DESIGNS FOR THE GATEWAYS

al tO eC

a SOUTHURN: EN TRAN CES

OR aR:

CE ENTRAL PARK.

noo NS op

ge te eras oi
¢ LIBRARY OF CONGRESS,

Chef

Vo.

@]338838E8BS

4
é
é
@
é
é
@
@

TT mMmnHna ‘ yy) \ é@
gl NITED STATES OF AMERICA.$

0286352320403 20080520

a ai “y
[vy

WUVd TWHINAD SEL 40 SHUHNOISSININOO AO

LASHLS HLNIN ALA INV SONA

DESIGNS FOR THE GATEWAYS

SOUTHERN ENTRANCES

Wikies wINPRAL PARK.

BY

RICHARD M* HUNT,

MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN. INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS.

wit
Mot Sekt P TION OF THE DESIGNS,
LETTER IN RELATION TO THEM,
ADDRESSED TO THE

COMMISSIONERS OF THE PARK.

NEW YORK:
De Ve NINO SMR ANS) 19:2) BIRO AUD WA: Ys,

1866.

Entered according to act of Congress. in the vear 1566,
By Db. VAN NOSTRAND.

In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the
Southern District of New York,

ALVORD. PRINTER.

I. ELEVATIONS AND PLANS OF THE GATEWAYS FOR THE
ENTRANCES TO THE CENTRAL PARK ON FIFTY-NINTH

STREET.

IJ. A DESCRIPTION OF THESE DESIGNS, IN A LETTER TO THE

“HVENING POST,’ PUBLISHED JULY 21, 1865.

Ill. A LETTER TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE CENTRAL PARK,
BY “CIVIS,” PUBLISHED IN THE “EVENING POST,” MARCH

29 AND APRIL 5, 1866.

IV. EXTRACTS FROM THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COMMIS:

SIONERS OF THE CENTRAL PARK.

s ims
7 n
$: Ss
= S
S TS
TL wf, ; ss
fs)
= *
me tep &
mi CC =
\. = ~
eeu
i = <
“> £ +3 a8
m<«£ gi ss
4. oS 883
a ae
E 7 ee & &
#22 ses
mo: ¢ Sor Re Sos
a . ~ ~
e~ ¢ NaN
sit
moe SPS
y Seas
O § Q 58
¢ ;
5
=
=
; Cay
WW) dey — He
i~ (- H +)
PLAT 3 = cee
| '
I
oe at
bt --—— te Gai i
HO i
ic }
MLA 3 \
|
ae 4 = Ste Arena cinta |
iss,
co, ie
Moy), 3 ‘ wy Mir
ye » oe | |
7 j ] |
|
|
| |
i
|
ie, | IS| ®
bj | in| >
vy ke Sis
Ah Ss IS S/R
Ya S la 8}.
Mel. gs Fa] IN GAIN
gy. ty |%s 818
tisg a (e) is S4 a] =
Ase: ® S28 Bly
% tS ie SIs
> Bole
Ld Nw yigal?
oH gS Sig N14
Lat SES
@ RS SOQILFIR
|} @& FSR S/F eg
SRE :
——— Nerv I~ 8 SN
EB SSh sig sis
~ SR 8) aS
“LD } - | xt Ny SR = = iS
| “he a Rew SARS
t 4 i _ NN >
~ S ©

Vonument to Hendrick Hudson

C Monument to Columbus.

ABCD. Proposed

H

Jiunch

JO fe. to

Scale

“attes,- BC. Hroposed enclosure

LAN

y St.NY

J Bien, Lith 24%

MUVd WULNAO FHL 40S)

OISSIINWOD :
Lawe

[ 9H AG A4HLdOdV UNV LOALIHOUY
HO ¥

NOH W QHVHOTY A «

WV HON HAY

aVd IVEINaAo

M

99 4waX ai uF eeoa¥u0y Jo 19y 01 Buypugoou poawiug

ANW] usigye

ae

4

a

il! .

oF

AN WA OSA FE MET UNE YT
=

Pur yoy ly Oe wPy . .

LIADVES™ Gf OO

: — = = == 1

HOUWINDH Wd
WANS AGE UO vouenyyuqd ~VWyy9

W'Vd 1VM4LNAD

SD UDF MAYS SIU) JP2PIOT 2YON
2D WORD TADAS 2p DA
Prevprtasatlad SUNBLY GY
SYPPAS ADIPVILIPHMMIE |) 84 PAIXY CLT
SAID IG] DAVPUDIE J) I

MSY J2M)SD DU Ibtas SU UE )O ) JOUSOM Cy

90009) EL Pa

394aWWO9?°31V9

MUVd WHINE) Jal 40 CSUANOISSINWOO AO CUVOH
muy LNOH'W AHUVHOIY 44 CANOISSA ‘“LASHLGHLNIN ALLA] NO SONVHLNY SONSAY HI

MavVd “TVELLN AO

ai 203 soIMAS PoTIUA au 503m LysTa WEA 30 031470 SKA!D 91M UY ULNAITM GHVHOIM Ad spel 22K aU Uy eeouFUO} Jo wy 02 Suypsooo” porTUT XN UT Mela f

wd, AA AHLAOdV CIN

t

ee ae 7 >

7

FOUNT wor f°

‘ale |

__ FPOATS OG

gisnyy 0 aergpns:
DUMUM2T PAVLYIZPNY IAP
Drarpas atlas si/N0L9 9999

‘HDYV LNNH WY
VS 6° Uo vouR.QUy AV

WHUVd IWYLNIID

STPISADIVIAV) 1198, DAP INE f E

=

g Vv

GMIDP PUNO bury UM, TIA0

SUL ony

JOSTIMIAQ Ay BUrpsouilig W110) *)
SISAL DY SD DUALS SOUT YY

UETS. yu YY Wy
PPDAVPUISAUD) PPP

yno pry AppRuab iso sv
Uff MOUS SAMUI) PAOPIOT]

“OO N
qivg susiluy /

MUVd TWHLNA) S8L 49 SHAHNOISSINWOD JO CHUVOU
4HL 2A ASELdOdV INV’ LOALIHOUY LNOH W GYUVHOIY 48 CANDISSTC ‘LaaeLCHLNIN LLL NO SONWu

MaVd Wan ao

WOKH 0 10fNSTT Won ey) 49) a1wIS Per;UA Ya Jo AND IDELVETG BMA JO B915F0 SHED oH UY

A OMVHOTY Aq cag] sv9K 9!

LNT Ueta'f

BLN

HN VW AAS8 FZUPLT UPL

IS’ 6E

YIUT J OV 1 UG A7DIG™

=

‘HOUV LNQOH WY
ISAGE VN WHO)
MUVd 1VYLNAD

‘
©
~~
°

DALAT

_ ok °

~<e

oS

UD YLSTUNY LY i,

2YDAPUIS AUD) PPP NaC

pno prop sppoutbrao © Se y ak

capella oy 2 = 6 6
‘ UDYE MOYS SIAM1) UOMO] DION ‘ ry

COODDD ! e ;

so7D9
SHSSS Samy LVVUPUD MAG)
POUL PP NC) U7 PISS
SISGT IVY) 9
sensu rysoibyburyahlnsy SQSpPay HY
UDOT of

JLVQ SHOINHYVM

IS “ide

DOUBT Wy

MUMIA PF yi®

IS WOP

-_

=
+

am

Bs

VOU FH. Ad GALdOdV INV L ) A LIE

IL 40 St

MuVd TWHLNAO OISSINWOD SAO ¢

Ty] GNV ANN

WMeVea TVoLN:

iH

A DESCRIPTION OF MR. HUNT'S DESIGNS,

IN A LETTER TO THE ‘EVENING POST,” PUBLISHED JULY 21, 1865.

