A Centennial History of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts - DocsLib

sign in sign up

<<

Home , Commission (art), Eric Gugler, Henry Shrady, John Charles Olmsted, Man Controlling Trade, National Building Museum

CIVIC ART A Centennial History of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts

.

. . , · Published by the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts · mmxiii

United States Commission of Fine Arts 401 F Street, NW, Suite 312 Washington, D.C. 20001-2728

Telephone: 202-504-2260 www.cfa.gov

The U.S. Commission of Fine Arts oﬀers broad public access to its resources—including photographs, drawings, and oﬃcial government documents—as a contribution to education, scholarship, and public information. The submission of documents to the Commis- sion of Fine Arts for review constitutes permission to use the documents for purposes related to the activities of the commission, including display, reproduction, publication, or distribution.

printed and bound in the united states of america 16 15 14 13 4 3 2 1

U.S. Government Printing Office Cataloging-in-Publication Data Civic art : a centennial history of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts / edited by Thomas E. Luebke. Washington, D.C. : [U.S. Commission of Fine Arts], 2013. p. cm. Supt. of Docs. no: FA 1.2: C 87 ISBN: 978-0-160897-02-3 1. Washington (D.C.)—Buildings, structures, etc. 2. U.S Commission of Fine Arts—History. 3. Public architecture—United States. 4. Architecture--Washington (D.C.)—History. I. Luebke, Thomas E. II. U.S. Commission of Fine Arts.

Editor and Project Director: Thomas E. Luebke, FAIA Managing Editor: Mary M.Konsoulis Historian: Kathryn Fanning, PhD Architectural Historian: Eve Barsoum Illustration Editor: Sarah Batcheler Manuscript Editor: Beth Carmichael

Meadows Design Oﬃce, Inc., Washington, D.C. Art Director and Designer: Marc Alain Meadows Assistant Editor: Caroline Taylor Imaging Assistant: Nancy Bratton

: Michael Lantz, Man Controlling Trade, Federal Trade Commission building, 1937–42 (CFA collection). Contents

Foreword by Earl A. Powell III 1 Preface 2 Acknowledgments 6

Aim High in Hope and Work 9 . An Enduring Design Legacy: Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. in the Nation’s Capital 38

Statues, Fountains, and Monuments , – 57 The Improvement of Washington City: Charles Moore and Washington’s Monumental Core 84

Thine Alabaster Cities Gleam , – 95 The Jeﬀerson Memorial: A Pyrrhic Victory for American Architecture 154

Heroism, History, and Automobiles , – 165 . Presidential Influence: Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, and the Design of Washington’s Icons of Executive Power, 1933–1953 220 Modernism and Monumentality , – 231 . Rather Strong Advisory: William Walton’s Commission and the Challenge of the FBI Building 292

The Past Is Present . , – 301 Washington Aesthetics: J. Carter Brown and the Commission of Fine Arts 398

To Every Age Its Art , , , – 407

: Legislative history 537 : Biographies of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, Old Georgetown Board, Contributing Staff, and Essayists 538 Notes 563 List of Abbreviations and Acronyms 602 Index 603 Illustration Credits 619 mong the remarkable as- velop features of the McMillan Plan. To- city planning. He brought to his chal- panded, revised, and passed on. system of parks, reservations, and park- semblage of experts who gether with his partners and associates in lenging tasks multifaceted talents, an in- Educated at both private and public ways, which conserved for public use a have guided the U.S. Com- Olmsted Brothers, he was engaged in cisive intellect, and a well-studied com- schools and at Harvard College, class of network of unique landscape types mission of Fine Arts, land- professional design projects throughout prehension of the landscape art, honed 1894, the junior Olmsted spent the sum- linked by parkways and managed cen- sAcape architect and planner Frederick the metropolitan area, many of these re- under the intense tutelage of his father, mers of his college years either working trally without regard to municipal juris- Law Olmsted Jr. holds a unique position lating back to the McMillan Commis- Frederick Law Olmsted Sr.; his older on the grounds of the emerging Chicago dictions. During this early period, he by virtue of the length and character of sion or Commission of Fine Arts tasks; half-brother, John Charles Olmsted; and World’s Fair—for which his father was also began designing the Baltimore sub- his service and the extent of his produc- others stemmed from other associations; their partner, Charles Eliot. Each of one of the chief planners—or in Euro- division of Roland Park, an enterprise An Enduring Design tive involvement in molding Washing- and still others independently commis- these men had expanded the parameters pean travel with his father, exploring the that led to numerous related long-term ton, leaving an indelible artistic imprint sioned but always considered according of the emerging profession by their ad- design ideas expressed in major public commissions, including the Baltimore upon the federal city. A youthful ap- to the consummate aesthetic principles vocacy of skilled land-use planning, de- and private landscapes. The World’s Fair park system of stream-valley reserva- Legacy: Frederick pointee in 1901 to the Senate Park established by the McMillan Plan.1 For sign aesthetics, and principles of scenic collaborations, learning firsthand from tions and neighborhood playgrounds, Commission, the so-called McMillan much of this work, Olmsted drew little conservation and their commitment to the artists who would later become his which he worked on simultaneously Commission, he was a major contribu- salary, barely covering the firm’s over- public service. Washington colleagues, Daniel H. Burn- with the early Washington projects. Law Olmsted Jr. in the tor to this body’s creative process to in- head and contributing his services for Born on July 24, 1870, in New York, ham, Charles F. McKim, and Augustus terpret, recast, and supplement Peter the greater cause to ensure that Wash- Frederick Law Olmsted Jr., originally Saint-Gaudens, were a highlight of his Nineteenth-century Charles L’Enfant’s remarkable eigh- ington’s landscapes of monuments and christened Henry Perkins Olmsted, was professional life. As he observed in notes Washington and the Transition Nation’s Capital teenth-century conception for America’s parks were unified expressions of L’En- renamed by his father sometime around for his twenty-fifth Harvard reunion re- to the New Century capital into a visionary plan for the city’s fant’s grand concept as envisioned by the 1874 to ensure that this Olmsted name port, this was renewal and future. To ensure vibrancy McMillan Commission. America’s na- would continue to be “identified with a ‘rush job’ full of enthusiasm and intense Public design and planning projects in of the vision and artistic coherence in tional capital was to be an exemplary the firm and the profession.”3 As the sustained effort, in which I first encountered the nation’s capital have a significance of the city’s architectural reconfiguration, model of a comprehensively planned fifth and youngest Olmsted child, he the stimulus and satisfaction of working, their own. From the outset, L’Enfant’s ¶ . the long-discussed Commission of Fine city, balancing architectural grandeur was raised in a household that was also even though as an unimportant youngster, planning shaped a city intended for cere- with some of the ablest architects and other Arts became a reality in 1910 with Olm- and landscape artistry while serving the the firm’s working office.4 He grew up monial as well as practical uses, clearly artists . . . . The most exhilarating and no- sted as one of its first members. During resident and visiting public alike. surrounded by the product and pas- table thing about that experience was the cognizant of its necessary symbolic char- his eight-year tenure, with his firsthand When he began his appointment on sions of his father’s myriad intellectual prevailing spirit, among these men of great acter to represent the nation.9 By the knowledge of the McMillan Plan’s de- the McMillan Commission, Olmsted, at endeavors and design commissions, individual creative ability and diverse late nineteenth century, particularly in sign intent, he guided the implementa- age thirty, was more than twenty years which ranged across the country.5 By points of view, of self-subordinating cooper- Europe, urban progress was measured tion of its components while steadfastly younger than his colleagues.2 While the time the family moved to Brookline, ation in joint pursuit of a common aim in- by planning efforts designed to beautify, spired by enthusiasm for an artistic ideal. guarding its aesthetic principles. maintaining an extensive, multifaceted Massachusetts, in 1882, the home office to improve services for citizens, and to But the Commission of Fine Arts design and consulting practice across had expanded beyond the kitchen table During the summer following his protect municipal resources. But in lacked authority to supplement the vi- the country over his wide-ranging ca- to include an atelier of hard-working as- Harvard graduation, Olmsted worked as America’s capital, which was self-con- sion, to extend L’Enfant’s ideas into the reer, Olmsted continued to remain sociates implementing the senior Olm- a recorder for the thirty-ninth parallel scious about its role as exemplar for the active policies required to shape and deeply involved in Washington design sted’s aesthetic perspective in shaping survey, learning to read the land as his country and the world, such efforts were service the growing metropolitan city of for more than fifty years. His longevity, land and city form and learning from his older brother John had done earlier in invested with didactic implications. Be- a twentieth-century world power. To ac- his abiding interest, and his generous sense of social mission. As his biogra- 1869 and 1871. He then learned the yond mere physical alterations, plans complish this expanded role of compre- commitment to public service ensured a pher, Laura Wood Roper, noted, “In hands-on process of construction and were considered in terms of appropriate hensive urban planning and parkland ac- continuity of thoughtful oversight either Olmsted, the artistic and the social im- planting as an apprentice at Biltmore, values of a democratic society, standards quisition—without compromising the by him personally or by Olmsted Broth- pulse are equally strong and indissol- the extensive George Vanderbilt estate of art and taste, political process, and balanced grandeur and artistry of the ers’ partners to maintain, nurture, and ubly joined.”6 For the senior Olmsted, in Asheville, North Carolina, with in- economic justice, as well as social and Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. as a young McMillan vision—required the creation adapt the aesthetic vision. landscape design was not mere decora- creasing responsibilities as his father’s racial equality. man, undated photograph, c. 1900. in 1926 of the National Capital Park and tion on the land. Rather, he conceived it health failed. He was officially added to Many of these ideas were of concern Planning Commission (NCPPC). Again, Background as a comprehensive and integral art the Olmsted, Olmsted & Eliot payroll in to Frederick Law Olmsted Sr. when in Olmsted was instrumental in this form, in harmony with nature, with December 1895.8 With the sudden 1874 he began the most notable com- process and among the first appointees, At the turn of the twentieth century, parts subordinate to the whole, fulfilling death of Charles Eliot in 1897, the firm mission of his career, the design of a set- serving until 1932. Frederick Law Olmsted Jr., known as a distinct educative, civilizing purpose was reorganized as Olmsted Brothers in ting of suitable dignity and grandeur for Beyond his duties for these three “Rick” to his family and friends, was a rel- often directed toward fundamental psy- 1898 with John Charles and Rick as the United States Capitol. In addition to commissions, Olmsted sat on numerous atively untested practitioner of the still- chological needs of city dwellers. This partners. Olmsted Jr. took over the plan- considerable site challenges, it was the Washington advisory councils with sig- developing discipline of landscape archi- was the credo that Olmsted’s sons, pro- ning role for the Metropolitan Park symbolic importance of this commission, nificant responsibility to study and de- tecture and of the even newer field of tégés, and associates inherited, ex- Commission, Eliot’s innovative regional this pinnacle opportunity to educate the

