streams, and to bring about unhealthy conditions of habitation. The least favorable sites for houses upon the rugged cliff-like hills which bordered certain parts of the inner towns of the district were also being sought. The river borders and the rugged hills had been spared until this time by the unconscious plan of development which topog- raphy had forced upon the community, and it was clear that these territories could be made to offer recreation advantages as parks, although they did not offer healthy or desirable house-sites. The city of Boston, as already described, was able to solve her own problem for the relief of congestion and prevent the occupation of certain unsanitary ground by creating a park system for herself. Her relief, however, contributed very little advantage to the cities and towns upon her borders except toward the south and west, where the inhabitants of a few towns were able to enjoy privileges which they had no hand in creating. It there- fore remained for the great metropolitan district to secure parks for itself. THE MOVEMENT FOR METROPOLITAN PARKS At the time when the need of parks as a means to relieve the evils of close settlement and to solve certain sanitary problems was greatest, there was a pronounced movement 58 TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY among all classes in the community for outdoor sports. Sailing, bicycling, baseball, lawn-tennis and many other sports gained unprecedented popularity. Hand in hand with these athletic interests went an interest in flowers and the creatures of the field and wood. At this period the works of certain landscape painters were attracting universal admiration, and the camera had brought a ready means of landscape record to the hands of everyone. These physical and esthetic tendencies in the community ensured the marshaling of a host of champions to assist a movement for parks which would satisfy the newly awakened desires, although based upon sanitary, moral, and educational needs. The success of the parks secured by the city of Boston had proved the practicability of public control of large tracts of land for recreation, and it had proved the possibility of making such open spaces beautiful in the highest sense. The Boston parks were examples of the practical and esthetic needs of the cities and towns about Boston which were too short-sighted to provide open spaces for the future when land was cheap and plenty, and too poor and weak to provide them when land for recreation was costly but sorely needed. The district needing parks was, of course, composed of those cities and towns in the vicinity of Boston which were so far away from unsettled country that access to it for purposes of recreation was impossible or shortly to be impossible. As already described, this district, although possessing sufficient ties with the central city to make it a political part of that metropolis, was nevertheless divided by petty boundaries into small inde- pendencies, distinct politically from it and from one another. The jealousies of these towns and cities were likely to be so great, and their breadth of view so narrow, that the inade- quate funds at their command could accomplish little toward the establishment of effective parks. So compact was their growth and so confined were they by one another, that nothing short of a series of connecting parks and parkways could offer them escape from their own streets, and yet they were unable to provide such a system. The problem was not unlike that affecting sewage disposal in the towns near Boston, as already described; but the applicability of state aid was not as evident, and a much larger district was involved. A form of legislation which had never been found necessary before, and which was needed for one part of the state only, seemed at first sight an expedient out of keeping with the provinces of the state government. Despite the obstacles which stood in the way of the establishment of parks for the metropolis of separate towns and cities, the acquisition of such open spaces was shortly to be assured by a park movement so short in apparent duration, so free from opposition and controversy, and so far-reaching in its ultimate results, as to make the ten years' struggle which had been a forerunner of Boston city parks seem inexplicable. It must be remembered, however, that the community was awake to the necessity of greater parks, and that the early battle for Boston parks had defeated an opposition which could nevermore gain audience. At the time of this movement certain picturesque tracts of wild land north of Boston, which had always been resorted to by a great number of persons for the enjoyment of woodland and pond scenery, were threatened by the advance of building operations, which promised, in a short season, to extend over the entire region. At the same period certain wild tracts south of Boston, which had gained a similar public favor by their enjoyable scenery, were also in jeopardy at the hands of private owners. Although both these tracts were owned by many individual proprietors, and the public at large had no rights in the territory, yet when the people discovered that the beauty of these sylvan tracts was to suffer serious injury, and that an enjoyment of one of the OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 59 natural resources of the Boston district was to be taken from them, a popular outcry -arose. This attitude of this community toward certain tracts of land and its favorable attitude toward parks in general will go far to explain the readiness with which a popular movement for metropolitan parks was begun and the ease with which its objects were attained. In 1891 a body of citizens, consisting of members of the various local park boards in the vicinity of Boston, members of a corporation known as "The Trustees of Public Reservations," members of a popular club of mountain-climbers known as "The Appa- lachian Mountain Club," members of philanthropic societies, and individuals, appointed a representing committee to appeal to the State Legislature for parks in the vicinity of Boston for the benefit of the whole community. In reference to this appeal the legislature of 1892 appointed an inquiring commission of three members, who were instructed to study the needs of the district in regard to parks and to report to the next Legislature. The commission was empowered to employ assistants, and to prepare such plans and documents as might be necessary for a complete exposition of the problem and its solution. The member of the commission examined the district alone and with local park boards, and employed Charles Eliot* as their landscape architect. The first report, dated January, 1893, is of great interest. This report led to the appointment of a permanent commission empowered to provide parks for the advantage of that part of the region about Boston included within the limits of certain of the cities and towns which were enumerated as con- stituting the Metropolitan Park District of Boston. The Board of Metropolitan Park Commissioners has continued to exercise its powers for the taking and improvement of lands for the Metropolitan District until the present time, and the remainder of this pamphlet will be devoted to an outline of the work which the Board has accomplished. THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT IN 1893 Before enumerating the recommendations of the Metropolitan Park Commissioners, and describing the lands taken by them for public parks, it will be profitable to consider the general landscape features of the seashore and the inland country of the Metropolitan district as they appeared in 1893. A contour map of Boston and its vicinity, including all the towns of the Metropolitan District, will be found accompanying this paper. By reference to this plan, it will be seen that the Atlantic Ocean washes the wharves of Boston and the curiously irregular shores which converge toward them from the north- east and the southeast, through the channels and over the shoals of the island-strewn Boston Bay. In the innermost reaches of this bay, three rivers — the Mystic, the Charles and the Neponset — meet the sea, and discharge the waters of the comparatively level but hill-dotted Boston basin and the waters of the horseshoe-shaped range of abrupt hills upon the north, west and south. The positions of the various cities and towns which occupy this country are shown upon the plan, together with the highways and railroads which connect them. (A revised contour map will be found facing page 42.) The Ocean. — The advance of population in an easterly direction from the Boston basin is barred by the ocean, whose borders will always remain open to light and air, no matter what shadows and barriers may darken the inland districts; recreation will always be at hand upon its borders, wherever there is a foothold or an opportunity to enter boats. 'Deceased March 25, 1897. 60 TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY The islands of the bay also offer a resource to the cities and towns which the growth of the district can hardly endanger. The Ocean Shore. — The ocean has found a remarkably irregular shore for itself among the half-submerged crags and drumlins which border the coast line, or have been engulfed and by the action of the waves again connected with the mainland by long, sandy beaches. The seashore has attracted two classes of settlement to it: Trade and commerce have sought it, where good harbors offered encouragement to shipping; and the cottager and hotel-keeper have sought it, where its picturesque qualities and its proximity to railroads made it available for summer resorts. The city of Boston did not allow her ships to occupy the whole extent of the shore line at her command, but she provided a harbor playground and bathing-beach, and a large marine park at the expense of wharves and warehouses, for the pleasure of her citizens, as already described. The seashores of the district were suffering a greater harm, however, from the occupation of certain beaches by an undesir- able class of cottages, hotels, dance-halls, restaurants and bath-houses. The great sweeps of sandy beach at Revere and Nantasket were occupied from their crests to high-water mark, and even below that line, by establishments of this kind, which attracted a host of people of a somewhat disorderly type. These matchless shores were thus enjoyed by one class only in the community. Certain other reaches of beach and headland were also threatened with similar occupancy at the hands of private owners. The Rivers. — The description of the part played by rivers in the advance of the early settlements near Boston makes it clear that these streams must have been closely pressed by houses in 1893. Although this was true of the Mystic, Charles, and Neponset in parts of their courses where the tenements and mills of manufactories had found a profitable lodgement, there were portions of these water-ways which had not been so seriously tres- passed upon as to rob them of all their original beauties. The upper waters of these streams and the marshy mouths of the Mystic and Neponset were nearly free from encumbrance, although they were not likely to enjoy this immunity for many years. The map of the district shows in a rough way the condition of the river borders as regards settlement. The opportunities offered for recreation by these rivers were many and valuable, and it was evident to the host of persons who enjoyed these privileges that the rivers and their banks were a resource of the district which should be free from the caprice of private ownership. The water boards of many towns had already looked far enough into the future to satisfy them of the advantages of controlling certain parts of the streams, and they had accordingly purchased tracts of shore for their own needs. Ponds. — The ponds lying within the Metropolitan District were for the most part held by local parks or water boards, who had reserved nearly all pond borders, and insured the purity of their waters. The Floor of the Boston Basin. — This tract of comparatively level country, strewn with gravelly hills, was covered, by the progress of settlement already described, with a mantle of houses which could afford no adequate opportunities for recreation within its midst. Effective highways or parkways, as a means of escape from its confines to parks upon its borders, were sadly needed. By reference to the plan, it will be seen how com- pletely certain of the hills which stood in the way of settlement were overwhelmed by the house-mantle, and how circuitous in many cases were the traffic roads which connected the heart of the settlement with the country districts upon its borders. The Enclosing Horseshoe of Hills. — The everspreading mantle of houses had already OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 61 commenced to enfold the slopes of the rugged range of hills upon the limits of the Boston basin. The map shows the occupation of the bold front of the range northwest of Boston at Winchester, Maiden, Melrose, Arlington Heights, and north of Boston at Lynn. The city of Lynn had viewed this inroad upon her hills with concern, and she had accordingly purchased over 500 hectares (2,000 acres) of land upon these crests for a park and a water- supply basin. The value which the inhabitants of the Metropolitan District recognized in certain of the wild tracts upon these bounding hills as areas for recreation has been dwelt upon; but it is interesting to notice that the hills northwest of Boston, between Winchester and Maiden, and the great range of the Blue Hills south of Boston, were the tracts which appealed to them most strongly. Settlement had already laid hold upon the first of these tracts. In the second tract, a private ownership which permitted the wholesale destruction of the forest-cover by wood-cutting, and which was powerless to check devastating fires, was arousing popular indignation. THE WORK OF THE COMMISSION To rehearse the seven years' history of the work accomplished by the Commissioners of Boston Metropolitan Parks, as set forth by the open spaces which they have secured for the public to be preserved and improved for recreation purposes, would occupy far greater space than is now at hand. One characteristic of the work and policy of the com- mission will make a short treatment of the subject effective, however. That characteristic is that the plan outlined by the first Board and its Landscape Architect and Secretary, in 1893, has been followed in the acquisition and development of territory without con- siderable deviation until the present time. It will therefore be necessary only to review the recommendations of the first Board, which will amount practically to a statement of the lands secured. To this statement will be added a short description of two of the characteristic reservations of the system. In describing the recommendations, and the acquisition of territory which followed them, it will be convenient to return to the order of treatment which was used above in the description of the main topographical features of the Metropolitan District. These features have been described sufficiently already to make further elaboration of them unnecessary. The acquisitions of the Commission are shown in a green tint upon the map already mentioned. The Ocean. — It was observed in the Commissioners' report of 1893 that, perhaps, no city in the world, with the exception of Venice, had made so good use of the facilities offered for recreation upon harbor waters as Boston. Her marine parks and playgrounds and her fleet of pleasure craft were then, as now, almost without a counterpart. While it was observed that the islands of the bay would offer valuable recreation areas in the future, it was suggested that immediate action in regard to them was not necessary, because the lands were with few exceptions in safe keeping by city, state and national government. The Ocean Shore. — Takings were recommended along the shore north of Boston, including Revere Beach and adjacent shores in the district which had suffered by private interests, as already described. Extensive shore takings were also advised along the Quincy coast, south of Boston. The acquisition of over six miles of these shores has been accom- plished, and a part of Nantasket Beach has also been secured, together with King's Beach near Lynn. 62 TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY The Rivers. — Along the Charles River takings were recommended from Boston to Newton Lower Falls, including territory upon both banks, forming nearly continuous ribbons. Acquisitions have been made which include all those recommendations, and which have reserved sufficient additional territory to extend the realm of public owner- ship nearly to Dedham. Over 224 hectares (560 acres) are included in these lands, exclusive of banks restricted but not taken. The takings along the Mystic River include a little over 100 hectares (250 acres). Other territory is unlikely to be added, because the lower reaches of the river are needed for commercial purposes. The Neponset River recommendations have been somewhat exceeded in the acqui- sitions of banks and meadows. Public ownership along the stream now comprises nearly 400 hectares (1,000 acres) of land free from private control. The Beaver Brook Reservation, between Waltham and Belmont, has been secured upon the recommendation of the Commission. It occupies 24 hectares (60 acres) of land. As regards the minor streams and brooks of the Metropolitan district, the commissioners' report stated that they should be brought under public control. Many of the parkways since constructed by the Commissioners have followed the courses of these streams, and have reserved them between lines of roadway in a ribbon of land especially devoted to their protection. Ponds.