a mot AQ - 190: ‘) Gornell University Library Ithaca, Nem York BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME OF THE SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND THE GIFT OF HENRY W. SAGE 189] Cornell University Libra Transactions of the American society of Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924019504798 D9bbe f= 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 79bb+ FS A SAV Aue J. Horace McFarranp Company Mr. Peasant Press Harrissurc, PENNSYLVANIA TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS Preface 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, 1912, 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. r “HE Committee on Editing Transactions has considered that this volume LIST OF MEMBERS FROM 1899, THE FIRST YEAR OF THE A. S. L. A.. TO JANUARY, 1912 F—Fellow. J—Junior Member. *—Original Members. Avpricu, RaymMonp W., 89 State Street, Boston, Mass. eo. ran eh, oe eS Armstrone, E. MaitLanp, New York City AuTEN, ANDREW, Rose Building, Cleveland, Ohio . *Barretr, Natuan F., New Rochelle, N. Y. 5 BRINCKERHOFF, ARTHUR FREEMAN, 103 Park Avenue, Mis York City Brin ey, Joun R., 156 Fifth Avenue, New York City . *Buiiarp, Miss Exizasetn, Bridgeport, Conn. Burron, Frank M., 1101 Buena Avenue, Chicago, Ill. . Caparn, Haroxp A., 156 Fifth Avenue, New York City CuaMBERLIN, N., Gramercy Park, New York City CuILp, STEPHEN, 6 Beacon Street, Boston, Mass. . Corrin, Miss Marion Crucer, 119 East 19th Street, New York City Comey, ArrHur C., Harvard Square, Cambridge, Mass. ; Coox, Witpur Davin, Jr., Story Building, Los Angeles, Cal. Cox, Lauriz D., 704 Breitmeyer Building, Detroit, Mich. CRAVEN, TRUXTON, care of G. F. Pentecost, Yonkers, N.Y... Dawson, J. FREDERICK, care of Olmsted Bros., Brookline, Mass. DeForest, Attinc S., Sibley Block, Rochester, N. Y. . Dow, Dana F., Ipswich, Mass... Fretp, Tracey C., 23 Park Street, Park jane W., Landon, Englund, . Frrz—-Ranpotpu, Epcar, 31 East 27th Street, New York City Fieminc, Bryant, Prudential Building, Buffalo, N. Y. . ‘ GALLAGHER, Percivat, care of Olmsted Bros., Brookline, Mass. . GaTRINGER, JosePH, The Arsenal, Central Park, New York City ‘ Gay, WiLiarp, W., care of Brinley & Holbrook, 156 Fifth Avenue, New York City Goonricu, J. E., 1 526 Prudential Building, Buffalo, N. Y. ‘ GrEENLEAF, JaMEs L., 1 Broadway, New York City Hotton, Artuur T., 42 Broadway, New York City Horn, Freperick C., 103 Park Avenue, New York City Hussarp, Henry V., 101 Tremont Street, Boston, Mass. *Jones, Miss Beatrix, 21 East 11th Street, New York City Keviaway, Hersert Joun, 2a Park Street, Boston, Mass. . KENNARD, FREDERICK H., 220 Devonshire Street, Boston, Mass. *LancToN, DanieL W., New York City Lay, Cuar.tes Downine, 103 Park Avenue, New Voule ‘Gite Leavitt, Cuares W., Jr., 220 Broadway, New York City LOLLESGAARD, SVEND, 156 West Washington Street, Chicago, III. *Lowrie, Cuartes N., 103 Park Avenue, New York City Mannina, J. Woopwarp, Boston, Mass. . *MANNING, WarREN H., Tremont Building, Boston, Mase, Miscue, EMANUEL T., Portland, Oregon . Moret, ANTHONY Ursan, Palace Building, Minneapolis, Minn. Movius, HatiaM LEONARD, 89 State Street, Boston, Mass. . Munson, J. Pomeroy, Grand Rapids, Mich. Necsus, SaMuEL P., 6 Beacon Street, Boston, Nias. 3 Nicnors, ArrHur Ricuarpson, Palace Building, Minneapolis, ‘Minn, Noten, Joun, Harvard Square, Cambridge, Mass. : *O_msrep, FrepeRicK Law, Jr., Brookline, Mass. . . (7) . «+ J 1908 . J 1899-1901 . J 1904 F 1899-1907 J 1903 . F 1908 F 1899 J 1902, F 1910 . F 1905 . . J 1907 J 1910, F 1912 J 1906 . J1910 J 1906, F 1910 - «. J1912 . J 1903-1904 . J 1905 . F 1908 . J 1903 J 1903-1904 . J 1908 J 1903, F 1911 J 1904, F 1910 . J 1906 . J 1906 . J 1906-1907 . F 1904 . J 1902 J 1904-1911 J 1905, F 1910 . F 1899 J 1908, F 1912 . « Figo . F 1899-1909 J 1904, F 1910 . F 1904 . J 1902 . F 1899 J 1903-1904 . . F 1899 . J 1905 . J 1906 . J 1907 . J 1906 . J 1903 J 1906 J noe F 1910 . F 1899 8 AMERICAN SOCIETY OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS *OLMsTED, Joun Cuar.es, Brookline, Mass. . - CS rs Ournet, Rickson A., 3 Beaver Hall Square, Montresl, Ceneda: Parce, WiLL1am W., Boulder, Colorado . . : Parker, Cart R., Fidelity Building, Portland, Maine ‘ *PARSONS, Sancuet: Jr., St. James Building, New York City *Pentecost, GrorcE F., Jr., 119 East 19th Street, New York City Puiutres, T. G., 603 Breitmeyer Building, Detroit, Mich. Pizat, C. F., 52 Broadway, New York City Pray, James Sturcis, ‘28 Garden Street, Cambridge, ntinie:, s Puncuarp, Cuas. P., Jn., Schofield Building, Cleveland, Ohio Roy, Wm. Ormiston, Montreal, Canada . . js A Russe, ALBERT B., New York City Sa.tus, RoLLin SANFORD, 9 East 41st Street, New York City ScHERMERHORN, RIcHARD, JR., 347 Fifth Avenue, New York City Sears, THomas W., 2 Charles Street, Brookline, Mass. . SuHurTLeFF, ARTHUR A., 89 State Street, Boston, Mass. *Simonps, Ossian C., Buena Avenue, Chicago Tay or, ALBERT D., care of W. H. Manning, Tremont Biilsengs, Boston ‘Mass, Teatp1, AUBREY, University Club, Ann Arbor, Mich. Topp, Freperick G., Montreal, Canada TownseEnp, FrepERICcK DE Peyster, Prudential Building, Buffalo, N. Y. UNDERHILL, ARTHUR, 103 Park Avenue, New York City *Vaux, Downine, 143 Liberty Street, New York City . Virace, Ferruccio, St. James Building, New York City WEINRICHTER, RALPH M., 542 Fifth Avenue, New York City WHEELWRIGHT, RoBERT, 103 Park Avenue, New York City. Wuirte, Henry P., 101 Tremont Street, Boston, Mass. . ‘ Witurams, Howarn S., Prudential Building, Buffalo, N. Y . Wyman, ALANSON PHELPs, 923 Lumber Exchange, Minneapolis, Minn. , . (reinstated 1907) . F 1899 Jr1g10, F 1912 F 1900-1902 . J 1908 . F 1899 . F 1899 J 1907 J 1903, F 1912 J 190g7F 1906 . J 31912 . . 31908 J 1899-1899 5 J 1906 . J 1904 . . J 1906 J 1899, F 1905 . . F 1899 . J 1908 . J 1912 aad S006; F 1905-1907 - 1905 . J 1906 . F 1899 J 1904, F 1908 . J 1905 . J 1910 J 1905-1911 J 1906-1907 J 1905, F 1912 4 EXHIBITIONS American Society of Landscape Architects. First Annual Exhibition Catalogue, 1902. 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. Manninc Broruers, 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. OtmstTep Brortuers, 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 Mee Lawn and Garden. Formal Design for Grounds. O. C. Simonps, Chicago, III. Plans of a subdivision. Two Plans of Drives, with Photographs of same. Downinc Vaux, New York City. General Plan for College Hill Park, Poughkeepsie, 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 1. 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. g. 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. mn BY-LAWS ARTICLE I DUTIES OF OFFICERS Secrion 1. 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 Il 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 1. 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 ArtiIcLe 4. Amended by adding the following, proposed by F. L. Olmsted, March » 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 1. 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. S OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 13 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 1899 Receipts..... 0.0.0. ese eee eeeee Expenditures: Stationery, printing, sundries . $32 05 Balance, December 31.........- 1900 Balance forward............... Receipts.......... 00 cece eens Expenditures: D. W. Langton, traveling EXPENSES... 2.2... cece eee $17 12 Printing, stationery, sundries . 19 79 Periodicals.........00eseeeee 7 00 Balance, December 31.........- Balance forward.............-- Receipts. c..con acta. ae a ec are Expenditures: Printing, stationery, sundries . $10 20 Balance, December 31........... Balance forward............... Receipts: 5. < vcd oa ended delves Expenditures: Stationery, printing, sundries . $18 34 Expenses of exhibition......... 62 50 Balance, December 31........... Balance forward............... Receipts. . os ssas bias scee cee tive $110 00 32 05 $77 95 $77 95 150 00 $227 95 43 91 $184 04 $184 04 140 00 $324 04 10 20 $313 84 $313 84 155 00 $468 84 80 84 $388 00 $388 00 160 10 $548 10 Receipts brought forward...... 5 Expenditures: Stationery, printing, sundries . $38 15 Rent of room, National Arts 877 Expenditures: Olmsted-Vaux Memorial...... Stationery, printing, sundries . Room rent, National Arts Club, incidentals..............-- Balance, December 31........... Expenditures: Stationery, printing, sundries .$136 80 Reporting meetings........... 44 15 Annual meeting expenses ..... Lantern-slides.........:.... Balance forward............... Receipts ved ss yeas pas erties Expenditures: Stationery, printing, sundries .$149 64 Reporting meetings........... 177 15 Balance, December 31........... (14) $548 10 46 92 $501 18 $501 18 190 00 $691 18 105 71 $585 47 $585 47 235 00 $820 47 202 46 $618 o1 $618 o1 355 28 $973 29 326 79 $646 50 AMERICAN SOCIETY OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 15 1907 Balance forward............00 $646 50 Receipts..... PETAR ERR ES Solace 280 25 $926 75 Expenditures: Stationery, printing, sundries .$156 15 Reporting meetings........... 127 75 Committee on Seal........... 6 34 290 24 Balance, December 31........... $636 51 1908 Balance forward.............6 $636 51 Receipts: Annual dues............2000 $360 10 Profits from sale of Repton .... 125 00 Interest on bank deposit...... 26 24 5Il 34 $1147 85 Expenditures: Stationery, printing, sundries .$294 59 Expenses on sale of Repton.... 125 50 Stereopticon............--0¢ 10 00 C. H. Walker, traveling ex- PENSES Seite oii s'estegeee's eeahe 14 00 A. A. Shurtleff, illustrations of PADErs anions: ee nscnee asus 15 00 C. D. Lay, Ass’t. Secretary.... 50 00 509 09 Balance, December 31.......-..- $638 76 Norte: Receipts include annual dues and interest on bank deposits, unless otherwise itemized. Printing includes type- writing and mimeographing. Sundries include stamps, exchange on out-of-town checks, etc. COMMITTEES AND DELEGATES 1899 Constitution.—S. Parsons, W. H. Mawnnine, D. Vaux, J. C. OLMsTEp, O. C. Simonps. January 4, March 6, 1899 D. Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Monument, Location of—C. N. Lowrie, D. W. Laneton. December 12, Jan- uary 9, 1900. 1900 Riverside Park, Assembly Bill 1643.—J. C. OLMsTED, D. W. Laneron. April ro. Paris Exposition, 1900, Report on—C. N. Lowrie. April 10, September 26, 1900. Sherman Statue, Location of—S. Parsons, D. W. Lanctron, D. Vaux. April 10, September 26, 1900. Fine Arts Federation.—S. Parsons. April 10. 1901 Exbibition—S. Parsons, D. Vaux. January 8, November 20, 1901. 1903 Schedule of Charges and Practice.—J. C. Otmstep, W. H. Manninc, N. Barretr. January 13, March 5, 1903, January 12, 1904 R. Application Blank for Admissions —J. C. O_mstED, W. H. Mannine, N. Barrerr. March 5, March 14, 1905 R. Memorial Tablet to Olmsted and Vaux.—S. Parsons, C. N. Lowrie, D. W. Lancron. December 5, January 12, 1904, January 17, 1905 D. 1904 Exhibition —N. Barrett, S. Parsons, D. W. Laneron, D. Vaux. January 12, February 9, 1904, February 17, 1905 D. 1906 Rudolpb Ulrich, Resolution of Sympatby on Death of— F. L. O_mstep, D. W. Lancron, S. Parsons. November 13. Nore: The first date given is that of announcement of appointment, when known. Other dates are those of meetings at which reference to committee is reported. R—report. D—discharged. 16 AMERICAN SOCIETY OF 1906, continued Editing Reprints of Classics.—J. NoLeN. November 13, February 5, 1907, December 10, 1907 R. History of Central Park.—Samue. Parsons. Decem- ber 1906. 1907 Editing Proceedings.—H. A. Caparn, J. S. Pray, D. Vaux. January 8. Delegate to Washington, soth anniversary A. I. A.—H. A. Caparn. January 8. Seal—Miss ‘Jones, F. L. Ormsrep, J. Noven. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS January 8, February 5, 1907 R, March 5, 1907 R, December 29, 1908. Nursery Stock, Raising Standard of-—W. H. Man- NING, J. F. Dawson (Olmsted Bros.), O. C. Smmonps. Nurserymen: Cuartes J. Maroy (Ellwanger & Barry), W. W. Harper (Andorra Nursery Co.), J. H. Darron (Storrs & Har- rison). February 5, 1907. Associate Members, Admission of—C. W. Leavitt, F. L. O_msrep, C. N. Lowrie. March 5. Invitation from American Institute of Architects.— C. N. Lowrie. November 12. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES 1899.—President, Joun C. OLMsTED. Vice-President, SAMUEL Parsons, Jr. Secretary, DANIEL W. LANGTON. Treasurer, Cartes N. Lowrie. Downinc Vaux, 1902. O. C. Stmonps, 1901. Warren H. Mannine, 1900. 1900.—President, Joun C. O_msTeEp. Vice-President, SAMUEL Parsons, Jr. Treasurer, Cuartes N. Lowrie. Secretary, Downinc Vaux. Warren H. Mannino, 1903. 1901.—President, Joun C. O_msTep. Vice-President, SAMUEL Parsons, Jr. Treasurer, CHARLES N. Lowrie. Secretary, Downinc Vaux. O. C. Simonps, 1904. 1902.—President, SamMuEL Parsons, Jr. Vice-President, NATHAN F. BARRETT. Treasurer, Cartes N. Lowrie. Secretary, Downinc Vaux. Joun C. OxmstTEp, 1905. 1903.—President, NATHAN F. BARRETT. Vice-President, SaMUEL Parsons, Jr. Treasurer, CHartes N. Lowrie. Secretary, GzorcE F. PENTEcost, Jr. Warren H. MaAnnine, 1906. 1904.—President, Joun C. OLMSTED. Vice-President, SAMUEL Parsons, JR. Treasurer, Cuartes N. Lowrie. Secretary, Downinc Vaux. O. C. Srmonps, 1907. 1905.—President, Joun C. O_msTep. Vice-President, SamUEL Parsons, Jr. Treasurer, CHARLES N. Lowrte. Secretary, Downinc Vaux. James L. GREENLEAF, 1908. 1906.—President, SAMUEL Parsons, Jr. Vice-President, Joun C. OLMSTED. Treasurer, Cuar.es N. Lowrie. Secretary, Downinc Vaux. Cuares W. Leavitt, Jr., 1909. 1907.—President, SamuEL Parsons, Jr. Vice-President, Joun C. OLmsTED, Treasurer, CHARLES N. Lowrie. Secretary, Downinc Vaux. Harowp A. Caparn, 1910. 1908.—President, FREDERICK Law OLMsrTep, Jr, Vice-President, Ossian C. Simonps. Treasurer, CHarRLEs N. Lowrie. Secretary, Downinc Vaux. James L. GREENLEAF, 1911. 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, 156 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 tem., and Mr. Daniel W. Langton, Secretary, pro tem. 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, oth 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.” . ; Sag 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 J efferson, New York. Present: Miss Bullard 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. Attps, 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] “Joun C. Oxmsrep, President; SamuEt Parsons, Jr., Vice-President; Cuarzes N. Lowrie, Treasurer; Downine Vaux, Secretary; Beatrix Jones, Member of Executive Committee; Danie. W. LaNcron, FREDERICK Law OLmsTED, JR., * Members.” Geo. F. PENTECcosT, 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. “Tt 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, Downinec 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 preventing 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 Bullard, 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 Bullard, 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 Bullard, 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 Iack 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. 5 Mr. J. C. Olmsted, as Chairman of the Committee on a Schedule of Charges and Practice, submitted is 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 ai 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 Iength. 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 $10 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. ea 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. i . : 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 Iandscape 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, Epcar 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 codperation 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. 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. Joun No.en.” 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 Iay 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: (1) 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 Iess 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 a 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) Joun Noten. Mr. Leavitt said that the American Institute of Architecture had recently added a schedule of not Iess than 10 per cent for works of Iandscape 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 Iandscape architect, so Jong as he does the work well. There is no line of cleavage between them, and the time might come when a IJandscape 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 111, 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, 2 “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 Iong, 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 Joading. 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) Y 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) 30 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 tt 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 Jumps 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 Jook 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 Iarge 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 I have had, why, if prelimimary arrange- ments be made to move the tree, and the tree be prepared for this ordeal, the Iargest 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 Jack of moisture, on account of the frozen ground. The ditches from which these trees are irrigated are almost entirely cut off date 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- marily, 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 itis 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. J 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, 1. 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 Iong-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 Iarge-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,” andthe 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 Iandscape 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. . KIVL] HINON NI 3YOM, NUZGOJT ‘OWOD Id OOV] AHL NO ‘OISVITAG ‘“IZTaW VITA ITALIAN GARDENS By FERRUCCIO VITALE (Meeting of April 18, 1905) F I should be asked what an Italian garden is, it would be difficult to reply. It would I 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 Iength 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, thé 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 AONANOT OL ONIGVaT dvOY V NO 3ONaAV RNIN OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 39 was how 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, nm 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 “ot,” 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 40 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 tothe Roman gardens. They have been sothoroughly 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, Zz o = a ey a Zz < = {e} 4 fr ° ra] & [of a & 2) =) < Qa Z < 4 =) w Q Zz < 4 Oo 3 is) iad i VILLA D’EsTE, TIVOLI. yi Te a i w I) ae acum ~ Ya 7 Hy Ae) a ATVL] NYAHLNOS AO AIALS GIUOT, FHL ‘VLNASVD ]reqep Yystiv3 03 Aouapusy ayi pue JUIeIYSaI JO YoR] usIYyINOS ayy soyeIysNI 11 ‘UordaouOD Je19Uaz UI auYy YSNoY |. IGOTIOZ) LY INOZUVD VITIA AHL sO SNAAUIVD OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 4I 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 Bullard 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 (Meeting of July 7, 1905) T this, the first summer meeting of the American Society of Landscape Archi- 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, Jong 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 ara = a 1 3 F SI LEV a E A NEG) RK (GS aitaees ; Ey) COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS MAP OF THE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT ee BOSTON Showing local public reservations, and holdings of the METROPOLITAN PARK COMMISSION 19 col parks and reservations = Metropolitan reservations end perkways Legend 1) Local park | = A\\, Lexington 25° es oA ~ ae ‘ ‘ A "=a : hy = TS Kt . y EF | ig = < . ( \ ; NN \ ARE ay AA Z 7 Ii py SU (NS ; I , aA es) HAS Bi Re py Aa fA At NK =) VS : i (HO 30 [. ‘Vinkers Island Me Bar. land > 4) hee 5 ' YH Dread Ledge CR £66 RocH LeHT Sa ee PP a eds Oe - ROE} Grover's Clift FORT WINTHHOF I ee . Pas Valse FOR) NOEPENOE <7 —= j ; - Noy ( IF. V if > a ——————— ROE) Grovers Chit f ©) Apple Id. es Sen Oe aes! iY DS 8 B ae vA The Grave \ CWBOSTON LIGH? ay Shirley g ‘se : SS * BEACON FORT WINTHROP — se ~ G : . § + Vadivreed \ Deer Ishanel Governors fahud ‘ h ~ 9 ; South Boston | A uy Crest Call f \ a7 Outer Brewster , CRE SE NwO Island Cx Re i Brewster Fag fae. oN Lovell’s Island a a } ARERR _ ‘Spent uele Isha —t ‘Thompdgon's Islan. SMM i Sa Lief Moon Iwland a FP Hangmun’s ld. \, EZ * FORT WARARN Georges Island Aa « Ve ddocks Island WPrince’s Head Lory Grape Island C) SF Slate Island |PROWS LIGHT * BEACON Bumkin Island Downer Landing <> AS) A fe f A LEZ . >A : § 20° Pe i Hi Ohi; i! f fg | : Dex i DS = dew Ne, 7) A “ay, Mis Ly | ey ah | & \ Z | 1 = we LAA al N b Pen ; | ‘\\ \\ Bumkin Island 5 ~ Ss ONY ra AS: , ale ) — Xv ~ piece — q aX m D 7 7) ~ Ha — = ‘* \- oe SO vA : WN AY f {- (Pe A 2 — WAS DS BO g BED)> LS Nn | | AE NEN \t\ en? eR ’ i : sel 7 y Saw Ean elgrea Se Ne 5 Ais \ af ———— I wa S LS Meigen oo =f C5 ma CS SLOT KS Se % A Hii Wes ; = Sx 5 Cai ba 2 NZESSA) eae |\7 a A? A ee ee == P y anv Saoog @ “Tenrawop €2 SNIGTTING AUDLIO¢d 72 NOOHIG WAGOL] [7 ONIaTINg DULXAL oz AOHE GOO ONY WANTS UAddOD o1 dong NOU EI SSVANA CLdvUD INV cling NOM ONIN IVINGWiuadxy {1 PNTQING LIGHXY GILVLS of BNITUNA GNBUTUHAGNW CUAaHIOP st SONIGTING OL Aa AAVYN GNY Awuy 2 ANINNYAAOD Os AZAMTETY 9 NoInws MLaNy AM WS SDNY WHat] ONY STUALIVANNY v mucing amy sworsIY € omoting Ly 2 TWH > anew 1 SONIGIING OL ATM Uala assssd09 Maid LNVISNOD NYSNCc savouw NOLdWwWH savou NOLAWVH N sONIgTING i "} NOISSIONOD ONY LiaiHxa [hl aaqvuvd SaaT ANSIWdNWONS ty AUVLITIN-IN SS ' ANINdGWYONa AUVLITIN manta Hszav2Zng 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 Jand 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 (Meeting of December 11, 1906. Revised February 11, 1910) HE idea of commemorating by an exposition the first permanent settlement in I 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 Iand 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 Jand. On this land, Iast 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 Iand 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 with 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 PIE RICAN EXPOSITIONS COMPARATIVE ARIAS y fe la a 4 , Loar. | \ R 9 i Eoplapas x Vs ‘ mm, * Ka (om Ais ans a | et hee SS, ap. q ° 190u) WS + wh at / [| J i ras Peres aan iy Bi Sear | |/ au = Cod Y aS) a (sie re o f if Sil 3 4 I HH AMES TOWN y y |" 1907 aan Pie abe A Fmt oreo —_| Cy + 4 la a HWY ~ -, ; wi S x = ? NS 5 { sila Poo ia Ly 876 i : oe @ ATLANTA 1896 a a4 4 pee: is a Lake Jug or , a & tL begemx') dn, 2 ns 3 ‘ devin a } | a; Teepe / a iw ? 7 Be Se wh cal gee OS Orchard, golf- links, and iennlscours 5. CB ce ee. 8 dy wep 2 ae tom@e © Lawn and shrubbery near garden... Sore 1080. Se House-grounds (lawn, shrubbery, perennials, onetourth ale of road, coniples design) 4.0 “ Cottage grounds (lawn and scattered trees) . . . . . «. « «© « 40 “ Woodland, about Ce ee ee ee ee a ee ee 150.0 “ Total area, about . . me Tak. Sie, edi? “Ga cate. eG oak. ite 2500 “ Roads about one and one-half wiliess gravel. Quality of upkeep—Fair to good. Average area per man.—Twenty-five acres (teams are hired extra). Area of bouse-grounds per man.—Four acres. Area of garden per man.—One to one and one-third acres. B. GARDENS: KITCHEN-GARDENS AND MIXED GARDENS FOR VEGETABLES, FLOWERS, AND FRUIT. 1. GARDEN ON A Country PLace on Lonc IsLanp, aBouT ONE Hour From New York. (Same place as A 3.) Labor.—About 1734 cents per hour. OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 101 Character.— Large fruits (dwarf trees, trained) . 