38 | Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. in the Nation’s Capital 39 mong the remarkable as- velop features of the McMillan Plan. To- city planning. He brought to his chal- panded, revised, and passed on. system of parks, reservations, and park- semblage of experts who gether with his partners and associates in lenging tasks multifaceted talents, an in- Educated at both private and public ways, which conserved for public use a have guided the U.S. Com- Olmsted Brothers, he was engaged in cisive intellect, and a well-studied com- schools and at Harvard College, class of network of unique landscape types mission of Fine Arts, land- professional design projects throughout prehension of the landscape art, honed 1894, the junior Olmsted spent the sum- linked by parkways and managed cen- sAcape architect and planner Frederick the metropolitan area, many of these re- under the intense tutelage of his father, mers of his college years either working trally without regard to municipal juris- Law Olmsted Jr. holds a unique position lating back to the McMillan Commis- Frederick Law Olmsted Sr.; his older on the grounds of the emerging Chicago dictions. During this early period, he by virtue of the length and character of sion or Commission of Fine Arts tasks; half-brother, John Charles Olmsted; and World’s Fair—for which his father was also began designing the Baltimore sub- his service and the extent of his produc- others stemmed from other associations; their partner, Charles Eliot. Each of one of the chief planners—or in Euro- division of Roland Park, an enterprise An Enduring Design tive involvement in molding Washing- and still others independently commis- these men had expanded the parameters pean travel with his father, exploring the that led to numerous related long-term ton, leaving an indelible artistic imprint sioned but always considered according of the emerging profession by their ad- design ideas expressed in major public commissions, including the Baltimore upon the federal city. A youthful ap- to the consummate aesthetic principles vocacy of skilled land-use planning, de- and private landscapes. The World’s Fair park system of stream-valley reserva- Legacy: Frederick pointee in 1901 to the Senate Park established by the McMillan Plan.1 For sign aesthetics, and principles of scenic collaborations, learning firsthand from tions and neighborhood playgrounds, Commission, the so-called McMillan much of this work, Olmsted drew little conservation and their commitment to the artists who would later become his which he worked on simultaneously Commission, he was a major contribu- salary, barely covering the firm’s over- public service. Washington colleagues, Daniel H. Burn- with the early Washington projects. Law Olmsted Jr. in the tor to this body’s creative process to in- head and contributing his services for Born on July 24, 1870, in New York, ham, Charles F. McKim, and Augustus terpret, recast, and supplement Peter the greater cause to ensure that Wash- Frederick Law Olmsted Jr., originally Saint-Gaudens, were a highlight of his Nineteenth-century Charles L’Enfant’s remarkable eigh- ington’s landscapes of monuments and christened Henry Perkins Olmsted, was professional life. As he observed in notes Washington and the Transition Nation’s Capital teenth-century conception for America’s parks were unified expressions of L’En- renamed by his father sometime around for his twenty-fifth Harvard reunion re- to the New Century capital into a visionary plan for the city’s fant’s grand concept as envisioned by the 1874 to ensure that this Olmsted name port, this was renewal and future. To ensure vibrancy McMillan Commission. America’s na- would continue to be “identified with a ‘rush job’ full of enthusiasm and intense Public design and planning projects in of the vision and artistic coherence in tional capital was to be an exemplary the firm and the profession.”3 As the sustained effort, in which I first encountered the nation’s capital have a significance of the city’s architectural reconfiguration, model of a comprehensively planned fifth and youngest Olmsted child, he the stimulus and satisfaction of working, their own. From the outset, L’Enfant’s ¶ . the long-discussed Commission of Fine city, balancing architectural grandeur was raised in a household that was also even though as an unimportant youngster, planning shaped a city intended for cere- with some of the ablest architects and other Arts became a reality in 1910 with Olm- and landscape artistry while serving the the firm’s working office.4 He grew up monial as well as practical uses, clearly artists . . . . The most exhilarating and no- sted as one of its first members. During resident and visiting public alike. surrounded by the product and pas- table thing about that experience was the cognizant of its necessary symbolic char- his eight-year tenure, with his firsthand When he began his appointment on sions of his father’s myriad intellectual prevailing spirit, among these men of great acter to represent the nation.9 By the knowledge of the McMillan Plan’s de- the McMillan Commission, Olmsted, at endeavors and design commissions, individual creative ability and diverse late nineteenth century, particularly in sign intent, he guided the implementa- age thirty, was more than twenty years which ranged across the country.5 By points of view, of self-subordinating cooper- Europe, urban progress was measured tion of its components while steadfastly younger than his colleagues.2 While the time the family moved to Brookline, ation in joint pursuit of a common aim in- by planning efforts designed to beautify, spired by enthusiasm for an artistic ideal. guarding its aesthetic principles. maintaining an extensive, multifaceted Massachusetts, in 1882, the home office to improve services for citizens, and to But the Commission of Fine Arts design and consulting practice across had expanded beyond the kitchen table During the summer following his protect municipal resources. But in lacked authority to supplement the vi- the country over his wide-ranging ca- to include an atelier of hard-working as- Harvard graduation, Olmsted worked as America’s capital, which was self-con- sion, to extend L’Enfant’s ideas into the reer, Olmsted continued to remain sociates implementing the senior Olm- a recorder for the thirty-ninth parallel scious about its role as exemplar for the active policies required to shape and deeply involved in Washington design sted’s aesthetic perspective in shaping survey, learning to read the land as his country and the world, such efforts were service the growing metropolitan city of for more than fifty years. His longevity, land and city form and learning from his older brother John had done earlier in invested with didactic implications. Be- a twentieth-century world power. To ac- his abiding interest, and his generous sense of social mission. As his biogra- 1869 and 1871. He then learned the yond mere physical alterations, plans complish this expanded role of compre- commitment to public service ensured a pher, Laura Wood Roper, noted, “In hands-on process of construction and were considered in terms of appropriate hensive urban planning and parkland ac- continuity of thoughtful oversight either Olmsted, the artistic and the social im- planting as an apprentice at Biltmore, values of a democratic society, standards quisition—without compromising the by him personally or by Olmsted Broth- pulse are equally strong and indissol- the extensive George Vanderbilt estate of art and taste, political process, and balanced grandeur and artistry of the ers’ partners to maintain, nurture, and ubly joined.”6 For the senior Olmsted, in Asheville, North Carolina, with in- economic justice, as well as social and Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. as a young McMillan vision—required the creation adapt the aesthetic vision. landscape design was not mere decora- creasing responsibilities as his father’s racial equality. man, undated photograph, c. 1900. in 1926 of the National Capital Park and tion on the land. Rather, he conceived it health failed. He was officially added to Many of these ideas were of concern Planning Commission (NCPPC). Again, Background as a comprehensive and integral art the Olmsted, Olmsted & Eliot payroll in to Frederick Law Olmsted Sr. when in Olmsted was instrumental in this form, in harmony with nature, with December 1895.8 With the sudden 1874 he began the most notable com- process and among the first appointees, At the turn of the twentieth century, parts subordinate to the whole, fulfilling death of Charles Eliot in 1897, the firm mission of his career, the design of a set- serving until 1932. Frederick Law Olmsted Jr., known as a distinct educative, civilizing purpose was reorganized as Olmsted Brothers in ting of suitable dignity and grandeur for Beyond his duties for these three “Rick” to his family and friends, was a rel- often directed toward fundamental psy- 1898 with John Charles and Rick as the United States Capitol. In addition to commissions, Olmsted sat on numerous atively untested practitioner of the still- chological needs of city dwellers. This partners. Olmsted Jr. took over the plan- considerable site challenges, it was the Washington advisory councils with sig- developing discipline of landscape archi- was the credo that Olmsted’s sons, pro- ning role for the Metropolitan Park symbolic importance of this commission, nificant responsibility to study and de- tecture and of the even newer field of tégés, and associates inherited, ex- Commission, Eliot’s innovative regional this pinnacle opportunity to educate the