- — The Commission recommended that the shores of the Mystic Lakes, which lie northwest of Boston, near West Medford, be secured for the public. Over half this territory has been acquired. Almost all the still water in the Metropolitan district is con- trolled by the public, through the agency of park and water boards, and the Metropolitan Park Commissioners have not found it a part of their duties, therefore, to secure ponds and lakes. The Floor of the Boston Basin. — Specific recommendations were made for a parkway connection between the proposed takings at Revere Beach and the Mystic Lakes, and general recommendations for parkway connections between the various other reservations and the districts needing access to them were also specified. The Revere Beach Parkway has realized the specific recommendation, and a large number of other parkways have supplied the other desired connections. The position and strategic value of these links between the areas set apart for recreation and the closely settled districts which they serve is made plain on the plan. The Enclosing Hills. — The Commission recommended the taking of those two extensive tracts of woodland upon the steep slopes of the northern and the southern hills, which have already been described as holding a high place in public regard. These two tracts have been acquired, and are known as the Middlesex Fells and the Blue Hills Reservation. Their areas are respectively 1,200 hectares (3,000 acres), and 1,900 hectares (4,800 acres). Of the area of the first tract, 460 hectares (1,150 acres) are controlled by the Metropolitan Water Board. Recommendations of the Commission for takings upon the western upland escarpment, near Waltham, have not as yet been realized, except to a small degree in a reservation made by the local authorities of that town. A tract of woodland lying upon a detached spur of the southern range of hills, and including an attractive pond in its midst, has been acquired upon the recommendation of the Commission. The area of this acquisition, known as the Stony Brook reservation, is 180 hectares (450 acres). OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 63 THE METROPOLITAN PARKS AS A WHOLE It is made evident, by the plan of the Boston Metropolitan district and its reser- vations, that ample open spaces have been provided for the people upon the high bordering hills, upon the banks of the traversing rivers, and upon the bounding ocean shores. The plan also shows the parkways which tie the various reservations to one another and bring them within reach of the people of the cities. The uniform distribution of open spaces around and within the district, and the effective parkway connections between them and the heart of population, characterize the Boston Metropolitan Parks as a system, well balanced, and well knit to the great metropolis of which it has become an organic part. The lands thus secured to the public amount to 3,710 hectares (9,280 acres), and include in addition 27 kilometers or 17 miles of connecting parkways. The cost of the system, to date (1900), for land and improvements, is $5,135,000. THE RESERVATIONS It has been the policy of the Commissioners to develop acquired lands to no greater extent than to improve existing roads, to establish fire patrols, to maintain superinten- dents, police forces, and sufficient numbers of laborers to mend roads and to attend to minor forest inprovements. In the case of the Revere Beach Reservation, however, the Commission has undertaken the execution of completed works from carefully prepared plans. In order to set forth the policy of the Commissioners in these matters, and to describe the chief characteristics of two of the reservations, it will be profitable to refer briefly to the Revere Beach and Middlesex Fells Reservations. As for the other open spaces, no further reference can be made to them within the limits of the present description. The Revere Beach Reservation. — The occupation of Revere Beach, previous to its acqui- sition by the Board, by an objectionable class of hotels, dance-halls and shops, and its patronage by a rough element in the communtity, to the discomfiture of others, has been described already. Upon securing this tract of shore for the public, the commission removed all buildings from the front slope of the beach, and cooperated with the railroad, which occupied its crest, to find a new location behind the remaining houses. Upon the original site of the railroad, a driveway with bordering promenades was provided, extending for a distance of over two miles along the crest of the beach. This radical change not only made the beach accessible to a much larger number of persons than had enjoyed it before, but it brought about a remarkable improvement in the buildings bordering the new prop- erty at the hands of their owners, who found it profitable to prepare for a better class of patronage. Not satisfied with these improvements, the Commission provided shelters at various points along the waterside promenade for the accommodation of sightseers; and it also erected an administration building, in conjunction with two extensive bath- houses for surf-bathing. In connection with these buildings, a laundry, a bicycle-storage shed and a police station were installed. Dressing-rooms to the number of 1,700 were provided, and over 7,000 men and women have used them in one day. A small charge is made for the dressing-rooms and for the use of bathing suits and towels. The receipts from this source in 1899 covered the cost of the year's maintenance, which amounted to $20,000. The natural resources of the reservation, in a shore offering unexcelled oppor- tunities for bathing and an inspiring view of the open sea, when combined with the pro- 64 TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY visions for enjoyment afforded by the bath-houses and the various shelters, have made this acquisition of the Commission the most popular of all the public holdings. Over 100,000 persons have enjoyed the privileges of this reservation in a single day. The cost of the reservation for land and construction, to 1900, is $1,650,000. The Middlesex Fells Reservation. — This tract of forest, containing 800 hectares (2,000 acres) of land, exclusive of the extensive holdings of the Metropolitan Water Board, lies upon the escarpment of the northern range of hills which bound the Boston basin. It is surrounded by the towns of Stoneham, Woburn, Winchester, Medford, Maiden, and Melrose, where its steep hills kept at bay the advance of the housebuilder until just before its acqui- sition by the Commission. This reservation, like all the other holdings of the Board, with the exception of the Revere Beach Reservation, has been kept in its natural state, so far as extensive improvements of roads or the installation of shelters and other conveniences for the public are concerned. A superintendent and a force of five policemen, and an average of a dozen laborers, are able to maintain order and to carry on such constructions upon roads, buildings and fences as are required from time to time. The force of laborers is often increased during the winter, to undertake forest improvements of a limited kind. Fire patrols are maintained during spring and autumn, to notify headquarters of the out- break of fires in the reservation or upon its borders. The present generation is as much concerned to preserve the forest tracts now remaining to it as the first generation of colon- ists was interested to destroy them for the advantage of agriculture and building. The protection and care that is devoted to the forest cover of the Fells is extended to all the reservations. As regards the forest trees in the various Metropolitan parks, their variety and distribution is essentially the same in the Fells as in the other reservations. The sum- mits of the rocky hills support a stunted growth of pine, cedar, birch, scrub-oak, juniper, barberry and other plants enduring poor soil and great exposure. The hill slopes are usually clad in a coppice of oak and hickory, with here and there a colony of chestnut, pine or poplar. These trees are survivors from the ancient wood-lots of the community, whose ownership of the land preceded the Commissioners' takings. Trees upon the lower land are often of large size, and frequently include elms which indicate the sites of old farms, in whose immediate neighborhood trees suffer less severe treatment than upon the hills. The great oaks in the Beaver Brook Reservation are examples of trees preserved by ancient landholders for the mere love of them near home grounds. The Middlesex Fells Reser- vation possesses a treasure in its pond scenery which is not to be matched in any of the other reservations, and which goes far to make amends for the small size of the hills as compared with the semi-mountainous heights of the Blue Hills Reservation. These water areas are controlled by the Metropolitan Water Board, which has done much to preserve their natural aspect, while pursuing extensive changes in their outline for the purposes of increased water-storage capacity. The cost of the Middlesex Fells Reser- vation for lands and maintenance, to 1900, was $870,000. Metropolitan Boston profits in 1900 by the plan of settlement which the topography of the district has relentlessly forced upon it since the first frontiersman built his cabin in 1630. Sterile and harborless ocean shores, unstable and unhealthy river and brook banks and unsurmountable hills, have been blamed and fought generation after generation because they could not be adapted to the requirements of trade and house-building. But today, when traffic and the walls of buildings threaten the life of the community, the plan of nature has become a resource. It is upon the ground forbidden to the trader and OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 65 the builder that enough of forest, meadow, sunlight and water have been found to save from extinction and to preserve for present necessity something of the beauty and life- giving qualities of the original forest mantle, the original meadows and early pastures, the pure waters and the untroubled horizons of the first civilization. A VISIT TO PARIS By HAROLD A. CAPARN (Meetine of November 14. 1905) WHEN we get beyond the province of the landscape architect and into that of the architect we must be able to meet him on his own ground, and, if neces- sary, step well over the half-way line, to take his point of view and discuss with him in his own language; for, as the office of the landscape architect is to compose all the materials on the territory under his control, the house, as one of the details of the composition, should bear tokens of the suggestion of the landscape architect, or at least of his approval. We do not, necessarily, have to be able to build a house, but at least we should be able to criticize it. I lived very close to the Luxembourg Gardens, and in times out of hours I found a great deal of amusement and some instruction in observing things there. The one thing that struck me was the admirable order in which the Paris parks and gardens were kept, and the orderly behavior of the people who used them. Of course, the poeple in the Lux- embourg Gardens go there in very large numbers at most times, and in immense crowds on Sundays and holidays. They never appear to stray from the walks or places provided for them to walk on, and they actually seem to be able to regard grass as a piece of pure de- coration, just like a piece of tapestry or a flower-bed — not a thing to be walked upon. From my experience in this country, everybody thinks it must be walked upon, and any attempt to fence it off, or to put up a "keep-ofF-the-grass" sign, is an infringement of public rights. I suppose, sometime, we shall educate our public up to conforming to the same idea. One thing I remember, in the Luxembourg Gardens and in all the parks of Paris and wherever I went, was their way of using the flower-beds and bedding plants, partic- ularly in the naturalistic parts of the park. I suppose it is popular, maybe beautiful, but I don't think everybody in this room would think it entirely beautiful. They make beautiful lawns and they keep them beautifully, and everything is trimmed as neatly as possible; then they make a sort of tumor in the lawn, and put a flower-bed on it always of the same oval shape, and very often planted with great ingenuity and variety of material in bedding plants. That is the point that struck me as rather out of character with the usual French good taste and instinct for what is appropriate. The Luxembourg Gardens are interesting for many reasons, partly because they give examples of almost every phase of gardening as it is looked at by French eyes. There are formal gardening and informal gardening, terraces, balustrades, steps, statuary, trees planted in the quincunx arrangement, avenues trimmed to a vertical line to two-thirds the height of the trees, and nearly everything you can think of. I can hardly think of any- thing, in a general way, that is not to be found there. There are long beds in front of the palace which are used, not for the sake of the flowers, but like friezes or bands of pure 66 TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY decoration, and the planting of these I found of decided interest. I suppose M. Vacherot, who runs all these things, gave a general superintendence to them, but he certainly did not go into many particulars. They seemed to be planted with a view to obtaining a gen- eral effect of gaiety and glow of color, and they certainly did have it to an admirable extent. They don't care much what colors come together, or what kinds of foliage come together, as we do in America, where we would think it a very serious matter if we should see purple phlox with scarlet geraniums near it. In this kind of work, the French authorities do not seem to regard trifles like small errors in color, and so long as they get a general effect which has its influence on the whole surrounding and general scheme, they are satisfied. I took down some planting schemes in some of these beds, and will see if I cannot decipher one or two of them for you, as it might be of interest in a general way: Here are six meters of flower-bedding about seven feet wide. Six meters, of course, is about twenty feet — less than twenty feet. Down the middle is a miscellaneous collec- tion of things: California privet, tall fuschias, altheas, herbaceous sunflowers, pelargon- iums, six feet high, planted without any particular arrangement. On each edge is a line of scarlet geraniums. Between, is a mixture of almost anything: Yellow and crimson coleus, gladioli, Rudbeckia hirta, ageratum, white geranium, monarda, white phlox, etc. It is no use giving you the exact order, because there is no exact order. Any old order does, but the important thing about it is that, generally speaking, it all looks well, and it makes a gorgeous variety of color which, I suppose, is beautiful from the archi- tect's point of view. Flowers don't matter a bit, but the general scheme of decoration is thoroughly good and effective. As for the colors, their indifference to some people's notions of color-schemes is remarkable. I was very much surprised to find about one hundred and fifty yards of scarlet and pink geraniums planted between the trees in the Avenue de 1'Observatoire, which some of you will no doubt remember — beds about seven feet wide with enough geraniums to fill them for about one hundred and fifty yards, and yet it really was very effective. Ever since that I have had a good deal of respect for the geranium, more than I ever had before. I have had a period in my mental development when I was inclined to despise bedding plants, but I now think they are as good material for decoration as anything else, and will produce effects that cannot be produced with anything else. The other parks in Paris are very interesting, but they do not contain many features, I think, on which I can make any extended remarks of interest. The most interesting is the Pare des Buttes Chaumont, and there, again, if you happen to go on a Sunday, it is perfectly marvelous to see the gardens and the people there, and the way in which they respect the park, and the way they keep off the grass, and don't tear down the trees or flowers. I suppose, if we work hard enough and long enough, we shall get our public into a similar frame of mind some of these days. I spent a good deal of time in going to other places — of course, Versailles. I went there several times and arrived at conclusions which are, probably, more or less heretical. I don't know what landscape architects think about Versailles, because I hardly ever talked to any of them about it; but the general opinion among architects is that Versailles is something beyond which it is impossible to go. To me, while you can't help