3. ws ww le MH ATES Small fruits . . . a ane a ee a ea Rough crops (such as aeparagus, poutaes, and eori) . go nie ap. aw Jae leper Balance, vegetables . . 3. 3 . «ee ee ee ee TKO Total aréa,.2. ee ee = Loose gravel walks with grass edging and a border of hardy perennials along walk. Quality of upkeep.—Good. Gross cost per acre, 1906.—Actual cost, $460.00; comparative cost on basis of labor at 20 cents per hour, $525.00. (Cost believed by manager to be abnormally high this year. Value of vegetables and small fruit produced, $285 per acre. No credit for flowers, and practically none for large fruits, as trees are still too young.) Area per man.—About one and one-fourth acres.(?) 2. On Country Pace IN PENNSYLVANIA. Labor.—Prices not known. Character.—Total area of garden one and three-fourths acres in vegetables and small fruits, with few flowers and a very few dwarf large fruits. Quality of upkeep —Poor; (a fair yield but shabby looking). Gardener said he thought it got about the equivalent of one man’s time on the average. Area per man.—Equivalent to about three acres. 3. VEGETABLE-GARDEN ON SUBURBAN PLaceE IN New Jersey. (Same place as A-2.) Character.—Garden, one and one-fourth acres, devoted almost wholly to vegetables with no attempt at good looks, but well cultivated and fairly neat. Takes part of one man’s time, with some work and personal direction by the lady of the house. Quality of upkeep.—Fair to poor. Area per man.—Equivalent to about two acres. 4. GARDEN ON A Country PLace on Lone ISLAND, ABouT ONE Hour From New York. (Same place as A-4.) Labor.—Prices not known. Character .—Consists of vegetables, small fruits and flowers, with some turf walks, some gravel walks, perennial borders, hedges and an arbor. Total area three to four acres. Quality of upkeep.—Good. Area per man.—Equivalent to about one to one and one-third acres. C. PUBLIC PARKS— 1. APPROXIMATE Figures Basep on G, A. PARKER’S OBSERVATIONS. Area per man of maintenance-force (a) For elaborate parks with much gardening work, like Boston Public Gardens I acre (b) For the usual lawn-kept park . . . . . . . «. . . ~ « §or6 acres (c) For a country park about... oe ee le 20 res 2. BartimoreE Parks, 1906-07. NoTes FROM Ww. S. Manninc. Class 1. Small city squares, triangles, and parkings . . . . . . . . *2.§ acres (Total area in this class of maintenance, about 100 acres.) Class 2, That portion of large parks maintained as driveways, paths, lawns and plan- tations, in areas varying from forty to one hundred and eres acres in one park, . 2 . *4.4 acres (Total area in vehi dass ob siutaeeanne 730% acres, One tens ae fourteen acres in addition. Class 3. That part of Jarge parks kept as fields and mowed two to four times a year, or as woods, or in water . . é ‘ ‘ . *25 acres (Total area in this class of dinirtenanee 770 acres. One cast bee 64 acres in addition.) *These areas are figured on the maintenance-force exclusive of teams. 102 AMERICAN SOCIETY OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS COST PER ACRE FOR LABOR OF THE DIFFERENT PARK AREAS OF HART- FORD, CONNECTICUT, FOR THE YEARS ENDING MAY 1, 1902, 1903, 1904, 1905 SQUARES AND SMALL PARKS 1902 1903, Washington Square (0.06 acres) . . . «. $106.77 $216 66 Maple Avenue Green (0.12 acres) . . «. 149 58 165 50 Village Street (0.16 acres) . . . . 248 80 83 37 Franklin Avenue Green (0.20 acres) . 97 45 113 20 Buckingham Square (0.32 acres) - 174 00 195 32 Campfield (0.34 acres) oa om w & 223,95 263 53 Lafayette Park (0.62 acres) 1 8 «6 12 79 121 85 Tunnell Park (0.65 acres) . . «© . III g2 118 43 Ancient Cemetery (1.32 acres) P 200 00 221 03 Barnard Park (1.71 acres) . . . « « 166 20 175 64 Sigourney Square (2.85 acres) . . « « 71 80 80 68 LARGER PARKS Bushnell Park (42 acres) . . «© «© « $10677 $111 O1 Elizabeth Park(100 acres) . . - 39 86 56 74 Pope Park (go acres) . . . «© «© «© 2661 30 83 Riverside Park (80 acres) . . . - 26 38 20 17 Goodwin Park (200 acres) 12 20 15 88 Total, 520.35 acres. Average per siete; smaller parks,4yrs. . 2. «: Average per acre, larger parks, 4 yrs. a SUMMARY Whole Suburban Places or equivalent Staslard icf ASR, Om, Bip ck 1s ame Se. cath Cae te Se Se Fair IASB, tee hee os eM She, chances tera even Se Fair Fs a Fair Gardens Bers fee Ge. ee Seek ge ds ‘ Good Bez & = «@ & « «© w w x Poor B39) ee a es) er OE Ce Sa we we Se Se. ce Poorish C-1 A Public Garden + * «©. «© & « Parks C-2, Small Squares... ee ee ee C-2, Large parks “finished portion” Se; 1h fe a C-2, Large parks, “rough portion” C-3, Average in Hartford ; 1905 $96 00 $97 00 166 33 165 33 76 12 62 00 113 25 145 65 177 27 187 34 204 64 148 62 100 46 112 48 137 O1 183 13 160 83 151 40 165 55 160 72 g1 63 70 18 $121 990 $101 16 60 42 49 98 36 15 31 08 21 90 23 43 15 43 Il 73 Cost per acre on basis of 20 cts. per hour for labor $258.57 290.28 525.00 Average for four years $129 11 161 69 117 70 117 39 183 48 210 09 III go 137 62 183 31 167 03 78 57 $110 23, 51 75 31 17 22 97 13 81 145 26 47 48 Acres per man 2.25 3 2.5 1.25 Nw THE RELATIONS OF THE ARCHITECT AND THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT By C. HOWARD WALKER (Meeting of January 14, 1908) SHALL speak this evening of the mutual relations and courtesies existing between I architects and landscape architects, of the differences of their points of view, and what may reasonably be expected of each. First, in regard to a certain lack of comprehensive scheme in the work, and neglect on the part of each to codrdinate, which I am inclined to think is more on the part of the architect than of the landscape architect. In many cases the landscape architect is required to adjust his work to buildings already poorly placed, and he is sadly handicapped because of that fact; in other cases the architect finds the environment ill conceived for the purposes of his building. In both cases, the fault is not so much in a general plan, but in the neglect of the third dimension. Both architects and landscape architects plan logically and well, so far as superficial areas are concerned, but both fail, at times, to appreciate the resultant perspectives caused by the erection of solids, whether they be buildings or trees, and especially the sequence of vistas caused by changes of the points of view. Masses appeal less than do plan and elevation. This fact is often evident in the projects of the Beaux Arts men. The “parti pris” for the Buffalo Exposition was admirable, both in the general plan and in the relation of the buildings to each other, but the effect of contours of surface was obviously neglected, so that in walking from one portion of the grounds to another the bases of buildings were often unseen until near at hand, and bridges and ramps and terraces confused the general conception of the plan instead of enhancing it. Undulations of surface and minor factors of plan became of relatively too great importance for the formal monumental character of the work. There are two distinct sorts of design occurring in the planning of a city or of a town: First, the intimate, picturesque arrangement with somewhat romantic detail. Second, the broad, formal, so-called classical treatment. Each is occasioned by the conditions of the problem. It is characteristic of picturesque work that it is produced more satisfactorily by successive growths than by an initial scheme, and that it occurs among the requirements of a few people rather than of many people. It is inherent in simple household existence, in the lives of small communities, and in a focused and isolated condition; and, as require- ments increase, as numbers multiply, and greater factors are requisite, formal order is found more generally to fulfil the requirements, and, little by little, the classical schemes replace the picturesqueness of accidental groupings. Because of this fact, deliberately planned picturesqueness is apt to appear artificial, and requires very great care in design. The conditions requiring a classical scheme are those which produced classical architecture. In Greece there were large congregations of people before temples were built, and the demand for the accommodation of crowds created the formal and classical arrange- ment of buildings and grounds; therefore, at present, when we wish to provide for adequate (103) 104 TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY circulation for many people, we naturally revert to the classical, formal plan; but, on the other hand, it would be as absurd deliberately to plan a village formally as it would be to plan a larger city picturesquely. In each, minor factors can partake of the character of the opposite scheme; but the mere conception of large work is on broad lines and of small work upon smaller detail. Broad, direct, and adequate avenues of communication are necessary in large cities. ‘The need is to be felt, however, in large planning, of the secondary planning after the main lines of circulation, the “rond points,” etc., are determined. Each island, so to speak, left between the main avenues becomes a subject for indi- vidual treatment, and, in proportion to its size, partakes more and more of the type of plan for a small community by itself. The element of picturesque planning can well enter into these smaller factors. For instance, the gridiron plan is everywhere equally formal, and would gain interest by having variety in the size and directions of its smaller streets between the great avenues. Versailles lacks interest from the excessive formality of its plan, while the villas of Frascati and of Genoa and of Rome are fascinating because of the constant variety of plan occasioned by an appreciation of contrast and purpose. The Germans are at present studying this phase of the problem, are advocating variety of treatment of street-planning and the use of short streets and curved lines. Even in large boulevards and important avenues of circulation the vistas should not be too Iong. Too often vistas fade away in the distance, and there is no line of demarcation between one district and another, such as can be obtained by a tower, an arch, or other monuments upon the axes of the avenues. The Sieges-allee in Berlin is ineffective because of too long a vista. The scheme for the improvement of Washington is peculiarly satis- factory, as the Iong vista of the mall is well terminated at either end, and is flanked by a less formal arrangement of paths and trees and buildings which afford excellent contrasts. Finally, after the main scheme is established and the harmonious, but contrasting, schemes of the smaller areas determined, there remains the study of minor details. In some cases there are gardens and arrangements of trees, hedges, labyrinths, fountains, pavilions, etc., and often this study leads to the skylines and shadows of adjacent build- ings. A formal building impels a formal approach; a picturesque approach demands a certain amount of variety of light and shade in buildings related to it. In my working with landscape architects their contention has been that my desire was often for work that was not sufficiently formal, and yet upon completion it has seemed to me that the result of their work has not been thoroughly orchestrated and detailed. Slight adaptations of surface-grades, creating low terraces, are often superior to undula- ting surfaces and balustrades require recurring accents to establish a scale. Orchestration increases naturally with the growth of foliage, when it is not apparent at first, and the landscape architect is fortunate in having nature create for him a multitude of details, which the architect is denied by lack of means. One of the chief improvements which could be obtained by the codrdination of architects and landscape architects comes from this very luxuriance of growth of foliage; that is, uncouth and inharmonious masses of architecture could be planted out. And an order, of a kind, can be created from the disorder of our streets. There