THE CENTRAL PARK.—THE PROPOSED NEW ENTRANCE GATES.

To the Editor of the “ Evening Post :”

Among the sketches in the exhibition of the National Academy of Design,
for 1865, were a series of designs for entrances to the Central Park, by
Richard M. Hunt, one of the leading architects of New York. These de-
signs attracted much less attention than they would have done, had it been
generally understood that they were copies of those actually adopted by the
Commissioners of the Park, and not fanciful sketches merely. The plans
offered by the former architect of the Park for the entrance gates not meet-
ing the views of the Commissioners, it was decided to throw the matter open
to general competition, and the designs of Mr. Hunt were adopted some two
years since, after advertising for designs and receiving over twenty in competi-
tion for the prizes offered.

The plans offered by Mr. Vaux, the architect of the Park, contemplated

2

6

nothing more elaborate, we believe, than a single row of trees about the
entrances, protected by an iron railing; and perhaps a gate-keeper’s lodge
on one side. This simplicity was in accordance with what Mr. Vaux con-
ceived to be essential to the preservation of the idea of rural effect which
the Central Park is designed to embody.

Mr. Hunt’s idea, which by adoption has become the idea of the Park
Commissioners, is, on the contrary, that it is impossible to fully carry out
this plan of rusticity. While conceding the importance of interfering with
nature as little as possible, it is to be remembered that the most faithful en-
deavors in this direction will still, of necessity, leave the Park, what indeed
it already is, a formal city pleasure-ground. We must, it needs be, so trim
and restrain the wildness of nature that it can be called “rural” in no
absolute sense, but only by contrast with the bricks and stone surrounding it.

And, when we have to provide for a population of some two millions or
more, it will be impossible to preserve those narrow and winding walks at
the entrance ways which form part of the plan for rural effect. It is folly,
the Commissioners think, to attempt rural entrances for a park in the heart
of a great city, surrounded by magnificent edifices of fashion, as our Central
Park will soon be. Their idea, then, is that the entrances should be in
keeping with the future external surroundings of the Park, and establish the
connection between the street architecture without and cultivated nature
within. It has been the purpose of the Commissioners, therefore, to secure
designs which should leave nothing to be desired in the way of artistic effect.
It was thought best to adopt at the start plans which, though they might
require years for their entire completion, would give the right direction to
effort, and ultimately secure for the principal entrances to the Central Park
structures which would be every way worthy of the magnificence of this
great public improvement and of the metropolis to which it belongs; satisfy-
ing the pride and educating the taste of our citizens.

The problem presented to the architect has been a most difficult one; to
blend nature and art together in harmony ; to secure the grand effect of a
monumental ensemble while submitting to the practical necessity of leaving
the entrance ways unobstructed, and to harmonize his designs with the sur-

roundings of the Park, which are yet undetermined. How far he has sue-

7

ceeded can be judged in some measure from an inspection of the designs
which have secured the approbation of the Commissioners of the Park,

The designs exhibited by Mr. Hunt are for the four entrances. to the

Park from the southerly side, on Fifty-ninth street—corner of Fifth avenue,
opposite Sixth avenue, opposite Seventh avenue, and corner of Kighth
avenue. The entrance at the corner of Fifth avenue it is proposed to call
the Gate of Peace ; the one on the opposite side, at Kighth avenue, the War-
rior’s Gate: thus representing the two great divisions into which all human
industry and effort are divided—the arts of peace and the arts of war.

The intermediate entrance at Sixth avenue it is proposed to call the Gate
of Commerce, and that at the Seventh avenue, the Artists’ Gate. The designs
are of a monumental character, in keeping with these several designations.

The entrance at Fifth avenue, the design for which is the most important
of all, presents peculiar difficulties, as the elaborate architecture of the pro-
spective Fifth avenue residences will tend to kill any effect sought by the
artist. Looking north, two roads present themselves ; the continuation of
the avenue on the one hand, and the entrance to the Park on the other.
Naturally, the continuation of the avenue predominates, presenting, as it
does, the always imposing feature of a continuous avenue, Had the entrance
to the Park been laid out at an angle to Fifth avenue, instead of parallel to
it, it would have appeared less secondary. This difficulty the architect has
sought to overcofne by forming a spacious plaza at the corner of the Park,
some four hundred feet square. This square will be bounded on the north by
the entrance ways, five in number.

The triple road, with the broad walks flanking it, make an ensemble—a
great improvement on the present disposition, one of the walks now turning
off just before it arrives at the Park entrance, thereby detracting from the
grandeur of the whole. The walks are also nearly doubled in width, a much
needed improvement, they being now narrower than the sidewalks of our
city avenues. The entire width of the entrance is to be two hundred feet,
the five ways into which it is divided being distinctly marked by rows of
elms. At the head of each row is placed a pedestal, serving as a gate-post.
The principal of these separate the walks from the roadways, and the four

secondary ones occupy the remaining places, thereby avoiding any monotony.

§

Tt is designed to surmount these pedestals with appropriate groups, repre-
senting the arts of peace. Thus naturally, the square, or entrance vestibule
to the Park is bounded or framed in—on the east by the houses on Fifth
avenue, on the south by those on Fifty-ninth street, and on the north by the
entrance way.

On the west, directly opposite Sixtieth street, it is proposed to erect a
semicircular terrace, one hundred feet in diameter—a grand monumental
feature which shall frame in this side of the square, without which it might
appear lop-sided. In the middle of the terrace front, and directly in the
axis of Sixtieth street, rises a shaft, some fifty feet in height, surmounted by
the Indian and Sailor, supporting the Arms of New York. At the base is to be
a spacious basin of water, containing figures representing the Kast and North
rivers, with the figure of Hendrick Hudson between them on the bow of an
antique vessel; the centre group thus symbolizing the discovery by Hendrick
Hudson of Manhattan Island, at the confluence of the North and East
rivers.

On either side of the basin, steps twenty feet in width will lead to the
terrace, some five feet above the level of the entrance square. The circular
part of the terrace projects over the bank, which slopes down to the lake
just below; a massive stone seat serving as a parapet wall. The effect of
this bold feature is enhanced by cascades of water which descend on either
side of the terrace to the lower level inside the Park; first into a grand basin
and from this into the lake. At their points of convergence is a grand niche,
thirty feet in diameter, to contain a group representing either Columbus
or the Ocean. While this cascade will in itself form one of the most strik-
ingly beautiful objects in the park, it is of great advantage for the relief it
affords to all that disagreeably sunken part of the Park situated between the
Fifth and Sixth avenue entrances—a feature caused by the filling in of
Fifty-ninth street and Fifth avenue, which are graded over twenty feet above
the surface of the lake below.

In the middle of the entrance square there is a space designed for pedes-
trians. This feature is of absolute necessity, and though it might be re-
freshing to the eye to see grass at this point, as at present, yet, as this place

must bea refuge for the pedestrians crossing, necessarily it cannot be too

9

ample for their accommodation. Here again is introduced water, which
always enlivens a place. Here, too, it has the great advantage of furnishing,
as it were, this open space, which might appear too bare without the fountain
in the centre, which forms a graceful feature, without hindering the view of
the Park beyond; the latter a serious consideration, and one which has been
carefully attended to.