38 | Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. in the Nation’s Capital 39 taste of the nation that intrigued Olm- speech to the American Institute of Ar- derly reform and moral uplift, a new acquire land before ill-considered devel- sted. He recognized that this would be a chitects in 1900, Olmsted stated with in- “aesthetic language” for the nation.17 opment destroyed its advantages was a work of generations and would be cisive eloquence, “that the purpose of With the mounting dissatisfaction over recurring Olmsted mantra. among his most important contributions the Mall, was, and ought to be, to em- the capital’s appearance and the im- Evident in the greater part of the to American landscape architecture. phasize, support and extend the effect of pending centennial celebrations, Sena- McMillan Report are the substantial rec- Presaging concerns that would be the Capitol as the dominant feature of tor James McMillan, chair of the Com- ommendations to craft the parks, park- Frederick Law Olmsted Sr.’s articulated two decades later, the senior the city and the most important building mittee for the District of Columbia, ways, and reservations throughout the plan for the grounds of the Olmsted expressed his dismay about the in the whole United States.” As such, he tapped into the planning enthusiasm growing city. Charles Moore observed United States Capitol, 1874. condition of the national capital in a let- contended, the Mall should contribute that had continued after the exposition. that young Olmsted’s “shoe-prints Olmsted sought to balance ter of January 22, 1874, to his sponsor, to “the effect of grandeur, power and Through astute political maneuvering marked every hill and valley” of the formal elements appropriate Senator Justin Morrill of Vermont. Al- dignified magnificence which should abetted by powerful professional groups nearly three thousand acres already in for such a national monument though the building of Washington rep- mark the seat of government of a great such as the American Institute of Archi- federal control.20 Olmsted also explored with curvilinear paths and resented a considerable federal invest- and intensely active people.”15 To recap- tects, McMillan engineered a resolution and recommended the acquisition of the drives and artfully placed ment, it was, in his eyes, “a standing ture the greatness and unity of L’Enfant’s to appoint “experts” ostensibly engaged ninety acres of Analostan Island, the ex- plant groupings to enhance its reproach against the system of govern- plan, to provide suitable settings for to consult on improvement of Washing- tensive malodorous marshes of the Ana- surroundings. His ingenious ment.” The L’Enfant Plan had envi- future federal buildings, and to avoid ton’s park system. In fact, these experts costia River, Mount Hamilton, and land addition of a terrace for the sioned the Mall as a harmoniously or- “caprice and confusion” would require had a larger objective—to develop a for parkways and small neighborhood Aerial view of the Mall, western facade was intended dered composition, a grand axial sweep lengthy and careful study. He con- master plan to rehabilitate and adapt reservations. This ambitious list would c. 1900, looking east from the to settle this very large edifice of space lined by significant institutions cluded: L’Enfant’s design. For these tasks, give Washington an enviable system of Washington Monument to- into its sloping terrain, pro- with a defining cross-axis at the presi- Here is a plan not hastily sketched, nor by a McMillan reassembled the original varied open spaces for differing recre- ward the Capitol. In the right viding a platform from which dent’s house. Instead, a “broken, con- man of narrow views and little foresight. It Chicago colleagues, Daniel H. Burnham, ational uses designed to accommodate a foreground are the formal to view the dramatic sweep of fused and unsatisfactory” effect had is a plan with the authority of a century be- Charles McKim, and Augustus Saint- growing population. It would take gardens and greenhouses of L’Enfant’s intended Mall and been allowed to develop, with a bewil- hind it, to which we can all demand undevi- Gaudens, with Rick Olmsted serving as decades, however, to acquire park space the Department of Agricul- ating adherence in the future.16 the western vistas. dering array of buildings intruding upon the stand-in for his incapacitated father. in Washington approximating the ture, a building razed in one another. In short, he continued, He thus introduced the three tenets Thus, McMillan and his able secretary, McMillan intentions.21 1930; beyond that, in front of The capital of the Union manifests nothing that would govern his aesthetic deci- Charles Moore, set in motion that care- Achieving parkway linkages would the Smithsonian Castle, are so much as disunity. . . . What is wanting is a sions during the following decades of his ful study Olmsted Jr. had referred to in prove most challenging, as buildings the tree plantations as sug- federal bond. Had the buildings been ranged Washington work: First, thoroughly an- his AIA speech, on a scale worthy of the crowded into the intended areas, elevat- gested by Andrew Jackson about a single field of landscape. . . consistent alyze the site, its history, its features, and powerful edict long-associated with ing the cost of land takings and dimin- Downing in 1850. In the left and harmonious one with another, a much its intended uses; second, develop and Burnham, “to stir men’s blood.”18 ishing the political will necessary to ac- middle ground is the roof of more sustained and consequently more im- pressive effect would have been produced. adhere to a controlling artistic and hier- As in the planning process for the quire land. The park-side drives along the station for the Baltimore Great breadth in this field of landscape and archical plan appropriate to locale and 1893 events, Burnham set the pace with the Mall’s greensward (now known as and Ohio Railroad; roofs of largeness of scale in all its features. . . would ceeded in surrounding the Capitol with planning authority with a metropolitan need; and third, strive for stylistic con- what Olmsted called his “contagious en- Madison Drive, NW, and Jefferson the various U.S. Botanic not be felt in the least as a disadvantage.10 a gracious landscape significant for its purview was validated with the creation sistency. Olmsted’s tasks would vary thusiasm” to subordinate all to an artis- Drive, SW); the Rock Creek and Po- Garden structures can be seen Rather, with no controlling motive, artistic merit. by Congress of the National Capital greatly, from grand monument to urban tic ideal.19 The collaborations of this leg- tomac Parkway with its smaller spurs; among the trees at the foot Olmsted thought each building in the It would take twenty-five years be- Park and Planning Commission in square, from expansive greensward to endary 1901 commission reflected that the river-edge pleasure drive encircling of Capitol Hill. disorderly assemblage seemed to have fore distress at the architectural disunity 1926.14 When these three events oc- wooded dell, from small park to local spirit as it set forth its ambitious agenda “its own little domain.”11 Olmsted’s ad- of Washington’s public spaces ignited a curred, Olmsted’s son and namesake, playground, and from parkway to neigh- for Washington’s future, proposing im- vice was to put the control of all federal productive response to reconsider L’En- Frederick Law Olmsted Jr., was in the borhood street, but each component provements that would have consequent grounds and buildings under one body, fant’s design and plan for improvements vanguard of leadership. would contribute to the overall effect of national implications. Although many which would pursue a sustained plan to with the appointment of the Senate Park an American capital worthy of its her- pens were doubtless at work on the Sen- elevate the capital city to “the scale of Commission. It would take another nine The McMillan Commission itage and its international stature. ate Park Commission Report, better art.” He further suggested at this early years for the suggested advisory body of Although a plaster world of monu- known as the McMillan Report, its em- date that a committee of landscape ar- “seven well-qualified judges of the fine Rick Olmsted entered the fray over the mental facades, the classical artistry of phasis on developing Washington’s chitects, to include William Hammond arts” to become a reality in 1910 with capital’s dignity with provocative obser- the World’s Columbian Exposition of landscape opportunities to recapture the Hall and H. W. S. Cleveland, should the creation by Congress of the Com- vations that expanded upon his father’s 1893 in Chicago—better known as the intent of the monumental core and de- provide oversight over this planning.12 mission of Fine Arts and the presidential earlier commentary. By 1900, the Mall’s Chicago World’s Fair—nonetheless had velop the scenic promise of the city’s Although such ideas about governance appointment of the first commission- clutter had worsened, leaving L’Enfant’s set transformative standards for the na- outlying areas was typical of the plan- went unheeded in their day, Olmsted ers.13 Yet another sixteen years would intended grand spatial and symbolic con- tion. A cosmopolitan and harmonious ning ideals that characterized Olmsted Sr.’s endeavors over two decades suc- pass before the idea of a comprehensive ception unrecognizable. In his seminal city seemed to offer the promise of or- firm work. Likewise, the admonition to

40 | Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. in the Nation’s Capital 41 taste of the nation that intrigued Olm- speech to the American Institute of Ar- derly reform and moral uplift, a new acquire land before ill-considered devel- sted. He recognized that this would be a chitects in 1900, Olmsted stated with in- “aesthetic language” for the nation.17 opment destroyed its advantages was a work of generations and would be cisive eloquence, “that the purpose of With the mounting dissatisfaction over recurring Olmsted mantra. among his most important contributions the Mall, was, and ought to be, to em- the capital’s appearance and the im- Evident in the greater part of the to American landscape architecture. phasize, support and extend the effect of pending centennial celebrations, Sena- McMillan Report are the substantial rec- Presaging concerns that would be the Capitol as the dominant feature of tor James McMillan, chair of the Com- ommendations to craft the parks, park- Frederick Law Olmsted Sr.’s articulated two decades later, the senior the city and the most important building mittee for the District of Columbia, ways, and reservations throughout the plan for the grounds of the Olmsted expressed his dismay about the in the whole United States.” As such, he tapped into the planning enthusiasm growing city. Charles Moore observed United States Capitol, 1874. condition of the national capital in a let- contended, the Mall should contribute that had continued after the exposition. that young Olmsted’s “shoe-prints Olmsted sought to balance ter of January 22, 1874, to his sponsor, to “the effect of grandeur, power and Through astute political maneuvering marked every hill and valley” of the formal elements appropriate Senator Justin Morrill of Vermont. Al- dignified magnificence which should abetted by powerful professional groups nearly three thousand acres already in for such a national monument though the building of Washington rep- mark the seat of government of a great such as the American Institute of Archi- federal control.20 Olmsted also explored with curvilinear paths and resented a considerable federal invest- and intensely active people.”15 To recap- tects, McMillan engineered a resolution and recommended the acquisition of the drives and artfully placed ment, it was, in his eyes, “a standing ture the greatness and unity of L’Enfant’s to appoint “experts” ostensibly engaged ninety acres of Analostan Island, the ex- plant groupings to enhance its reproach against the system of govern- plan, to provide suitable settings for to consult on improvement of Washing- tensive malodorous marshes of the Ana- surroundings. His ingenious ment.” The L’Enfant Plan had envi- future federal buildings, and to avoid ton’s park system. In fact, these experts costia River, Mount Hamilton, and land addition of a terrace for the sioned the Mall as a harmoniously or- “caprice and confusion” would require had a larger objective—to develop a for parkways and small neighborhood Aerial view of the Mall, western facade was intended dered composition, a grand axial sweep lengthy and careful study. He con- master plan to rehabilitate and adapt reservations. This ambitious list would c. 1900, looking east from the to settle this very large edifice of space lined by significant institutions cluded: L’Enfant’s design. For these tasks, give Washington an enviable system of Washington Monument to- into its sloping terrain, pro- with a defining cross-axis at the presi- Here is a plan not hastily sketched, nor by a McMillan reassembled the original varied open spaces for differing recre- ward the Capitol. In the right viding a platform from which dent’s house. Instead, a “broken, con- man of narrow views and little foresight. It Chicago colleagues, Daniel H. Burnham, ational uses designed to accommodate a foreground are the formal to view the dramatic sweep of fused and unsatisfactory” effect had is a plan with the authority of a century be- Charles McKim, and Augustus Saint- growing population. It would take gardens and greenhouses of L’Enfant’s intended Mall and been allowed to develop, with a bewil- hind it, to which we can all demand undevi- Gaudens, with Rick Olmsted serving as decades, however, to acquire park space the Department of Agricul- ating adherence in the future.16 the western vistas. dering array of buildings intruding upon the stand-in for his incapacitated father. in Washington approximating the ture, a building razed in one another. In short, he continued, He thus introduced the three tenets Thus, McMillan and his able secretary, McMillan intentions.21 1930; beyond that, in front of The capital of the Union manifests nothing that would govern his aesthetic deci- Charles Moore, set in motion that care- Achieving parkway linkages would the Smithsonian Castle, are so much as disunity. . . . What is wanting is a sions during the following decades of his ful study Olmsted Jr. had referred to in prove most challenging, as buildings the tree plantations as sug- federal bond. Had the buildings been ranged Washington work: First, thoroughly an- his AIA speech, on a scale worthy of the crowded into the intended areas, elevat- gested by Andrew Jackson about a single field of landscape. . . consistent alyze the site, its history, its features, and powerful edict long-associated with ing the cost of land takings and dimin- Downing in 1850. In the left and harmonious one with another, a much its intended uses; second, develop and Burnham, “to stir men’s blood.”18 ishing the political will necessary to ac- middle ground is the roof of more sustained and consequently more im- pressive effect would have been produced. adhere to a controlling artistic and hier- As in the planning process for the quire land. The park-side drives along the station for the Baltimore Great breadth in this field of landscape and archical plan appropriate to locale and 1893 events, Burnham set the pace with the Mall’s greensward (now known as and Ohio Railroad; roofs of largeness of scale in all its features. . . would ceeded in surrounding the Capitol with planning authority with a metropolitan need; and third, strive for stylistic con- what Olmsted called his “contagious en- Madison Drive, NW, and Jefferson the various U.S. Botanic not be felt in the least as a disadvantage.10 a gracious landscape significant for its purview was validated with the creation sistency. Olmsted’s tasks would vary thusiasm” to subordinate all to an artis- Drive, SW); the Rock Creek and Po- Garden structures can be seen Rather, with no controlling motive, artistic merit. by Congress of the National Capital greatly, from grand monument to urban tic ideal.19 The collaborations of this leg- tomac Parkway with its smaller spurs; among the trees at the foot Olmsted thought each building in the It would take twenty-five years be- Park and Planning Commission in square, from expansive greensward to endary 1901 commission reflected that the river-edge pleasure drive encircling of Capitol Hill. disorderly assemblage seemed to have fore distress at the architectural disunity 1926.14 When these three events oc- wooded dell, from small park to local spirit as it set forth its ambitious agenda “its own little domain.”11 Olmsted’s ad- of Washington’s public spaces ignited a curred, Olmsted’s son and namesake, playground, and from parkway to neigh- for Washington’s future, proposing im- vice was to put the control of all federal productive response to reconsider L’En- Frederick Law Olmsted Jr., was in the borhood street, but each component provements that would have consequent grounds and buildings under one body, fant’s design and plan for improvements vanguard of leadership. would contribute to the overall effect of national implications. Although many which would pursue a sustained plan to with the appointment of the Senate Park an American capital worthy of its her- pens were doubtless at work on the Sen- elevate the capital city to “the scale of Commission. It would take another nine The McMillan Commission itage and its international stature. ate Park Commission Report, better art.” He further suggested at this early years for the suggested advisory body of Although a plaster world of monu- known as the McMillan Report, its em- date that a committee of landscape ar- “seven well-qualified judges of the fine Rick Olmsted entered the fray over the mental facades, the classical artistry of phasis on developing Washington’s chitects, to include William Hammond arts” to become a reality in 1910 with capital’s dignity with provocative obser- the World’s Columbian Exposition of landscape opportunities to recapture the Hall and H. W. S. Cleveland, should the creation by Congress of the Com- vations that expanded upon his father’s 1893 in Chicago—better known as the intent of the monumental core and de- provide oversight over this planning.12 mission of Fine Arts and the presidential earlier commentary. By 1900, the Mall’s Chicago World’s Fair—nonetheless had velop the scenic promise of the city’s Although such ideas about governance appointment of the first commission- clutter had worsened, leaving L’Enfant’s set transformative standards for the na- outlying areas was typical of the plan- went unheeded in their day, Olmsted ers.13 Yet another sixteen years would intended grand spatial and symbolic con- tion. A cosmopolitan and harmonious ning ideals that characterized Olmsted Sr.’s endeavors over two decades suc- pass before the idea of a comprehensive ception unrecognizable. In his seminal city seemed to offer the promise of or- firm work. Likewise, the admonition to