is many a building which would be improved by being set behind trees and covered with ivy. On the other hand, we frequently fail to govern nature as it approaches the dwellings of man; we are so fond of the call of the wild, that we let the tangle of brushwood come Vv ho i, th cofect deo Scale of feet UUW U \ (a ) LLL ANNAN ANA AVENUE i = RESERVOIR TPT i : i NAN EE MMM eel E/GHTH lek FIFTH ARH AAR ARH AN i = tC. i = C ZZQUUIDIGUUUIDIIUU UU ULIUUWUCILEISIJU BLU UUILIO LISLE. a to fe) c ay Hs - aaa eee aw & i Is ] Ne | II ' = Index Map of Central Park Plan of Central Park before the Plan of Central Park after the Extension to 110th Street Extension to rroth Street OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 105 to our door-steps. No finished work of architecture should be merely placed upon the ground without treatment of that ground, and if, as is often in the case of summer resi- dences, the buildings are set in a wilderness, there should be a gradual modulation from the building to the wilderness. All of which implies a constant study of ever-changing conditions, and a mutual accord between the work of architects and of landscape architects, which would be of marked benefit to both. In the subsequent discussion, Mr. Caparn remarked that there were two kinds of vistas—the architectural vista which must be stopped by some object, and the informal, indefinite vista, such as that of a valley between two ranges of hills, which should fade away. It was the feeling for this kind of expression that gave rise to the school which abolishes boundaries. It was, perhaps, the lack of scale referred to by Mr. Walker that gave the feeling of inhumanity to Versailles, the true expression of those who created it. The principal vista was not stopped, though an architectural one, except by the setting sun in summer. Was it not possible that Le Notre had taken the sun itself, the emblem of Louis XIV, as the principal motive of his composition? Mr. Walker said that, in speaking of vistas, he was speaking only of those of streets. The vista at Versailles was always stopped by the landscape, and architectural vistas always should be stopped. At Budapest the boulevard is significant because of its unstopped Iength. An instance of a fine, unstopped vista was at Hampton Court. INTERESTING FACTS IN REGARD TO THE INCEP- TION AND DEVELOPMENT OF CENTRAL PARK By SAMUEL PARSONS, JR. (Meeting of February 11, 1908) S the general conception of the idea of laying out a big park in the city of New A York was largely identified with the efforts of A. J. Downing, I cannot hope to explain the movement which resulted in the establishment of Central Park in better words than has been done by Mr. Wm. A. Stiles, Editor of “Garden and Forest,” in his article advocating the erection of a monument to Andrew Jackson Downing as follows: THE DEBT OF AMERICA TO A. J. DOWNING “No one who has looked into the history of public parks in American cities, and the development of the public sentiment which brought them into being, will deny that the strongest impulse which the movement received at the outset came from Andrew Jackson Downing. Mr. Downing was born with a strong love of nature, and, as his father was a nurseryman, he was brought up in a calling that increased his interest in trees and planting. Reared almost in sight of many of the old places on the Hudson which had been planned and planted by Parmentier and others of that older school, he learned, while still young, that a landscape could be made impressive by the simplest and most natural treatment. As he was to become our first authoritative writer on the art of Jandscape gardening, the whole country has occasion to be thankful that he was in this way led to adopt what was then called the English style of gardening, in which, to quote his own words, ‘the spirit of nature, though softened by art, always furnished the essential charm, thus distinguishing it from the French or Italian style, where one sees the effects of art slightly assisted by nature.’ 106 TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY Downing was a man of catholic views, but while he realized the fact that vases and balus- trades and studied symmetry might be mingled with foliage enough to make a garden, yet his ideal garden scene was the primeval Paradise, whose prevading beauty was found in the unstudied simplicity of nature. With his natural taste refined by travel and study, Downing’s treatise on the “Theory and Practice of Landscape Gardening,’ which was published in 1841, became at once the accepted text-book of rural art in this country, and this book, passing through many editions, and his ‘Rural Essays’ and other works, are still classics in this branch of literature. It was his example and precept which inspired such men as Henry Winthrop Sargent, and they, in turn, kindled the enthusiasm of younger men, so that the best private gardens in America today owe what is best in them to his sound teachings. “Downing was a graceful and forceful writer as well as an artist of the highest intelli- gence, and, as he had been already recognized as an authority, a timely series of letters which he wrote in 1849 for “The Horticulturist’ on the subject of public parks, had a marked influence in creating and molding popular sentiment in this direction. These essays, which appeared month after month, and were widely copied by the press, marshaled in a con- vincing way the arguments which were then fresh and original, although many of them have since become a part of our common knowledge and belief. He began by showing that public parks were needed, not only to educate the public taste but because everybody at some time felt the necessity for this contact with nature. He showed that this communion was not only a delight to people who were as unsophisticated as children, but that the more thoughtful and educated a community became, the stronger grew the passion for rural pleasures. When it was argued that the people would not visit parks, even if artistic ones were constructed, he pointed to the large cemeteries to prove how eager all classes were to avail themselves of an opportunity for a visit to anything resembling a park. Mount Auburn, Greenwood, and Laurel Hill had been already established for a quarter of a century, and that they had come to be places of resort was certainly not because they afforded opportunity for solemn meditation nor for the artistic value of the monuments reared within them. He truly argued that it was because they contained bits of forest-land, hills and dales, copses and glades, that they attracted throngs of visitors in cities which possessed no great public gardens, and that if thirty thousand people would visit Laurel Hill in one year, many times that number would visit a public park in a city like Philadelphia. He set his argument on the highest plane at the very outset, and, while recognizing the use of parks as helping to furnish air and sunshine, he held that the fostering of the love of rural beauty was quite as important an end, and that such a love of nature helped to civilize and refine national character. Mayor Kingsland’s proposed park of a hundred and sixty acres he pronounced altogether too scant, and argued that five hundred acres between 39th Street and the Harlem River was the smallest space that should be reserved for the wants of the city, since no area less than this could furnish a rural Iandscape or offer space enough for broad reaches of parkland with a real feeling of the breadth and beauty of green fields, and the perfume and freshness of nature. It was argued by some who assumed to represent the laboring classes that the park would be monopolized by those who ride in their carriages, and, on the other hand, some of the wealthy and refined people of the city complained that a park would certainly be usurped by rowdies and Iow people. It is refreshing now to read Downing’s replies to such objections. He stoutly asserted that these social horrors were nothing but phantoms of the imagination; his faith was, as the event has proved, OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 107 that rich and poor could breath the same atmosphere of nature and of art, and enjoy the same scenery without any jealousy or any conflict. : “The actual work of constructing Central Park was not begun until six years after Downing’s untimely death, but it was his stirrmg appeals that aroused the city to feel its need, and provision to meet it quickly followed. By rare good fortune, too, designers were found whose artistic temperament and training were akin to his own, so that our first great urban park was planned on such broad lines as he would have approved. The works which followed at once in Brooklyn, Buffalo, Chicago, San Francisco, and other cities were, beyond question, the result of this same inspiration, so that his keen foresight and conscientious devotion to an idea were the most powerful of the agencies which united to initiate the movement that has given to American cities their thousands of acres of parkland during the past thirty-five years. When we think of the health and comfort, the rest and refreshment, the delight to the eye and the imagination which these smiling landscapes have given and will continue forever to give to all the people, it is not too much to say that Downing takes rank among the greatest benefactors to his country which this century has produced. It is now more than forty years since he met death in trying to rescue others. Is it not time that some memorial of him should be erected in the park which his genius secured for the city? There are too many statues now in Central Park, such as they are, and it may be that a statue is not the most appropriate way of commemorating the work of such a man as Downing. But somewhere in grove or glade it is certainly possible to place a fitting memorial to one whose life was devoted to the cause of rural art. We are glad to know that this thought has occurred to more than one person lately, and that a movement is partially organized to carry it into effect. There can be little doubt that enlightened Americans will delight in an opportunity to keep green the memory of our earliest master in horticulture and landscape art.” These words fitly commemorate Andrew Jackson Downing’s important relation to the inception of the idea of Central Park. The first official action in the establishment of Central Park was taken on the sth day of April, 1851, by Hon. Ambrose C. Kingsland, then Mayor of the city, who transmitted to the Board of Aldermen a special message setting forth the limited extent of the places devoted to the public; their inadequacy to the wants of any class of the people, and the necessity, both from a moral and sanitary point of view, of securing a more extended area for the purposes of public recreation. This message was referred to the Committee on Lands and Places, who reported that the subject awakened an uncommon degree of interest, and that they heartily concurred in the views of the Mayor. The report indicated the ground known as “Jones’ Woods,” as suitable for the required purposes; and recommended that application be made to the Legislature for the passage of an act authorizing the appointment of commissioners to take that property for the use of the city. This report having been adopted, and concurred in by the other branch of the Common Council, application was, in accordance therewith, made to the Legislature at its extra session in 1851, and the act known as the ‘Jones’ Woods Park Bill” was passed by that body on the 11th day of July, 1851. The passage of this act gave rise to a discussion regard- ing the relative advantages of other pieces of ground for this purpose, and the Board of Aldermen adopted, on the 5th of August, 1851, a resolution appointing a special committee to examine and report whether there was