At the Eighth avenue the space in front of the entrance to the Park is
to be enlarged to double the present size, and laid out in a square, with a
fountain in the centre, as at the Fifth avenue entrance. In the middle of
each of the two roads diverging from the entrance is placed a pedestal, to be
surmounted by an equestrian statue of some military hero—this disposition
of the pedestals dividing the stream of vehicles passing in and out of the
Park. Flanking these roads are the walks for pedestrians, and between the
two roads is a massive stone seat, in the shape of a quadrant, with parapet
walls, with pedestals to be surmounted by military statues.

The entrance at Sixth avenue is the width of the avenue. At the right
and left, and directly opposite the entrance within the Park, are semicir-
cular stone seats, bordering a small square or vestibule, from which spacious
walks diverge. At the abutments of the seats are six pedestals, intended
for statues of Trade, Navigation, etc. In the middle of each exedra (semi-
circular seat) rises a standard bearer. Rostral columns serve as gate-posts.

The Seventh avenue entrance has a similar disposition of an open space
inside the gate, with exedre to the right and left, from which radiate three
walks. At the abutments of the exedrw are pedestals supporting groups
representing Painting and Sculpture, Music and Architecture. In the centre
of the space rises a column supporting the Genius of the Arts. The gate-
posts are Hermes.

The various designs for the several gates, it will be seen, are all of a
monumental character, and have been so combined as to satisfy the great
requisites of effect, breadth, height, and simplicity ; anything like meretri-
cious ornament being studiously avoided. If they are carried out with be-
coming taste and skill, we may look forward to having such a facade, if we
may call it so, to our grand pleasure ground as no city in the world can

boast of. There are few examples of such entrances abroad worthy of
9

o

10

examination, if we except the Bois de Boulogne, the entrance to which
may properly be said to be the Are de l’Etoile, at the head of the Champs
Elysées which marks the exit from the city into the broad avenues leading

into the Bois.

Il.
A LETTER TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE CENTRAL PARK,

PUBLISHED IN THE EVENING POST, MARCH 2, AND APRIL 5, 1866.

To the Commissioners of the Central Park :

GENTLEMEN: The writer of this communication, for himself, and on
behalf of others, lovers of art, and residents and taxpayers of the city of
New York, begs leave respectfully to address you in regard to an important
matter committed to your care—the gateways of the Central Park.

It is, perhaps, unnecessary for citizens ever to apologize for expressing
their opinions upon the management of great public trusts. There is cer-
tainly no occasion for an apology in the present instance, because your
Board, by its long delay in commencing to build the gateways, seems to
invite suggestions from those who desire their completion. We, therefore,
shall not hesitate to say frankly what we think on this subject, assuring
you, meanwhile, that we feel a hearty admiration for what you have already
done in the Park, and strong confidence in your prudent and patriotic action
in the future.

On the 26th of January, 1863, a member of your Board submitted cer-
tain plans for the four gateways on Fifty-ninth street, which, after debate,
were referred to the Committee on Statuary, Fountains, and Architectural

12

Structures, to report thereon. This committee were also authorized to con-
sult such architects in relation to the gateways as they might deem proper.
They accordingly consulted Mr. Richard M. Hunt, who undertook to submit
drawings himself, but also suggested that your Board should endeavor to
procure others, and for that purpose should offer to give premiums for the
best designs. This course was adopted, and during the summer ten designs
were thus submitted. It appears, however, that on the 2d of September,
1863, your Board unanimously refused to adopt any of them, affirming the
report of the sub-committee that none of them showed sufficient originality
or fitness to the surrounding scenery to merit a premium.

It further appears that on the same day, the 2d of September, 1865,
your Board unanimously approved, in their general features, of the designs
for these four gates which Mr. Hunt had submitted, in obedience to the
request of the Committee on Statuary, and authorized that committee ‘ to
employ Mr. Hunt, and to proceed with the erection of these gates, with such
modification in their details as the committee might approve.”

Again, on the 19th of April, 1864, your Board unanimously resolved
that the Comptroller of the Park should be directed ‘* to proceed forthwith
in the erection of the four gateway entrances in Fifty-ninth street, together
with the several appurtenances, as exhibited in the adopted sketches of Mr.
Hunt, according to the resolutions of the Board, passed 2d September, in
order that this portion of the work might be early completed.”

Afterwards, on the 2d of December, 1864, your Board unanimously
resolved that the subject of the change of quality of material for constructing
the gateways on Fifty-ninth street should be referred to the Committee on
Statuary, etc., with power.

We believe this was all the official action that took place in your Board
on this subject down to a late period. It certainly seems to have been suf-
ficient. Nothing could have been more explicit, direct, and comprehensive.
But unfortunately not a single step was taken to carry it out. Not a spade-
ful of earth was removed for that purpose. This inaction continued for more
than twenty months, until, finally, on the 11th day of May, 1865, your
Board expressly resolved that all work on the gateways of the Park should

be deferred till its further order. So far as we are informed nothing what-

15

ever has been done since in relation to this matter, and it thus appears that
the whole subject, if not formally, has been virtually dismissed from all
further consideration.

We-have examined Mr. Hunt's designs with considerable attention. We
believe they are well adapted in their plans to the convenience of the in-
creasing multitudes who will pass in and out of the Park in future years; and
in their elevations, that they are beautiful and expressive, and in every way
worthy of the places they are intended to adorn.

We beg leave, therefore, most respectfully to remonstrate against this
delay in building them, and to request that your Board will proceed with
the work at an early day, or kindly inform us why it has been thought best
to postpone it indefinitely.

We are well aware that the greatest caution should be used in deciding
upon the forms of structures which are intended to be so permanent and so
expensive as these. It is far better to be without gates than to erect those
which we shall by and by regret to have adopted. But there should be a
limit to this indecision. The Central Park now is in the condition of a pic-
ture without a frame, and to postpone the completion of this crowning grace
year after year, in this timid, hesitating way, is hardly worthy of those who
have so far shown so much energy and enlightened public spirit in this un-
dertaking. In the summer of 1865, attacks, which appear to have been care-
fully concerted, were made upon Mr. Hunt’s designs in several of the public
prints. We do not know that your Board has been influenced by these criti-
cisms. We have carefully read them, and they have not diminished in the
least our approval of the general features of these plans. They may, how-
ever, have had a contrary effect upon your minds. We beg leave, therefore,

to offer what we conceive to be a sufficient answer to all of them

at any
rate, to the chief objections they present.

Excepting some criticisms upon details which we will notice hereafter,
the main arguments against these designs are :—

Ist. That they are too monumental; too elaborate and expensive for the
places they are to occupy; and

2d. That they are too French.

4

14

As to the first objection, your Board should remember that in its previous
action respecting the gateways, it suggested the employment of sculpture and
symbolical decoration. Mr. Stebbins, in his learned and interesting report
upon the nomenclature of the gates, which was accepted by your Board, con-
stantly alludes to this auxiliary in making them attractive. He indicates
certain industrial pursuits which may give their names to the gates, and
which may be of a character to “readily admit of varied artistic treatment
in the gateways themselves.” He speaks of the “ Foreigners’ gate,” which
may in its “sculptural decoration directly acknowledge the obligation that
the owners of the Park are under to liberal and disinterested men of other
nations.”

It is true, he thinks, it can scarcely be considered within the proper scope
of the Commissioners to provide out of the Park funds artistic decorations of
a really high character, at all the various entrances, but he nevertheless be-
lieves “it is desirable to arrange the gateways with a view to possible elabo-
ration hereafter,’ and that “an outlet may readily be left open for future
effort in this direction by private subscription.”