40 | Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. in the Nation’s Capital 41 Garden and its possible relocation as would be critical to maintain and im- other Washington projects, to shape a well as the landscape design for Union plement the McMillan vision for Wash- linear reflecting pool intended to be Square would continue to plague Olm- ington. By 1910, this goal was achieved lined by allées of English elms.31 Unfor- sted for the next four decades. Other im- with the creation of a permanent Com- tunately, as the United States was drawn portant decisions in process at this time mission of Fine Arts composed of into World War I, much of this area be- concerned grading of sites such as that “seven well-qualified judges of the fine came the location for “tempos,” block- for the future Lincoln Memorial. arts” to advise upon the location and like and hastily constructed federal of- Though they had some success, this character of monuments, fountains, fice buildings that would serve a board’s unofficial position was some- and buildings and their settings. For multitude of supposedly temporary pur- what anomalous, much to the irritation this new commission, the surviving poses, some of which persisted into the of Burnham. With his characteristic members of the Senate Park Commis- 1970s. pragmatism, Olmsted reassured Burn- sion—Burnham, Olmsted, and By 1920, little had been accom- ham, reminding him that, Moore—were reassembled with five plished to retrieve this seminal space Officially and legally, our position as an Ad- new appointees to fulfill its mandate of from its disunity. Still populated by visory Board is helpless and that of the pres- oversight.29 These pioneering members tempos and various athletic facilities, ident in having appointed us borders upon were tasked with both the evaluation of the central panel continued to be an ir- the ridiculous, but if practically we can suitability and merit of various projects regularly graded, weedy expanse filled bring about the results we want, as we are and the more complicated problem of with remnants of bygone designs. Par- now in a good way to do, I, for one, am will- developing standards and setting pa- simonious appropriations and haphaz- ing to be laughed at all day long.25 rameters for the Commission of Fine ard federal-local direction hindered ef- During this period, Olmsted was Art’s purview. During his eight-year fective planning, let alone any also engaged in design and initial con- tenure from 1910 to 1918 on the com- implementation, eroding the McMil- struction for other Washington park mission, Olmsted was its hardworking lan-L’Enfant vision before its City projects.26 He consulted with the Army landscape expert; he also served for six Beautiful goals had been achieved. Office of Buildings and Grounds on im- of those years as vice chairman. He dili- However, Olmsted’s “landscape empha- provements for East Potomac Park, a gently reviewed sites throughout the sis” for the McMillan Plan, the “basic Preliminary Plan for Public East Potomac Park; and other broad and ferred acquisition efforts and funding to Corps of Engineers, to refine plans to large area of reclaimed land without District and beyond, conferred on cloth into which the public buildings Recreation Grounds, East verdant routes were achieved, many the creation of high-speed beltway loops ensure that structures and landscapes of “striking natural features:” Olmsted street plantings, sketched alternative [of the monumental core] were wo- Potomac Park, prepared for with the Olmsted firm’s advice. Unfortu- at the suburban edge of the city.22 appropriate character were located ac- worked with his associate James Lang- layouts for monuments, and wrote de- ven,” continued to generate support. the Division of Public Build- nately, the innovative Fort Drive, a sce- cording to the plan’s intentions.23 don to shape this space into a central finitive reports on varied projects, al- Olmsted, as a member of the Commit- ings and Grounds of the U.S. nic circuit roadway that Olmsted pro- The Washington Consultative One such example involved place- meadow interspersed with recreational ways maintaining his comprehensive tee of 100, an arm of the American Army Corps of Engineers, by posed to link the then outlying Civil Board ment of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial facilities and bounded by a tree-lined perspective as to the appropriateness of Planning and Civic Association, James G. Langdon, consulting War forts and thus make their breezy at the eastern end of the U.S. Botanic circuit drive along the water to serve as a style, scale, and the setting of the proj- worked with other nationwide propo- landscape architect, March hilltops publicly accessible and con- In the transitional years between the Garden, in the area intended by the “place of contrast to city conditions.”27 ect to its intended use—all considered nents to legitimize the planning 1916. The plan transformed nected to established parks, was never submission of the Senate Park Commis- McMillan Plan to become Union In 1906, work commenced to commem- within the overarching design process for Washington to keep alive this wedge-shaped area of completed, despite several valiant at- sion Report and the establishment of the Square. The monument was originally orate Senator McMillan by creating a scheme.30 the verdant and comprehensive vision. land, created from dredged tempts to do so during the 1920s and Commission of Fine Arts, the former designed by architect Edward Casey and “beautiful, dignified and enjoyable” Many of the important projects be- By 1926, these efforts coalesced into material from the river, into a 1930s. While the Capper-Cramton Act commissioners and their proponents sculptor Henry Shrady for a location on neighborhood park located around a fore the commission in this early decade the National Capital Park and Planning park with various recreational of 1930 gave a boost to major parkway campaigned vigorously to protect the the Ellipse, where its orientation was to sand filtration reservoir at North Capitol concerned the development of the mon- Commission (NCPPC) with vested facilities, surrounded by a development by providing land acquisi- design ideals and generate support for be one-sided. It took considerable Street in Northwest Washington that he umental core and its periphery. Of par- powers to prepare, develop, and main- circuit drive. tion funding for the George Washington execution of the plan. The so-called courtly diplomacy in 1907 by McKim had sponsored.28 ticular importance were the decisions tain “a comprehensive, consistent and Memorial Parkway as well as for exten- Washington Consultative Board— and Olmsted to convince Casey to re- made to complete the plans for the coordinated plan for the National Cap- sions for Rock Creek and Anacostia Burnham, Olmsted, McKim (until his design the base for four-sided access. The Establishment of the structure and setting of the Lincoln Me- ital and its environs,” involving both Parks, the Fort Drive proposal “never 1909 death), and Bernard Green, the Additionally, careful negotiations and U.S. Commission of Fine Arts morial, which finalized commitment to federal and District agencies. As an captured the imagination of Congress.” congressional librarian—served as unof- Olmsted’s horticultural skill were re- and the National Capital the Mall’s westward extent. To relate the original appointee to the NCPPC and a The complexity of land acquisition in ficial guardians of the McMillan vision. quired to quiet the ensuing hubbub over Park and Planning Commission memorial’s landscape to its eastern member until 1932, Rick Olmsted was inner-city neighborhoods could not Working without pay, they monitored the necessary removal or relocation of neighbor, the Washington Monument, able to continue the judicious oversight compete with the appeal of “grand ap- ongoing projects around the monumen- existing Botanic Garden commemora- Various attempts to intrude upon the Olmsted worked with James Langdon and fostering of McMillan Plan imple- proaches.” In the post–World War II tal core, negotiating with the various tive trees in order to accommodate the Mall made it clear that an established and Clarence Howard, a young architect mentation that he had begun under the era, a new generation of planners trans- agencies involved, such as the Army monument.24 The future of the Botanic commission with artistic oversight who would assist Olmsted on several Commission of Fine Arts.32