not, within the limits of the city, a piece of ground 108 TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY more suitable for the purpose of a public park than that designated in the act then recently passed by the Legislature. This committee made a lengthy and detailed report, setting forth the advantages of the piece of ground lying between Fifth and Eighth Avenues, s9th and 106th Streets, for the purpose indicated, over that known as Jones’ Woods. A resolution to this effect was passed by the Board and, being concurred in, application was made to the Legislature for the passage of an act authorizing the appointment of Commissioners of Estimate and Assessment, for the purpose of taking the ground referred to for a public park. Accordingly the Legislature passed, on the 23d of July, 1853, an act for taking the ground now known as the Central Park. The Supreme Court, upon the application of the counsel to the corporation, appointed, on the 17th of November, 1853, frve Commissioners of Estimate and Assessment, to take the Iand for Central Park. These Commissioners completed their labors on the 2d of July, 1855, and their report was confirmed on the sth of February, 1856. On the same day the Comptroller communi- cated to the Common Council the draft of an ordinance for the payment of damages awarded by the Commissioners. During the period which elapsed between the appointment of Commissioners and the confirmation of their report, efforts were made to reduce the limits of the park. Petitions were sent to the Common Council to that effect by various individuals whose motives were as numerous as the names appended to the petitions. A committee was appointed to examine the subject, which committee made a minority and a majority report. The following year a resolution passed both Boards to petition the Legislature to cut off a certain portion of the park, by which a few property holders would have been benefited, and the park in reality destroyed. The resolution was promptly vetoed by the Mayor, Hon. Fernando Wood. This would seem to have put an end to all open opposition; but a secret influence appears to have been steadily at work, for reasons known only to a few, to retard the progress of this great improvement. The Common Council adopted, on the 19th of May, an ordinance creating the Mayor and Street Commissioner Commissioners of Central Park, with power to employ the neces- sary persons to execute the repeatedly expressed wishes of the people, and appropriating certain funds to carry out the provisions of the ordinance. This Board entered at once upon the discharge of their duties. Feeling the importance of the subject and the responsibilities devolving upon them, they determined, before adopting any definite course of action, to seek the advice of certain well-known citizens, whose public reputation, peculiar avocations, and cultivated taste gave assurance that their opinions would possess the force of a clear, unbiased judgment. Accordingly, invi- tations were extended to Washington Irving, George Bancroft, James E. Cooley, Charles F. Briggs, James Phalen, C. A. Dana, and Stewart Brown to attend the meetings of the Commissioners and form a consulting Board for the purpose of discussing a line of conduct to be pursued, and to determine upon the merits of such plans or propositions as might be laid before them, with the view of adopting a permanent design for the improvement of the park. These gentlemen met on the 29th of May, 1856, organized by electing Washington Irving as President of the Board, and settled the preliminaries for carrying into effect the objects of the Commission. Subsequently, various plans were laid before them, and a variety of views and opinions OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 109 submitted for their consideration. The result of these deliberations was the adoption of the general features of the plan prepared by Engineer-in-Chief Viele. The Legislature passed on April 17, 1857, a law creating a Board of Commissioners to consist of eleven members named and styled “The Commissioners of the Central Park,” and conferring upon them all the power and authority over the lands included in the Central Park, hitherto possessed by the Common Council. The Commissioners were named and appointed for five years, and consisted of the following gentlemen: Robert J. Dillon, James E. Cooley, Charles H. Russell, John F. Butterworth, John A. C. Gray, Waldo Hutchins, Thomas E. Field, Andrew H. Green, Charles W. Elliot, William R. Strong, and James Hogg. Andrew H. Green was elected first President of the Board of Commissioners of the Central Park. The first work done were preliminary surveys of the Park completed at the beginning of 1858. The Commission offered prizes for competition in preparing designs for the Central Park, to be submitted not later than April 1, 1858. The competing plans were publicly exhibited for several weeks. The first prize of two thousand dollars was awarded to the design subsequently adopted as the plan of the Park. This plan—the Greensward Plan—was prepared by Messrs. Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux. Mr. Olmsted was appointed Architect-in-chief of the Park, and Mr. Vaux, consulting Architect. It was not until about the first of June, 1858, that a force could be organized and operations commenced on the park, with proper regard to efficiency and economy of labor. It was necessary, first, to drain the lower part of the park below the old reservoir; then the drives were constructed and the transverse roads, so as to enable the public to cross the park. In the meantime there was a law passed in the Legislature, dated April 2, 1859, adding the area between the Central Park (which reached as far as 106th Street), Fifth Avenue, t1oth Street, and Eighth Avenue to the Central Park, and commissioners were appointed to appraise the lands involved. By the end of the year 1860, the lower part of the park below 79th Street was mainly completed, and from 79th Street to 86th Street on the west side of the old reservoir was also well advanced. , At the opening of the year 1861, the Board was clear in its general view of the expedi- ency of reducing the amount of its expenditures—consequently less work was done, though the operations were not suspended, as the conditions of the park were such as to make suspension of all the work inadmissible. The demand for the army had withdrawn a large population from the city, which, with other causes, had occasioned a general nominal increase in the rate of wages. Still, the end of 1862 found three transverse road arches completed, and work on other bridges and arches completed or started. Considerable work was done on the terrace. Water-supply below 1o2d Street was completed and brought into use throughout the lower park. There were seventy-eight miles of carriage drives open at this time, forty-six of bridle roads, and one hundred and eighty-five miles of walks. This shows how energetically the work had progressed under the administration of Mr. Andrew H. Green and the general supervision of Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux, who acted as Architect-in-chief and Consulting Architect respectively. 110 TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY On April 10, 1862, Messers. Olmsted and Vaux were appointed Landscape Architects to the Board, receiving a joint compensation. On May 12, 1863, Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux resigned, the former to go to the front in the employ of the Sanitary Commission of the Federal Army. After various delays caused by legal complications, the land between 106th and 110th Streets was added to the area of the park, and thus a very necessary addition made for the purpose of creating a harmonious unit of design. The land was picturesque, and is, at the present time, the most natural and beautiful part of the park. In the following year Manhattan Square was added to the park for the purpose of establishing a Zodlogical Garden, which, however, was never built at this point. In February, 1866, Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux were reappointed Landscape Architects to the Board. Through all this development of the park, Ignatz A. Pilat acted with great efficiency as landscape gardener, directing the details of all the planting im accordance with the general plans of the Landscape Architects. He died September, 1870, to the profound regret of the Commissioners, who passed resolutions of respect and esteem. ° Until April, 1870, the Park Commission was a State Board appointed by the Governor. On that date the Legislature created a Municipal Commission of five to be appointed by the Mayor. On November 23, 1871, Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux were appointed Landscape Architects Advisory to the Board, having acted until this time as Landscape Architects and General Superintendents. At this time the construction of the Park in its essential elements was completed, costing nearly $6,000,000. This left, of course, a great deal of costly construction and landscape work in the way of drainage, irrigation, fertilizing, and planting to be done. In May, 1872, Frederick Law Olmsted was made Commissioner temporarily during the absence of Mr. Stebbins, and Calvert Vaux was made Landscape Architect and General Superintendent. They acted in these respective capacities for five months, until October 24, 1872, when both of them resigned, and were reappointed; Frederick Law Olmsted as Landscape Architect, and Calvert Vaux as Consulting Landscape Architect. In the meantime, Manhattan Square was selected as a suitable spot for the Museum of Natural History, and soon after, Calvert Vaux, being the Architect of the museum, resigned his position as Consulting Landscape Architect, June 4, 1873. Frederick Law Olmsted severed his connection with the Department in 1877, and Calvert Vaux, having finished his work with the Museum of Natural History, was appointed Landscape Architect, November 19, 1881, which position he held until January, 1883. In April, 1882, Samuel Parsons, Jr., was appointed Superintendent of Planting, and on May 25, 1885, Superintendent of Parks. Calvert Vaux was reappointed Landscape Architect, January 1, 1888, and held this position until his death, November 18, 1895. It is evident, therefore, that the history of the design and construction of the Central Park has for thirty-six years been closely related to the landscape work of Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux. Mr. Parsons showed many old prints and photographs of Central Park and two maps prepared by Viele. Stédtebau und Baupolizei. Fig. 1. f Pirnaischer Platz aburbrechomde Gebande. Nr. 87. (Kat.484.) Dresden: Durchbruch der Kénig Johann-StraBe und der Moritz-StraBe vom Altmarkt nach dem Pirnaischen Platz resp, nach der Johann Georgen-StraBe. Der Durchbruch 6ffnete den Zugang zum Altmarkt von. Westen (vom Pirnaischen Platze) her. Die Hauptverbindungslinie wurde alsbald durchgebrochen, die sie rechtwinklig schneidende Linie zwischen Kreuzkirche und Neumarkt ‘ist noch unausgebaut. Im AnschluB an die Hauptlinie wurde der Durchbruch der Moritz-StraBe nach der Johann Georgen-Allee bewirkt. Fig. 2. Nr. 88. (Kat. 473.) Darmstadt: Durchbruch vom Residenzschlo8 und Marktplatz zur Blumenstra8e. Bemerkenswert ist die Entschiedenheit, mit der ganze Hauserblécke abgebrochen wurden, anderseits aber wieder die Sorgfalt, mit der das Bestehende soweit als méglich geschont wurde, Zweck der Linienfiihrung ist nicht nur das Schaffen einer glatten Verkehrsbahn, sondern das tunlichst starke ErschlieBen des winkeligen Stadtteiles. Man betrachte die entstehenden Platze. Auf Parallelitit der StraBenwande ist kein Gewicht gelegt. WALKER LITH & PUB CO. BOSTOX MASS Fig. 4. U) C2AZe Yy ie Wh SSR ett Nei 200 0 SOO ML Nr. 90. (Kat. 513) Halle a. S. Das alte Stadtviertel zwischen ,Markt“ und alter Markt* ist neu geregelt worden, leider nicht ohne Erniich- terung des Stadtbildes. Bemerkenswert ist die Verlingerung der Promenade durch eine an der Moritzburg hinfiihrenden den Ring vollendenden RingstraBe. Der Mihlgraben liegt hier tief, die Burg und die Residenz hoch, so da8 das Gelande zu interessanten Lésungen anrect. WALKER LITLE PLB CO, BOSTON,MASS 100 50 100 200 Fig. 5. Nr. 91. (Kat. 457-) Berlin: Durchbriiche im Scheunenviertel von der Kaiser Wilhelm-StraBe zur Alten Schénhauser, StraB- burger und Prenzlauer StraBe. iS Sj iS 6 Y PON SESS ANN Z Ze ary & 7 Dai Y.R\Y AN YEUNG YN ‘ WAH H as Y iy ‘ Ly ZAiDe? \ Jug ( SNARE ZY ZAM WAG NG SREZA KH ANC y)\ Y y HM SES NSU is Y aw) Kal EYRE A : ZtgY Z Yl U\@# “le Lh ZA LEZ ZN Soe Y Wz YY V- Y Fig. 6. “> Mr. 92. (Kat. 551.) Stralsund: Freilegung der Nikolai-Kirche. ty Mioahé Yj ZZ, | Z Y z fe SW RSS WERE = | 7 Yfp. Z be NE B t Tg oo Hse NS SS SS u | tle Y | Wuttke, Dic deutschen Stidte. Bd. II. WALKER LITH.G PUB CO., BOSTON,MASS 6 10. 