Your Board, also, in offering the rewards for designs and fixing your
limits for the cost, stated that the “statuary represented need not be esti-
mated” in this cost. You afterwards mentioned the names of the four gates
which had been so ingeniously suggested by Mr. Stebbins, and then expressly
said: “This nomenclature should, therefore, be illustrated in the designs,
so far as each designer may consider it practicable or desirable.”

Mr. Hunt, therefore, in obedience to the expressed wishes of the Board,
if for no other reason, could not have avoided the introduction of sculpture
and symbolism in his designs.

But there was a motive for this, better than mere courtesy or a fulfil-
ment of the conditions of an architectural problem. The gateways of the
Central Park, on account of its position, and still more of its future use,
should exhibit the highest resources of monumental art. They afford the

opportunity which we have never so completely enjoyed before, and which

15

we should not now neglect, of summoning the best artistic genius to the
public service. Let us examine this matter with some attention.

The Central Park is a regular parallelogram, half a mile wide and two
miles and a half long. It is in the middle of the city, bounded on all sides
by streets and avenues, which in a few years will be continuously enclosed
by solid blocks of houses and filled with all the noise and bustle of metropoli-
tun life. Opening into these avenues on the right and the left will be a hun-
dred other streets, stretching off to the East and North Rivers, all compactly
built and all crowded with thronging multitudes of people.

When these streets shall be finished and the whole island covered thickly
with houses, this park in its very centre will not appear so large as at present.
The idea of size is relative. This open area which is now on the outskirts
of the city, and seems so vast, will look very much smaller when the inhab-
itants shall grow more familiar with its boundaries and with every nook and
corner it contains. As it becomes apparently smaller, it will also become
more artificial and less rural; more of a garden and less of a park. Its ap-
pearance is already shaped and colored by the art which is omnipresent in
the curves of the roads, the opening of the vistas, the plantation of the shrub-
beries, in the bridges, the archways, the casinos, the aviaries, the music halls,
the fountains, the kiosks, and the terrace and its surroundings. To say
even now that we forget art—that we fancy ourselves in the quiet solitudes
of nature—is absurd. And in the future, when this shall be the resort of
two millions of people, when the roar of traffic through the transverse roads
shall drown the singing of the birds—when the restaurants and summer
houses, and music halls, and conservatories, and winter gardens and museums
shall be greatly multiplied—when statues and busts, and monuments and
columns shall crowd the avenues, the Central Park will become one great
open air gallery of Art, instead of being, as some dreamers fancy it, a silent
stretch of rural landscape caught up and inclosed within the raging tumult

of a vast metropolis.

“Un pezzo di cielo caduto in terra.”

We know that this state of things is very different from the anticipations
of our friends, the architects of the Park, and they will desire to postpone

16

it as long as possible ; but we nevertheless believe it to be unavoidable and
inevitable, and that it will follow as a matter of course from the geographical
position of the Park in the very centre of what will probably become the
largest city-of the Christian world—a position entirely unlike that of other
parks, which lie generally on the outskirts of the cities to which they belong.

But this ornate, architectural character which we believe the Central
Park of the future must possess, on account of its location, will follow still
more certainly from the mode in which it was first established and is still
maintained, and from the popular idea which prevails of its use.

The Park is the pride and the delight of the people. There is no other
spot which they regard with so much affection and upon which they are
willing to lavish so much treasure. It is not a mere fanciful notion, that as
the sovereigns of Europe have their palaces and pleasure grounds, so this is
the palace and the pleasure ground of our sovereign, the people. It is already
the music hall of this potent monarch. Why should it not become his
sculpture gallery—the ample treasury of the trophies of his power? There
is no other place which, by its extent, its general plan, and, above all, by the
wise and intelligent manner in which it has generally been governed, affords
so excellent a field for the expression of great national ideas. Now, these
great national ideas, the reverence for famous poets, the admiration of heroie
achievements, the triumphal progress of important reforms, the advancement
of the nation in material power and the like, need to be expressed by some-
thing more significant and suggestive than landscape gardening—than trees
and flowers and stretches of greensward. They demand the best creations of
art, and particularly of plastic art. The erection of the colossal bust of
Schiller and the proposed monument to Shakespeare, show the direction of
the popular feeling in this matter—a direction which the Commissioners of
the future will find it impossible to resist. How absurd, then, it is to cheat
ourselves into the belief that this is always to be a sylvan retreat fit for
shepherds and their flocks? Not that we need sacrifice the charms of
ereensward, of spreading trees, of rocks and waterfalls, or exclude flowers
and creeping vines. These may always exist, and be as lovely and enchanting
as ever, but we must be content to see them united with the expressive

forms of art, and intermixed with statues and monuments. We must not be

i

disappointed, also, if edifices for public recreation and instruction should be
constantly added, like the Museum and Gallery of the Historical Society,
for which several acres have already been appropriated. Winter gardens,
conservatories, music halls, and libraries must follow. Indeed, all that con-
centration of the resources of intellectual and artistic pleasure which made
the great public Therme of Rome so attractive, may at some future day be
found in the Park, in addition to all those delightful appliances which
modern civilization has invented.

For ourselves, we anticipate with satisfaction this probable future of the
Park. We welcome the idea that it may become the field for the display of
greater artistic triumphs than we have yet witnessed in America. It is
sometimes the occasion, the happy conjunction of the necessity, with the
ability to fulfil it, which quickens talents that would otherwise have lain
dormant. The “Last Judgment” might never have been painted, if the
vacant space over the altar of the Sistine Chapel had not summoned Buona-
rotti to adorn it; nor the Arabesques of Raphael, if the Loggie of the Vati-
can had not required them. So the Central Park must call out in future the
highest efforts of American genius. It is in plastic art that this has already
made its best development, and here is the spot which of all others demands
its exercise. There is little in our annals to paint. But in the great Amer-
ican ideas there is every thing grand and noble to symbolize in sculpture.
It is in marble and bronze that the magnificent thoughts which have created
and preserved this country must have their only adequate visible expression,
But it will not be in the filthy streets, in the neglected squares, in the dilap-
idated market places, in the halls of public edifices, the building of which
has been farmed out by peculating officials, and which will stand (so long as
the frauds in their construction will permit) shameful monuments of execra-
ble taste as well as of official corruption ; it will not be in these unfit recep-
tacles that the emblems of whatever is noble and pure and majestic in the
character and history of the American people shall be erected. True artists
will revolt from the task of associating their fine productions with all which
is imbecile and dishonorable in the conduct of municipal affairs. But in the
Central Park, which your honest and intelligent administration has made the
brightest, the most beautiful, the most complete of all the city possessions,

3)

18

the Cor Cordium of the metropolis, the spot where the pride and the love of
the people are concentrated, there will the most exalted genius delight to
have its creations exhibited, and there will private wealth be cheerfully ex-
pended in bountiful profusion, to place them worthily before the public eye.

We have endeavored to paint this picture of the Central Park of the future
in order to ask what should be its framework, what should characterize its

those portions of it which mark its boundaries, and shut it in

entrances
from the world around it. It seems to us that it would be unfit to creep
into such a place as this through a sort of accidental opening—like a wheel
track worn out in the corner of a country training ground—a postern in a
mean fence; a few plain pillars with swinging gates, opening into narrow
paths. Surely, every one who reflects upon the character of this place
must say, that the entrances to it should be majestic and monumental and
endowed with all the grandeur that architecture and sculpture can bestow.
If the palace is to be stately and full of every thing to delight the eye, to
please the fancy, to elevate the imagination, to arouse the patriotism, so
should the front of the palace, the doors which open upon its glories, be corre-
spondingly magnificent.

