Pittsburgh's Frick Park: A Unique Addition to the City's Park System Marianne Maxwell his book, Back to Nature, Peter J. Schmitt discusses the move- ment that began in the second half of the nineteenth century in INresponse to the increasing urbanization of American society. Noting the extensive social changes brought on by the rise of the modern metropolis, he focuses special attention on the way people's perceptions of the natural world outside the city changed. City dwellers, he observes, particularly the middle and upper classes, sought refuge from the hectic pace of urban society and began to turn "back to nature." l Schmitt stresses that people at this time turned "back to nature," not "back to the land," explaining that the movement was a departure from, rather than a return to, America's agrarian past :"simply put, this urban response valued nature's spiritu- al impact above" its economic importance: it might better be called 'Arcadian/ 2 This search for Arcadia, an idyllically pastoral, untroubled region, was encouraged by urban intellectuals whose "nature writings" es- poused the need for city people to be exposed to the country. These middle-class journalists wrote essays calculated to appeal to urban readers. Their contribution to the back to nature movement was clear- ly not one advocating a return to the land for one's livelihood, for as Schmitt points out: "these writers were scarcely gentlemen farmers. They were college professors, merchants, clerks, men of distinctly urban interests who tried to make rural America the playground of an urban society." 3 Their writings found a receptive audience. Those individuals who wrote of the Arcadian philosophy were not the only nature enthusiasts to encourage as well as benefit from the popular back to nature movement. Landscape designers, whose influ- The author received her B.A. inhistory fromThe College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts, in 1983 and her MA.in Applied History and Social Science from Carnegie-Mellon University in1984. She is now living in Durham, North Carolina.— Editor 1 Peter J. Schmitt, Back to Nature (New York, 1969), viii. 2 Ibid., xvii. 3 Ibid., xviii. The Western Pennsylvania Historical Magazine, Vol.68, No. 3 (July 1985) Copyright © Historical Society of Western Pennsylvania 243 244 Marianne Maxwell ence helped shape garden suburbs and country estates in the middle of the century, also benefited when the park movement swept through cities in the latter part of the nineteenth century. The ideas and efforts of the landscape designers contributed to the case against urban life. Due to increased industrialization, technologi- cal innovation, rapid growth, and increased migration, cities were criticized as being "too big, too built up, too crowded, diseased, polluted, artificial, overly commercial, corrupting, and stressful." 4 Urban landscape designers planned to bring nature to the city. They believed this would provide respite from the negative aspects of in- creased urbanization. They became the most influential group in the early park movement in the United States. According to Galen Cranz in The Politics of Park Design, these sculptors of large urban parks were most powerful from 1850 to 1900 during the "pleasure ground era. // The most famous landscape architect involved in the city park movement was Frederick Law Olmsted, creator of New York City's Central Park. Critical of the unplanned urban setting, Olmsted dis- liked the grid system for city streets and wished to avoid urban problems he saw arising from inorganic growth and the abuse of space. He wanted to weave large areas of public parklands into the fabric of the city: "he tried, above all, to civilize the city; his parks simulated nature inresponse to the needs of an urban population. He recognized the necessity of extensive planning to provide for logical development of the city as an environment where a man could lead a meaningful life." 5 Olmsted and other influential architects of the time rejected the symmetrical, rational, and geometrical model of European palace gardens. They favored an informal, picturesque approach to organiz- ing the landscape as the best contrast to the city's artificial environ- ment. Actually, Olmsted believed that pure wilderness would serve as the sharpest contrast: But because he recognized that the wilderness would be hard, if not impossible to simulate within a city's boundaries,— he decided that the picturesque — the pastoral middle landscape was an appropriate com- promise. Its informality was democratic, and it offered the right synthesis of serenity, and order, with an occasional reminder of the awesome grandeur of a mountain, a deep crevasse, long waterfall, or steep crag: Accordingly the goal for the American pleasure ground was to heighten the 4 Galen Cranz, The Politics of Park Design (Cambridge, Mass., 1982), 3. 