10 30 0 S$0m=” (HOT il I | al | Sy © $50 We iw I £00 I 300 T YOON — Ansicht von Punkt E. Fig. 7, 8 und 9. Nr. 93—95. (Kat. 474.) | Damnnstadt: Freilegung der Stadtkirche zu Darmstadt. Interessant ist namentlich, wie fiir die Kirchganger an den Kirchtoren stille verkehrsfreie Platze ge- schaffen wurden, auf denen sie sich vor und nach dem Gottesdienst versammeln k6nnen. Diese bieten inter- essante, malerische Durch- blicke; die an sich nicht eben bedeutende Stadt- kirche ist wirkungsvoll her- vorgehoben, “BEVW'NOASON 03 and 9 HAN BON “WIN usgiaA\ Usp pun JOPajNey] sup younp aSamsiysyxia, Jap Sunjasay :Siaquinn (-zbS yey) *zo1r—96 “IN “OT— OL “Sid grenzen zu legen und Fig. 17. \ SS Nr, 103. (Kat. 469.) Chemnitz: Planung eines Stadtteiles auf freier Flur. iicke sich ergeben, sich daher rzuyter Platz fur ein Monumental undstiicks erscheinen als Landfetzen, die bei der Aufteilung iibrig blieben. praktische Grundst dem grofen Gebiete kein bevo wie leicht es gewesen ware, die StraBen auf die Gr rend jetzt tiberall un r, daB in rzielen, wah g- Man bemerke, g des Gelandes zu e ig machen werden. Man beobachte ferne gebaude, keine interessante Platz-Lésung sich findet. Manche Plitze Beispiel einer 4lteren Planun so eine einfache Aufteilun Verlegungen etc. ndti ‘ypeig ap uin sasury sep Sunpasay :uesumey (20S ‘yey]) “901 “IN Si é ty a Ls ey £2 i Zi b a FZ cL Dec Ve aa ‘ ‘pum Jlapayses yosiauyzes saziej,y Sep S4Yo¥B PUA ap ep Wurmz Jamu uaylem uloula nz pun yuadsqe 1yax19A Uap wUAN}aSSe AA uago13 woautes yu 2e[dsyoupaty sap gep “gq 2 3S! Wemsuayoulsg *,PIique[d seugqos” Ula jos sazje[diapi3 pun -sysupaty sap oSejuenan sip ‘uaxogiqiasnEH westyoeiyoer sne Samyoanp 3y9jseq 3pesg ale 3d ‘Mpq Jeleay jne Sunpyiquerg :wiequue yl (‘z€$ yey) “Sor IN | n n a t T T T T t : oog+ ‘006 008 00k oF 00S = 00% = 00k 00f ~~ oat © os ool ae eer NG NIN WINING \ LA WINAAANIS S d S = sag (* 3 3 a oS SASS = SES = 1 Fs «S| [REG ve ge 5 = ? } : n 6 Pate, OH Py Yh IZ 0% “Bid ‘usqayaq nz semjo P pun wayeyos nz uyeg ayxUE[yos rysxteA wap afeuoSeiq yoinp ‘uagaijsog sep juuayia ur Sunsnjyury yoinp sepieypeis souls Sunjasammay : Sinquayjojey5 (Lov yey) ‘vor “IN, erence” vuncpouye ayanyyolon) now uacpouys Nonyoloul nyo ‘79 UsaINyY vos wsyNjUlY Younp Sunuelg uaye sop woxSiugquray asoj]sol} a ‘PPHOAUYOM Joleyayoxrea ‘Ia}apuoses pun uaruysayayse A ragois | ==s T I I I I | as | Mh OOF 0 oof a ae eee mariponc aywoqnbewe ——— ~ UncotAtoplate 4 OX es. Zz PM AGGEGEZ Nr. 107. (Kat. 555.) StraBburg: Teil der Planung auf altem Festungsgebiet. Die groBen Universititsbauten bedecken das Gelinde. Obgleich sie planma8ig aufgestellt sind, fehlen kiinstlerische Beziehungen der einzelnen Bauten zu einander. Fig. 23. Fig. 22. Te >. LS \ FF Ge Re IN WW Xs 5 A OY vas FROELICH " «TARAS SECS a TATE WA K - = = : = Kirin o 50 £00 200m cy eG WES [i f 3 Nr. 109, (Kat. §31.) Mainz: Platzanlagen im Anschlu8 an vorhandene Nr. 108. (Kat. 453.) Augsburg: Platzanlage auf freiem Gebiet. Bauten und auf freiem alten Festungsgebiet. Man vergleiche die Auf- Eine Verkehrstérung wurde trotz giartnerischer Anlagen der stellungsweise der Bauten in Mittel des Platzes und rings um den Platz Platzmitte vermieden. (letzteres zwischen Rathaus‘und SchloB), ~ WALKER LITH S PLB CO BOSTOR MASS ENN = WALKER LITH.5 PUB CO BOSTON MASS SSVW'NOLSOG 09 @fd 9 HAIT HaNTWM, ‘UpalAUYOM pun uaseUeyonuYyDS nz sapuyjas way8emeq Bunzjnusny :Zinqsuetg (‘go yey) ‘z11 “IN ee ee ‘J[OS uaUaIpP jayalAUyoM says sje NE Oe ON WE Me sep Tansy fer sep Me uaayny uagess sydney aq ‘uayemia nz 3yoIU AyoxIO/A Jalago13 yst isqjas [ey sep young ‘sneyjysay sazjaysegjne yesnyyT woula jne ula jne 3am yorey uep Jaqn sne }pejs Jep uo xOYG Jep Jem. Sunjnepag uoA ‘13al] yoIey, ula puniy uassep ur ‘sofey seul Zunjleyny sp wn yors ypepuey siz w/ SAty e rrr rte ap eseoy, "9% “314 Fig. 27. Nr. 113, (Kat. 561.3} Ulm: Beplanung an einer Lehne von starkem Gefall mit StraBen von verschiedener Steigung. Fig. 28. ecoacecee ef ona, C) 600082090008 Cb0eGoC HO DeE OE eee oo -f i Tad a c 4 Z ZA S are 20041 Man beachte, wie geschickt , teils mit gruppierter, teils mit ellt und mit den Platzen in Beziehung gebracht sind. ig eines Viertels, teils mit offener sowie mit einzelnen 6ffentlichen Bauten. Nr. 114, (Kat. 472.) Darmstadt: Planun diese aufgest geschlossener Bebauungsweise, Nr. 115. (Kat. 545.) Plauen i. V.: Planung auf lebhaft bewegtem Gelande, in dem Steigungen bis zu 1:4 vorkommen, die in den neuen Hauptlinien auf etwa 1:10 gemaBigt werden. 7 S8VW'NG1SOG "09 Gnd 9/MAIT HANI “Usysigneuy sep Woaule ur Sa1evesunz yors op ‘uaSepueyonuryos Wasrago1s yur apugje waiZamaq ul Sunuejg :uagovy (‘18h yey) ‘Z11 uN ‘Te ‘Big “SEYWNO1SOR "OD Bnd NANT WANT ‘sajaiqa3ypeig sap Sunsayamigq sip 149qn ue[g :uayounyy ("1S yey) *1zI—gI1 “IN ‘yyolu IyayIaA Uap osTe 1103s ‘asyoezje[g Joep sne yyon1 aSepueuayesy aq ‘yWreyosi1a yrepases yostepsuny apfeineg apuajaxzi0a Syreuesstny yomnp 2ye]q Jap gep ‘aupioagzur os pursepuem “Aq aq “MYyNjasieqioa ayag seule ue piIM ryaxiaA Jaq ‘wnhasnwyeuon @N Uensu we asejuezelg :uayouny “UsWIUTEpIyey woA uazreryos -19q 9) S2PSIA aUYO WeyxYoSueInz auranb -3q ‘sai0yD sap pun apesseysay Jap yopuswen ‘apaydney sep yayxreqqysig an8 ‘uajnequaqeN sip ue gnyosuy ‘e8e7T ed81qns :uaSunsutpag “ayoary Jaqura Sunyaisyny inj aSepuezerg :uavsuny “Fe SI ‘uaIIeL}JEq Nz sa]ieypeyg UspuyayImjud YIs 2U9H Jap jne sap yuNdjainW Jaszajeds spe yst JoyeayUayuaSarzulsg We 2E[g Jap ‘ue [le}s UIEIIaL Sep 1310s Jasalp UOA “Aes] Jap spasual ‘syydar 1Zary IPRS VC :ageysuajuasaizuug ‘usyounw ‘ee “SI ‘ages Jap uaymMul ivS repo ageng Jap ue wou ‘elq ways we TNs aly sg seiuysiysyza, agos8 aip yne Sunysizag ul ayouty rep o8e] oIp 4st JUessarajUy ‘Bunyesexn) uaiap ul uaSunj “Stony pun “o39 apuLIsuayyosorC Inf UsSuNsJa}eMIy SUapatyosiaA Wiapuos ‘apuEM Jap JEMTTeIeg ayo!qn Jsuos stp Samyoinp yo yZiez ageNs aiq ‘sIyDex al] Iperg o1q :ageNnsynuy ‘uayouny “ZO By OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 11 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. 1. The modern German city-planners feel that this new street in Dresden, the Kénig 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. 112 TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY _ ~ Fig. 18. This illustrates the irregular parkway around Géttingen, following thé 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 114 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 Jumber company to save some pines along a creek in Wisconsin. INDEX Aachen, Scheme for suburban settlement in . Acreage cost of parks ‘ Addison, Writings of. (December 1 10, 1807) ; Additional Iand to parks, Purchase of Advertising signs in the Fens, Boston . Agassiz Road, Boston Agassiz Bridge, Boston . . Alaska-Yukon Pacific Exocadon 1600. iNovenber ia 1906). Amendments to Constitution and By-Laws. (December 11, 1906) 23 It, 12, 23 American Institute of Architects, Invitation to soth Anniversary. (Deceniber ts, io06: Nov. 12, ’07) 23, 25 ss eas *f AS 188 = Committee on American Institute of Architects, Schedule of charges. (December 10, re Exchange of publications with. srinunies 5, 1903) . Policy of. (March 5, 1907) « American Park and Outdoor Art ‘Assccisigon, (March 5 on ; Maniiatss i, ‘pony American Society of Civil Engineers, Policy of. (March 5, 1907) . American Society of Landscape Architects, Organization of. (January - 1899) American Students in Paris i ee gt Seas Teg Amusements for children in parks . Antwerp, Docks in. (March 10, 1908) ‘ . Application Blank for Membership, Committee on . Applications for Membership. (January 14, 1902) Approaches, Formal and informal ._ . Architect and Landscape Architect, Relations of Sueech on, ne bay Howard ‘Walker Arborway, Boston ‘ Architecture and Landscapes Archivestte, Riclations: ‘ify. Ganuary a food): Architectural League of America, Invitation to join. (January 13, 1903; March 5, 1903) . Architectural League of New York, Exhibition of. aaa oe 12, idee Pa Areas of Boston Parks oe RE ae os Arlington Heights : Arnold Arboretum, Boston . . Art, Influences producing in Northern Teal j “Arti” Gatherings, The . Assembly Bill 651 (Palisades Park) (hebcnacy 27; 1508). Assembly Bill 1643 (Riverside Park). (March 13, 1900; Apri 10, “eons September a, 1900 associate Members, Dues of. (February 17, 1905) . a Admission of. (March 5, er). Committee on : Attendants, Paid, in small parks, Tecamperence at. Audubon Circle, Boston Augsburg, Improvements in “ “ Back Bay, Boston «Park Bancroft, George . . Barren Island, New York Baths in small city parks ‘ ‘ Baxter, Sylvester, Translations of en textbooks : Beacon Street, Boston, Rope walks in Beacon Hill, Boston. . . . . Beaux Arts men, Plans of (115) 16 27 116 TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY Beaver Brook Reservation, Acquisition of for Metropolitan Park System Bedding Plants in Paris Parks . she. a fone Belmont (Mass.) *. Berlin, Improvements in Blackstone, William . Blue Hill Avenue, Boston : Blue Hills Reservation, Miountaindus character of : Boat-Houses along the Hudson on eomaait Boboli Gardens ee Gerusee ciegrce Gee Ces Se): ome AIG oF ‘* Inception and Development of, Paper iy Ss. Parsons, Jr Bo Seta ae es ee, “a a a FOZ a “ Largely dueto A.J. Downing. . . . 1 6 1 ee ew ee ww tw «OG 8 “Proposed parade-ground in . . « « © + © «© © «© © © © © © « «© 82 2 “* Proposed speedway in . . . F ir Brie Cres! cee OD Charges, Schedule of. (January 13, 1903; March. 5, Tes: January 12, 16d: Pebsuany i? 1905) 15, 20, 22 Charles River . . pe eo dhs in Se ws a. GO. ss es Recutstaons alongs ie Metropolitan Park System ye He. lor, Seer, Frakes hoes, tes tea” SS! CG Charlesgate, Boston. . . Beis SZ me Dias. Sh aaa Sere ay weer te late gee base Ge. - Az Charlottenburg, Taaproverients MN sn> Jey fev) eh ge rie de hea: “sh dey ten es aver. Ug We bee! ae) atl ie) gs Chemnitz, Improvementsin 2. 2 2. 1 ee ee eee ee ew ee OY Chicago, Parksin . . Soi Jae Gee aie ge Se. ee Se ee A OZ, Circulation of traffic favored by condkedness 3 in er plan. hE ee a we Ow) ‘City Gates 22 es ea a Ge oe a ee ee eo City Hall, Boston . oe Be Oh ee OE a Oe we ee ee City Planning, Paper on, A. he Shurtleff . a ee ee ee 1) “Two sorts of designin. 2. 2 0. 6 6 ew ee ee ee ee ee 103 Classical Design, Growth of ww www ee ee ee ew ee we 103 “Conditions requiring . . BS, ee Bh a a ah al? = OZ Classics in Landscape Architecture, Reprints of see ‘Rentini. Client and Landscape Architect, Permanency of consultation between . . . . . . «. . . 96 GONGGI seh wes eet aah RENE eds “iy el Meuse Ses: ot a teeta Sas See ine, va Gad Colosseum, The . . . es Svodwhcrs Tires Beowe> ar cet lee. is. ou de ett go) Columbia Road, Boston, Defects al aL Tab ed CBD Mtoe BE Bates cola th ees ete Velde Velie? hig Commerce of New York City . . tye Veet Aen fee denies Gee led Rel oe igi Commission to inquire into needs of Meropalitan Boston Parks ap a av lay a Ae Se a we BF Committees and Delegates. 2. 