admiring its magnificence and its splendid adaptation to its purpose as a setting to the Court of Louis XIV, or as a work of art, it is a thing, in many ways, which should not be. In the first place, instead of being as inexpensive as possible, — which I think, in a general way, any kind of work of art should be, — it was OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 67 made as expensive as possible. The whole scene seems to reek of the tyranny of the times and the Iavishness of the Court of Louis XIV, from the details inside the building to the outside of the old barracks of a palace itself. The gardens themselves seem to me to be adapted to nothing whatever except the purpose for which they were created. They lack repose, sympathy, and almost everything else except splendor and magnificence, and when you wander for a few hours about these interminable straight avenues, and see nothing but straight avenues with a fountain at the intersection and in all directions the same old straight avenues, with the splendid monotony that architects claim for them, you really wonder if something else less expensive were not possible. And then, perhaps, you wander in the Petit Trianon and the Hameau, and think what a relief it is to get in the English Garden, which is more or less like Central Park, and think how poor little Marie Antoinette must have enjoyed the escape from the palace to the Grand Trianon, and from the Grand Trianon to the Petit Trianon and her little dairy-farm with its water-wheel and three-hundred-pound miller, where she sold butter and cheese and eggs to the Court ladies, and where she could take two inches off her heels and a little of the gorgeousness and ceremony off her state gowns, and go into her cottage and play at playing, as she did, according to history. But it is only fair to the great Lenotre to say that there are at least two occasions when Versailles seems to be worth its cost — when the fountains are playing and for half an hour before sunset. The gardens are quite incomplete without the fountains, which seem to vitalize the whole composition and show what was the conception that arose in the imagination of its creator. And the sun seeming about to sink into the lake, as you can see it from the upper terrace, adds an atmosphere and mystery to the setting of vast green walls and statuary and water that makes the whole scene one of the most poetic I have ever seen anywhere. The sun is, at least, as indispensable a part of the scheme as the fountains; and perhaps Lenotre intended, in a spirit of superb flattery of his master, Louis XIV, whose emblem was the sun, to take the actual sun itself as the dominant motive of his design. I think I was fortunate in discovering a place near Paris that is not known to very many people; perhaps many of you here have never heard of Meudon. It is a place near St. Cloud and Sevres where there used to be a palace, and there are now the remains of magnificent gardens with an orangery and some very high terraces. The building itself has been made into an observatory, and I don't think it is known to many people; but, if you want a grand scheme full of air, with a thorough development of the means at hand, I would recommend anybody who has the opportunity to go to Meudon. It certainly gains a great deal from the fact that it was built in a very uneven country with magnificent views over Paris. At present, it is in a very dilapidated state, but it is well worth going to see. There is also a very fine park at Compiegne, laid out on a very big and magnificent scale, with immense gayety and color in bedding plants, which, again, seem to be put in to please popular taste. Popular taste over there likes color. They don't care what it is, or where it is, so long as they get lots of it. That is the conclusion I came to in noting the gorgeous array of bedding plants. In all their park and garden work, as well as in their architecture, the French feeling, the French taste, the French point of view, and French technique are manifest. They always know what they want to do and how to do it. There is a splendid sureness about all their work. They have an eye for line and for balance and symmetry which is not to be sur- 68 AMERICAN SOCIETY OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS passed. Whether they are placing a relief on a wall or laying down the lines of a drive- way in the Bois de Boulogne with a border of rough stones, there is always a sweep about it, a feeling for grace and propriety and what I might call esthetic logic that shows them to be professional artists to the backbone — not amateurs. They are always logical, too logi- cal, perhaps, in fact. After a while a certain tedium begins to show itself through the fascination, and we begin to wonder whether Paris could not, in time, actually become monotonous, if it were not for the work done before the High Renaissance, the glorious churches and the astonishing chateaux beginning with Blois and Chambord. I read some- where the other day that Diderot says that the French judge everything with their head. This is true, and truer now than then. They must be logical, and they don't know how to make successful mistakes. They seem unable to feel the charm of unreasonableness, and there is a certain coldness and lack of vitality about their work in consequence. We consider Paris the art-center of the world, and send our promising young men and women in swarms to be made over and polished up so that students there are now divided into two classes: The others and the Americans who seem to be taking more than their share of the honors. Some of them come back and directly or indirectly are the cause of many deplorable things — acres of gross and blatant stone work in this very town in which the French crudity and coarseness is exaggerated, and its grace and fineness omitted. But our best fellows seem to me to go there and absorb most of what is best in French design, and to come back and produce stuff that, after all, is American. As we are a composite race, made up of people from almost all countries, and are yet devel- oping a national type, I hope in time that we shall take the best we can find from other countries, and, through our own consciousness, develop it into an art, that will be, perhaps, better than any of them and truly national. In the subsequent discussion Mr. Parsons said that M. Vacherot was apologetic for most of the Paris parks; he seemed to think that they sacrifice too much to giving the French people what they want. In an experience of twenty-five years in the parks, Mr. Parsons had come to believe that the people do not require bedding. He did not remember one letter asking for it. Mr. Caparn said that everything was done with a French touch, and looks better than the same thing would here. For instance, shrubberies bordered with lines of bedding plants so arranged as to give a firm line on the lawn and to merge into the mass of foliage behind. It looks stiff and bad, but neat and gay. Gorgeous color-effects gained everywhere by oval flower-beds made in tumors on the lawn, well done in themselves, but making it difficult to find a well-balanced subject for the camera. All partly redeemed by the invincible French instinct for technique, the power to foresee a result, and get it with a sure touch. This is found in the lines of roads, the cement borders of the lake in Buttes Chaumont park, and every- where else. The most varied and interesting park is that of Buttes Chaumont. Before the forties it was a disused stone quarry, the resort of criminals and other unpleasant people. Mr. Leavitt said that the Luxembourg Gardens were mainly children's playgrounds. There are heavy shade trees, mainly horse-chestnuts, with gravel and sand underneath, so that children can dig and play in the shade. The waterfall in the Bois de Boulogne is a pretty good bluff, the only way to make one if there had to be a waterfall there. Mr. Greenleaf kept his eyes open in Paris for good work, and found it strangely absent. Paris is a good place to study design in general, but the particular kind of design used by landscape architects is conspic- uous by its absence. Mr. Olmsted was told by M. Andre of a scheme of decorating the great walls of rocks in the Buttes Chaumont with rock-plants in little pockets, excavated. After a few years they were all crowded out by English ivy, probably with a better effect. The logic of the French mind does not show in the waterfall in the Bois de Boulogne. The water falls from a kind of rock built up artificially. Mr. Langton thought that the Paris parks were not designed to have the masses of bedding-plants one sees there. COST OF LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT By CHAS. W. LEAVITT, JR. (Meeting of December 12. 1905) INASMUCH as the expenses connected with the development of the landscape are so varied, it is necessary to particularize in order to give information that may be interesting, without becoming tiresome. I will therefore endeavor to answer the question which is perhaps the most familiar to those in our profession, as the most interesting way of opening the subject for healthy discussion. The question may be put as follows: "How much will it cost to develop fifty acres of farm land located about two miles from a railroad station, which is about thirty miles from New York City, in the State of New York, and to put upon it all reasonable features for comfort, beauty and enjoyment." Numerous questions and the inspection of the property developed the following information: The land is high (about one hundred and fifty feet above the railroad station), about two-thirds meadow, and fairly sprinkled with boulders and fenced with tumbled-down stone walls. Approximately, one-third is woodland, the trees being good-sized beeches, chestnuts, oaks, hickories, dogwoods, etc. There are two streams, one small and origi- nating in a spring upon the property, and the other a good-sized brook with its source about two miles above the property. The first stream had a fall of some fifteen feet in two hundred, and flowed at the rate of about 20,000 gallons a day. The site for the house is on the southern edge of the woodland, from which point there is a good view of the countryside. The ground rises in the woods to the north to an elevation of about twenty-five feet above the house-site. It was desired to construct: A house at a cost not to exceed $50,000 00 A stable for not more than 1 0,000 00 Greenhouses for about 5,000 00 Gardener's cottage, poultry-houses, cow- and sheep-barns, collectively to cost about .. 8,000 00 Or a total for buildings of $73,000 00 These requirements seemed to call for, first, a driveway leading from the highway to the residence, and from there to the stable and so on to the group of farm-buildings, which added up to some three thousand lineal feet. The drive was designed 14 feet wide with 4-foot sod gutters on either side, with catch-basins located every 200 feet, the basins to be connected with 6-inch pipe with the 8-inch drain carrying the leader water from the house and drainage from the garden. The cost of grading this road was 67 cents per lineal foot, including the saving of all topsoil, amounting to $2,000 00 The telford, 8 inches deep, cost $1 per square yard, aggregating 4,500 00 The 40 catch-basins, at $15 each 600 00 The sodding of the gutters cost 30 cents per square yard, or 360 00 And 4,000 feet of pipe, at 40 cents per foot, laid 1 ,600 00 Or a total of $9,060 00 (69) 7 o TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY The boulders that were encountered were broken up and used for the telford, and the cracked stone was shipped in on the railroad. The question of water was handled as follows: A 50,000-gaIIon cypress tank was located upon the hill in the woods. Cost of tank . . $800 00 Cost of foundations 200 00 Water was pumped into this tank by two Rife rams which cost, set up 500 00 A windmill to pump the water which escaped from the rams, and used as an auxiliary ;oo 00 Preparation of spring 200 00 Pipe from rams and windmill to tanks, and from tank to buildings 1,000 00 Water-works complete $3,200 00 for supplying an average of 2,500 gallons of water per day. The sewage from the house was taken care of by a septic tank discharging inter- mittently into a system of sub-surface irrigation pipes at a cost of $1,000. As little lawn space was desired, there was little grading. The cultivation and prepa- ration of the lawns immediately about the house was done at a cost of $300. A formal terrace garden was constructed, the walls being built of dry masonry with the exception of a small portion which carried a balustrade. In the garden there were 1,000 cubic yards of dry masonry, costing $2,000 00 300 cubic yards of wet masonry 1 ,800 00 300 lineal feet of balustrade 2,000 00 4 sets of steps (cut granite) 1,200 00 2 fountains 2,000 00 Plumbing 500 00 Drainage 200 00 One-third of an acre developed for planting, top-soil being put in to a depth of 2 feet. 1,000 00 Paths of common brick 1 ,000 00 Plants, trees and planting 1 ,200 00 4 marble benches 600 00 4 marble figures 800 00 Marble sundial 200 00 Making a total for the garden of $14,500 00 A tennis-court was constructed at a cost of $250 (earth surface, drained with stone laid similar to the foundation of a telford road, with cinder and earth covering). A swimming- pool, 25 by 50 feet, lined with white enamel brick and coped with marble, with marble steps and a house for shower baths, including heating and filtering apparatuses, were constructed at a cost of $6,000; a bowling-green was made at a cost of $200. General plantations were made in which 500 trees were used, at a cost of $1,500, and 2,000 shrubs, costing $500, with 3,000 feet of hemlock hedge, were planted at a cost of $1,200. Construction of a vegetable-garden amounted to $500, and 2,500 feet of stone walls, as fences, were built at a cost of $2,500. Three entrance gateways were built at an aggregate cost of $3,000. Fifteen acres were planted in permanent pasture, the ground being plowed and fertilized, at a cost of $1,000. Five acres were planted in fruit-orchard, there being about two hundred trees, at a total cost of $300. A dam in the large stream was constructed and a lake formed, at a cost of $1,000. OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 71 The whole cost of the landscape development, outside of buildings, amounted to a total of $46,010, which included a 10 per cent professional fee. This sum is about one- half the cost of the buildings. The proportion of one-half the cost of the buildings is, I think, an important matter for discussion and consideration, as upon it may depend the decision of a prospective client as to living out-of-town. One scarcely realizes the difference between the country and the city until taught by experience. It has always seemed to me that people going into the country should contemplate an interest there which would make them independent of the city for amusement. This may, of course, be had in a greater or less degree; but one who goes into the country, and yet looks to the city for his amusement, is taking a great risk. The construction of a house is finished very rapidly, but not so the grounds, which one may say can never be entirely completed, and may afford much pleasure in the development as well as in finished results, if they are planned for an ultimate effect and executed in a substantial manner, and not too fast. The annual cost may thus be distributed over a sufficient period of time so as not to be burdensome, and one may contemplate the expenditure of a large amount with less hesitancy. The foregoing figures may seem high in some respects and low in others. This may be accounted for by the local conditions, which, of course, vary with every piece of work; so it might be well to add to the above figures in making estimates, if one wishes to be on the safe side. In the event of the work being done at a greater distance from New York, where labor may be secured at lower rates, and less rock encountered, reductions can be made from the costs given. These figures are based upon laborers at $1.65 per day; double teams, $4.50 per day; single horse, cart and driver, $3.50; masons, $4.20; foremen, $5; planters, $4, and upon rock amounting to 20 per cent of the excavation. The professional compensation would seem fair at 10 per cent for work done within a reasonable time. Should the time be extended beyond, say, three years, and a little done each year, a larger commission should be paid. In the subsequent discussion Mr. Leavitt said that the whole vegetable-garden was built, drained, and piped for hose for $500. Extra cost was due to the pergola and to fussing with the work after it was finished. The water-supply is an important element of comfort in a country place, and should be included by the landscape man in his work. Mr. Leavitt said that the value of his paper was in the discussion it would elicit. Mr. Langton found Mr. Leavitt's paper interesting, but answers the question of cost in a too final way. The cost depends on the character of the work. A scale of local costs is desirable. He found that parks could not be built for $1,000 an acre. The cost of improvements on his own place were about $1,000 an acre for 1,000 feet of road and a simple little garden. The cost of Hudson County Parks, New Jersey, was nearer $2,000 than $1,000 an acre. Mr. Parsons had found that general landscape work cost about $1,000 an acre. The contract for the first half of a city park of thirty acres was $141,000. Morningside Park cost $250,000 for blasting only. Mr. Parsons considered it better to lose work than give the idea that you would do it cheaply. Mr. Vaux found that the cost of work in the Catskills came to very near Mr. Leavitt's figures. He considered work of this kind done to better advantage by the day. It was too indefinite in character for contracting. Mr. Lowrie said that the cost of development depended on the cost and style of the house. The cost per acre for the grounds of a $20,000 house would probably be much less than for those of a $50,000 or $100,000 house. DESCRIPTION OF A DESIGN FOR WEST SIDE PARK, JERSEY CITY, N. J. By CHARLES N. LOWRIE and DANIEL W. LANGTON, Associated Landscape Architects (Meetintr of February 6. 