We have dwelt with more earnestness upon the propriety, we may almost
say the necessity, of introducing monumental art into the Park, because, in
the Report of your Board for the year 1865, you express a widely different
opinion. “ Vegetation,” you say, “should hold the first place of distinction.”
* “Tt is the work of nature, invulnerable to criticism, accepted
by all, as well the cultivated as the ignorant, and affords a limitless field for
interesting observation and instruction.” * * * * “ There is not only
fitness in this idea, but there is safety. All art work is the subject of
animadversion; much of it sinks beneath observation; it is the fortune of
very little of it to escape wide censure; less of it finds permanent accept-
ance.” Will you pardon us if we say that we do not remember to have ever
seen before the fear of criticism ,put forward as a reason for not employing
the resources of art 2? You will not use sculpture, because it may be the
“subject of animadversion.” Statues are to be avoided, because it will be
“safer” to plant trees. Artists are to be neglected, because their works

may be exposed to the ‘wide censure” of some penny-a-liner. It seems to

19

us there are many things worse than the buzzing of the mosquitoes of the
public journals, and one of them is the consciousness of having been fright-
ened by trifles from the performance of important duties.

We have thus far attempted to defend Mr. Hunt’s designs by showing
that they are not too elaborate and monumental for the Central Park as we
conceive it will be in the future. It is likely, however, that this imaginary
picture of ours will be pronounced by many to be chimerical and extravagant.
To all such persons we beg to say that even if we are in error on this point,
and if the Park is always to remain in its present comparatively rural con-
dition, we should still consider these designs to be extremely elegant and
appropriate, and this for several reasons, but particularly on account of the
greater convenience of their ground plans and the better adaptation of their
elevations to the street architecture which will surround the Park, provided
this architecture is to be of the character which the location demands.

It is a great pity that Mr. Hunt did not exhibit the ground plans of these
gates as well as the perspective views at the Academy last summer. They
would not have prevented the attacks of selfish and interested critics, but
they might perhaps have induced more honest and intelligent observers to
suspend their unfavorable opinions. It is only necessary to see the openings
proposed by Mr. Hunt traced over those in the original designs, to be con-
vinced of the immense superiority of the former, in all points of convenience
and beauty. They are much more spacious and imposing, they provide more
completely for the proper division of the incoming and outgoing crowds, and
they display to better advantage the charming features of the scenery within.
The Eighth avenue opening, in particular, seems to us such a vast improve-
ment over the first arrangement, which is meagre in outline and narrow at
the very point where it should he wide, that we wonder why your Board can
hesitate a moment in adopting it. And as to the Sixth and Seventh avenue
approaches, it is surprising that the diminutive paths which appear, upon the
maps of the Park, to have been laid out for the throngs of visitors at those
points, should find the least favor in comparison with Mr. Hunt’s larger and
more beautiful plans.

It has been made an objection to the changes he proposes here and at the
other entrances, that they will require alterations of the ground, both expen-

20

sive and injurious to the natural beauties of the neighborhood. We believe
that in every instance the advantage gained will more than compensate for
any possible loss in this way. Mr. Vaux declares that the terrace at the
Fifth avenue gate will break up the repose of the scenery around the small
lake in that angle of the Park. But even if this be true, that region is too
limited in extent and quite too near the boundary line for the Commissioners
to attempt to preserve its present features by the sacrifice of other more im-
portant advantages. That instantaneous transition from city streets to a
poor imitation of the wildness of nature which some persons admire in this
spot, seems to us to be forced and even displeasing. It would be better if
the deception could be made tolerably complete. But, while the eye is
cheated by the rocks and the water, the ear detects in the rattling of the car-
riages the proximity of a tumultuous crowd, so that the illusion is destroyed,
and we are struck with the affectation and pretence of the whole affair.

We repeat the statement, that a careful study of Mr. Hunt’s ground plans
will convince any one of their superiority to the others, even if they should
require some alteration of the territory as it is laid out at present. And if
we approve of the ground plans, we must also approve of the distribution
of the masses which they generate. Now, this distribution of the masses is
the most important part of the elevations. So that, if you reject the orna-
ments altogether, this arrangement of the principal forms will still remain
extremely complete and satisfactory.

And as to the ornaments which Mr. Hunt proposes—the statues, the
Hermes, the rostra, the columns, and other things—we cannot help believing
that the great majority of the citizens will regard them as very noble and
proper additions whenever the streets around the Park shall be finished in a
manner which their position and the rank of New York as the greatest city
of the western hemisphere demand. We beg to insist particularly upon this
point. We think it is certain that whatever seems too elaborate and arti-
ficial in these designs will disappear when we reject the standard by which
we are apt to measure such things in this country, and judge of them by
comparison with similar objects in great European capitals. If New York is
ever to resemble a metropolis, if it is ever to be any thing but an overgrown

provincial town—an unmeaning, dreary waste of brick and brown-stone fronts

21

—it must have some marked architectural centre—some spot which shall be
distinguished from all others by its vast open spaces, its long perspectives,
its symmetrical masses of building, its imposing monuments, its richly elabo-
rated fagades. Now, the streets and avenues around the Central Park afford
the best opportunity we have for giving this metropolitan splendor to our
city ; but, to attain this character, they must be laid out upon a scale and
finished in a style more imposing than any thing we have yet attempted. We
must discard the City Hall and the grounds about it as our standards of
magnificence, and indulge ourselves in a breadth of space and a height and
dignity of architectural composition which may appear absurd and extray-
agant to uncultivated eyes.

It is perhaps too much to expect that New York will ever present a region
of such artistic grandeur as Paris shows between the Louvre and the Barricre
de Etoile. We cannot hope to exhibit a facade upon our Park like that of
the Tuileries, which extends along its garden front more than one thousand
feet, nor a group of buildings like the Louvre, which, including the Tuileries,
contains nearly thirty acres of ground, covered with the most imposing and
richly decorated structures, and embraces the noble Place du Carousel, which
has an area of nearly a million and a half of square feet. Even the small
open court of the Louvre contains more square feet than the whole space
lately appropriated by your Board to the Historical Society. We may despair
of rivalling the Place de la Concorde, the centre of the finest city perspective
in the world, and which it is hardly probable that Rome, in her best days,
excelled. But if we are to make the slightest approach to all this splendor,
if the outer boundary of the Park is to be a spot of marked architectural
displays in its facades, its perspectives, and its monuments, and to equal in
this respect not Paris, but some third or fourth rate European town, the
artistic elaborateness of Mr. Hunt's designs is the very last quality in them

to which we should object as a fault.
6

lI bs

We need say but little in answer to the second general objection to these
plans: that they are too French.

The idea that they are French seems to have arisen, first, from the fact
that Mr. Hunt, although he is an American, studied his profession in France ;
and, secondly, because in borrowing certain forms of sculpture as temporary
ornaments for his architecture, he happens to place the famous horses of
Coustou on the pedestals of the Fifth avenue entrance, and to adopt for the
Seventh avenue entrance the Hermes which Jean Goujon had already used
at Fontainebleau.

Now, this is as unreasonable as to call Messrs. Vaux and Mould’s designs
English, because these gentlemen are Englishmen and studied their profession
in England; and as to the horses and the busts, we must remember that
Mr. Hunt is not a sculptor; he is an architect. He did not pretend to in-
vent these designs for statuary. His selection was purely arbitrary. It
might have been one thing as well as another, provided the statues harmonized
with his masses. These designs were intended to exhibit general architectural
effects and not ornamental sculpture, and it is for the former and not the
latter that he is to be criticised and held responsible.