2 1 1 1 1 ww ee ee ee ee 15 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston . 2. 1 6 6 ee ew ee te ee ek divas 118 TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, Driveways united Compensation, Professional. (December 10, 1907) . Competition among Nurserymen . . Competitive Plans, Exhibition of at Voukers, (March ia: 1900) « Compiegne, Park at . Geapiite, Sohal de 3 Condemnation, Law of (Massachusetts) . * “© (Maryland) Constitution, 3 Adopted. (March 6, 899) . Amendments to. (December 11, 1906) Committee on ‘ ae Construction of grounds never finished Consultation between Client and Landscape Acclivedet, Berntunenoy af : Contours of Surface, Neglect of, in planning . Cooley, James E. Sante Coérdination, Lack of in works of Architect and Landscape Avchivect Cost of Landscape Development, Paper on, C. W. Leavitt, Jr. oy os « «© FE, W. Olmsted *« “ Parks by the acre : : Country Places, Conditions of layout af : Crookedness in Street Plan, Advantages of d’Argenville, Dezalliers, “Theorie et ee de Jardinage. piel 5, lk Dana, Charles A. Darmstadt, Improvements in Dedham, Massachusetts Der Stadtebau Depredations in Thomas Teferson, Park, New Voce Destruction of shrubbery and trees in parks . Details, Minor, of planning . Development, Landscape, Paper on : Coe of, C. W. Leawire, Jr. T. “« « * FL. Olmsted DeWitt Clinton Park, New York 3 Wot Ysecksats> Ye Die Deutschen Stadte, Gurlitt. . . ee Difficulties of construction and iaaidtenanee of cca city parks Dinners, Admission of Juniors to. (March 13, 1900) Diodati, Ottaviano Docks in Boston, Speech on adheme foes H. i, Clark. (March: 10, 1908) Docks in American and European cities. (March 10, 1908) a Proposed, in Jamaica Bay . Dorchesterway, Boston . Downing, A.J. 2. 2. 2. 2. we “and Central Park, New York Monument to . : Debt of landscape eardening to Writings of . de Dresden, Kénig Johann Strasse Drawing and Tracing Paper in 1860 Editing Proceedings, Committee on Edward Everett Square, Boston Eliot, Charles Elizabeth River, Tinea: Virginia English style of gardening compared with French or Kialla Ericson, Leif, Statue of . 111, OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 119 PAGE Excess condemnation, Prospect Park, Brooklyn. . . : - . 82 Executive Committee, Meetings of. (December 12, as February 27, g00% Sauary 8, 1901) - 20 ‘s Committees, List of . Oe Ae ems Deke arg es “Gir beae lay a ee Bea Mae oe AG Exhibition, First Annual, Catalogue of ARE. Geom ks cay Bonds Baa. SP ORS Garo tay Se. IS at Municipal Art Society . . 9 Exhibitions (March 13, 1900; April 10, 1900; Fannin 14, 1902; Y December 4, 165033 Bebrasey eS 1905; February 6, 1906) . . . «19, 20, 21, 23 Exhibitions, Committees on. (Naveniber: a6 iors Teauary 12, Toni Paniacy 9, 1904) . « 14, 20, 21 Exposition at Jamestown, Virginia, Paper on, 4 W.H.Manning . . . .. =... - s 83 Pe in Central Park, Proposed . . be ee Fe ied eee es: bl tose Sel aces Be Set G82 Expositions, Waste inlocationof . 2. 1. 1 ee ee ew we (8B Falconieri Gardens . . So EE SE OS St Ge WE Ga Ww RE oe a ee Se eh Farm-Gardens in New York parks fee SR OE Re RS we ww ee we @ 76 Fens, The, Boston . . Se Re aR ww ee a ed ia as “Cost per acre ‘t Se Apo RN a WB) del She WE RE a a BS a Fenway, The, Boston . 2. 2. 1. 1 we eee te ee ee 47, 48 “ Bridge, Boston. be BOA Oe SO Fine Arts Federation, Representation of A. S. L. cs in. ‘Tao ia, 1900) : # & « do m Committee on. (September 26, 1900) 8 # a | 2s Fire-risk in Expositions avoided . . . «2 1 ee et ee - . « 8 Flensburg, Improvementsin . . . . 1 ee ee ee eee ee ee we Florence, Artof . . . MP onde: tien ee Ra OS Sadat “arate? Cad ease PROSE Bred cay “3S Flowers and colors in Paris Parks . Bet whos mde. eS: che Ga a (Boe G as ae oe <> e= ps @ ee Secs wei See) ae ee See ck ch. Lae et J at 4senoa; Garden-artin: 4 <6 = @ & @ ea @ wm we Bo: 6 @ @ eos woe & & 47 “Physical aspect‘of 4 4) 6 @ << 3-8 Fe SOS Oe Se A ee ee Se Bz fe MillasOP! a ae a ee RR OE ee a ee OW Genoese, Characterof . . GR RO we OR ROE Re a me 8 “Architecture, Styles'in. 2 os 6 6 @ 6 § #@ © 8 @ © © 6 we ee es OF German street-planning. 2. 2. 1. 1 eee ee ee ee ek 104 Giacomelli, Villa... Socks BRE ee Reo OR Se Ap te dy a OS ap ey 38 Gilman, Arthur, Architect of City Hall, Boston to WG a Sm OR te Oe 8 Girardin, Writings of. (December 10,1907). . . «2 2 6 6 ee ew ee eee 2G Glover, General Stephen, Statueof . 2... 7 1 ee ee ee ew ee ee Golf-ground, Franklin Park, Boston . 2 2 1 1 ee ee ee ee ee KB Golf in Parks, Objectionsto 2. 2. 1 1 6 ee ee ee ee ee KB ‘Géttingen amis oS cava waew ter, “la Se ees She ee RS pas CR) eee ede Bin le. cals re A Grading . . Sie mdi cars ee di Geplage ee Telok i pigy tinh odfa BCR. wl. Be deces ae “OR i Cost of. fos e vdpoldn eel loa ele “ce Be ad “60 Greek Influence on Architecture of ‘the tee Siclics:. de acess “a date SLI Gel? uo 40) Green, Andrew H., President Board of Commissioners of Catrl Park ie. ai so Ge ee Ge eS Oo: 120 TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY Greensward plan for Central Park. 2. 2. 2. 2 2 1. 6 4 ee ew ew Greenwood Cemetery . . i OR Oe HR wR OS Greeting, The, Franklin Park, Bosten So ES a es at ee, AR ae, ed Be Grounds and Buildings, Relation of . . . . 2. 2 «1 6 «© e we we Gurlitt, Die Deutschen Stadte. . 2. 2. 1. 6. 6 1 ee we ew Gutters, Sod, Costof . . 2. 1. 1 6 6 6 ee ew we ee Hackensack Meadows . . . «1 ee ee et ew et Halle, Improvementsin. . iis, Eel boo Batiagl belek Gate. oa Hamburg, Docks in. (March a0; 1908) tee oe. ete Sa ee cee aoe Hamilton, Alexander, Statueof . . . . 2. 6 2 6 es ee Hamilton Fish Park, New York . . . .. . Hampton Roads, Virginia’ Hanover, Improvementsin. . . 2 2 6 2 6 6 6 © © «© @ © Harbor, Proposed, in Jamaica Bay . . . 1. 6 1 6 ew e we ew Haskel, L. F. . 32 grata Teen ee Gah eh eter ser eo 4 Hemlock Woods near ‘Boston: Wild dharaceer Ole se) Sl Aas SS caY See Tar 8 Historical Notes, Paper on, Downing Vaux . . ay GR Horticulturist and Landscape Architect, Relations of, Speech, C Ww. Barry 7 “Horticulturist, The,” Letters of A.J. Downingin. . . . . . 2. « « House, Relation of, to Grounds. (December 29, 1908). . . «. « « © « Howard Street, Baltimore, Extensionof . . . . .« « « « Hudson County Boulevard. . 2. 2. 1. 1 1 6 eo te ew wt Hudson Street Park, New York . . 2. . 2. 1 ew et ee el Huntington Entrance, Boston . Illustrations in Repton, Obsolete character of. (February 5, 1907) Inception and Development of Central Park, Paper on by S. Parsons Inscription in republished classics in Landscape Architecture. (January 8, 1007) Invitation to join Architectural League of America. (January 13, 1903) Invitation to Fiftieth Anniversary A. I. A. (December 11, 1906; aeaee 8, 1907). Irving, Washington, President of the Board of Central Park i. cai a Ae Italian Gardens, Paper on, by F. Vitale ans fe ge aa Character of . fans F ss “ Character of according to politcal dictions ‘ Foreign influence on . . Italian population near Thomas Jefferson Park, New York Italy, Characteristics and political divisions of ‘“ “ “Southern, Gardensof . . . . . 2. 2. 1 « « we Jamaica Bay, Great Water Park in, Paperon by H.A.Caparn . . . . ee “Harbor in Beg Ge 8 Ge RR “ “ Character of . Jamaica Pond, Boston Jamestown Exposition, Paper on n by Ww. H. Menning re a Character of native vegetation . os oi Exhibit at. (February 6, 1906) Jerome Park Reservoir . Sire ete He ct Mase. A Jones’ Woods : Baines nemo nats Sata eee. athe pektte! “ ss Park Bill . ego ts de Tents, Sida Sel bak sal. Juniors becoming Fellows. (December II, 1906) Kiel, Street scheme for . 3 King’s Beach, Massachusetts, Acquisitions on, is for Metropolitan Park System i . OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS Kingsland, Mayor, of New York , Knickerbocker Trust Co., Deposits in. (lanuary ve r908) Kénig, Johann Strasse, Dresden . . és NOS es La Fortezza Landscape Aichitecture; ‘Bewinninge ae Landscape Architect and Horticulturist, Relations at ‘ and Architect, Relations of Landscape Design practised by nurserymen . . Landscape Development, Cost of, Paper on by C. Ww. Leavitt, ie. r. Cost of, Paper on by F. L. Olmsted Cost per acre 5 s Factorsin . . 6 0. 6 as Upkeep. ... . ss Data “ec Treatment, Simplicity in Layout of Country Places, Conditions of . Sow fe Large Tree Planting, Paper on by J. L. Greenleaf eee Oe ee “ Moving, Frozen ball Entire root-system . “Sandy soil. se In fall . " Time for. . ee In Colorado . “ In Maine . " In New England . 12 to 14 in. diameter Disadvantages of . Large Trees, Resistance of winds to Protection of trunk from sun Laurel Hill Cemetery: . . League Island Park, Philadelphia, ‘Ganwary 4 1899) L’Enfant, Major, Monument to. (February 17, saci Leverett Pond, Boston . . Little Folks Fair, The Franklin ‘Park, Boston, Liverpool, Docks in. (March 10, aie Llewellyn Park - Ma: alta Se! aimee, her: Gerla. oS Local Conditions influenctag eost te. arersds Gee tar Gly tama. See cee eon cis Local Materials Lombardy . . . Longwood Entrance, ‘Basten : Loudon, Writings of. re 10, 1907 Lucea, Architecture of Luxembourg Gardens Lynn, Purchase of Jand for parks and watemeunply Maintenance, Costof . - . 6 es 6 ee ee ee “ Data of . . Gn ee os Oe * pes Boston, Hartford By ‘* Examples of whole places . . . oe “ “ “ gardens S z “Tables of and Planting, Difficulties ati in ‘New. York email para, “public parks. . . Maintenance oats: Teiparksace of foresecug - 122 TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY Mainz, Improvements in Malden, Massachusetts . . Manhattan Square added to Centeal Park Manheim, Improvements in i Marie Antoinette, Marine Park, Boston Maschpark, Hanover Mason, Writings of. (oesenier 10, 5, 1600) Materials, Local . . . Medal for best executed desten, (lanuary i 1605; February 17, 1905) ‘ Medford, Massachusetts. 4 eS Melrose, Massachusetts . ee Members, New, Nomination of. (March 13, 1900) . 7 Listof . Membership, Applications foe: ‘Gaouary 1, weeny. Memorial Tablet to Olmsted and Vaux. (January 12, 1904; J anaes, a, 1905) pO tn ee «Committee on . Menagerie, Franklin Park, Boston Metropolitan Boston Mendon ‘ Middlesex Fells Reseisutian, Chavacter developarent: auintenanes ana oe a “ Acquisition of, for Metropolitan Park System and area of . Minutes, Printing of. (February 9, 1904). - Editing of. (February 6, 1906)... F Monument to Major L’Enfant. (February 17, 1905) Moorish Style in Architecture in Italy Motions in writing. (February 17, 1905) . Mount Auburn Cemetery 3 Munich, Improvements in . . oo. Municipal Art, Relation of A. S. L. A. en Oinuiey 9, 1900) . we 128 Municipal Art Society, Exhibition of. ee 14 gia 2 Municipal Improvements in Boston . . ee el eg a we, Museum of Natural History . . 2. 2. 2 6 6 ee ee ew ee Mystic Lakes . A a a ae ee Mystic Rivers 2 2 6 6 8 6 he oe OR He He oe & % Acquisitions along, for Metropolitan Park System . Nantasket Beach a a ee Se ee as Se ee a “Acquisition of, for Metropolitan Park System . . . National Sculpture Society. acca: 20, 1901; March 5, 1907) Natural History, Museum of . . i A Ge coal: auton Sogies & Naturalistic Style in Fenway, Boston O) wgth te ve NGl A ia fee. a es a Neapolitans, Character and artof. . . . . 6. 2. + 6 © 8 ew Neponset RRIVED ig Gace de cf GB ee i BN Ot Cee. oe CMe. ae) “ Acquisitions along, for Metropolitan Park System . . . . Newark Bay, Harbor in eG a a ee el ee New York, Docks in ee eK eS Re A a Newton Lower Falls. . 2. 2. 1 1 1 ee ee ee we ew Nicolai Kirche, Stralsund . . oo SR B® WM Hs Nomination of new members. (March 1 ay 1900) a ee ee ee Nurnberg, City Gates . 2. 2. 1 1 1 6 te ee ww wt Nurseries, Jamestown Exposition . . . 2 2 6 © © © «© © © o « Nursery stock, Information as to quality of . . . 6 + 2 © © © a Committeeon. . . . 6 6 «© «© © © © © © @ Improvementsin . . « 6 6 © © © © © © © «© «@ “cs “ OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 123 PAGE Nursery stock, Prices of . ES kA SF Sain Ah ee, be de> Ga et ltr aia, AOS eS. Maley! CIGO Nurserymen and Landscape Design tH Scots Hews By oe se. Ate ep gobs x - .90 Old Colony Railroad «ww ww ee ew ee 5A Old Point Comfort . . ee ee See wed ae aol) woes wen es. 383 Olmsted, Frederick Law, Ski, Architect of ‘Central Park 6 woo gs) ee ee! cg! ATOG Olmsted (F. L.) and Vaux, Memorial to. (January 12, 1904; Jamuary = 7 3905) go ee, ae ig HG AE Olmsted Park, Boston . . Pe ee ee ee Orchestration, Lack of, in works of landecape aeckitents sw OOM Ee ee Ye Ow Padua. . . Sec eY Gace od Chak a Oe et oe, Sa. BB Paid ‘Attendants i in shaaill parks, Theoinperence of > ae “od ode. Aare ar Gl eaie es te: Sern s Mee 78 Palazzo dei Signori . . cts Grete. af BS Palisades, Preservation of, anid sacle dong. (February 1 13, 0 February a7, 1900) st dis Heete St, “ES Palladio . . i cite Meec. techs ek Anse Papers by mieinibers at ieseace, (March 5, co: February 17; 1008) is «fates Sn Gietin Bic 20:28 Parade Ground, Proposed in Central Park . . . 1. 1 ew ew ee ee ee ee C82 Parade, The, Prospect Park, Brooklyn . . 2... eee ee ee ee HB Parc des Buttes Chaumont. . eS) ogy as as. West. Mle eel el eal te be Tells Se! S66 Park Commission, The new, in Boston &) ates), So Lesh a Bal ace ake) eet es Pe) Je. Gel die. de, cage Park construction over old buildings . 2... we we ee ee kG Park design in relation to population. 2. 2. 1. 1 we ee ee ee ee 78, 73 Park movement, The new, in Boston. . 2... ee ee ee A“ Parker: Hill, Boston. © <2 @ x #0 @ ceo we Oe oe ee eR Oe Oe ee Ow ewe fo 8s “ Entrance . . Sos 2 he Re Ww Boe we we wo a oR oO Parkman, Francis, Home of andl sandiineet te foe wa eR we OO a ee er ee ORE Parks, need for among all classes . . . - - 1. 1 ee ee ee ee ee 06 “Sentiment as to public rightsin 2. 7 6 ww we ee ek IQ Parkway, Gottingen... RoE OR OD a Be se a me. cel Parkways abutting on private anioeley fo ed a fen ogee sas: Eri) Sara ee thee GY ar wes