42 | Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. in the Nation’s Capital 43 Garden and its possible relocation as would be critical to maintain and im- other Washington projects, to shape a well as the landscape design for Union plement the McMillan vision for Wash- linear reflecting pool intended to be Square would continue to plague Olm- ington. By 1910, this goal was achieved lined by allées of English elms.31 Unfor- sted for the next four decades. Other im- with the creation of a permanent Com- tunately, as the United States was drawn portant decisions in process at this time mission of Fine Arts composed of into World War I, much of this area be- concerned grading of sites such as that “seven well-qualified judges of the fine came the location for “tempos,” block- for the future Lincoln Memorial. arts” to advise upon the location and like and hastily constructed federal of- Though they had some success, this character of monuments, fountains, fice buildings that would serve a board’s unofficial position was some- and buildings and their settings. For multitude of supposedly temporary pur- what anomalous, much to the irritation this new commission, the surviving poses, some of which persisted into the of Burnham. With his characteristic members of the Senate Park Commis- 1970s. pragmatism, Olmsted reassured Burn- sion—Burnham, Olmsted, and By 1920, little had been accom- ham, reminding him that, Moore—were reassembled with five plished to retrieve this seminal space Officially and legally, our position as an Ad- new appointees to fulfill its mandate of from its disunity. Still populated by visory Board is helpless and that of the pres- oversight.29 These pioneering members tempos and various athletic facilities, ident in having appointed us borders upon were tasked with both the evaluation of the central panel continued to be an ir- the ridiculous, but if practically we can suitability and merit of various projects regularly graded, weedy expanse filled bring about the results we want, as we are and the more complicated problem of with remnants of bygone designs. Par- now in a good way to do, I, for one, am will- developing standards and setting pa- simonious appropriations and haphaz- ing to be laughed at all day long.25 rameters for the Commission of Fine ard federal-local direction hindered ef- During this period, Olmsted was Art’s purview. During his eight-year fective planning, let alone any also engaged in design and initial con- tenure from 1910 to 1918 on the com- implementation, eroding the McMil- struction for other Washington park mission, Olmsted was its hardworking lan-L’Enfant vision before its City projects.26 He consulted with the Army landscape expert; he also served for six Beautiful goals had been achieved. Office of Buildings and Grounds on im- of those years as vice chairman. He dili- However, Olmsted’s “landscape empha- provements for East Potomac Park, a gently reviewed sites throughout the sis” for the McMillan Plan, the “basic Preliminary Plan for Public East Potomac Park; and other broad and ferred acquisition efforts and funding to Corps of Engineers, to refine plans to large area of reclaimed land without District and beyond, conferred on cloth into which the public buildings Recreation Grounds, East verdant routes were achieved, many the creation of high-speed beltway loops ensure that structures and landscapes of “striking natural features:” Olmsted street plantings, sketched alternative [of the monumental core] were wo- Potomac Park, prepared for with the Olmsted firm’s advice. Unfortu- at the suburban edge of the city.22 appropriate character were located ac- worked with his associate James Lang- layouts for monuments, and wrote de- ven,” continued to generate support. the Division of Public Build- nately, the innovative Fort Drive, a sce- cording to the plan’s intentions.23 don to shape this space into a central finitive reports on varied projects, al- Olmsted, as a member of the Commit- ings and Grounds of the U.S. nic circuit roadway that Olmsted pro- The Washington Consultative One such example involved place- meadow interspersed with recreational ways maintaining his comprehensive tee of 100, an arm of the American Army Corps of Engineers, by posed to link the then outlying Civil Board ment of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial facilities and bounded by a tree-lined perspective as to the appropriateness of Planning and Civic Association, James G. Langdon, consulting War forts and thus make their breezy at the eastern end of the U.S. Botanic circuit drive along the water to serve as a style, scale, and the setting of the proj- worked with other nationwide propo- landscape architect, March hilltops publicly accessible and con- In the transitional years between the Garden, in the area intended by the “place of contrast to city conditions.”27 ect to its intended use—all considered nents to legitimize the planning 1916. The plan transformed nected to established parks, was never submission of the Senate Park Commis- McMillan Plan to become Union In 1906, work commenced to commem- within the overarching design process for Washington to keep alive this wedge-shaped area of completed, despite several valiant at- sion Report and the establishment of the Square. The monument was originally orate Senator McMillan by creating a scheme.30 the verdant and comprehensive vision. land, created from dredged tempts to do so during the 1920s and Commission of Fine Arts, the former designed by architect Edward Casey and “beautiful, dignified and enjoyable” Many of the important projects be- By 1926, these efforts coalesced into material from the river, into a 1930s. While the Capper-Cramton Act commissioners and their proponents sculptor Henry Shrady for a location on neighborhood park located around a fore the commission in this early decade the National Capital Park and Planning park with various recreational of 1930 gave a boost to major parkway campaigned vigorously to protect the the Ellipse, where its orientation was to sand filtration reservoir at North Capitol concerned the development of the mon- Commission (NCPPC) with vested facilities, surrounded by a development by providing land acquisi- design ideals and generate support for be one-sided. It took considerable Street in Northwest Washington that he umental core and its periphery. Of par- powers to prepare, develop, and main- circuit drive. tion funding for the George Washington execution of the plan. The so-called courtly diplomacy in 1907 by McKim had sponsored.28 ticular importance were the decisions tain “a comprehensive, consistent and Memorial Parkway as well as for exten- Washington Consultative Board— and Olmsted to convince Casey to re- made to complete the plans for the coordinated plan for the National Cap- sions for Rock Creek and Anacostia Burnham, Olmsted, McKim (until his design the base for four-sided access. The Establishment of the structure and setting of the Lincoln Me- ital and its environs,” involving both Parks, the Fort Drive proposal “never 1909 death), and Bernard Green, the Additionally, careful negotiations and U.S. Commission of Fine Arts morial, which finalized commitment to federal and District agencies. As an captured the imagination of Congress.” congressional librarian—served as unof- Olmsted’s horticultural skill were re- and the National Capital the Mall’s westward extent. To relate the original appointee to the NCPPC and a The complexity of land acquisition in ficial guardians of the McMillan vision. quired to quiet the ensuing hubbub over Park and Planning Commission memorial’s landscape to its eastern member until 1932, Rick Olmsted was inner-city neighborhoods could not Working without pay, they monitored the necessary removal or relocation of neighbor, the Washington Monument, able to continue the judicious oversight compete with the appeal of “grand ap- ongoing projects around the monumen- existing Botanic Garden commemora- Various attempts to intrude upon the Olmsted worked with James Langdon and fostering of McMillan Plan imple- proaches.” In the post–World War II tal core, negotiating with the various tive trees in order to accommodate the Mall made it clear that an established and Clarence Howard, a young architect mentation that he had begun under the era, a new generation of planners trans- agencies involved, such as the Army monument.24 The future of the Botanic commission with artistic oversight who would assist Olmsted on several Commission of Fine Arts.32

42 | Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. in the Nation’s Capital 43 Rock Creek Park and the ation.35 In the 1901 report, the junior botanic garden and their proper relation mendations, enhanced by plans, tion to park staff knowledgeable about National Arboretum Debate Olmsted had recognized that this pic- to the District’s park system. In late sketches, and photographs.38 the essential qualities desired. Whiting turesque valley, a linchpin in the park 1916, when asked for advice to forestall The Olmsted tenet was that the jus- concluded his report with a plea for ap- Beginning in 1912, the problem of the system planning, was in need of careful yet another congressional plan for a tification for any large park was the propriations to meet the increasing Anacostia mudflats came before the study to protect its intrinsic landscape botanic garden, Olmsted submitted a preservation of its unique qualities, in needs of the patrons while insuring pro- Commission of Fine Arts. Olmsted, ap- values while permitting public use. At proposal for his firm to prepare a general this case the “very, very precious” char- tection of park values, but he counseled pointed as a committee of one with this time, the lower valley from the report for the improvement of Rock acter and restfulness of the Rock Creek “the guiding policy should be distinctly power to resolve design issues, reviewed mouth of Rock Creek at the Potomac, Creek Park.37 valley with its tributaries, its forested one of restraint.”39 the reclamation proposals from the almost as far as the zoo, was environ- Olmsted and Edward Clark Whiting slopes and ravines, its rolling hills, and While this report offered some pro- army engineers. His plan to shape a mentally degraded, surrounded by in- (who was soon to become a firm part- its occasional meadows. But these ideas tection for Rock Creek Park against fu- large lake for recreation involved treat- dustry and tenements. The George- ner) explored the park landscape in de- were also pragmatic, that no matter how ture inappropriate incursions, the fate of ing the verges of filled land as naturally town Citizens Association sought a tail in 1917, mapping topographic, vege- valuable this scenery might be, its true a national arboretum was still unre- as possible, reflective of healthy tidal “closed valley” solution, putting the tative, historic, and other features. They value remained in its enjoyment by large solved. In 1901, Olmsted had consid- marshes rather than the straight stiff sea creek in a culvert and filling the valley assessed the impact of varying uses, eval- numbers of people, “poor and rich ered East Potomac Park as a possible ar- walls preferred by the army engineers.33 to create more surface land for a park- uated needs for present and future acces- alike,” who were, after all, the park’s boretum location, but he later decided This issue of artistry, of appearing way to link the monumental core to ar- sibility, recommended land acquisitions, owners. What the Olmsted assessment this was too small and poorly adapted natural while hiding the necessary engi- eas to the north. Alternatively, the and considered methods to maintain the provided was an analysis of various for either arboreal or botanical collec- neered constructions, would be a con- Washington Board of Trade proposed park. The vast acreage was divided into landscape types that could be made ac- tions.40 From 1918 forward, the Com- tinual debate along most of Washing- an “open valley” solution whereby the four major units, some with subtypes, cessible, by what means, and for what mission of Fine Arts championed the ton’s central public waterfront, one in valley would be rehabilitated to enable scattered throughout the park. These type of use. It also identified areas of Mount Hamilton site, located northeast which the Army Corps usually tri- construction of a scenic parkway along were based upon the existing growth wildness to be protected at all costs by of Union Station, for an arboretum umphed. Like other projects reviewed the creek amid seemingly natural con- patterns: natural forest, open woodlands, limiting user amenities. Enabling public that would fulfill a component of the by Olmsted during his tenure on the ditions. Basing their decision on “econ- wooded slopes, and open grassland, with enjoyment of those characteristic pic- McMillan Plan’s park mission. But Con- Commission of Fine Arts, the Anacostia omy, convenience and beauty,” the management recommendations estab- turesque passages of scenery, represen- gress had to be motivated to purchase issue would resurface under many guises McMillan Commission put its support lished for each. They looked at the differ- tative of the genius loci of an individual the necessary lands and provide for “the for Olmsted’s consideration over the behind the open valley treatment rather ing locations of these units and their po- landscape unit, was an intended goal. proper administrative organization of following decades. The aspirations sug- than the dubious alternative of filling tential uses from the perspective of the But preservation of the overall unity and the national botanic garden.” gested by him in appendix E of the the valley. But Olmsted remained con- park as a whole and against the city con- harmony that nature had provided in In support of this quest, Olmsted and Sketches of an area in the Rock McMillan Report for “a national botani- cerned over the challenges of accom- text, considering thoroughfare crossings the valley was foremost. Regulation and colleagues from the American Society of Creek woods, before pruning cal collection,” possibly even an arbore- modating a parkway, park use, and and park roads. Their comprehensive re- policing procedures were critical to Landscape Architects (ASLA) actively (left), and the same area after tum, combined with the unresolved sta- cross-valley access without harming the port, a collaborative effort actually writ- maintain the balance of landscape pro- campaigned throughout the 1920s to ac- selective pruning to open up a tus of the existing Botanic Garden landscape’s unique character.36 ten by Whiting, recorded their recom- tection and appropriate access, in addi- quire this wooded and hilly site with its vista into a meadow. located in what was to become Union As a member of the newly created Square, provided continuing challenges Commission of Fine Arts, Olmsted was for the Olmsted firm well into the 1950s. asked to consider several legislative at- The arboretum idea spawned park tempts to relocate the Botanic Garden planning controversies well beyond into Rock Creek Park, responding first Anacostia, involving both East Po- in 1911 to Senator Wetmore that it was tomac and Rock Creek Parks.34 The “bad principle to acquire land nominally Olmsted firm’s involvement in Rock as part of a park project and subse- Creek Park began in 1890 when the quently divert it to other uses.” How- senior Olmsted and John Charles be- ever, the valley slopes were not favorable gan planning for a National Zoological for greenhouses and other appurte- Park to occupy a section of the valley; nances required by a botanic garden. He however, their work left unresolved maintained that a study was needed to whether the zoo was to be a place for consider a scientifically planned, well- scientific investigation or public recre- managed national arboretum and

left: Rock Creek Park, Diagrammatic Plan for Landscape Units, showing proposed traﬃc thoroughfares across the park and a system of park drives, December 1918.