But if these plans be French in their character, why is this to be con-
sidered a reproach ? Is there a country in the world where art occupies so
high a position at this day as it does in France? Is there any modern archi-
tecture so much admired and so much copied as the French? We see it
reproduced constantly in England. If we may presume to express our
own opinion about it, we should say that it unites in an admirable degree
elegance of forms with a nice adaptation to the requirements of modern civili-
zation. At any rate, it seems somewhat presumptuous for a critic whose
studies have, perhaps, hardly extended beyond the new City Hall and the
store fronts of Broadway, to characterize those noble works which embellish
the Paris of our day, and which are the productions of men whose distin-
guished talent and conscientious devotion to their art are the admiration of

all Europe, as the “ barren spawn of French Imperialism” and ‘ Louis Napo-

99°
=v

leon’s favorite sop thrown to the dragon of the Parisian ouvrerie.’ The
writer to whom we allude seems to appeal to the popular feeling against the
invader of Mexico to swell the blasts of indignation which he tries to raise
against Mr. Hunt’s gates. “We don’t like,” he says, “to be reminded of the
existence of such riff-raff as the French Emperor when we are in our Park.”
It would be an affliction to us,” he adds, “that we couldn’t enter our gar-
den without being obliged to pass through gates which recall the cruelty and
injustice of systems that Jupiter Scapin and his mates sustain and delight in.”

Mr. Hunt little thought, when he made these designs, that he was about
to add fuel to the flames of an international controversy. But seriously, all
this is extravagant and puerile, and the author of it must confess, upon re-
flection, that this idea of connecting architecure with the vices of certain
political systems is most shadowy and unsubstantial. It is a matter of no
sort of consequence whether Mr. Hunt's plans are French in their character
or not, provided they are elegant and appropriate to the purposes for which

they were made.

DLT:

The objections to the details of these gates refer chiefly to the architectu-
ral ornament, which cannot be fairly criticised without a study of the finished
drawings, or to the sculptured decorations, which, not having been invented
by Mr. Hunt, and only selected by him as being adapted to the masses of
his design, should not be made a subject of animadversion. A writer in a
weekly journal, who is more courteous and intelligent than some of. his
brethren, admits the whole case when he says that “ Mr. Hunt has almost
perfectly well conceived his subject; it is evident he has grasped the whole
matter in hand and can handle it.” This critic objects to the Ionic of the
capitals of the Eighth avenue gate-posts and to the use of the Doric cornice
at the Fifth and Seventh avenues. These are points upon which connoisseurs
may fairly differ. We do not believe that the best educated among them
would make these objections after an examination of the finished drawings
on a larger scale: but if they should do so, it would by no means afford a

reason for what seems to be an indefinite postponement of their execution.

24

We confess that we are not perfectly satisfied ourselves with the use of a
detached column to support a statue or a coat-of-arms carved “in the round.”
But, when we remember the problem the artist had to solve, we are disposed
to be indulgent to him in this matter. It was necessary in all these gates
to give height and dignity to a composition which required wide, vacant
spaces and a thin, drawn-out system of posts and delicate iron work. In
order to emphasize these entrances, to give them impressiveness and signifi-
cance, and to take away from the low, flat appearance of long gates swinging
between a succession of posts, it was desirable to carry the eye upward. Hence
the use of these columns and the tall masts bearing flags and gonfalons. As
marking boundaries, as indicating important points in the outer inclosure of
the Park to be conspicuous at a distance, these columns seem to be unobjec-
tionable. They are complete and independent objects, beautiful in themselves,
and may as well be used for such a purpose as arches, which are also frequently
detached from facades and set up to do duty in isolated positions. Any one
who remembers the two columns of the Barriére du Trone in Paris, standing
each by itself and bearing a statue, will confess that, however incorrect they
may appear to fastidious critics, they are certainly very majestic in their
general effect.

We cannot agree with the writer whom we have quoted, in considering
the terrace of the Fifth avenue entrance an accessory of no value, and being
not only useless and badly designed, but positively injurious. We think, on
the contrary, it gives importance and dignity to the gateway, and it would
be worth all the money it would cost. This spot-—the south-eastern angle
of the Park—will probably be for many years to come the most attractive
and distinguished architectural point on the island, and it should be marked
by a liberal display of embellishment and by a breadth and majesty of treat-
ment beyond all others. Mr. Hunt has accordingly concentrated here all
the resourees of his art—ample space, imposing masses of mason work,
colossal sculpture, graceful fountains, and picturesque vistas, and he has sue-
ceeded in producing an ensemble which, while it is infinitely more convenient
in the plan than the original design for this entrance, is peculiarly striking
and satisfactory to the eye.

We may say, generally, in answer to objections to some of the architec-

25

tural details of these compositions, both those to which we have alluded and
others, that if, upon further study and the criticism of competent judges,
they should seem to require alterations, we feel sure that no false pride
would prevent Mr. Hunt from making them. But after all, considering his
education and position as an architect, he is quite as likely to be right as his
critics, and we may well leave these smaller matters in his hands.

We have stated our opinion of the unfairness of attacking the suggestions
for statuary which Mr. Hunt introduced to complete the masses of his com-
positions. All the small wit which some writers have condescended to use
about his heathen symbolism seems as pointless as it is unjust. Mr. Hunt
has no intention of adopting these statues, or of designing himself any others
in their places. We have masters in this department of art, to whom he is
willing to intrust this work. We faney that Powers or Brown, or Palmer
or Ward, or Launt Thompson or Rodgers, or Miss Stebbins, could furnish
sculpture which the boldest of these critics would hesitate to ridicule. We
feel sure that the “ Indian Hunter,” for instance, could find no more appro-
priate resting place than at one of these gateways, and the prospect of such
a destination for it, if it could be assured, would seem almost to settle the
question as to the practicability of raising a sufficient sum to cast it in bronze,
and thus preserve it forever as one of the noblest ornaments of the city.

We have already alluded to the writer in a daily journal, who hates the
French so bitterly. He attacks these designs with an undiscriminating
ferocity, which characterizes much of the art criticism in that particular
newspaper. He writes cleverly, and seems to have learned some of the
“ingenuas artes” of which Ovid speaks, but the study of them has not pro-

duced upon his manners the influence that the poet ascribes to it:
““Emollit mores, nec sinit esse feros.”’

He says of these drawings that he “never heard any one approve them;”
that they “are both ugly and unsuitable;” that “they break the law of use
and beauty ;” that “ they are as un-American as it is possible to make them ;”
that “they are tame and spiritless copies of modern French work ;” that
“nothing springs out of the needs of the place, nor is dictated by conditions

that exist and ought to be respected, but every thing is intense, artificial, and

7

26

formal ;” that they exhibit “ no freedom,” “no play ;” that they are “all show,
and expensive show ;” “the minimum of beauty for the maximum of money ;”
that they are “ugly,” “ unmeaning,” and “ unnecessary ;” that “to get them
we have to throw away in each case some marked peculiarity of the ground,
some natural condition which has been well turned to account” by Messrs.
Vaux and Olmsted; that “ Mr. Hunt tries to wipe out Nature, to substitute
symmetry for her irregularity, to give us stones for bread.” “ We have
lightly touched,” the writer says, ‘‘ upon the unreason of these designs; their
ugliness, their utter weakness, would take us too long to consider,” and much
more in the same strain.

“ Brave words,” as Fluellen says; ‘ brave words,” but nothing else.
Something more than an indictment is required before a man can be con-
victed. Here is the indictment. We traverse it in every count. It has
not been proved. Until it shall be proved, it is worth no more than our
denial.