use, Geb cs: Vets Ug! Le) False “ee! cpl Bag: PESCiae so. its Jee aE ae Se a ae Ae ae oe tel yl ae “eel ae nae Petit Trianon. og ee ae eR Oe re, Ge we te) ww Ok ee es a he, Phalen, James... e Sshine opt ley oe Gel len Sepls ah Se sa cee te, Se a ke 2 | OS Pictorial character of wood aorks gh ug BL a re we Rp ee a OE Picturesqueness in city planning . . . 1 we we ee ee we 103, 104 ee of Italian Villas 2. 6. 1 we ee ek kk 104 Piedmont, Gardensof . 2. 1 1 ew ee eT Pilat, Ionatz Av ee eee RO eR HR RR Re ee ew ew Pipe, Earthenware, costof . . 2. 1. 1. 1 ee ee ee ee kk 69, 70 Pisa, Architectureof 6 6 ww ee ee ek 8 Pittr Palace, Theis eg 2 a Se ee a a ee 38 Pitti, The. 2. eicthe ae Ain Se ae Sine alow. Seles Sete) “gs eek 3Q8 Plans of Beaux Arte n men, Defects oe, BOT ain ae) BE cai, cee ee ge es a ag aw a OB Planting out, Advantagesof . 1. 1 1 1 we ee ee ek ke 104 124 TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY Planting, Existing utilized, Jamestown Exposition . oY Careless Playgrounds for Boys, Separate ; ot Sha ir in connection with New York Schools ae dao. 3g Pond scenery in Middlesex Fells Pontifical States, The . . a oe Pony-riding, Franklin Park, Boston - % % & Pope, Writings of : Port of New York, The . Printing of Minutes. (February 9, 1904) Privacy out-of-doors. . . of le Private ownership of forest lands j ‘i Proceedings, Editing committee. (January 8 1907) : 3 Professional Practice, Report of Committee on. (January 12, 1064) ‘ Proposals for membership. (December 11, 1906) i Prospect Park, Sale of Iand . ‘ ‘ Protection of Parks in New York City, Difficulties e ‘i Public attitude toward parks a ‘3 Public Gardens, Boston . = Public Parks, Essays on, A. J. Dawning i is “Arguments for, A. J. Downing a) yee. Wiem Wet, um GS Bi Ee ole Objections to, A. J. Downing . . bo Scke Geo Seo ae, Ain te Publications, Exchange of, with A. I. A. (Deceniber 5, '1903) « Puckler von Muskau, Writings of. (December 10, 1907) “ “ Quincy, Coast, Acquisition on, for Metropolitan Park System Ram, Cost of de ok erhite catblin 7 Representative at Paris Eapesnion, (Apel 10, ieeea September 26, 1900) : Reprints of Books on Landscape Architecture. (November 13, aa oe 8, 1007: : February ra 39975 December 10, 1907) . ‘ 3 ms Commitee: On - ws «= % »¥ Repton, Writings of. (December 10, 1907) : Illustrations in, Obsolete character of. (February is 1907) Reprint of. (December 10, 1907) . uae Sale of reprints of. (January 14, 1908) . Reservoirs in Central Park and Jerome Park “ Revere Beach, eo ek Bes i “Acquisition of . . . 2. 1. we ee «Parkway six. Lae apt Ege aih Mego! ad eel a! ag ; ts “Reservation, Development and costof . . . . 1 ee eee Riccardi, The yey Riverside Drive, New York, (Deceniber 12, sHoo): Riverside Park, Resolution to Protect. (March 13, repns April ai 1900; Sentembes 26, 1900) ef “ Committee on . oe a a 2 Riverway, BOStoMs - Ge rer airs See ae Se ee) I RC ey ORE ES ORE Bee By GS iS “Design of Riviera, Garden art of the . Roman Architecture . “Gardens . : “« — Art and character br Swede ES Gee. Rome, Villasof . . asta) en bee? atl Sak) aed" Tage! ee as! be Rough Ground, Street salionie for Pe ee Se ee Rural Essays, A.J. Downing . . 2. 1 6 1 6 eo ee ee et St. Gabriel Park, New York «© «os 6 © « 6 6 © &§© © © © 8 © aye « @ 24, 26 OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS St. Johns, N. B., Main St. ‘ é Sale of Land in excess of park needle i in 1 Prospect Park, Hisckia : San Francisco, Parksin. . . 2. - 6 6 © 8 © «@ «© Sargent, Henry Winthrop Schedule of charges. (March 5, 25058 January 13 12, 19043 Samay a; 1906) oi Committee on Scott, Writings of. (December 10, 1907) . Seal. (November 13, 1906) ; * Committee on. . ‘i Report of Comstiereas on. " (Pebranry 5 10073 December. 20, 1908), Qualities of. (February 5, 1907) A : Appropriation for. (March 5, 1907; Decanber 26, » 907) Sentiment of water scenery . “c Serristori, The . . . 2. 1 2 ew ew ee Septic tank, Costof. . . 2. 2. 2 ee Settees in small parks . . Sewalls Point es i Ca Ae a. Sherman Statue, Location of. (Sentenber 26, 1900) ie ee S & “ Committeeon . . . 1. 2 ew ee Shrubbery and trees in New York small ee Be AL a SE Shrubs, Cost of . . 5 er ee ee Sieges-alleein Berlin 2. 2. 2. 1 1 1 ee ett te Siena, Architectureof . . 2. 2. 2. 6 6 ew te ee we le le Simplicity in landscape treatment. . . . 1. 1 5 6 6 + ee Skating, Ground flooded for, in parks. . BOS ce Bro. ce SS Small City Parks, Talks on, Samuel Parsons, Te ae a Bi cer od Ce me a ** — Difficulties of construction and malntenaibe of Society of the Preservation of Scenic and Historic Places and Objects. (February 27, 1900) . Sod for New York small parks. . . . 2. 1. 1 we eo Sod Gutters, Cost of Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Monument, Lipcation of, Penuary 5 1900: December a 895) “ “ “ iii Committee on Specifications, Copying in 1860. «1 1 ew ew we tle ee Speedway, Proposed, in Central Park. . . 2. . 2 1 se ee ee Statues in Central Park. 2. 2-2. 1 1 6 1 1 ew ee Steep slopes, Cover with growth . . . 1. 1 7 ew ee ee Stenographer given up. (March 5, 1907) se ties Nae ake. ctahe Ri date se age Stiles, Wm. A., Editor of ““Garden and Forest”? . . . . 2 6 se Stimpson, John W., Pamphlet by . Stone walls, Cost of . ran? Stoneham, Massachusetts F Stony Brook, Boston, Floods of she “* Flood channel ee “Reservation Stralsund, Nicolai Kirche Strandway, Boston 5 Strasburg, Improvements in Street scheme for rough ground ane Street-planning, French and German contrasted Street Trees Strozzi, The s Suburban sevilement, Scheie foe hi in Aaticy. F Summer Meetings. (March 5, 1901; July 7-0, ie Summer Residences, Treatment around Surface contours, Neglect of, in planning . 125 PAGE 114 82 107 - . 106 20, 21, 22 15 26 «23, 24 .16 24, 28 24 25, 28 76, 77, 80 70 « « 404 126 TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY Swimming pool, cost of . Swings, scups, etc., Franklin Park, ‘Boston Tank, Cypress, Cost of . Teams, Cost of Telford, Cost of . A @ Tennis-court, Construction or cost cor : Theorie et Pratique du Jardinage. (February 5, 1007) . Theory and Practice of Landscape ae A. J. Downing . Third dimension in design, Iack of 2 at cits 46 ‘Therss Jefferson Park, New York or SS mats Soh cif - “« Italian population near Depredations in Town-Planning, Two kinds of design in - “« Picturesqueness in a “Subordinate features . ‘ “in Germany i Town-site, Future, in Jamestown Espoction Treasurer’s Accounts. é Trees and shrubbery in New York sniall parks Trees, Cost of : 4 “« — for Streets, Hinds. af. : “Large, Moving of, See under Lane Ties “Preserved by ancient Iandholders . Tuscan Gardens, Design and Character of Tuscany “ “cc “ “ “ ss People of, Characteristics me Gardens of ss Villas of e Architecture of Two Sicilies, The Ulm, Improvements in .. Ulrich, Rudolph, Resolution on death ae (Nevenker 13, 1906) “ «Committee on Upkeep and protection of parks in Paris . Variety in naturalistic design Vaux, Calvert Venetian Architecture Venetian States, Gardens in Venice . Verona Versailles . Criticism of ‘ . Excessive formality of Vicenza. Villa d’Este “ Lante a > : Villas, Florentine, Sites and character af : Visit to Paris, Paper on, by H. A. Caparn Vistas, Ineffective a, 2ihedt oii te Game, eh & “* Stopped and aietopped Sh. arf inte Or Ser Bea %e OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 127 PAGE W. H. Seward Park, New York . 2 1. 1 ee ew eee 77 Wading pools in parks ee Se ae ee. a we SG 79 Wages... eG ee te a ee ee we a GF, OQ-102 Walpole, Horace, Waiting of (Deceniber 10, agen) Bo GU, ie AP des eee Gee 8 Mate Ee Mad 686 Waltham, Massachusetts, Park reservation near. www ww et 62 Ward’s Pond, Boston . . «. «1 ee ee ee we 50 Washington, Plan of acer oe : - 104 Water Basin, Jamestown Exposition nee ne tet ee ae 86 Water-front arrangements in Jamaica Bay, Proposed 93 Water-fall, Bois de Boulogne 68 Waterworks, Cost of 70 Weidenmann, Jacob. . wow a we we 82 West Side Park, Jersey Cay. N. As Papers on 5» By D. Ww. Langton cad rou N. Lowe 72 Western Notes, Paperon by O.C.Simonds . . . . . i cee ae Ses os 90 Whately. (December 10,1907) . . 2. - ee ee te ee ee ee 26 Wild growth, Jamestown Exposition . F 87 Willow Pond, Boston ees Mag! eel atest dee Sel tal tal ee! en Eel ESN he tie chor Se 50 Winchester, Massachusetts. . . ap el te, Us! ee Saige idan Be & 64 Windings of stream, natural, through nemrahes ‘ined flat ands olla al a Dees) hcl! oe es G8 Windmill, Costof = 6 6 oe 4% He He www 70 Woburn, Massachusetts. . we ifaw. Cae ity Sage. Fats bel de, BAN bh 5 Bl, On Wood, Fernando, Mayor of New Vouk Taal tees ica ttet toe, Sage See wel 8S Decl tell tel tae dee let tis AROS) Works of members, Lists of. (April10, 1900) . 2... 6 6 «© «© © © © «© © © © «© 9 Zoslogical Garden in Central Park, Proposed . . . . «6 6 6 6 © ee ew 110 = Gardensin parks . 2. 1. 6 6 6 8 8 8 ee ee ee ew et CSB 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) 56 Boston Park System, The, John C. Olmsted. (July 7, 1905) dees we Central Park, Interesting Facts in Regard to the oe and Devdopment af, ‘(Gamud Parsons, Jr., February 11, 1908). 105 Cost af Landscape Development, Chas. Ww. Leavite, Te (Decanber 12, 1905). Shes. Seorndes box 69 Cost of Landscape Development, Frederick Law Olmsted. (December 10, 1907) . . . «= - 96 Historical Notes, Downing Vaux. (November 13, 1906) . BN Cees 81 Horticulturist and Landscape Architect, Relations of, C. W. Bary: (anvary 8, 1007) 89 Italian Gardens, Ferruccio Vitale. (April 18, 1905)... OO Ce 37 Jamaica Bay, A Great Water Park in, Harold A. Caparn. ‘(Novenilics 12, 1907 ae AS. 92 Jamestown Exposition, Warren H. Manning. (December 11, 1906) . ae 83 Large Tree Planting, J. L. Greenleaf. (March 14, 1905) 29 Municipal Improvement in Boston and Germany, A. A. Shurtleff. (March 10, 2908) . II Small City Parks (of New York City), Samuel Parsons, Jr. (March 6, och 75 Visit to Paris, A, Harold A. Caparn. (November 14, 1905) . . 65 West Side Park, Jersey City, N. J., Description of Design for: Ghasles: N. ome ood ‘Daniel Ww. Langton. (February 6, 1906) . 2 6 72 Western Notes, Synopsis of Talk on, Gstian Cc. Simone, (February me sae) ‘ hy Pe “es Onn 3G IS74- foe ik ee