1906) IN determining what should be the leading motive in a plan for the new West Side Park lands, we were guided by what we believed to be the correct answer to the question: "What kind of park thus situated would satisfy the needs of the greatest number of its possible users ? " A detailed study of the character of the population which this park is intended to serve, with a view to ascertaining these needs, would lead us far afield; and as the object of this report is to describe our plan for West Side Park, we will omit the process by which we have reached our conclusions and simply summarize them, and then proceed to a consideration of the plan itself. Briefly, then, we have in Hudson County a community of some 500,000 people, which it is predicted, will be a million inside of a generation. This great population is engaged, for the most part, in confining industrial pursuits, housed in streets and blocks closely built up; and having, furthermore, on account of the close proximity of adjoining cities and the peculiar geographical conditions, literally no open country within walking distance. In the immediate community which the park will serve — that is, all of Jersey City with parts of Hoboken and Bayonne — over half of this population lives; and the conditions just outlined are here most acute. No community ever stood more in need of a public park of the kind which we have endeavored to design — one in which the primary purpose from start to finish shall be to offer rest and recreation. West Side Park, on account of its size and central location, will be the most impor- tant park of the Hudson County system, occupying the same relation to the other parks that Central Park in New York and Prospect Park in Brooklyn respectively do in their communities. It would, therefore, seem highly desirable that it be made as beautiful as possible. In our planning we have had this as an important secondary motive. This has not been permitted to interfere in the least, however, with the idea of a thoroughly useful park, where, as we have just said, rest and recreation shall have first place. Our plan provides for a great abundance and a great variety of areas where almost every healthy outdoor recreation may be enjoyed. These features will be referred to as we proceed with a detailed description of our design. Referring now directly to the plan, it will be seen that by means of continuous drives, paths, and plantations, and a careful grading off of one type of ground surface into the next, that the park has been kept a compact unit from the Hudson County Boulevard to the Hackensack River, and from Duncan Avenue on the north to Communipaw Avenue on the south. Each part bears a distinct relation to the part next to it, and to the effect as a whole. At the same time, some parts are very different from others in design and function, and, broadly speaking, the park may be divided into three parts, the purpose of each being quite distinct. The first division may be said to extend from the Hudson County Boulevard to the brow of the hill some 800 feet west of West Side Avenue. It is treated in a formal manner. (72) GENERAL PLAN EST ° SIDE- HVDSON COVNTY NEW JERSEY AMERICAN SOCIETY OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 73 The second extends from this point to the low lands at Marcy Avenue projected. It is treated in a naturalistic way. The third from this point to the Hackensack River. This division provides a naturalistic lake and a great grassy field for recreation. Commencing, then, at the Boulevard, we enter the park lands through a broad plaza by means of double gateways for driveways and paths. This plaza is suggested topographi- cally by the comparatively level hilltop. Its purpose, besides giving a strong, dignified introduction, serves to care for the congestion of traffic which will arise from the use of the park. Furthermore, the extensive park beyond, owing to its lower level, would not otherwise be suggested by anything along the Boulevard (our great connecting parkway), and this fact alone fully justifies a very handsome treatment at this point. At the westerly end of this plaza the driveways unite and the paths converge toward the single roadway. The double driveways have been descending more rapidly than the paths so that the latter are here several feet higher and each on a platform. These plat- forms are further accented by two gazebos from which the longest views from any point in the park may be had. The elevation is 85 feet above the level of the Hackensack River and the view commanded includes the Hackensack, the Meadows, and the Orange Mountains miles beyond. A secondary and very important function of this portion of the park will be as a popular rendezvous where people in the immediate vicinity may sit and gossip and enjoy the shade, the outlook, and the fine breezes. The steep hillside down to West Side Avenue offers fine opportunities for good effects with trees and flowers. The driveway and paths are necessarily depressed for the sake of grade, and the rising ground on either side will lend itself to very handsome flanking plantations on a rising slope. At West Side Avenue, entrances and ample sidewalks amd waiting pavilions provide for the crowds which will arrive and depart by the street-cars and otherwise. This will be a very busy place. In fact we expect that the great majority of the users of the park will arrive and depart by this and the Hudson County Boulevard entrances, inasmuch as the bulk of Jersey City's population is eastward of the park. Hence the important treatment which has been given to these approaches. We now enter the main portion of the park. The treatment is not changed, for it is highly desirable that the street crossing should make as little interruption as possible to a feeling of continuity in the park design. The continuation of the formal portion of the park leads up to and terminates in an important cross-axis which forms both a fitting climax to what has gone before and a suitable opening out into the informal parts to which we are coming. The treatment here, like that at the Boulevard, was suggested by the topography which gives us our second bench or table-land. At the intersection of these two axes we have provided a broad, formal, circular pool surrounded by our driveway and walks, with a balustrade, where the hillside begins on the west. At the two ends of the transverse axis, sites are indicated for buildings, and between them is a broad mall with double walks and four rows of trees. It is our belief that this will be the great center toward which all park interests and activities will converge. From it the driveway divides in a Y-shaped manner, and numerous paths diverge to every quarter of the park. From its terrace-like promenade many of the best vistas will open up. At its north side a site is shown for a shelter building. At the south end provision 74 AMERICAN SOCIETY OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS is made for a band-stand and a music-court, and back of these for a restaurant and shelter combined. Access to this building may be had from carriages by means of the concourse, as indicated on the plan. The concourse is wide and comparatively level next to the music-court, with the purpose of giving a place where carriages may assemble and their occupants get the benefit of the band concerts without the necessity of alighting. To the east of the music-court is a broad, grove-like lawn intended as a playground for girls and smaller children where they may be separated from the rougher sports of boys. Adjoining it is an especially planned enclosure for little children and mothers, with a covered arbor for the latter and a variety of simple amusements features for the former. These include swings, see-saws, a sand-court, and a level strip of turf hedged in so that they cannot wander beyond bounds and need not be closely watched. Proceeding now to the second division of West Side Park, we have opening out from our cross-axis a beautiful expanse of rolling landscape, somewhat hollowed out through the center and treated as a quiet meadow-like lawn and supported to the north and south side by wooded knolls. Many vistas — lengthwise, crosswise, and diagonally — through this section have been worked out with great care. Shaded winding walks and drives circuit the tract in as unobtrusive a manner as possible. Their chief purpose is to make its many quiet features accessible, and to lead the visitor to points of advantage where he may enjoy, so far as is possible, a feeling of separation from city sights and sounds and the relaxation and rest of the country. Located in this section we plan to excavate a natural pool and a meandering stream leading to the lake beyond, also two wading-pools for small children, and an adminis- tration building placed where it will be convenient of access from all parts of the park and yet not unduly conspicuous. A zoological collection may be introduced in the southern or Communipaw Avenue region. The third and last division of the park may be said to begin with the level meadow- land at Marcy Avenue and to extend to the Hackensack River frontage. We have planned it as a great athletic field with amusement and recreation features and a lake. This lake is an important factor in the scenery in contrast with the other two sections of the park. It is on the line of sight as far back as the plaza at the Hudson County Boule- vard, and goes far toward tying the different parts together. Around it we have pro- vided a narrow winding path and in it two islands. A boat-house is shown which will also be useful in winter for skaters. In the athletic field proper we plan to provide complete facilities for outdoor sports. Ample areas are arranged for baseball, tennis, and general sport. A field-house with locker facilities is located about midway of the field. Along the river front we have planned a formal promenade terminating in buildings which, in the future, it is hoped will be useful as boat-landings, a recreation pier, res- taurant, etc. These buildings also terminate the long vista down the straight sides of the lower circuit drive. A feature of this third section of the park is the proposed sunken, transverse, traffic street connecting Marcy Avenue from north to south. It is intended for the future, and does not enter into our present programme except that the grade of our drives, paths, and ground-surfaces are so designed that it may be introduced when needed without entailing any remodeling or material change in the existing conditions. SMALL CITY PARKS By SAMUEL PARSONS, JR. (Meeting of March 6. 1906) DE WITT CLINTON PARK I HAVE one special park to consider as having perhaps more in it, and being a more genuine city playground than anything else in the city; this is De Witt Clinton Park on the west side of town, between 52d and 54th Streets and Eleventh and Twelfth Avenues. You can hardly imagine anything more difficult than to establish a playground in this place. It is in one of the most densely populated sections of the city. There are nothing but tenement houses as far as one can see, and a little further. The Hudson is on the west side, with a great number of docks between the park and the water. It is a peculiarly shaped piece of ground, tolerably level though the center, but it slopes off each way, so that it is not a flat piece of ground by any means. This region is so densely filled with houses, or was, that it was quite an experience to prepare it. In the beginning, as we had done in several cases of other parks, we sold the houses, got it turned over to the city, and all the people out of the houses. It was very difficult to get these people out. The condition of this ground was very rough when it was turned over to the Park Department to make the park; it consisted of a mass of cellars and old, half-pulled-down houses, and all that sort of thing. The first thing we did was to cross-section and get exact contours of this rough piece of ground, then lines of surface were established to fit the contours. The map showed the exact condition of the place, and where it was too high it was cut down, the holes filled in and all the rubbish cleaned away. It was a tremendous undertaking; it took a good deal of soil to do it, and it had to be watched very carefully. It is a very important thing to leave the ground at least six months or, better, a year or more; this one was left over a year before the real park work was com- menced. These holes and old cellars and ground would settle and settle and there would be great cracks. Some of the parks in years gone by have been built too hastily, and the cracks and settlement in the walks and holes have made a great deal of trouble. We have been more particular during the past five years. When we had secured the proper condition of soil, we commenced to make the park. Then the next question was to have a final survey of the contour lines, and to work from those contour lines in order to secure a suitable park for the use and enjoyment of the public, a park that would be not only beautiful to look at, but give accommodation to the people, the girls and men, not only the young but the grown-up people, for the women and the children, and everybody. It was decided to devote the end of the park nearest the city, where the surroundings are less attractive, to playgrounds, and to take the end next toward the Hudson and develop it largely for ornamental purposes, making it beautiful, a place where people would want to go and sit and enjoy themselves. We had one playground for the little children and the women, keeping the boys and men separate, for they are so hard to control; in preparing these grounds we had to surround them with fences and protect them in every way possible. That is one thing which is (75) 76 TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY very hard to understand: how it is possible to keep anything from injury in the city of New York. One who has not been through the experience of trying to take care of these playgrounds can hardly realize the difficulties that attend caring for the shrubbery and trees in a playground like this in a densely populated section. Directly in front of the playgrounds is a large gymnasium-ground for boys, for games and all gymnasium apparatus, and a running-track. We have built quite a complete building for shelter and refreshment, on which we have spent about $50,000 or $60,000, which has many baths in the basement, and above is a shelter where the band plays in the summer, and where is a place to sit and enjoy the breeze. This park has the most perfect buildings of any park in the city. These buildings were designed by Barney & Chapman. They have taken advantage of the mistakes in other parks, and have made the buildings more convenient and simple than the others, and they are not quite so expensive. I should prefer to see the buildings more simple; they are for the people who gather there to enjoy. It seems almost like a waste of money to spend so much of it in that way. All the plantation work is not finished and is still in the hands of the contractors of the Park Department, and trees will be set out in the spring. You will notice on the contour map some large rock; that has all been retained, and everything is kept very closely to the original contour of the land; and yet, at the same time, the slopes are made easy and attractive, and are sodded with grass. There is one thing to be said in regard to this shrubbery plantation work in all of the downtown parks, and that is the great care needed to be taken of them; although the police try to exercise control, it seems almost hopeless to attempt to keep trees in order and unbroken. Shrubbery suffers in the same way. You will notice that the space at the west end of the park is quite interesting because this is where we have the farm-garden at present located; the trees are not planted here, except on the outside. We do not allow them to plant anything in this farm-garden that is tall, like corn. They have cabbages, beets, turnips, and all those things. The farm- garden is in the middle, and is divided into little plots, and three hundred children, more or less, come in at different times of the day, and have certain hours to take care of their plots; there is considerable rivalry among the children who come here, and they seem to have a very good time. Mrs. Henry Parsons has worked the farm-garden idea up very carefully