This critic, however, had another duty to perform besides attacking
Mr. Hunt’s designs; he had at the same time to sustain those of Mr. Vaux
and Mr. Mould, and to reconcile the grounds of his praise and his blame in the
two cases. He has not done this in a very skilful manner. We beg you to
understand that we do not intend to find fault with what either Mr. Vaux
or Mr. Mould has executed in the Park. These gentleman have con-
tributed several fine things to the grounds, and the latter especially has a
charming idea of the use of color in architecture. We only wish to show how
difficult it was for our pugnacious friend to make the principles upon which
he praised the English artists square with those upon which he attempted
to demolish the American. He is a great admirer of nature, as we all are,
and contends that we should have no more architecture in the Park than is
absolutely necessary. His first difficulty is to reconcile this with Mr. Vaux’s
archways, which we know are very elaborate and expensive, and intended,
of course, to be seen and admired for all time to come. He disposes of
these, however, at a mouthful. He says that ‘“ every year’s growth shuts
the archways more and more out of sight;” that “before a great while the
existence of most of them will hardly be suspected!” Every child must

see the absurdity of this assertion; and even if it were true, how ridiculous

27

it was to waste so much time and labor upon beautiful structures which
ought to be hidden as soon as_ possible!

After the archways ‘‘are taken out of the scene,” says our critic,
“there is left of the architecture only the terrace,” and this was erected “in
obedience to the law that makes a centre, to which all drives, walks, and
rambles tend, absolutely necessary.” Mr. Vaux, he says, would have
preferred a ‘“ mountain, or at least a hill, or even a great mass of rock ;”
but Nature had not given it and it could not be supplied, so he put the
terrace there.

We believe a very respectable “mountain, or at least a hill, or a great
mass of rock,” could have been constructed for much less than the cost of
the Terrace; but Mr. Vaux was quite too good an artist to think of any
such thing. He wanted as much art as he knew how to make, and so he
designed the terrace. But, having once gotten the terrace, our critic does
not seem to look upon it any longer as a pis aller—as only a substitute for a
“ mountain,’ &e. He pronounces it most beautiful, and then brings out
another objection to Mr. Hunt’s gates, that they “ detract from the importance

“that it is a mistake to make subordinate

”

of the great central feature ;
features equal or superior to the central one.” How this can be true, if the
gates are as ugly and weak as he asserts, we cannot understand ; and if they
are beautiful and appropriate, as we say they are, the fact that they may
thereby injure the effect of Mr. Vaux’s terrace is not a good reason for dis-
carding them. The better plan would be to improve Mr. Vaux’s terrace.
But we have no desire to pursue any further the inconsistencies of this

critic.

VE:

We have attempted in this letter to show that the beauty of the Park, the
architectural completeness of the city, and the convenience of the people,
would all be greatly promoted by the erection of these gateways, which
your Board two years and a half ago unanimously decided to undertake. You
have ever since neglected to commence this work, and at last voted to post-

28

pone it by a formal resolution, which, when taken in connection with your
long inaction, seems to amount to a virtual abandonment of the whole affair.

Will you pardon us for saying that we think it is due to Mr. Hunt’s pro-
fessional position that you should reconsider this resolution? Whatever
may be the faults or the merits of his designs, he deserves to be treated
courteously and justly, and, since they have been once adopted, to know at
least whether they are ever to be carried out, and, if not, for what reason
they have been discarded. He is neither a child nor a charlatan, and has as
good claims as any one to seek for the honor of erecting these gateways. It
is true, he is an American, which seems sometimes in a competition for artis-
tic laurels to be a hinderance rather than an advantage. But we feel sure
that in your eyes both his birthplace and his well-known loyalty will give
him an additional claim on your regard. It is particularly to his professional
antecedents, however, that we beg to call your attention. Let us state these
very briefly. He commenced the study of architecture in 1844, twenty-two
years ago, with M. Darier, at Geneva, in Switzerland. In 1845, he entered
at Paris the atelier of M. Hector Lefuel, who is now the architect of the
Emperor. He continued with him as a pupil for nearly ten years, pursuing at
the same time his studies in the Ecole des Beaux Arts. In 1855, he employed
a vacation in making a careful professional tour through Germany, Italy,
Egypt, Syria, and Greece, having already visited Germany once and Italy
twice before. In 1854, M. Lefuel being engaged upon that great work which
is the crowning architectural triumph of the reign of the present Emperor—
the completion of the connection between the Louvre and the Tuilertes—
Mr. Hunt, who had become one of his favorite and most valued pupils, entered
the Bureau des Etudes of that magnificent undertaking. He was employed
there constantly in the most important and instructive labors upon various
parts of the work, but had special charge of the pavilion, called the Pavillon
de la Bibliotheque, opposite to the Palais Royal, for which, under the super-
vision of M. Lefuel, he made the original sketch and the working drawings.
This design was afterwards executed, and the facade now exists—a conspicu-
ous monument not only of Mr. Hunt's talent, but of M. Lefuel’s confidence
in his ability. He also made the designs and working drawings for the dormer

windows of that part of the palace fronting on the Rue de Rivoli. In the

Ae)

autumn of 1855 he returned to America, and in 1857 became the assistant to
Mr. Thomas U. Walter, the architect of the Capitol at Washington. For
several years past he has resided in New York, and has designed buildings
for this city, for Boston, and other places, which have been deservedly admired.
He has just completed the sketch for the new museum and galleries of the
Historical Society, which has met with the approval of the Building Com-
mittee of that institution.

It seems necessary to explain Mr. Hunts professional position to show
that on this account, if for no other, he should be treated fairly and justly,
and not dismissed from the charge of erecting these gates without full oppor-
tunity for discussion and explanation.

We beg to submit these remarks to your careful consideration, and to ask
such action in the premises as the interests of the public, the honor of your

Board, and the claims of Mr. Hunt may require.
CIVIS.
8

i

edi PUA ae

17

AA ATR AM 1 ANY OL EAGT AW ;
wie ie) et ee) ned tae

i it bem pniiiliok. akP itt Aawerte nd Ma? ghak, :
i ‘in 40 (nine ol) gabe etvenlant G54 ay) dene
WHEN Gial PRY Ww rpeayd Reine Ob Ave iver hae ite ty, vit ia
; hia of Lau Kida Sereda shir ay hare itei= Aiait ds

byw we hie santieaing VW ne sil ial
7 i) ethabrinpaarte coheed Wig wt eer

il iid Cotte WMD dp Ero Avivh, deme prrieniven &@
ion (yh inh Oa fone

_

vn

‘ Te uit eye af vil a) Gag ead,
| wr THT TL Lee ietire iti ae
anil, nett bed sop Dheinll
, ie Goilw add went A elas eh
loth: Malg vient eae pat tty at
| Ge.

ie

PROCH EH DIN Gs

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE CENTRAL PARK,

RELATING TO THE ENTRANCES ON FIFTY-NINTH STREET.

July 12th, 1860.—Resolved, That the Architect-in-Chief be requested to
furnish designs for an inclosure along the southerly side of the Park, provid-
ing in the line of said inclosure for entrances with appropriate ornamentation
at both Sixth and Seventh avenues, and that in said designs entrances be
adapted to the use of pedestrians, and so adjusted as to admit carriages,
should the proper interior arrangements hereafter be provided therefor, with
the estimated cost, and that at the same time he present designs for the pro-

posed entrances at the Fifth and Eighth avenues.

November 25d, 1860.—Mr. Green submitted designs for iron gateways,
and stone wall or fence for inclosing the Park.

Debate was had thereon, when

On motion of Mr. Green, the whole subject was referred to the Commit-

tee on Statuary, Fountains, and Architectural Structures.