5 S. B. Sutton, ed., Civilizing American Cities (Boston, 1971), 1. See also Paul Shepard, Man in the Landscape (New York, 1967), 92-94. Pittsburgh's Frick Park 245 idea of naturalness with forms suggested by nature but not to rely on what nature actually provided.6 The ideas of Frederick Law Olmsted and his followers about making nature conform to urban tastes persisted into the twentieth century. The concept of civilizing the city, along with the back to nature movement and the City Beautiful movement, 7 had an important effect on "The Father of Pittsburgh's Parks/ 7 Edward M. Bigelow. Pittsburgh's Parks As head of the Department of Public Works for fourteen years be- ginning in1888, Bigelow was in charge of a large program of public improvements. His special interest, however, was in city parks, and he concentrated his enthusiasm, talent, and power upon their acquisi- tion and development for Pittsburgh. In May 1889, for example, Bigelow petitioned the city council to appoint a committee on parks. After the council approved his request, it passed ordinances that set aside the ground around Herron Hilland Highland reservoirs for pub- lic park purposes and authorized the Department of Public Works to improve them. And, inNovember of that year, as a result ofBigelow's trip to England to work out an agreement withMrs. Mary E. Schenley, the gift of Schenley Park became a reality. The importance of Bigelow's influence on Pittsburgh's parks was widely recognized in the city, and "Bigelow's good timing of these three events set his venture of park acquisition on sure ground and thus [led to] the creation of the Pittsburgh Park System." 8 During the next fifteen years he continued to buy land to expand the size of Highland and Schenley parks and establish other parks as well.9 Bigelow's emphasis on beautifying the park revealed that his vision of the design and function of parks was similar to that of other sup- porters of the back to nature movement. He directed landscapers to "improve" nature by reducing its irregularities and givingitharmony: "Gently undulating contours replaced the sharp, craggy features of undisturbed nature in a conscious effort to tame itand suggest its 6 Cranz, Politics of Park Design, 24-25. 7 See Sutton, Civilizing American Cities, 70, and Cranz, Politics of Park De- sign, 84-85, for more on the City Beautiful movement. 8 City of Pittsburgh, Department of Public Works, Annual Report of the Bureau of Parks 1944 (Pittsburgh, 1945), n.p. 9 Howard Stewart, Historical Data: Pittsburgh Public Parks (Ann Arbor, 1943), introduction. 246 Marianne Maxwell benevolence." 10 Bigelow's motivation in creating Pittsburgh's parks came from his desire to bring beauty to the industrial city, but also from his belief that parks could serve the interests of his social and economic class. Like the landscape architects in other cities, Bigelow shared the assumption that the environment significantly affected human psy- chology and behavior. He did not trust members of the working class and felt that parks were needed to counteract and restrain the dis- order engendered within these individuals by ugly and chaotic cities: "Bigelow and other advocates of parks were interested primarily in promoting middle-class restraint. Hopefully, parks would induce a behavioral pattern for the lower class acceptable to middle-class values and interests." n Landscape designers and park commissioners be- lieved that the atmosphere of city parks would elevate the conduct of the masses inall aspects of city life. They were untroubled by the class bias inherent in their concept: "The early park leaders felt no doubt or shame about elite stewardship and proudly accepted the responsi- bility. The proper role of the rich was to take care of the poor." 12 Other advocates perceived parks primarily as places where nature could bring both physical and spiritual refreshment in a relaxing at- mosphere. Users, however, often had different concepts concerning the function of parks and wanted more than beautiful scenery. 13 As a result, pleasure grounds became the site of active, although largely unstructured, recreational use. But in this respect, too, most park ac- tivities catered to the interests of the upper classes. In Pittsburgh, for example, Bigelow provided facilities for groups like the Schenley Matinee Driving Club, and for such sports as polo, tennis, and golf. He was also interested in using parks to promote piety or patriotism through activities open to all people, such as out- door musical concerts and the annual Fourth of July celebration in Schenley Park. 14 For the most part, however, his development orienta- tion largely ignored the more active leisure-time interests of the lower classes. Further, he overlooked that most of the working class could not afford to travel to the parks, which were located far from the working-class residential areas. Ironically, Bigelow and other park leaders did not see the potential that smaller, neighborhood parks more 10 Barbara Judd, "Edward M.