and made quite a success of it. There will probably be several others started during the coming year. Connected with this farm-garden there is a pergola made especi- ally for the mothers and children and for the use of the farm-garden tools; there is also a lecture-room where the teachers talk to the children in rainy weather. This is a very attractive building, and from it you can look out upon the Hudson. It is quite a success and very popular. The system of protection goes all around the park; the fence on the outside is about six feet high, and there are sloping banks with grass planted on them, and all of these banks have been re-sodded two or three times since they were put down last summer because the boys tear them up. Of course this park would suffer more now in its present condition because it is still in the hands of the contractor; the police do not have the same control that they will have when the park is turned over from the contractor into the hands of the Park Board. There is quite a steep slope running down to the Hudson; this is all sodded with OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 77 green grass and is very pretty. It is probable that some of the shrubbery planned will not be planted, for it seems hopeless to make shrubbery grow; we have tried it for twenty years and it hardly seems worth while in these crowded sections; they will not last six months. Shrubs with thorns and fences around the planting have been tried without effect. I would say in regard to these parks that we use a great deal of rich soil; 18 inches of rich soil over all the grass surface. When trees are planted we fill a very large hole with this rich soil so that everything that can be done to make the trees and shrubs grow and thrive is done, which, of course, ought to be done. There are no gravel walks to speak of; there are grass and trees with the playgrounds, then in the center is the gymnasium with gravel and back of that the farm-garden. The walks, I am sorry to say, we have to make of asphalt. Every year we repair these downtown parks, and buy about 400,000 square feet of sod for such work. People are forbidden to go on the grass. In a great many of the places we have used every inch on both sides of the walk for settees, and these settees form a stronger barrier than fences. W. H. SEWARD PARK This park is bounded by Canal Street, East Broadway, Hester Street, Essex Street, lefferson Street, Division Street, and Suffolk Street. This park, though it is quite small, probably cost more than any park ever built; it cost a million and a half to buy the ground; then the improvements cost at least $250,000 more, so that an acre and a-half of ground cost about $2,000,000. There is a building here with a place to sit down and listen to the music, then there is a gravel space for the athletic games, and a children's playground. Shrubbery cannot be kept because of the boys who destroy through mere vandalism. Sometimes three or four rowdies come in and start to threaten some laborer working, just out of pure wantonness, and if there is not a policeman around it goes hard with the laborer. Thieves come in there, too. It is a bad neighborhood; I don't suppose there is much worse. As for criminals, they overrun the neighborhood at times. Here is one of the largest New York school-houses; it is quite a sight to see the thousands of children come pouring out of this school and going into this park. There is a high fence all around it. We found it necessary to widen some of the walks; they are generally 25 and 30 feet wide, and we thought that would be enough, as we do not like to cut the park all up into walks. In that park there is not an inch that could be so used where we have not put settees. There has been talk of flooding this park for skating, and it could be done, I suppose, but I do not know how it would work down there with that immense crowd. THOMAS JEFFERSON PARK This is a very interesting park; it is bounded by 111th Street, 114th Streec, First Avenue and the East River; it is beautifully located, looks out on the water, and is almost perfectly level. There is quite an opportunity to get a park-effect here. The First Avenue side is used for games, etc., and back of that is the Mall. There are eleven or twelve acres in this park. 78 TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY All around here there is an immense population of Italians — hundreds and thousands of them; whole tenement houses packed with Italians extend back for some ten blocks; they have their national shows there; they come in there certain fete days, and it is very interesting to see them. The building in this park is not so large as that in the W. H. Seward Park, although very nearly, but it does not give that impression because the park is so much larger than the other; there are large platforms around the building which gives an opportunity for a great many people to gather there. The whole park has been surrounded with a 6-foot fence; the playground is enclosed with a 6-foot fence; there is little grass; chiefly playgrounds. I think before long we shall have a farm-garden in there, at a point that seems a suitable place for it, quite level, and lying near the street. Maintenance is difficult because the people go and dig up every- thing that is planted. The Italians who live in the neighborhood are liable to quarrel and do damage in that way. ST. GABRIEL PARK There is another small park down at 35th Street, 36th Street, Second Avenue and First Avenue, near the 34th Street Ferry. We have just taken the land down to the water so as to have the right of making a park through to the river. They want to make an elaborate, expensive building for shelter and baths, the value of which I question very much, and have always questioned whether these baths are just the things to have in the park. I think their place is not in the park but in the city, just outside the park. I do not see why they should have baths in a park; they will sometimes have a hundred baths and two or three hundred people in there in the morning in this crowded section. So that we will probably give up making buildings for baths, and use parks for athletic games and playing. There will probably be a recreation pier built here going about the length of half a block into the water, and it will make it very attractive. For apparatus, there are teeters, swings, and slides; they think a great deal of these slides. I was looking through a catalogue of a Chicago concern the other day, and there are quite a number of these things for children; some of them are very good. We have about thirty attendants, who go through the civil service course and have regular salaries paid by the year; these attendants have charge of about 30,000 children, more or less, all told, in the different parks. I found that these attendants were the most difficult to deal with of all the employees we had in the park. They all had their own notions; they were generally educated, and they each had their ideas of how the place should be run; they quarreled with each other over the methods; one would say the children must play ball in a certain way, and one would say they must play in another way; I recollect one day they shut the whole place up on the ground that it was Thanksgiving Day. I had fifteen down before me in one day, and I suspended three. That is the trouble with that kind of help. The whole thing is more or less new. I have seen the teachers keep the children standing there for hours while they explained things to them; and yet the children were there to have a good time. This is not to be wondered at because it is a new thing, and it will have to be established and used in a reasonable way, and it will be in time. OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 79 HAMILTON FISH PARK This is a park that was built in the neighborhood of Stanton Street, east of the Bowery about half a mile. The building in this park is one of the worst of the kind I ever saw. It was built by one of the leading firms of architects, and I think that everybody who ever had anything to do with it is in absolute despair; they don't know what to do with it to make it useful; it has a great space of about eighty feet, with little baths in the basement. One side is arranged for an indoor gymnasium, which nobody ever uses, and I don't think the Park Department ought to provide that sort of thing. It should provide room where they can have a good time. The building cost $80,000, and it is almost impossible to use it, and it is constructed in such a way that to alter it so as to make it useful would cost not less than $25,000. But the park itself is all right. There is a street goes through there. It is a carefully laid out park, but the lines are too straight. HUDSON STREET PARK The Hudson Street Park is particularly inconvenient because it has no playground space, and it has no grass in it. There is a stone wall around the outside and stone walks, and the whole thing is artificial; it is a case of formality carried to the last and worst extent. But still this park is very useful, and is not in so crowded a neighborhood, and the children play basket-ball and tennis, but baseball is out of the question. Baths are an excellent thing, and I do not want to say anything against them, but it strikes me that the city ought to keep them in their proper places. A park should be essentially a park, and it should not be filled up with libraries, museums, schools, and all that sort of thing; the general public does not appreciate that, and it is a fight to prevent it. I have a great deal of trouble with the Carnegie libraries; they are trying to get into the parks everywhere. That is the feeling I have about the bath-houses. I don't mean that there should not be baths in the parks, a certain number of them might be made for the convenience of the people who come to the parks to use the gymnasium, etc. None of these parks has been flooded in winter for skating. It could be done, but I do not know how it would work; it is such a tremendously crowded neighborhood. Take the skating in Central Park; I can remember, as a boy, going up there and enjoying it, but now the moment the skating is open there are tens of thousands of people on hand and in half an hour the ice is so cut up it is almost impossible to skate on it; that would be the case here. Wading-pools have been tried, and I have questioned their value. They tried to intro- duce them in Central Park; I am afraid of them; it would be very hard to control them. The same thing applies to the effects of the crowd up in Central Park. There is hardly, I was going to say, a good shrub left in Central Park. When the spring comes and lilacs are in bloom people seem to go mad; and the best people of the city, too. They tear the bushes all to pieces. There is a sort of feeling among the American people that anything public belongs to them individually, and that they have a right to do with it as they choose; if they do damage in using it, that is all right, the city has got to stand 80 AMERICAN SOCIETY OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS it. I remember going up the West Drive a good many years ago, and happened to look up and there was a very handsome turnout with footman, and with two ladies very hand- somely dressed. To my amazement I saw them stop and give the footman some order; they drove up to a flowering bush and the footman pulled off whole branches and filled one side of the carriage. I rode on and when I came to a policeman I told him to go back and find them and take them in, I didn't care who they were. They were taken in and there was quite a fuss. There is a question now which is interesting me a great deal. There is an effort being made to take property along the Hudson and get permission to erect boat-houses, which are really club-houses — most elaborate affairs; the builders get a permit which says that the property may be used until the permit is revoked, or it is revokable at pleasure; and everybody knows that, if they put up a building worth $20,000 or $30,000, the land will never be required of them. They are actually taking public land for private uses. There is a misunderstanding of the functions of a park among the mass of people. I do think, however, that in New York and Boston, and possibly Philadelphia, there is an intelligent view of these things among a few people; but they are people who have a great deal of information on the subject, and who I think are pretty well posted. I think the American elm is the most successful street tree in the city. Of course the plane tree is a very good tree, and does very well; I think the plane tree and the America elm and the English elm are the best. Of course we have good maples, but the maples are a little uncertain; they do not grow vigorously; sugar maples won't grow well at all. I don't look upon the silver maple as much of a tree. People like to plant the Carolina poplar because it grows quickly, but in a few years it becomes very ugly. Up on 72d Street there is a remarkable example of that; it is only five or six years since they have been planted, and their poor condition shows what they will look like in time. The American linden will do very well, but you cannot depend upon it; one will grow all right, and immediately next to it will be another specimen that will not grow at all. The American ash does very well. There is a park downtown, at Tompkins Square, that shows what will come after twenty years. It is a park of ten to twelve acres in size — Avenue A, Avenue B, 7th Street to 10th Street. Among the trees in this park are a great many silver maples and elms. There are separate grounds for the use of the girls and women in all these parks; in De Witt Clinton Park there is one for the girls and one for the little children. I do not think the city of New York has built any regular playgrounds in connection with the schools. They have places at the back of the schools where they may have apparatus, but I don't think they have any regular system; there may be, but I am not prepared to say positively; I have never had my attention called to it. HISTORICAL NOTES By DOWNING VAUX (Meeting of November 13, 1906) OUR work is so engrossing, and the problems we have to solve so intimately related to the present, that I almost hesitate before asking you to turn over a few of the musty and forgotten pages of the past with me, and note the similarity to the present, as well as the changes. To go way back and begin at the beginning, we find Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Do we wonder then that ever since they were evicted their descendents have longed to get back again into their Garden? Can we do less than to help them to achieve this dream? The next earliest gardens I can find any reference to among the dusty tomes, "The Hanging Gardens of Babylon," were terraced and no doubt very beautiful to the ancients. The Greek and Roman gardens were enclosed, and formed almost part of the buildings themselves. The details of the ancient gardens I will not go into at this time, as they are, no doubt, more interesting from an archaeological point of view. In the Middle Ages men were so busy fighting that little was done outside of the walls of cities and castles in the way of gardens. The eighteenth century inaugurated a time when men began to think of other things besides war; the term Landscape Gardener was coined, and the work began to be done in a business-like manner. The principal works at this time were large estates for the nobility, no thought being given to public parks or pleasure-grounds for the people. In 1795 H. Repton published, in England, "Hints on Landscape Gardening," and this work was followed by others until, at the present time, there are nearly one hundred books on the subject. Early in the nineteenth century, Major L'Enfant planned the city of Washington; and although it was hardly understood at the time, and many years elapsed before it was appreciated, we can but rejoice that the plan was adhered to and not abandoned. A. J. Downing, who might be fairly called the Father of Landscape Gardening in America, did more to raise popular interest in the subject than anyone else. You all know about him from his books, but you may not remember that he planned the row of houses still standing on West 23rd Street, New York City, which are set back from the street line, with gardens in front. Mr. Downing was much interested in the proposed Central Park and, meeting and liking my father, Calvert Vaux, while in England, prevailed on him to come to America. They were associated together for several years, until Mr. Downing died. When the drawing of the plan of Central Park to go in the competition was being made at my father's house in 18th Street, in conjunction with Mr. Frederick Law Olmsted, there was a great deal of grass to be put in by the usual small dots and dashes, and it became the friendly thing for friendly callers to help on the work by joining in and "adding some grass to Central Park." That was the day before tracing-cloth, and drawings were made on white paper. If copies were wanted they were made on a very aromatic and brittle tracing-paper that (81) 82 TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY had to be immediately mounted on heavy white paper with flour paste, or else the drawing was copied by a needle-point