32

_

March 29th, 1861.—A further communication was received from the
Architect-in-Chief and Superintendent, relative to, and transmitting designs
for fencing and inclosing the Park.

On motion of Mr. Belmont, said communication was referred to the Spe-

cial Committee appointed this day (Messrs. Stebbins, Russell, and Belmont).

January 26th, 1863.—Mr. Green submitted several plans of gateway en-
trances to the Park on Fifty-ninth street.

Debate was had thereon, when

Mr. Hutchins moved that said plans be referred to the Committee on
Statuary, Fountains, and Architectural Structures, to report further thereon,
and that said Committee have power to consult such architects in relation
thereto, as they may deem proper.

The question being put on the adoption of said motion, it was determined
in the affirmative as follows :

Ayes—Messrs. Russell, Hutchins, Green, Stebbins, Grinnell—.

May \Ath, 1863.—Resignations of Messrs. Olmsted and Vaux accepted
by the Board.

By unanimous consent,

Mr. Russell, from the Committee on Statuary, Fountains, and Architect-
ural Structures, to which was referred several plans of Gateway Entrances
to the Park on Fifty-ninth street, to report further thereon, and to consult
such architects in relation thereto, as they might deem proper, reported ver-
bally that said committee had made some progress therein, and would report

upon said subject at a future meeting of the Board.

SPECIFICATION FOR DESIGNS OF GATES AND GATEWAYS.

Orricr or tHE Boarp oF CoMMISSIONERS OF THE CENTRAL Park,
June 12th, 1863.

Designs are to be drawn to a scale of a quarter of an inch to a foot, and
may be in colors or in neutral tint.

No expenditure for the four gates and their appurtenances exceeding
$50,000 is contemplated.

Persons offering designs will send with them an estimate of the cost of

constructing the respective gates and gateways, which should not exceed this
sum ; economy in construction will be an important element in the selection
of a design, and in awarding the premium.

Places for Statuary should be shown in the designs, but the Statuary

represented need not be estimated in the above cost.

Following a general plan of nomenclature of the Park entrances, the fol-
lowing names are suggested for these gates respectively :—

That at Fifth avenue and Fifty-ninth street, Taz Scnorars’ Gare.

That at Sixth oC Us Tue Artists’ Gare.
That at Seventh * s Toe Arrisans’? GATE.
That at Eighth ‘ s Tue Mercuants’ Gare.

This nomenclature should therefore be illustrated in the designs,so far as
each designer may consider it practicable or desirable.

Without committing itself to this course, the intention of the Board is, in
case either design is adopted, to engage the services of the Architect, sub-
mitting the design, to carry it out in construction, at the usual professional
compensation ; if this course is adopted, the premium will be awarded to the
set of designs that the Board shall determine to be the second best, other-
wise the premium will be awarded to the set of designs which the Board
determine best entitled thereto.

The series of designs to which the premium is awarded will become the

property of the Board.

August 15th, 1863.—On motion of Mr. Russell, the Board proceeded to
open the plans and sketches for four southerly gates and gateways of the
Central Park, submitted for competition, which were numbered.

Debate was had on them, when,

On motion of Mr. Green, said plans and sketches were referred to the
Committee on -Statuary, Fountains, and Architectural-Structures, to report
thereon to the Board, or to the Executive Committee of the Board.

September 2d, 1863.—Mr. Russell, from the Committee on Statuary,
Fountains, and Architectural Stractures, to whom was referred the plans and
sketches for four southerly gates and gateways of the Park, at the last
meeting of the Board, to report thereon, presented a report in writing.

9

Mr. Russell moved that said report be adopted, and entered at length
upon the minutes.
The question being put on the adoption of said motion, it was determined

in the affirmative, as follows :

Ayes—Messrs. Russell, Butterworth, Green, Blatchford, Grinnell—o.

To tie Boarp oF ComMIssIONERS OF THE CENTRAL PARK:

The Committee on Statuary, Fountains, and Architectural Structures
report, that they have examined the plans referred to them, marked Nos. 1
to 10, and while they find a variety of designs, it does not appear to them
that either of the plans offered comprehends a sufficient degree of originality
and fitness to the surrounding features of the landscape to justify the Com-
mittee in recommending the Board to award the premium proposed to its
author, nor would the Committee recommend the erection of either of the
gateways shown in the design offered.

As the question may arise as to the disposition of the premium offered,
the Committee recommend that the Treasurer be authorized to distribute
among the competitors such portions of the premium as he may deem judicious.

Dated New York, September 2d, 1863.

C. H. RUSSELL, Committee on Statuary,
J. F. BUTTERWORTH, Fountains, and Archi-
ANDREW H. GREEN, tectural Structures.

Mr. Butterworth offered the following :

Resolved, That the sketches of the four gateways on the southerly boun-
dary of the Park, submitted by Mr. Hunt, be and the same are hereby ap-
proved in their general features, and that the Committee on Statuary, Foun-
tains, and Architectural Structures, be authorized to employ the designer of
said sketches, and to proceed with the erection of these gates, with such
modifications in their details as said Committee may approve.

The question being put on the adoption of said resolution, it was deter-
mined in the affirmative, as follows :

Ayes—Messrs. Russell, Butterworth, Green, Blatchford, and Grinnell—,

November 12th, 1863.—Mr. Green offered the following resolution :

(si)
Or

Resolved, That no gateways be constructed or erected on the Fifth or
Eighth Avenues until they have been referred to the Committee on Statuary,
Fountains, and Architectural Structures, and reported on by said Committee
to the Board for their action.

Debate was had thereon, when

The question being put on the adoption of said resolution, it was deter-
mined in the negative, as follows :

Ayes—Messrs. Russell, Hutchins, Green, Stebbins—4.

Nay—My. Fields—1.

April 19th, 1864.—Mr. Russell offered the following :

Resolved, That the Comptroller of the Park be directed to proceed forth-
with in the erection of the four gateway entrances in Fifty-ninth street,
and southerly boundary of the Park, together with the several appurtenances,
as exhibited in the adopted sketches of Mr. Hunt, according to the resolution
of this Board, passed 2d September last, in order that this portion of the
work may be early completed.

The question being put on the adoption of said resolution, it was deter-
mined in the affirmative, as follows :

Ayes—Messrs. Russell, Hutchins, Green, Blatchford, and Grinnell—5.

May (1th, 1865.—On motion of Mr. Fields,

Resolved, That all work on the gateways of the Park be deferred till the
further order of the Board.

Ayes—Butterworth, Hutchins, Field, Green, Blatehford——5.

Nays—Kussell—l1.

In reference to this delay, the following communication was addressed

to the Commissioners :
New York, December 18th, 1865.

To the Commissioners of the Central Park :
GENTLEMEN :—NSeveral months since, your Honorable Board passed
a resolution, accepting the plans for the Central Park Gates which I had

36

the honor, at the request of some of your number, to submit for examina-
tion; subsequently, by another vote, further action on this resolution was
indefinitely deferred.

Under these circumstances, I respectfully ask you to inform me if
the delay thus agreed to, is owing to any proposed modification of the
details of my designs, or is to be attributed to prudential motives in ref-
erence to the expense; if the former, I am ready and desirous to confer
at an early day with your Board, or with the Committee in whose hands
the matter was placed; and if the latter, it would greatly accommodate
me to know the probable time when the work authorized by your Board
van be auspiciously commenced.

All of which is respectfully submitted by

Your obedient servant,
RICHARD M. HUNT.

=, ~

es

LI
|

\|
|
\|

iv init

00009115647