44 | Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. in the Nation’s Capital 45 Rock Creek Park and the ation.35 In the 1901 report, the junior botanic garden and their proper relation mendations, enhanced by plans, tion to park staff knowledgeable about National Arboretum Debate Olmsted had recognized that this pic- to the District’s park system. In late sketches, and photographs.38 the essential qualities desired. Whiting turesque valley, a linchpin in the park 1916, when asked for advice to forestall The Olmsted tenet was that the jus- concluded his report with a plea for ap- Beginning in 1912, the problem of the system planning, was in need of careful yet another congressional plan for a tification for any large park was the propriations to meet the increasing Anacostia mudflats came before the study to protect its intrinsic landscape botanic garden, Olmsted submitted a preservation of its unique qualities, in needs of the patrons while insuring pro- Commission of Fine Arts. Olmsted, ap- values while permitting public use. At proposal for his firm to prepare a general this case the “very, very precious” char- tection of park values, but he counseled pointed as a committee of one with this time, the lower valley from the report for the improvement of Rock acter and restfulness of the Rock Creek “the guiding policy should be distinctly power to resolve design issues, reviewed mouth of Rock Creek at the Potomac, Creek Park.37 valley with its tributaries, its forested one of restraint.”39 the reclamation proposals from the almost as far as the zoo, was environ- Olmsted and Edward Clark Whiting slopes and ravines, its rolling hills, and While this report offered some pro- army engineers. His plan to shape a mentally degraded, surrounded by in- (who was soon to become a firm part- its occasional meadows. But these ideas tection for Rock Creek Park against fu- large lake for recreation involved treat- dustry and tenements. The George- ner) explored the park landscape in de- were also pragmatic, that no matter how ture inappropriate incursions, the fate of ing the verges of filled land as naturally town Citizens Association sought a tail in 1917, mapping topographic, vege- valuable this scenery might be, its true a national arboretum was still unre- as possible, reflective of healthy tidal “closed valley” solution, putting the tative, historic, and other features. They value remained in its enjoyment by large solved. In 1901, Olmsted had consid- marshes rather than the straight stiff sea creek in a culvert and filling the valley assessed the impact of varying uses, eval- numbers of people, “poor and rich ered East Potomac Park as a possible ar- walls preferred by the army engineers.33 to create more surface land for a park- uated needs for present and future acces- alike,” who were, after all, the park’s boretum location, but he later decided This issue of artistry, of appearing way to link the monumental core to ar- sibility, recommended land acquisitions, owners. What the Olmsted assessment this was too small and poorly adapted natural while hiding the necessary engi- eas to the north. Alternatively, the and considered methods to maintain the provided was an analysis of various for either arboreal or botanical collec- neered constructions, would be a con- Washington Board of Trade proposed park. The vast acreage was divided into landscape types that could be made ac- tions.40 From 1918 forward, the Com- tinual debate along most of Washing- an “open valley” solution whereby the four major units, some with subtypes, cessible, by what means, and for what mission of Fine Arts championed the ton’s central public waterfront, one in valley would be rehabilitated to enable scattered throughout the park. These type of use. It also identified areas of Mount Hamilton site, located northeast which the Army Corps usually tri- construction of a scenic parkway along were based upon the existing growth wildness to be protected at all costs by of Union Station, for an arboretum umphed. Like other projects reviewed the creek amid seemingly natural con- patterns: natural forest, open woodlands, limiting user amenities. Enabling public that would fulfill a component of the by Olmsted during his tenure on the ditions. Basing their decision on “econ- wooded slopes, and open grassland, with enjoyment of those characteristic pic- McMillan Plan’s park mission. But Con- Commission of Fine Arts, the Anacostia omy, convenience and beauty,” the management recommendations estab- turesque passages of scenery, represen- gress had to be motivated to purchase issue would resurface under many guises McMillan Commission put its support lished for each. They looked at the differ- tative of the genius loci of an individual the necessary lands and provide for “the for Olmsted’s consideration over the behind the open valley treatment rather ing locations of these units and their po- landscape unit, was an intended goal. proper administrative organization of following decades. The aspirations sug- than the dubious alternative of filling tential uses from the perspective of the But preservation of the overall unity and the national botanic garden.” gested by him in appendix E of the the valley. But Olmsted remained con- park as a whole and against the city con- harmony that nature had provided in In support of this quest, Olmsted and Sketches of an area in the Rock McMillan Report for “a national botani- cerned over the challenges of accom- text, considering thoroughfare crossings the valley was foremost. Regulation and colleagues from the American Society of Creek woods, before pruning cal collection,” possibly even an arbore- modating a parkway, park use, and and park roads. Their comprehensive re- policing procedures were critical to Landscape Architects (ASLA) actively (left), and the same area after tum, combined with the unresolved sta- cross-valley access without harming the port, a collaborative effort actually writ- maintain the balance of landscape pro- campaigned throughout the 1920s to ac- selective pruning to open up a tus of the existing Botanic Garden landscape’s unique character.36 ten by Whiting, recorded their recom- tection and appropriate access, in addi- quire this wooded and hilly site with its vista into a meadow. located in what was to become Union As a member of the newly created Square, provided continuing challenges Commission of Fine Arts, Olmsted was for the Olmsted firm well into the 1950s. asked to consider several legislative at- The arboretum idea spawned park tempts to relocate the Botanic Garden planning controversies well beyond into Rock Creek Park, responding first Anacostia, involving both East Po- in 1911 to Senator Wetmore that it was tomac and Rock Creek Parks.34 The “bad principle to acquire land nominally Olmsted firm’s involvement in Rock as part of a park project and subse- Creek Park began in 1890 when the quently divert it to other uses.” How- senior Olmsted and John Charles be- ever, the valley slopes were not favorable gan planning for a National Zoological for greenhouses and other appurte- Park to occupy a section of the valley; nances required by a botanic garden. He however, their work left unresolved maintained that a study was needed to whether the zoo was to be a place for consider a scientifically planned, well- scientific investigation or public recre- managed national arboretum and left: Rock Creek Park, Diagrammatic Plan for Landscape Units, showing proposed traffic thoroughfares across the park and a system of park drives, December 1918.

44 | Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. in the Nation’s Capital 45 potential connection to the Anacostia shore for aquatic collections. They finally achieved success by 1930 when funds were appropriated for the land acquisition under the Department of Agri- culture.41 More than purely a place to maintain a great collection of living plants, Olmsted stressed that the arboretum should aﬀord recreation and the enjoyment of landscape beauty. Not to compete with the scientific objective, such beauty was as a constant guide . . . the peculiar beauty of certain ecological groupings of plants aris- ing, in the absence of human interference, from the orderly operation of biological forces interacting with conditions of the environment.

As in the Rock Creek Park study, the arboretum should be planned in ad- vance as landscape units, each distinctive for its artistic character as much as Model and plan of suggested for its horticultural interest. Echoing his treatment for the grounds of father’s words of a half-century earlier the Washington Monument on the need for a controlling motive designed by Frederick Law in the capital’s landscape, the junior Olmsted Jr. and his business Olmsted noted, “The only safety lies partner Henry V. Hubbard, in a most painstaking adherence to the c. 1932. The proposal used principle of a definite and enduring The process began with an engi- grandeur, and beauty of Washington’s Aerial view of the monumen- the Lincoln Memorial. Some tree groupings to enhance vis- dominance of a single purpose . . . all neering study for the Washington intended artistry. tal core looking west, showing of the earlier tree plantings tas of the monument while other purposes being there subordi- Monument’s base. To implement In conjunction with his partner, the cluttered conditions prior are visible in front of the keeping traﬃc at a distance nated.”42 McKim’s elaborate garden scheme Henry Hubbard, Olmsted developed a to 1932. In the foreground are Smithsonian Castle. The new from the monument base. would require extensive regrading, simple design based on several aesthetic the various structures and Department of Agriculture Parking areas were proposed which the engineers concluded would principles. Instead of its existing in- irregular paths of the Botanic building is set further back, to the north and south, keep- The Washington Monument be most precarious since the monu- significant “fringe” of trees, the monu- Garden, with the Grant Me- respecting the lines of the ing the main east-west axis Grounds ment did not rest on bedrock.44 Olm- ment should be flanked by masses of fo- morial statue at its eastern Mall, but elements of the for- clear. Lobbying eﬀorts for the George Wash- sted and architect William A. Delano liage out of which it should rise as the edge. In the middle ground mer gardens remain in front. ington bicentennial celebration to be were commissioned to develop con- dominant feature at the end of the for- are “tempos” still in evidence held in 1932 succeeded in obtaining leg- trasting schemes, informal and formal mal allée looking west and at the end of in this view and on the north islative authorization to realize some of respectively, for the monument’s sur- the reflecting pools looking east. Cars side of the Reflecting Pool by the Mall plans. But without substantial roundings, both of which were to in- should be kept distant from the monu- funding, this again would be a piecemeal volve only minimal surface remodeling. ment, with circuit roads and paths de- operation. Anticipating an influx of visi- Included in this challenge was the es- signed and planted to enframe various tors, members of the Commission of tablishment of Mall traffic routes, the vistas. Reluctant to choose such a radi- Fine Arts petitioned the congressional handling of the crossing streets, and the cal revision of the original Monument Bicentennial Committee for considera- provision of parking areas. In the view Garden plan, the commission tabled tion of several items to ensure that the of the Commission of Fine Arts and this decision, ostensibly until the Mall artistic intent of the founders was others, automobile traffic was usurping roads were completed and the matter achieved.43 the streets and despoiling the dignity, could be restudied.45

46 | Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. in the Nation’s Capital 47 potential connection to the Anacostia shore for aquatic collections. They finally achieved success by 1930 when funds were appropriated for the land acquisition under the Department of Agri- culture.41 More than purely a place to maintain a great collection of living plants, Olmsted stressed that the arboretum should aﬀord recreation and the enjoyment of landscape beauty. Not to compete with the scientific objective, such beauty was as a constant guide . . . the peculiar beauty of certain ecological groupings of plants aris- ing, in the absence of human interference, from the orderly operation of biological forces interacting with conditions of the environment.

As in the Rock Creek Park study, the arboretum should be planned in ad- vance as landscape units, each distinctive for its artistic character as much as Model and plan of suggested for its horticultural interest. Echoing his treatment for the grounds of father’s words of a half-century earlier the Washington Monument on the need for a controlling motive designed by Frederick Law in the capital’s landscape, the junior Olmsted Jr. and his business Olmsted noted, “The only safety lies partner Henry V. Hubbard, in a most painstaking adherence to the c. 1932. The proposal used principle of a definite and enduring The process began with an engi- grandeur, and beauty of Washington’s Aerial view of the monumen- the Lincoln Memorial. Some tree groupings to enhance vis- dominance of a single purpose . . . all neering study for the Washington intended artistry. tal core looking west, showing of the earlier tree plantings tas of the monument while other purposes being there subordi- Monument’s base. To implement In conjunction with his partner, the cluttered conditions prior are visible in front of the keeping traﬃc at a distance nated.”42 McKim’s elaborate garden scheme Henry Hubbard, Olmsted developed a to 1932. In the foreground are Smithsonian Castle. The new from the monument base. would require extensive regrading, simple design based on several aesthetic the various structures and Department of Agriculture Parking areas were proposed which the engineers concluded would principles. Instead of its existing in- irregular paths of the Botanic building is set further back, to the north and south, keep- The Washington Monument be most precarious since the monu- significant “fringe” of trees, the monu- Garden, with the Grant Me- respecting the lines of the ing the main east-west axis Grounds ment did not rest on bedrock.44 Olm- ment should be flanked by masses of fo- morial statue at its eastern Mall, but elements of the for- clear. Lobbying eﬀorts for the George Wash- sted and architect William A. Delano liage out of which it should rise as the edge. In the middle ground mer gardens remain in front. ington bicentennial celebration to be were commissioned to develop con- dominant feature at the end of the for- are “tempos” still in evidence held in 1932 succeeded in obtaining leg- trasting schemes, informal and formal mal allée looking west and at the end of in this view and on the north islative authorization to realize some of respectively, for the monument’s sur- the reflecting pools looking east. Cars side of the Reflecting Pool by the Mall plans. But without substantial roundings, both of which were to in- should be kept distant from the monu- funding, this again would be a piecemeal volve only minimal surface remodeling. ment, with circuit roads and paths de- operation. Anticipating an influx of visi- Included in this challenge was the es- signed and planted to enframe various tors, members of the Commission of tablishment of Mall traffic routes, the vistas. Reluctant to choose such a radi- Fine Arts petitioned the congressional handling of the crossing streets, and the cal revision of the original Monument Bicentennial Committee for considera- provision of parking areas. In the view Garden plan, the commission tabled tion of several items to ensure that the of the Commission of Fine Arts and this decision, ostensibly until the Mall artistic intent of the founders was others, automobile traffic was usurping roads were completed and the matter achieved.43 the streets and despoiling the dignity, could be restudied.45