transfer that was often far from accurate. Specifications and planting lists were all copied in long hand, and students often got very tired of the work necessary to make four or five copies of a long list. The first tracing-cloth was glazed on both sides, and far more troublesome to use than the present dull-back cloth. Before leaving the early work entirely I must not forget to mention Gramercy Park in New York City. This park is owned by the holders of the property fronting on it, and is not open to the public. It is a good example of the increased valuation and per- manent improvement to the neighborhood a park effects. Llewellyn Park, at Orange, New Jersey, was one of the earliest residential parks I know of, and it has held its own up to the present time. In the 7o's Jacob Weidenman published an illustrated work in color and did some work, mostly private grounds. This brings us down to times that are familiar to many of us, and I cannot but think that we certainly have comparatively little to learn from the ancients in our art, much less, in fact, than the architect and sculptor; but, at the same time, we must not ignore the admirable permanence of their work. The history of land- scape architecture is more in front of us than behind us, and we must make history our- selves by our genius and work, and write it large and bold. In 1880 there was a great desire in New York to have an exhibition in 1883, and if the promoters had not tried to grab Central Park it would have been successful. For- tunately, the defenders of the park were backed up by public opinion and it was saved. It was also proposed, at another time, to take part of Central Park for a military parade- ground, and the advocates of a Speedway were very nearly successful in breaking in. This plan, the Port Morris plan for the 1883 exhibition in New York City, by Vaux & Radford, my father's firm (and on which I did some work myself), laid great stress on the water-front, and used the same arguments successfully employed later on for the coming exhibition at Norfolk. One of my father's sayings was, "Always remember to have a general dimension and a working line," and his favorite expression when attacked by apparently insur- mountable obstacles was, "Well, we have got to whip the devil around this stump." He would then take off his spectacles, sharpen his pencil, and make a new attack on the problem. A favorite recreation of his was sketching from nature, and he frequently timed his vacation so as to be in the woods and mountains in the autumn with his artist friends, and enjoyed planting his umbrella and camp-stool in some commanding position where he could "daub" along all day in a faithful and painstaking effort to reproduce on canvas, with unfamiliar brush, the rugged mountain slope or moss-covered rock, the dark pool reflecting overhanging trees, or the intricate interlacing of the foliage of some old monarch of the forest standing alone like a sentinel of nature on guard. Nature will reward a study of her forms, and time so spent by the learner will be well invested. The work of the landscape architect is not only making plans for land already secured, but often includes advice as to the selection of the property at the very beginning. Prospect Park, Brooklyn, is a case in point. The land first selected lay on both sides of Flatbush Avenue (and the Avenue was opened and graded at the time). The land- scape architects, Olmsted and Vaux, advised buying additional land to the south, where it could be bought at reasonable rates, and selling the land on the north side later OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 83 on after the park was finished. This was done, the city profited by the change financially, and the park gained greatly by the change. In many cases a client is so occupied with the multitudinous details that keep starting up when a home is to be evolved that the protection of his surroundings is lost sight of, and salient points that might have been secured at a reasonable price before his work was started now soar out of his reach, and he realizes too late that it would have been more satisfactory to have called in a landscape architect at the beginning, and had this drawn to his attention in time. In reply to a question of Mr. Lowrie, Mr. Olmsted said that the designer of Llewellyn Park was given on the maps as L. F. Haskel. L. S. Haskel (a possible misprint for L. F. Haskel) was given as owner. Referring to Mr. Vaux's statement of the recommendation of Olmsted and Vaux to acquire additional lands for Prospect Park, south of Flatbush Avenue, in order to sell off the land on the north side after the park was finished, Mr. Olmsted said that only a very small part of the land had actually been sold, and that part of it had been used for the high-service reservoir and part for the library. Mr. Parsons said that little if any was sold; possibly some across the Eastern Parkway, but none on the west side of the Parkway, as property had been condemned for park purposes, and therefore could, not be sold. JAMESTOWN EXPOSITION By WARREN H. MANNING 1 Meeting of December 11. 1906. Revised February II, 1910) THE idea of commemorating by an exposition the first permanent settlement in America, made at Jamestown Island, in the James River in Virginia, May 13, 1607, first suggested in Richmond, was taken up in earnest by Norfolk citizens, who secured legislative authority to organize a corporation and raise money to aid in establishing a commemorative exposition on or near Hampton Roads. The Jamestown Exposition Company was incorporated, $1,500,000 was appropriated, contingent upon the company's securing paid subscriptions of a portion of the $1,500,000 authorized capital. The organizers, having examined several expositions, were impressed with the vast waste which grew out of their being located on land not owned by the exposition company, which compelled the removal of the buildings very soon after the exposition closed. They, determining to arrange for a more permanent exposition, purchased about three hundred acres of land on the present site, to which they later added fifty more acres, upon the advice of their landscape designer. In order to secure control of a very picturesque point of land and Bousch's Creek, a channel was dug, giving access to the easterly end of their first purchase, and also considerable areas of marsh land. On this land, last purchased, it would have been possible for outsiders to establish competing attractions detrimental to the exposition company. All these purchases were on the south shore of Hampton Roads opposite Old Point Comfort. This gave a water frontage of nearly a mile on this great harbor on the north; on the east was Bousch's Creek, a tidal estuary, with the many ramifications peculiar to such estuaries in this region. Of these ramifications two arms extended into the grounds for several hundred feet, and another extended far back of the grounds, then returned to near its southerly boundary. These topographical features I will refer to again. 84 TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY The southerly boundary of the property was a wide road, a part of a former plan for the subdivision of this whole region including the exposition grounds. Later, the Tidewater Railroad purchased 500 acres, including the whole length of the southern boundary, thus giving absolute protection, together with the water frontages on three sides referred to. On the westerly side a considerable section of shore frontage and the only grove of old-growth, short-leaved pine in this immediate vicinity was turned over to the expo- sition company by a company owning all the land between the western boundary and the shore of Elizabeth River, the arm of Hampton Roads leading to Norfolk and Portsmouth. The land to the west was subdivided into small lots that were sold without restriction, and upon which a mushroom growth of saloons, shops, and the flimsiest kind of boarding- house and hotel structures were erected by the purchasers or lessees, there being only one large and creditably designed hotel erected some years before. This occupied a con- siderable territory along the shores of the Elizabeth River and Hampton Roads. There was also a street railway amusement resort of a rather low grade. These menaces to the exposition were early recognized and influenced the plan. This settlement was mostly unsightly, and lack of restrictions on buildings to be erected made it certain that undesirable conditions would prevail and fire-traps be erected. We were able so to arrange the expo- sition plan as to avoid the fire-risk, take advantage of existing foliage, and screen this whole section almost completely from the frequented portions of the grounds. It will thus be seen, with three sides absolutely protected, and the fourth side well screened, that the surroundings of this exposition were more favorable than those of almost any other. The site was made accessible, but not fully until after its opening, by two double electric track lines from Norfolk, the Tidewater Railroad to Norfolk, Berkley and Ports- mouth, all lines of travel from the South, and by ferries from Newport News to connect wuth western trains, from Old Point Comfort to near-by Willoughby Spit and to the expo- sition grounds. Travel from the North would come by the way of Cape Charles route from New York and Philadelphia, or by the way of Richmond to Newport News, or by boats from Boston, New York, Baltimore and Washington, with landings for these boats at all the points around Hampton Roads referred to, and on the Elizabeth River exposition entrance. The region about the exposition is of very great historic interest, as the names Rich- mond, Yorktown, the Dismal Swamp, the James River, and Pocahontas, would indicate. The exposition company entered into a contract with the Board of Design, composed of Messrs. Parker & Thomas, of Boston and Baltimore, Mr. John Kevan Peebles, of Norfolk, architects, with Mr. Robert S. Peabody, of Boston, advisory architect, and with Manning Brothers of Boston, landscape designers, whose practice was later assumed by Warren H. Manning. This contract provided for the design of all buildings to be erected by the exposition company, for the examination and criticism of all buildings erected by concessionaires upon the grounds, for the design of roads, plantations, underground pipes, etc. It being assumed that a town would ultimately be here, a town plan was first devised, and the whole territory subdivided into roads and lots. Upon some roads of a previous plan of a part of the area, so much work had been done as to compel their acceptance. Others could not be used, for while suitable for a town, they could not be utilized for an exposition AriracAM Expositions C OM PAl^ATIVC AcrAo Li Mrs T£rpi?r set-it ioooft 51 kt if ilTiTl X^X" Ansicht von I'unkt F Fig. 7, 8 und 9. Nr. 93— <35. (Kat.474.) Darmstadt: Freilegung der Stadtkirche zu Darmstadt. Interessant ist namentlich, wie fiir die Kirchganger an den Kirchtoren stille verkehrsfreie Platze ge- schafTen wurden, auf denen sie sich vor und nach dem Gottesdienst versammeln kbnnen. Diese bieten inter- essante, malerische Durch- blicke; die an sich nicht eben bedeutende Stadt- kirche ist vvirkungsvol! her- vorgehoben. 'fM 2__ 'ff"v' At • . . ■ **9& ''■-• * l;/]l 1 - mM ( ; F*-* 8 o- ■ K -J Z E? J I « S-l KJ V_ ofii , ■ i Jh]u ■ - — ®£ t •:C - fc- £ ._» ' - Vc''' / Fig. 17. Nr. 103. (Kat. 469.) Chemnitz: Planung eines Stadtteiles auf freier Flur. Beispiel einer alterer. Planung. Man bemerke, wie leicht es gewesen ware, die StraBen auf die Grundstucksgrenzen zu legen und so eine einfache Aufteilung des Gelandes zu erzielen, wahrend jetzt uberall unpraktische Grundstucke sich ergeben, sich daher Verlegungen etc. notig machen werden. Man beobachte ferner, dafi in dem grolien Gebiete kein bevorzugter 1'latz fur ein Monumental gebaude, keine interessante Platz-Losung sich findet. Manche Platze ersrheinen als I.andfetzen, die bei der Aufteilung librig blieben. > ^^y u. ^S^Sm^ Nr. 107. (Kat. 555.) StraBburg: Teil der Planung auf altem Festungsgebiet. Die grotien Universitatsbauten bedecken das Gelande. Obgleich sie planmaBig aufgestellt sind, fehlen kunstlerische Beziehungen der einzelnen Bauten zu einander. Fig. 23. Fig. 22. Nr. 108. (Kat. 453.) Augsburg: Platzanlage auf freiem Gebiet. Eine Verkehrstorung wurde trotz gartnerischer Anlagen der Platzmitte vermieden. Nr. 109. (Kat. 531.) Mainz: Platzanlagen im AnschluB an vorbandene Bauten und auf freiem alten Festungsgebiet. Man vergleiche die Auf- stellungsweise der Bauten in Mittel des Piatzes und rings um den Platz (letzteres zwischen Rathaus 'und Schloii). Fig. 24. fill M) Nr. no. (Kat. 519.) Hannover: Planung auf freiem Gebiet. Die schematische Linienfuhrung ist bereits durch kUnstlerische Planung durchbrochen. Fig. 25. IIP ' "-fft^^^ _~^ Y %2-^Zr ™ c"'\ ->f*?- ^%"Wvt 'F^iMUkjU -^- -f:.'- ■'■'■■ Nr. 111. (Kat. 519.) Hannover: Maschpark. Monumentalbauten in malerischer Anlage VA*A Fie. 21. Nr. 113. (Kat. 561.) Ulm : Beplanung an einer Lehne von starkem Gefall mit StraBen von verschiedener Steigung. Fig. 28. jl___Jl * CZ3 H tU '' to " Nr. 114. (Kat. 472.) Darmstadt: Planung eines Viertels, teils mit oftener. teils mit gruppierter, teils mit geschlossener Bebauungsweise, sowie mit einzelnen offentlichen Bauten. Man beachte. wie geschickt diese aufgcslellt und mit den Plalzen in Beziehung gebracht sir.d. - '4 *X> Zl Ki *» Nr. 115. (Kat. 545.) Plauen i. V.: Planting auf lebhaft bewegtem Gelande, in dem Steigungen bis zu 1 4 voikomnien. die in den neuen Hauptlinien auf etwa 1:10 gematiigt werden. Fig. 30. Kiel Planung in unruliig bewegtem Geliinde ^0t J \\ U r f s 3 3- E, o w- -o a- ir. > « t* 3 . S" n 3 "3' rt < 2" E * 3- ~ 5- °- " S-1S S I p C 5 fpeP* 3 **^^ n 7r c a #7 r *£ & D. *"'-• L_ _. a. 3 ™ tft s * te9 ^*'***»mi*« C j $•«. .. B t> Q. Ml jUs, a. g- 5 > ■"* Cfl ^ X '1 mi to =r r 3 s- ■*»*« ! o- ! i OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS in Frederick Law Olmsted was superintendent under Viele at the time he and Calvert Vaux prepared the winning plan for Central Park, which was distinguished by the trans- verse roads. • The reservoirs in the park were building before Messrs. Olmsted and Vaux prepared their plan. Both reservoirs will be given up when the Jerome Park reservoir is completed and in use. MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS IN BOSTON AND GERMANY By A. A. SHURTLEFF (Meeting of March 10. 1908) Mr. Shurtleff 's remarks were essentially as follows, in which the notes refer to lantern- slides reproduced herewith. Fig. I. The modern German city-planners feel that this new street in Dresden, the Konig Johann Strasse, is a mistake because it cuts in straight lines through the city which is essentially irregular in plan. They feel that it represents a gash. Their feeling is that an extension and widening more like that shown below in Fig. 2 is much more harmonious and practical. Fig. 2. (Darmstadt.) This extension and widening is said to be more practical, because it takes property already abutting on street lines with a minimum injury to the old lines. The spirit of the improvement is also in harmony with the crookednesses of the old city streets. Fig. 3. The modern German planners regard these improvements in Halle as exceed- ingly good. They maintain the spirit of the old city irregularities while providing every convenience for traffic circulation. Fig. 4. This plan shows a detail of the Halle improvements. Fig. 5. (Berlin.) This plan receives great condemnation because it produces monotonous straight streets, acute angular junctions with old streets, and makes no recognition of property lines. Fig. 6. (Stralsund.) This shows how the little booths and small stores, together with yeomen's dwellings about the ancient Nikolai-Kirche, were all torn down in order to give a better view of the church. A park was laid out around the church where the building formerly stood. This costly work has brought about mortifying results. The church has lost all its former charm, amd appears uninteresting and diminutive among the greater buildings now adjacent to it. Artists who formerly flocked to the town to make sketches of this building have wholly abandoned it in their tours. Figs. 7, 8, and 9. (Darmstadt.) These show in plan and elevation the treatment of a small square intended to give seclusion behind the church, out of the way of traffic. Figs. 10 to 16. (Nuremberg.) It was customary in German improvements fifty years ago, to tear down old city gates. It is now the practice carefully to preserve them while increasing their capacity for traffic by other adjacent openings. The older cities are now regretting their haste in destroying the most notable features upon their outskirts. Fig. 17. (Chemnitz.) A system of street subdivision which attempts to adjust itself to existing property lines, sucessful in some quarters and not in others, as shown. ii2 TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY Fig. 18. This illustrates the irregular parkway around Gottingen, following the line of the old fortifications. Fig. 19. The dotted lines show some of the old checker-board streets of Charlotten- burg which are being replaced by new crooked streets. The old streets were regarded as intolerably monotonous. Fig. 20. (Mannheim.) This is criticized as an absurd "picture-plan." It is declared that the symmetry about the central square can be recognized only on paper and not from the streets. Moreover, the scheme of treatment, for the square blocks traffic circulation with no compensating advantages. Fig. 21. (Strasberg.) This scheme is called absurd because symmetry is present upon paper, which cannot be recognized upon the ground. It is also observed by the German critics that the plan is "pompous" and that the buildings are not well related to one another. Fig. 22. (Mainz.) This scheme is highly praised for its novelty and wonderful adaptation to the needs of traffic and to existing churches and other buildings which control the design. Fig. 23. (Augsburg.) A treatment for a central square which provides fine traffic opportunities for the through streets and, at the same time, produces a design which is said to be exceedingly effective. Fig. 24. (Hanover.) This plan deserves careful study. Notice how the squares are arranged adjacent to the main traffic-ways, and yet on axis with adjoining secondary thoroughfares. The churches are also arranged in short side-streets, and glimpses are afforded of them in a most satisfactory way. The Germans intentionally arrange the side-streets in such fashion that main traffic cannot pass through them. Fig. 25. (Hanover.) A characteristic German treatment which the critics say is "trivial," through amusing and convenient. Fig. 26. (Flensburg.) A residential quarter on irregular topography associated with a semi-naturalistic mall, or park-strip, leading up to a church or public building. No extensive traffic is expected here. Fig. 27. (Ulm.) A system of streets for undulating ground which is said to be very charming, and one executed upon the ground at small expense. Fig. 28. (Darmstadt.) Another typical arrangement of buildings, following the modern German ideas. The secondary streets are purposely curved to give variety and a sense of seclusion from the bustle of the main traffic roads. Notice how ingeniously the little park in the middle of the scheme is side-tracked. Fig. 29. (Plauen.) A scheme for very rough ground. Fig. 30. (Kiel.) Another scheme of treatment for irregular topography. Fig. 31. (Aachen.) Another treatment for a valley, to be used in suburban settlement. Figs. 32, 33, 34, 35. (Munich.) This is considered one of the most interesting and successful modern streets ever planned in Germany. It provides ample traffic circulation, while retaining the characteristics of the other streets of the city. Notice how the squares are arranged; there is no trace of the axial French schemes here. I think it is fair to say that, while these schemes of the Germans are to be admired in many respects, they do not represent, by any means, the only method by which city improve- ments may be effected. The French schemes are often quite as useful, and in cities with formal street-systems, are frequently more applicable. Unquestionably, some of the German city-planners are running this new idea into the ground; but we must realize that they OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 113 have made discoveries to which we have been blind. Those of us who live in cities having crooked streets and irregular property lines, may learn from these examples how to take advantage of irregularities which sometimes perplex us, and to appreciate eccentricities which, in the past, we have regarded as intolerable and as evidence of bad workmanship. The modern German school of city-planners feel that the French "round point" is a hindrance to traffic circulation; it causes hopeless tangles of vehicles. They feel that it is an absurdity of the old French school which no modern city can wisely repeat except in situations where the traffic conditions are very simple. This point of view is so astonishing to us who have been nurtured in the "star places," as the Germans call them, that we have to draw a long breath before accepting the German view as truth. The great problems of handling traffic are not usually in streets, even though those streets be narrow, but rather at the intersection of streets. The Germans feel that enlargements should rarely be made at these intersections, and that whenever possible, only two streets should meet at the same point. You will notice in Fig. 33 how the streets are brought into the square shown in the middle of the picture. Contrast this with a typical French scheme at the extreme right of the picture. Mr. Shurtleff then showed a large number of pictures of Boston illustrating the inter- esting appearance of curving streets, lop-sided squares, jogs, dead ends. The modern Germans glory in this sort of thing, and they laugh to scorn those cities who fifty years ago destroyed all this sort of thing to create straight-laced lineal schemes which are today regarded as characterless and deadly monotonous. Mr. Shurtleff pointed out that, in estimating the wisdom or unwisdom of these German ideas, one should bear in mind their very practical regard for the needs of traffic. The Germans will never allow crookedness to stand in the way of vehicle movements. The crookednesses of their main thoroughfares, they always declare, tend to favor circulation, and the crookednesses in narrow streets are intended to give charm and novelty. Mr. Shurtleff said, in closing, that this whole book of German ideas would have been closed to him and to the majority of persons about Boston, at least, had Mr. Sylvester Baxter not undertaken the translation of the text, Mr. Baxter was, unfortunately, unable to attend the lecture. His absence was greatly regretted. Those interested in this subject should see a volume of essays called "Die Deutschen Stadte," published in Leipsic by Friedrich Brandstotter in 1904, and written by Cornelius Gurlitt; the modern magazine called "Der Stadtebau," which is published regularly, and from which many of these ideas have been taken; also a pamphlet published by the Royal Institute of British Architects, London, in 1905, and written by John W. Stimpson. Mr. J. C. Olmsted: The projects of the Boston Society for rearranging streets demands a revision of the Constitution, allowing condemnation of more land than is actually required. No other way will do. All states have gone on the principle that private property is to be taken only for defined public purposes. This is the root of all difficulties, because property abutting on improved streets must be re-lotted. Mr. Shurtleff: At the hearings before the Commission, competent persons say this must be done or, if it cannot, no report should be issued. Mr. F. L. Olmsted: In Massachusetts the law provides that a public body may take the whole of any lot of which a part is necessary. In Maryland that property adjacent to property required may be taken and sold again. The law is narrow in providing that this may be done in case of public buildings and approaches but not of streets. Plans have been made for the extension of Howard Street, Baltimore, to the Baltimore and Ohio station, through rectangular blocks diagonal to the main street-system, thus leaving many bad alleys and corners. The plan proposed was done by two real estate men, at the instance of the Art Society, for the acquisition of all lots and their rearrangement. It was at first held that it could ii 4 AMERICAN SOCIETY OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS not be done; that streets and alleys could not be abandoned, as they would revert to heirs of original owners. Could the city not acquire fee under condemnation proceedings, and provide for payment of minute damages? It is an interesting case. The Germans deliberately attempt to secure in suburban improvements the minor irregularities which are so picturesque in country roads. Mr. Vaux cited the picturesqueness of the main street in St. Johns, N. B., and Mr. Shurtleff of Franconia Street, which is 300 feet wide, ending 25 feet wide. Mr. F. L. Olmsted: Such things are interesting, but we don't dare do it. Germans do dare. Mr. Manning: It is the tendency of the surveyor to do the simplest thing. We must get people to appreciate things about them. I cannot conceive of a place which has no interesting features, and such as have a bearing on the design of their streets. While large schemes stimulate public interest, they are largely impossible and therefore harmful. Merely as suggestions they are not harmful, however. Schemes which provide for large changes may defeat the scheme. Persistence brings people around. People must give land for parkways. It is impossible for small towns to buy. Use poor building-sites for roads. I have induced the farmers to give a 100-foot reservation in Billerica for a road. We persuaded a lumber company to save some pines along a creek in Wisconsin. PHOTERTT LIBRARY JV. C. State C»Uet< INDEX PAGE Aachen, Scheme for suburban settlement in 112 Acreage cost of parks 45 Addison, Writings of. (December 10, 1907) 26 Additional land to parks, Purchase of 82 Advertising signs in the Fens, Boston 48 Agassiz Road, Boston 48 Agassiz Bridge, Boston 48 Alaska-Yukon Pacific Exposition, 1909. (November 13, 1906) 23 Amendments to Constitution and By-Laws. (December 1 1, 1906) 11, 12, 23 American Institute of Architects, Invitation to 50th Anniversary. (December 11, 1906; Nov. 12, '07) 23, 25 Committee on 16 American Institute of Architects, Schedule of charges. (December 10, 1907) 27 Exchange of publications with. (December 5, 1903) 20 Policy of. (March 5, 1907) 25 American Park and Outdoor Art Association. (March 5, 1901; January 13, 1903) 20 American Society of Civil Engineers, Policy of. (March 5, 1907) 25 American Society of Landscape Architects, Organization of. (January 4, 1899) 17 American Students in Paris 68 Amusements for children in parks 53 Antwerp, Docks in. (March 10, 1908) 28 Application Blank for Membership, Committee on 15 Applications for Membership. (January 14, 1902) 20 Approaches, Formal and informal 104 Architect and Landscape Architect, Relations of, Speech on, by Howard Walker 103 Arborway, Boston 51 Architecture and Landscape Architecture, Relations of. (January 13, 1903) 20, 104 Architectural League of America, Invitation to join. (January 13, 1903; March 5, 1903) .... 20 Architectural League of New York, Exhibition of. (January 12, 1904) 21 Areas of Boston Parks 61-65 Arlington Heights 61 Arnold Arboretum, Boston 52 Art, Influences producing in Northern Italy 37 "Arti" Gatherings, The 38 Assembly Bill 651 (Palisades Park) (February 27, 1906) 13 Assembly Bill 1643 (Riverside Park). (March 13, 1900; April io, 1900; September 26, 1900) 18, 19 Associate Members, Dues of. (February 17, 1905) 11, 21 " Admission of. (March 5, 1907) 25 " Committee on 16 Attendants, Paid, in small parks, Incompetence of 78 Audubon Circle, Boston 45 Augsburg, Improvements in 112 Back Bay, Boston 43 Park 44 Bancroft, George 108 Barren Island, New York 92 Baths in small city parks 76,78 Baxter, Sylvester, Translations of German text-books 113 Beacon Street, Boston, Rope walks in 43 Beacon Hill, Boston 43 Beaux Arts men, Plans of 103 (Hi) n6 TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY PAGE Beaver Brook Reservation, Acquisition of for Metropolitan Park System 62,64 Bedding Plants in Paris Parks 65,67 Belmont (Mass.) 62 Berlin, Improvements in 1 1 1 Blackstone, William 42 Blue Hill Avenue, Boston 45 Blue Hills Reservation, Mountainous character of 61, 64 Boat-Houses along the Hudson on parklands 80 Boboli Gardens 40 Borghese Gardens 40 Boston Basin, Floor of 60 Boston, Board of Metropolitan Park Commissioners 59 Common ». 42 Docks in. (March 10, 1908) 28 Metropolitan 56 Sewerage Commission 57 Parks, Conditions demanding in 1892 57 " Movement for 57 " Commission to inquire into park needs 59 " Organic part of Boston and area and cost of system 58, 59 " Policy of development and upkeep 63 Park Commission, Work of 61 " Policy of in acquisition and development of territory . . 63 " Acquisitions along ocean shore 61 " System, Paper on, by F. L. Olmsted 56 Table of Areas facing 56 District, Streams and brooks of 60 " " " Parkways along 63 " Ponds and still water in 62 " Sewage conditions in 56, 57 " Topography of in 1893 59 " Ocean shore of 60 " Rivers of 60 " Ponds of 60 Metropolitan Water Board 64 Boston, Municipal Improvements in. (March 10, 1908) 28 Boston Park System, Paper on, by J. C. Olmsted 42 Boston Public Gardens 42 Boston Society of Architects. (March 10, 1908) 27 Bois de Boulogne, Waterfall in 68 Bousch's Creek, Jamestown, Virginia 83 Bowling Green, Cost of 70 Boylston Bridge, Boston 47 Boys' Playgrounds, Separate 76 Bridge, Agassiz 48 " Boylston 47 " Huntington Entrance 48 Fenway 49 Bridle Paths 49, 51 Briggs, Charles F 108 Brookline, Massachusetts. (July 7, 1905) 22 Brooklyn, Parks in 107 Brush, Clearing out of 91 Budapest 105 Buffalo Exposition, "Parti pris" of 103 OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 117 PAOS Buffalo, Parks in 107 Buildings and Grounds, Relations of 103 " " Planting 104 " " Setting 105 Buildings, Small, Effect of removal of in " Useless, in small city parks 78 Buttes Chaumont, Pare des 66,68 Call of the Wild to the front-door step 104 Candidate for membership, Proposal of. (December n, 1906) 24 Caserta, Royal Palace at 41 Catch-basins, Cost of 69 Cemeteries, Popularity of, as resorts 106 Central Park, Proposed area of 108 " " Attempts to curtail 108 " " First official action as to 107 " " Historical facts relating to 106-1 1 1 " " Commissioners for 108 " " Commission for, Character of 109 " " Consulting Board for 108 " Competitive plans for 109 Construction of 107, 109 " " Operations begun on 109 Transverse roads in 109 " " Plan for, by Viele 1 10 " Reservoirs in m " " Exposition in, Proposed 82 " History of, Committee on 16 Inception and Development of, Paper by S. Parsons, Jr 103 " Largely due to A. J. Downing 105 Proposed parade-ground in 82 " Proposed speedway in 82 Charges, Schedule of. (January 13, 1903; March 5, 1903; January 12, 1904; February 17, 1905) 15, 20, 22 Charles River 60 " Acquisitions along, for Metropolitan Park System 62 Charlesgate, Boston 47 Charlottenburg, Improvements in 112 Chemnitz, Improvements in 1 1 1 Chicago, Parks in 107 Circulation of traffic favored by crookedness in street plan 113 City Gates 1 1 1 City Hall, Boston 43 City Planning, Paper on, A. A. Shurtleff in " Two sorts of design in 103 Classical Design, Growth of 103 " Conditions requiring 103 Classics in Landscape Architecture, Reprints of, see Reprints. Client and Landscape Architect, Permanency of consultation between 96 Collodi 41 Colosseum, The 40 Columbia Road, Boston, Defects of 54 Commerce of New York City 92 Commission to inquire into needs of Metropolitan Boston Parks 57 Committees and Delegates ij Commonwealth Avenue, Boston 43.45 u8 TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY PAQE Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, Driveways united 47 Compensation, Professional. (December 10, 1907) 27, 71 Competition among Nurserymen 90 Competitive Plans, Exhibition of at Yonkers. (March 13, 1900) 18 Compiegne, Park at 67 Condemnation, Law of (Massachusetts) 113 " " (Maryland) 113 Constitution, 10 Adopted. (March 6, 1899) 17 Amendments to. (December 11, 1906) 23 Committee on 15 Construction of grounds never finished 71 Consultation between Client and Landscape Architect, Permanency of 96 Contours of Surface, Neglect of, in planning 103 Cooley, James E 108 Coordination, Lack of in works of Architect and Landscape Architect 103 Cost of Landscape Development, Paper on, C. W. Leavitt, Jr 69 " F. VV. Olmsted 96 " " Parks by the acre 45 Country Places, Conditions of layout of 90 Crookedness in Street Plan, Advantages of 113 d'Argenville, Dezalliers, "Theorie et Pratique de Jardinage. (February 5, 1907) 24 Dana, Charles A 108 Darmstadt, Improvements in 1 11, 112 Dedham, Massachusetts 62 Der Stadtebau 113 Depredations in Thomas Jefferson Park, New York 78 Destruction of shrubbery and trees in parks 76 Details, Minor, of planning 104 Development, Landscape, Paper on Cost of, C. W. Leavitt, Jr 69 " " " " " " F. L. Olmsted 96 DeWitt Clinton Park, New York 75 Die Deutschen Stadte, Gurlitt 113 Difficulties of construction and maintenance of small city parks 75 Dinners, Admission of Juniors to. (March 13, 1900) 18 Diodati, Ottaviano 41 Docks in Boston, Speech on scheme for, H. J. Clark. (March 10, 1908) 28 Docks in American and European cities. (March 10, 1908) 28 " Proposed, in Jamaica Bay 93 Dorchesterway, Boston 54 Downing, A. J 81 " and Central Park, New York 106 " Monument to 105 " Debt of landscape gardening to 105 " Writings of 105 Dresden, Ksnig Johann Strasse m Drawing and Tracing Paper in i860 81 Editing Proceedings, Committee on 16 Edward Everett Square, Boston 54 Eliot, Charles 59 Elizabeth River, Jamestown, Virginia 84 English style of gardening compared with French or Italian 105 Ericson, Leif, Statue of 47 OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 119 PAGE Excess condemnation. Prospect Park, Brooklyn 82 Executive Committee, Meetings of. (December 12, 1899; February 27, 1900; January 8, 1901) . 20 Committees, List of 16 Exhibition, First Annual, Catalogue of 17. '8 at Municipal Art Society 9 Exhibitions (March 13, 1900; April 10, 1900; January 14, 1902; December 5, 1903; February 17, 1905; February 6, 1906) 19, 20, 21, 23 Exhibitions, Committees on. (November 20, 1901; January 12, 1904; February 9, 1904) . . 15, 20, 21 Exposition at Jamestown, Virginia, Paper on, by W. H. Manning 83 " in Central Park, Proposed 82 Expositions, Waste in location of 83 Falconieri Gardens 4° Farm-Gardens in New York parks 76 Fens, The, Boston 45 " " " Cost per acre of 45 Fenway, The, Boston 47. 48 " Bridge, Boston 49 Fine Arts Federation, Representation of A. S. L. A. in. (April 10, 1900) 19 " " " " " " Committee on. (September 26, 1900) ... 15 Fire-risk in Expositions avoided 84 Flensburg, Improvements in 112 Florence, Art of 38 Flowers and colors in Paris Parks 65, 66 Forests of Blue Hills, Destruction of 61 Formality, Excessive, of Versailles 104 Franconia Street 114 Franklin Park, Boston 52 Frascati, Villas of 104 French art, Character of 67 Garbage Disposal by filling marshes 94 "Garden and Forest," Article from 105 Garden details, Cost of 69—71 Gardens, Italian 37 Garrison, William Lloyd, Statue of 44 Garzoni, Marquis, and his villa 4' Gates, City 1 1 1 Genoa, Garden art in 37 " Physical aspect of 37 " Villas of 104 Genoese, Character of 37 " Architecture, Styles in 37 German street-planning 104 Giacomelli, Villa 38 Gilman, Arthur, Architect of City Hall, Boston 43 Girardin, Writings of. (December 10, 1907) 26 Glover, General Stephen, Statue of 44 Golf-ground, Franklin Park, Boston 53 Golf in Parks, Objections to 53 Gottingen parkway 112 Grading 9 1 Cost of 69 Greek Influence on Architecture of the two Sicilies 40 Green, Andrew H., President Board of Commissioners of Central Park 109 120 TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY PAGE Greensward plan for Central Park 109 Greenwood Cemetery 100 Greeting, The, Franklin Park, Boston 53 Grounds and Buildings, Relation of 103 Gurlitt, Die Deutschen Stadte 113 Gutters, Sod, Cost of 69 Hackensack Meadows 91 Halle, Improvements in ill Hamburg, Docks in. (March 10, 1908) 28 Hamilton, Alexander, Statue of 43 Hamilton Fish Park, New York 78 Hampton Roads, Virginia 83 Hanover, Improvements in 112 Harbor, Proposed, in Jamaica Bay 92 Haskel, L. F 83 Hemlock Woods near Boston, Wild character of 52 Historical Notes, Paper on, Downing Vaux 81 Horticulturist and Landscape Architect, Relations of, Speech, C. W. Barry 89* "Horticulturist, The," Letters of A. J. Downing in 106 House, Relation of, to Grounds. (December 29, 1908) 28,90 Howard Street, Baltimore, Extension of 113 Hudson County Boulevard 7 2 Hudson Street Park, New York 79 Huntington Entrance, Boston 48 Illustrations in Repton, Obsolete character of. (February 5, 1907) 24 Inception and Development of Central Park, Paper on by S. Parsons 105 Inscription in republished classics in Landscape Architecture. (January 8, 1907) 24- Invitation to join Architectural League of America. (January 13, 1903) 20 Invitation to Fiftieth Anniversary A. I. A. (December 1 1, 1906; January 8, 1907) 24 Irving, Washington, President of the Board of Central Park 108- Italian Gardens, Paper on, by F. Vitale 37 " " Character of 37 " " Character of according to political divisions 37 " Foreign influence on 4° Italian population near Thomas Jefferson Park, New York 78 Italy, Characteristics and political divisions of 37 " Southern, Gardens of 4°* Jamaica Bay, Great Water Park in, Paper on by H. A. Caparn 92 " Harbor in 9 2 " " Character of 9 2 »94 Jamaica Pond, Boston 5°' Jamestown Exposition, Paper on by W. H. Manning 83 " " Character of native vegetation 83 " " Exhibit at. (February 6, 1906) 23 Jerome Park Reservoir 1 1 1 Jones' Woods '07 " Park Bill 107 Juniors becoming Fellows. (December 11, 1906) 23 Kiel, Street scheme for "2 King's Beach, Massachusetts, Acquisitions on, for Metropolitan Park System 61 OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 121 PAOB Kingsland, Mayor, of New York 106 Knickerbocker Trust Co., Deposits in. (January 14, 1908) 27 Konig, Johann Strasse, Dresden 1 1 1 La Fortezza 4° Landscape Architecture, Beginnings of 81 Landscape Architect and Horticulturist, Relations of 89 " and Architect, Relations of 103 Landscape Design practised by nurserymen 90 Landscape Development, Cost of, Paper on by C. VV. Leavitt, Jr 69 " Cost of, Paper on by F. L. Olmsted 96 Cost per acre " 71 Factors in 97 Upkeep 97 " " Data 99 Maintenance costs, Importance of foreseeing 96 " Treatment, Simplicity in 105 Layout of Country Places, Conditions of 90 Large Tree Planting, Paper on by J. L. Greenleaf 29-33 " " Moving, Frozen ball 30 " " " Entire root-system 30 " " " Sandy soil 30 " " " In fall 30 " " " Time for 30 " " " In Colorado 34 " " " In Maine 3'. 34 " " " In New England 3'.3 2 " " " 12 to 14 in. diameter 33 " " " Disadvantages of 34 Large Trees, Resistance of winds to 35 " " Protection of trunk from sun 36 Laurel Hill Cemetery 106 League Island Park, Philadelphia. (January 4, 1899) 17 L'Enfant, Major, Monument to. (February 17, 1905) 21 Leverett Pond, Boston 50 Little Folks Fair, The Franklin Park, Boston 53 Liverpool, Docks in. (March 10, 1908) 28 Llewellyn Park 82 Local Conditions influencing cost 71 Local Materials 49 Lombardy 37 Longwood Entrance, Boston 49 Loudon, Writings of. (December 10, 1907) 26 Lucca, Architecture of 38 Luxembourg Gardens 65 Lynn, Purchase of land for parks and water-supply 61 Maintenance, Cost of 96 " Data of 99 " ' in Boston, Hartford 99-102 " " Examples of whole places 99 "gardens 100 " public parks 101 " " Tables of 102 and Planting, Difficulties of in New York small parks 76, 77 i22 TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY PAOE Mainz, Improvements in 112 Maiden, Massachusetts 61 Manhattan Square added to Central Park no Manheim, Improvements in 112 Marie Antoinette, 67 Marine Park, Boston 55 Maschpark, Hanover 112 Mason, Writings of. (December 10, 1907) 26 Materials, Local 49 Medal for best executed design. (January 17, 1905; February 17, 1905) 21 Medford, Massachusetts 64 Melrose, Massachusetts 61 Members, New, Nomination of. (March 13, 1900) 19 " List of 7 Membership, Applications for. (January 14, 1902) 20 Memorial Tablet to Olmsted and Vaux. (January 12, 1904; January 17, 1905) 21 " Committee on 15 Menagerie, Franklin Park, Boston 53 Metropolitan Boston 56 Mendon 67 Middlesex Fells Reservation, Character, development, maintenance and cost of 64 Acquisition of, for Metropolitan Park System and area of 64 Minutes, Printing of. (February 9, 1904) 21 Editing of. (February 6, 1906) 22 Monument to Major L'Enfant. (February 17, 1905) 21 Moorish Style in Architecture in Italy 37 Motions in writing. (February 17, 1905) 21 Mount Auburn Cemetery 106 Munich, Improvements in 112 Municipal Art, Relation of A. S. L. A. to. (January 9, 1900) 18 Municipal Art Society, Exhibition of. (January 14, 1902) 9, 20 Municipal Improvements in Boston 113 Museum of Natural History 110 Mystic Lakes 62 Mystic River 59, 60 Acquisitions along, for Metropolitan Park System 62 Nantasket Beach 60 Acquisition of, for Metropolitan Park System 61 National Sculpture Society. (November 20, 1901; March 5, 1907) 20,25 Natural History, Museum of no Naturalistic Style in Fenway, Boston 47 Neapolitans, Character and art of 40 Neponset River 60 Acquisitions along, for Metropolitan Park System 62 Newark Bay, Harbor in 93 New York, Docks in 92.93 Newton Lower Falls 62 Nicolai Kirche, Stralsund 11 1 Nomination of new members. (March 13, 1900) 19 Nurnberg, City Gates Ill Nurseries, Jamestown Exposition 88 Nursery stock, Information as to quality of 90 Committee on 16, 90 Improvements in 90 OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 123 PAOB Nursery stock, Prices of 90 Nurserymen and Landscape Design go Old Colony Railroad 54 Old Point Comfort 83 Olmsted, Frederick Law, Sr., Architect of Central Park 109 Olmsted (F. L.) and Vaux, Memorial to. (January 12, 1904; January 17, 1905) 15, 21 Olmsted Park, Boston 50 Orchestration, Lack of, in works of landscape architects 104 Padua 38 Paid Attendants in small parks, Incompetence of 78 Palazzo dei Signori 38 Palisades, Preservation of, and park along. (February 13, 1900; February 27, 1900) 18 Palladio 38 Papers by members at meetings. (March 5, 1901; February 17, 1905) 20, 21 Parade Ground, Proposed in Central Park 82 Parade, The, Prospect Park, Brooklyn 53 Pare des Buttes Chaumont 66 Park Commission, The new, in Boston 44 Park construction over old buildings 75 Park design in relation to population 72, 73 Park movement, The new, in Boston 44 Parker Hill, Boston 49 Entrance 4') Parkman, Francis, Home of and monument to 51 Parks, need for among all classes 106 Sentiment as to public rights in 79 Parkway, Gottingen 112 Parkways abutting on private property 51 Arrangement of and conditions regulating 51 Trees and grass strips in 51 in Boston Park System 60, 62, 63 Paris Exposition 1900, Representative at. (April 10, 1900; September 26, 1900) 19 Paris, Visit to, Paper on by H. A. Caparn 65 Parmentier 10,- Parsons, Mrs. Henry 76 Samuel, Jr., Superintendent of Planting 110 " Samuel, Sr. (November 13, 1906) 23 Pasture-making, Cost of 70 Periodicals, Subscription to. (December 11, 1900) 19 Pescia 41 Petit Trianon 67 Phalen, James 108 Pictorial character of good work 91 Picturesqueness in city planning 103, 104 of Italian Villas 104 Piedmont, Gardens of 37 Pilat, Ignatz A 110 Pipe, Earthenware, cost of 69, 70 Pisa, Architecture of 38 Pitti Palace, The 38 Pitti, The 38 Plans of Beaux Arts men, Defects of 103 Planting out, Advantages of 104 i2 4 TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY Planting, Existing utilized, Jamestown Exposition 85 " Careless 90 Playgrounds for Boys, Separate 75, 76 in connection with New York Schools 77, 80 Pond scenery in Middlesex Fells 62, 64 Pontifical States, The 37 Pony-riding, Franklin Park, Boston 53 Pope, Writings of 26 Port of New York, The 92 Printing of Minutes. (February 9, 1904) 21 Privacy out-of-doors 39, 42 Private ownership of forest lands 58 Proceedings, Editing committee. (January 8, 1907) 16 Professional Practice, Report of Committee on. (January 12, 1904) 21 Proposals for membership. (December II, 1906) 24 Prospect Park, Sale of land 82 Protection of Parks in New York City, Difficulties of 75-80 Public attitude toward parks 79 Public Gardens, Boston 42,44 Public Parks, Essays on, A. J. Downing 105 " Arguments for, A. J. Downing 106 " Objections to, A. J. Downing 106 Publications, Exchange of, with A. I. A. (December 5, 1903) 20 Puckler von Muskau, Writings of. (December 10, 1907) 26 Quincy, Coast, Acquisition on, for Metropolitan Park System 61 Ram, Cost of 70 Representative at Paris Exposition. (April 10, 1900; September 26, 1900) 19 Reprints of Books on Landscape Architecture. (November 13, 1906; January 8, 1907; February 5, 1907; December 10, 1907) 24, 26 Committee on 16 Repton, Writings of. (December 10, 1907) 26 " Illustrations in, Obsolete character of. (February 5, 1907) 24 " Reprint of. (December 10, 1907) 26 " Sale of reprints of. (January 14, 1908) 27 Reservoirs in Central Park and Jerome Park 1 1 1 Revere Beach 60-63 " Acquisition of 61 " Parkway 62 Reservation, Development and cost of 63 Riccardi, The 38 Riverside Drive, New York. (December 12, 1899) 17 Riverside Park, Resolution to Protect. (March 13, 1900; April 10, 1900; September 26, 1900) . . 18, 19 " Committee on 15 Riverway, Boston 45, 49 " Design of 49 Riviera, Garden art of the 37 Roman Architecture 40 " Gardens 40 " Art and character 40 Rome, Villas of 104 Rough Ground, Street scheme for 112 Rural Essays, A. J. Downing 106 St. Gabriel Park, New York 78 OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 125 PAGE St. Johns, N. B., Main St >>4 Sale of Land in excess of park needs in Prospect Park, Brooklyn 82 San Francisco, Parks in I0 7 Sargent, Henry Winthrop I0 ° Schedule of charges. (March 5, 1903; January 12, 1904; January 9, 1906) 20,21,22 " " Committee on '5 Scott, Writings of. (December 10, 1907) 2 " Seal. (November 13, 1906) 2 3. 2 4 " Committee on IO " Report of Committee on. (February 5, 1907; December 29, 1908) 24,28 " Qualities of. (February 5, 1907) 2 4 " Appropriation for. (March 5, 1907; December 29, 1907) 2 5. 2 8 Sentiment of water scenery 94 Serristori, The 3° Septic tank, Cost of 70 Settees in small parks 77 Sewalls Point 8 5 Sherman Statue, Location of. (September 26, 1900) '9 " " " " Committee on '5 Shrubbery and trees in New York small parks 76, 77. 80 Shrubs, Cost of 70 Sieges-allee in Berlin ,0 4 Siena, Architecture of 3° Simplicity in landscape treatment io 5 Skating, Ground flooded for, in parks 79 Small City Parks, Talks on, Samuel Parsons, Jr 75 " " " Difficulties of construction and maintenance of 75~8o Society of the Preservation of Scenic and Historic Places and Objects. (February 27, 1900) . . . 18 Sod for New York small parks 7°. 77 Sod Gutters, Cost of 69 Soldiers' and Sailors' Monument, Location of. (January 9, 1900; December 12, 1899) ... 17. >8 " " " " " " Committee on '5 Specifications, Copying in i860 82 Speedway, Proposed, in Central Park 82 Statues in Central Park I0 7 Steep slopes, Cover with growth 9° Stenographer given up. (March 5, 1907) 2 5 Stiles, Wm. A., Editor of "Garden and Forest" ,0 5 Stimpson, John W., Pamphlet by "3 Stone walls, Cost of 70 Stoneham, Massachusetts °4 Stony Brook, Boston, Floods of 4" " " Flood channel 45 _ 48 " " Reservation * ° 2 Stralsund, Nicolai Kirche ' ' ' Strandway, Boston 54 Strasburg, Improvements in ,I2 Street scheme for rough ground II2 Street-planning, French and German contrasted M 3 Street Trees °° Strozzi, The 38 Suburban settlement, Scheme for, in Aachen II2 Summer Meetings. (March 5, 1901; July 7-9, 1905) 20,22 Summer Residences, Treatment around I0 5 Surface contours, Neglect of, in planning I0 3 i26 TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY PAGE Swimming pool, cost of 70 Swings, scups, etc., Franklin Park, Boston 53 Tank, Cypress, Cost of 70 Teams, Cost of 71 Telford, Cost of 69 Tennis-court, Construction and cost of 70 Theorie et Pratique du Jardinage. (February 5, 1907) 24 Theory and Practice of Landscape Gardening, A. J. Downing 106 Third dimension in design, lack of 103 Thomas Jefferson Park, New York 77 " " " Italian population near 77 " " " Depredations in 77 Town-PIanning, Two kinds of design in 104 " Picturesqueness in 104 " Subordinate features 104 " in Germany 104 Town-site, Future, in Jamestown Exposition 84 Treasurer's Accounts 14 Trees and shrubbery in New York small parks 75-80 Trees, Cost of 70 " for Streets, Kinds of 80 " Large, Moving of. See under Large Trees 29-36 " Preserved by ancient landholders 64 Tuscan Gardens, Design and Character of 38 Tuscany 37 " People of, Characteristics 39 " Gardens of 39 Villas of 38-40 " Architecture of 38 Two Sicilies, The 40 Ulm, Improvements in 112 Ulrich, Rudolph, Resolution on death of. (November 13, 1906) 23 " " " " Committee on 15 Upkeep and protection of parks in Paris 65 Variety in naturalistic design 48 Vaux, Calvert 81, 109 Venetian Architecture 37 Venetian States, Gardens in 38 Venice 38 Verona 38 Versailles 66, 104 " Criticism of 66 " Excessive formality of 104 Vicenza 38 Villa d'Este 40 " Lante 40 Villas, Florentine, Sites and character of 38 Visit to Paris, Paper on, by H. A. Caparn 65 Vistas, Ineffective 104 " Stopped and unstopped 105 OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 127 PAGE W. H. Seward Park, New York 77 Wading pools in parks 79 Wages 7i. 99-'02 Walpole, Horace, Writings of. (December io, 1907) 26 Waltham, Massachusetts, Park reservation near 62 Ward's Pond, Boston 5° Washington, Plan of I0 4 Water Basin, Jamestown Exposition 86 Water-front arrangements in Jamaica Bay, Proposed 93 Water-fall, Bois de Boulogne 68 Waterworks, Cost of 7© Weidenmann, Jacob ° 2 West Side Park, Jersey City, N. J., Papers on by D. W. Langton and C. N. Lowrie 72 Western Notes, Paper on by O. C. Simonds 90 Whately. (December 10, 1907) 26 Wild growth, Jamestown Exposition 87 Willow Pond, Boston 5° Winchester, Massachusetts "'. °4 Windings of stream, natural, through marshes and flat lands 48 Windmill, Cost of ~° Woburn, Massachusetts "4 Wood, Fernando, Mayor of New York ,0 ° Works of members, Lists of. (April 10, 1900) '9 Zoological Garden in Central Park, Proposed "O " Gardens in parks 53 INDEX TO PAPERS Dates are of meetings at which paper was presented. Architect and Landscape Architect, Relations of, C. Howard Walker. (January 14, 1908) . . . 103 Boston, The Metropolitan Park System of, Frederick Law Olmsted. (July 8, 1905) }6 Boston Park System, The, John C. Olmsted. (July 7, 1905) 4 2 Central Park, Interesting Facts in Regard to the Inception and Development of. (Samuel Parsons, Jr., February 11, 1908) I0 5 Cost of Landscape Development, Chas. W. Leavitt, Jr. (December 12, 1905) 69 Cost of Landscape Development, Frederick Law Olmsted. (December 10, 1907) 96 Historical Notes, Downing Vaux. (November 13, 1906) 81 Horticulturist and Landscape Architect, Relations of, C. W. Barry. (January 8, 1907) .... 89 Italian Gardens, Ferruccio Vitale. (April 18, 1905) 37 Jamaica Bay, A Great Water Park in, Harold A. Caparn. (November 12, 1907) 9 2 Jamesto'.vn Exposition, Warren H. Manning. (December 11, 1906) 83 Large Tree Planting, J. L. Greenleaf. (March 14, 1905) 29 Municipal Improvement in Boston and Germany, A. A. Shurtleff. (March 10, 1908) in Small City Parks (of New York City), Samuel Parsons, Jr. (March 6, 1906) 75 Visit to Paris, A, Harold A. Caparn. (November 14, 1905) 65 West Side Park, Jersey City, N. J., Description of Design for, Charles N. Lowrie and Daniel W. Langton. (February 6, 1906) 72 Western Notes, Synopsis of Talk on, Ossian C. Simonds. (February 5, 1907) 90