46 | Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. in the Nation’s Capital 47 There was still debate in late 1932 as By 1933, instead of this formal plan, that the plan’s illustrations were never to the number of roads that should line Union Square existed as a rather dys- intended to be definitive in terms of the Mall and how to plant them so as to functional trapezoidal space. The Grant their details. Reinforcing his argument frame the central greensward. Some Memorial, which had been located along that precedent did not support truncat- voices from various Washington plan- the eastern end by McKim and Olmsted ing the Capitol Grounds by a straight ning agencies continued to call for a in 1907, reigned over a space now con- line, he provided seven historical plans, mixed planting to include tulip trees and taining the Meade Memorial and an ec- beginning with that of L’Enfant, illustrat- red oaks. Olmsted labeled this idea of a centric collection of noble trees and ing that throughout all the architectural varied tree palette “unfortunate” and fountains along meandering paths.48 renovations of the Capitol, the western emphasized that the distinctive essence Along the southern edge, greenhouses— boundary had continuously been re- of the 1901 scheme was the formality of remnants of the Botanic Garden—still tained as a curved line.50 its elm colonnade, with its high canopy dominated. The Garfield and Peace In Olmsted’s view, recognizing the and Gothic arch eﬀect providing diago- Monuments terminated the Maryland integrity of Union Square as a whole nal and transverse glimpses within and and Pennsylvania Avenue diagonals re- space, defined by strong diagonal av- along the Mall.46 spectively. enues and related to the vista beyond, Working with his associate Clarence was critical. The square’s function, he Union Square Howard, Olmsted saw his prime task as said, should be to “prepare the eye for bringing this space into proper relation- the transition from the uniform width of In 1933, an infusion of money from the ship with the Capitol’s west terrace and the vista on the Mall to the treatment Public Works Administration to con- the broad reach of the Mall while recon- on the Capitol Grounds,” where the tinue Mall construction involved Olm- ciling serious design inconsistencies. In converging lines continued as spatial sted in the design for Union Square, be- his April 1934 report to the commission, definers. Alignments were complicated neath the Capitol’s walls at the eastern he noted Union Square’s importance due to deviations from true axial projec- terminus of the Mall. As in the Monu- was as one unit “of a much larger whole, tions. In 1901 adjustments had been ment Grounds project, he tangled with extending from the Capitol to the Wash- made to align the Mall’s axis from the some Commission of Fine Arts mem- ington Monument and on to the Lincoln Capitol to the off-center Washington bers committed to strict adherence to Memorial.” The northern and southern Monument. The Olmsted team noted the McMillan Plan images rather than boundaries of the square, as defined by that the Grant Monument had been above: Handwritten notations on a to its intent. As conceived by the L’Enfant’s strong diagonal avenues, had placed on a line drawn from the center photograph of the Senate Park Commis- McMillan Commission’s watercolor il- been extended into the Capitol land- of the Capitol’s west facade rather than sion rendering for Union Square indicate lustration, this area was to consist of an scape by the senior Olmsted’s tree-em- from the dome, an off-center divergence the strong diagonal lines to be retained open rectangular plaza spatially articu- bowered diagonal paths terminating at of an additional four feet. These dis- and the various sculptural elements to be lated by formal beds of lawn punctuated the western terrace.49 crepancies had to be subtly adjusted integrated. by fountains, pools, or statuary, which Olmsted’s first step was to convince within the Union Square design, using axially terminated the panels of the the Commission of Fine Arts that the many of the relocated mature Botanic left: General Plan for Union Square, Mall. To create this space, the curving 1901 plan, which radically shortened the Garden trees as screening.51 October 1935. west wall of the Capitol Grounds would Capitol’s western lawn by one hundred Again, Olmsted’s tampering with the have to be straightened. The decreased feet in order to insert the cascade and sacred lines of the 1901 plan unleashed a area of the Capitol’s western lawn was pool, was a profound mistake. Earlier, flurry of indignation from commission to be decorated with a central cascading his father had rejected Senator Morrill’s members, particularly from architect water feature that terminated in a grand desire for such a cascade, noting the im- Egerton Swartwout. He insisted on the oval pool, with all of this supported by a portance of the simple turf panel as fore- original McMillan Plan treatment of the series of retaining walls. All that re- ground to the Capitol’s grand architec- Capitol Grounds and the intended plaza, mained of the senior Olmsted’s plan ture. Observing that this area of the 1901 vociferously objecting to Olmsted’s in- were tree-lined diagonal paths that he plan had been less studied by the com- formal planting scheme and to the gen- intended to lead to the diagonals of mission “and was embodied in the re- eral lack of monumentality and architec- Maryland and Pennsylvania Avenues. In port under pressure of time as a tentative tural perspective. Olmsted, in turn, the McMillan scheme, these strong di- solution in spite of expressed doubts . . . reiterated that the 1901 plan never con- agonal lines would be interrupted by the as to some of its features,” Olmsted re- tended with the continuity of the Mall, plaza.47 minded the Commission of Fine Arts nor with the successful termination of

48 | Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. in the Nation’s Capital 49 There was still debate in late 1932 as By 1933, instead of this formal plan, that the plan’s illustrations were never to the number of roads that should line Union Square existed as a rather dys- intended to be definitive in terms of the Mall and how to plant them so as to functional trapezoidal space. The Grant their details. Reinforcing his argument frame the central greensward. Some Memorial, which had been located along that precedent did not support truncat- voices from various Washington plan- the eastern end by McKim and Olmsted ing the Capitol Grounds by a straight ning agencies continued to call for a in 1907, reigned over a space now con- line, he provided seven historical plans, mixed planting to include tulip trees and taining the Meade Memorial and an ec- beginning with that of L’Enfant, illustrat- red oaks. Olmsted labeled this idea of a centric collection of noble trees and ing that throughout all the architectural varied tree palette “unfortunate” and fountains along meandering paths.48 renovations of the Capitol, the western emphasized that the distinctive essence Along the southern edge, greenhouses— boundary had continuously been re- of the 1901 scheme was the formality of remnants of the Botanic Garden—still tained as a curved line.50 its elm colonnade, with its high canopy dominated. The Garfield and Peace In Olmsted’s view, recognizing the and Gothic arch eﬀect providing diago- Monuments terminated the Maryland integrity of Union Square as a whole nal and transverse glimpses within and and Pennsylvania Avenue diagonals re- space, defined by strong diagonal av- along the Mall.46 spectively. enues and related to the vista beyond, Working with his associate Clarence was critical. The square’s function, he Union Square Howard, Olmsted saw his prime task as said, should be to “prepare the eye for bringing this space into proper relation- the transition from the uniform width of In 1933, an infusion of money from the ship with the Capitol’s west terrace and the vista on the Mall to the treatment Public Works Administration to con- the broad reach of the Mall while recon- on the Capitol Grounds,” where the tinue Mall construction involved Olm- ciling serious design inconsistencies. In converging lines continued as spatial sted in the design for Union Square, be- his April 1934 report to the commission, definers. Alignments were complicated neath the Capitol’s walls at the eastern he noted Union Square’s importance due to deviations from true axial projec- terminus of the Mall. As in the Monu- was as one unit “of a much larger whole, tions. In 1901 adjustments had been ment Grounds project, he tangled with extending from the Capitol to the Wash- made to align the Mall’s axis from the some Commission of Fine Arts mem- ington Monument and on to the Lincoln Capitol to the off-center Washington bers committed to strict adherence to Memorial.” The northern and southern Monument. The Olmsted team noted the McMillan Plan images rather than boundaries of the square, as defined by that the Grant Monument had been above: Handwritten notations on a to its intent. As conceived by the L’Enfant’s strong diagonal avenues, had placed on a line drawn from the center photograph of the Senate Park Commis- McMillan Commission’s watercolor il- been extended into the Capitol land- of the Capitol’s west facade rather than sion rendering for Union Square indicate lustration, this area was to consist of an scape by the senior Olmsted’s tree-em- from the dome, an off-center divergence the strong diagonal lines to be retained open rectangular plaza spatially articu- bowered diagonal paths terminating at of an additional four feet. These dis- and the various sculptural elements to be lated by formal beds of lawn punctuated the western terrace.49 crepancies had to be subtly adjusted integrated. by fountains, pools, or statuary, which Olmsted’s first step was to convince within the Union Square design, using axially terminated the panels of the the Commission of Fine Arts that the many of the relocated mature Botanic left: General Plan for Union Square, Mall. To create this space, the curving 1901 plan, which radically shortened the Garden trees as screening.51 October 1935. west wall of the Capitol Grounds would Capitol’s western lawn by one hundred Again, Olmsted’s tampering with the have to be straightened. The decreased feet in order to insert the cascade and sacred lines of the 1901 plan unleashed a area of the Capitol’s western lawn was pool, was a profound mistake. Earlier, flurry of indignation from commission to be decorated with a central cascading his father had rejected Senator Morrill’s members, particularly from architect water feature that terminated in a grand desire for such a cascade, noting the im- Egerton Swartwout. He insisted on the oval pool, with all of this supported by a portance of the simple turf panel as fore- original McMillan Plan treatment of the series of retaining walls. All that re- ground to the Capitol’s grand architec- Capitol Grounds and the intended plaza, mained of the senior Olmsted’s plan ture. Observing that this area of the 1901 vociferously objecting to Olmsted’s in- were tree-lined diagonal paths that he plan had been less studied by the com- formal planting scheme and to the gen- intended to lead to the diagonals of mission “and was embodied in the re- eral lack of monumentality and architec- Maryland and Pennsylvania Avenues. In port under pressure of time as a tentative tural perspective. Olmsted, in turn, the McMillan scheme, these strong di- solution in spite of expressed doubts . . . reiterated that the 1901 plan never con- agonal lines would be interrupted by the as to some of its features,” Olmsted re- tended with the continuity of the Mall, plaza.47 minded the Commission of Fine Arts nor with the successful termination of

48 | Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. in the Nation’s Capital 49 the diagonal avenues that ended in the flecting pool about 1971, with its un- “the intimate and essentially domestic he would be a knowledgeable client with and west gardens, providing some north-south axis from the White House plaza. Moreover, he maintained, in equal sides to compensate for the geo- kinds of beauty and usefulness that are as a strong interest in history.56 Because of seclusion for the residents without alter- to the Washington Monument.63 Washington’s climate such an open metric inconsistencies.54 much to be desired for a President’s fam- this, Olmsted hired Morley Williams, a ing the broader visual compositions, John Russell Pope’s plans for a plaza would be “objectionable.”52 ily as for any other.”55 professor of landscape architecture at strengthening the southern axial views, grandiose monument to Thomas Jeffer- Months spent negotiating redesigns The White House Grounds Bringing this issue before the com- Harvard University who was working at and replacing an existing pool with a son on an artificial island to be con- finally resulted in agreement in March mission in 1934, Charles Moore noted this time on the Mount Vernon grounds, simple fountain moved further south to structed in the Tidal Basin aroused General survey of the grounds 1935 among all the commissions in- Olmsted had reviewed the White House that both Mrs. Coolidge and Mrs. to collaborate with him. Williams was to better relate to the open areas.60 Olmsted’s particular consternation. of the Executive Mansion, volved. At this time, however, Rick Olm- grounds in 1928, finding them “distinctly Hoover had shown little interest in Olm- study “the long and somewhat obscure “From a professional standpoint and as showing existing conditions as sted was recuperating from a near-fatal disappointing,” not up to the standards sted’s 1928 report. Since architectural history of developments and changes in The Thomas Jefferson Memorial the surviving member of the Commis- of January 1935 (left), and burst appendix, and other partners of of tasteful surrounds for great mansions, renovations were planned for the build- the White House Grounds—a thing sion of 1901, I am worried most directly General Plan for Improve- Olmsted Brothers supervised the work.53 public and private. Concerned that this ing, President and Mrs. Roosevelt had much needed as a sound basis for guid- Returning to Washington work in July about the probable esthetic outcome,” ments of October 1935 (right). Construction, completed by 1937, in- was a dwelling for a succession of fami- consulted with Olmsted and Charles ing any changes and improvements to be 1935, Olmsted was drawn into a contro- he stated, adding that he did not want The General Plan indicates a volved a massive tree-moving operation lies, he thought that the grounds none- Moore, then the chair of the Commis- made in the future.”57 versy concerning the Thomas Jefferson to see the government committed to simplification of the design ele- in which forty-one mature specimens theless ought to be “in the front rank, sion of Fine Arts, to assess the landscape The final report, including Memorial when he agreed to voluntarily site construction operations costing ments and a massing of plant were transplanted and 250 removed. The both as expressing the honor due to the problems. Knowing that President Roo- Williams’s richly illustrated historical review preliminary studies for National millions of dollars.64 After Pope’s death materials to provide screening Olmsted design remained relatively in- President of the United States, and as an sevelt had prior experience directing study of the White House grounds, was Park Service Director Arno Cammerer. in August 1937 and the relocation of the while retaining a clear vista tact until the Skidmore, Owings & Mer- educative example to less distinguished work on the grounds of his family estate presented to the commission in October Charles Moore had set lofty goals for memorial site to a peninsula on the to the south. rill redesign and installation of the re- citizens.” Specifically, the grounds lacked at Hyde Park, New York, they believed 1935. Olmsted and Williams had recom- this monument to be “one of the most shore of the Basin, Henry Hubbard rep- mended returning an appropriate his- distinguished structures in the National resented the Olmsted position in ensu- toric character to the landscape in their Capitol… to contribute to the perfec- ing discussions with the successor archi- preliminary White House report. They tion of the Washington plan.”61 Olm- tects, Eggers & Higgins.65 In the sought to increase the sense of privacy, sted, however, had already raised con- controversy surrounding the aesthetic to ameliorate traffic conflicts along the cerns about the appropriateness of a relevance of the Pantheon form and its roads and paths, and to correct accessi- grandly scaled monument in this loca- shoreline setting, Hubbard often found bility issues at the entrances. Within the tion during his work on the Theodore himself in debate with the architects’ grounds, Olmsted made several sugges- Roosevelt memorial in 1922. At the historical advisor, his brother-in-law tions to improve tree and shrub compo- time, his evaluation of the proposal led Fiske Kimball.66 From the fall of 1938, sitions and to rehabilitate the formal gar- him to state that the McMillan Commis- Olmsted Brothers was employed by the dens with dignified simplicity.58 sion had not adequately studied the in- architects, and later by the Park Service, Implementation followed a difficult tent of the original L’Enfant Plan for this to provide landscape planning and im- course, due to cost, economic condi- area. In looking at the view from the plementation oversight to make the tions resulting from the Great Depres- Tidal Basin north, Olmsted had been memorial’s setting an effective contribu- sion, and jurisdictional and professional struck by the domestic scale of the tion to the general plan of Washington. conflicts with the National Park Service. White House as a terminus in compari- Complicated site conditions, conflicting Olmsted, still recuperating from his ill- son to the grandeur of the other focal transportation routes, overlapping con- ness, was aided on this project by Henry points. Olmsted concluded that this trolling agencies, and public outcries Hubbard, his Olmsted Brothers partner southern focus should be treated less concerning the loss of revered cherry and a member of the NCPPC, which had grandly than originally conceived.62 Ul- trees frustrated attempts to produce an advisory jurisdiction over the White timately, the Roosevelt memorial was artistic effect. Devising an aesthetic and House grounds. Hubbard noted that the not built at this location, but Olmsted’s economical landscape scheme for such firm had spent “a great deal of loving concern regarding appropriate scale for a controversial building required recon- care in the investigation of this particu- treatment along the White House axis ciling the opposing positions of the lar problem, and it certainly would be a remained (see essays by Pamela Scott NCPPC, the Commission of Fine Arts, pity and a waste if the carefully matured and Carroll William Westfall). Echoing and the highway engineers from the Na- conception which has crystallized in Mr. these earlier concerns, Olmsted cau- tional Capital Parks. Hubbard later Olmsted’s mind were not given a fair tioned Cammerer that any monument commented that his role had been that chance of realization.”59 placed on this axis had to visually relate of diplomat more than designer.67 Some recommendations were im- to the already developed compositions Rick Olmsted returned to active par- plemented between 1935 and 1937. along the east-west axis from the Lin- ticipation in the memorial planning con- These involved renovation of the east coln Memorial to the Capitol and the troversy in the spring of 1941. Because

50 | Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. in the Nation’s Capital 51 the diagonal avenues that ended in the flecting pool about 1971, with its un- “the intimate and essentially domestic he would be a knowledgeable client with and west gardens, providing some north-south axis from the White House plaza. Moreover, he maintained, in equal sides to compensate for the geo- kinds of beauty and usefulness that are as a strong interest in history.56 Because of seclusion for the residents without alter- to the Washington Monument.63 Washington’s climate such an open metric inconsistencies.54 much to be desired for a President’s fam- this, Olmsted hired Morley Williams, a ing the broader visual compositions, John Russell Pope’s plans for a plaza would be “objectionable.”52 ily as for any other.”55 professor of landscape architecture at strengthening the southern axial views, grandiose monument to Thomas Jeffer- Months spent negotiating redesigns The White House Grounds Bringing this issue before the com- Harvard University who was working at and replacing an existing pool with a son on an artificial island to be con- finally resulted in agreement in March mission in 1934, Charles Moore noted this time on the Mount Vernon grounds, simple fountain moved further south to structed in the Tidal Basin aroused General survey of the grounds 1935 among all the commissions in- Olmsted had reviewed the White House that both Mrs. Coolidge and Mrs. to collaborate with him. Williams was to better relate to the open areas.60 Olmsted’s particular consternation. of the Executive Mansion, volved. At this time, however, Rick Olm- grounds in 1928, finding them “distinctly Hoover had shown little interest in Olm- study “the long and somewhat obscure “From a professional standpoint and as showing existing conditions as sted was recuperating from a near-fatal disappointing,” not up to the standards sted’s 1928 report. Since architectural history of developments and changes in The Thomas Jefferson Memorial the surviving member of the Commis- of January 1935 (left), and burst appendix, and other partners of of tasteful surrounds for great mansions, renovations were planned for the build- the White House Grounds—a thing sion of 1901, I am worried most directly General Plan for Improve- Olmsted Brothers supervised the work.53 public and private. Concerned that this ing, President and Mrs. Roosevelt had much needed as a sound basis for guid- Returning to Washington work in July about the probable esthetic outcome,” ments of October 1935 (right). Construction, completed by 1937, in- was a dwelling for a succession of fami- consulted with Olmsted and Charles ing any changes and improvements to be 1935, Olmsted was drawn into a contro- he stated, adding that he did not want The General Plan indicates a volved a massive tree-moving operation lies, he thought that the grounds none- Moore, then the chair of the Commis- made in the future.”57 versy concerning the Thomas Jefferson to see the government committed to simplification of the design ele- in which forty-one mature specimens theless ought to be “in the front rank, sion of Fine Arts, to assess the landscape The final report, including Memorial when he agreed to voluntarily site construction operations costing ments and a massing of plant were transplanted and 250 removed. The both as expressing the honor due to the problems. Knowing that President Roo- Williams’s richly illustrated historical review preliminary studies for National millions of dollars.64 After Pope’s death materials to provide screening Olmsted design remained relatively in- President of the United States, and as an sevelt had prior experience directing study of the White House grounds, was Park Service Director Arno Cammerer. in August 1937 and the relocation of the while retaining a clear vista tact until the Skidmore, Owings & Mer- educative example to less distinguished work on the grounds of his family estate presented to the commission in October Charles Moore had set lofty goals for memorial site to a peninsula on the to the south. rill redesign and installation of the re- citizens.” Specifically, the grounds lacked at Hyde Park, New York, they believed 1935. Olmsted and Williams had recom- this monument to be “one of the most shore of the Basin, Henry Hubbard rep- mended returning an appropriate his- distinguished structures in the National resented the Olmsted position in ensu- toric character to the landscape in their Capitol… to contribute to the perfec- ing discussions with the successor archi- preliminary White House report. They tion of the Washington plan.”61 Olm- tects, Eggers & Higgins.65 In the sought to increase the sense of privacy, sted, however, had already raised con- controversy surrounding the aesthetic to ameliorate traffic conflicts along the cerns about the appropriateness of a relevance of the Pantheon form and its roads and paths, and to correct accessi- grandly scaled monument in this loca- shoreline setting, Hubbard often found bility issues at the entrances. Within the tion during his work on the Theodore himself in debate with the architects’ grounds, Olmsted made several sugges- Roosevelt memorial in 1922. At the historical advisor, his brother-in-law tions to improve tree and shrub compo- time, his evaluation of the proposal led Fiske Kimball.66 From the fall of 1938, sitions and to rehabilitate the formal gar- him to state that the McMillan Commis- Olmsted Brothers was employed by the dens with dignified simplicity.58 sion had not adequately studied the in- architects, and later by the Park Service, Implementation followed a difficult tent of the original L’Enfant Plan for this to provide landscape planning and im- course, due to cost, economic condi- area. In looking at the view from the plementation oversight to make the tions resulting from the Great Depres- Tidal Basin north, Olmsted had been memorial’s setting an effective contribu- sion, and jurisdictional and professional struck by the domestic scale of the tion to the general plan of Washington. conflicts with the National Park Service. White House as a terminus in compari- Complicated site conditions, conflicting Olmsted, still recuperating from his ill- son to the grandeur of the other focal transportation routes, overlapping con- ness, was aided on this project by Henry points. Olmsted concluded that this trolling agencies, and public outcries Hubbard, his Olmsted Brothers partner southern focus should be treated less concerning the loss of revered cherry and a member of the NCPPC, which had grandly than originally conceived.62 Ul- trees frustrated attempts to produce an advisory jurisdiction over the White timately, the Roosevelt memorial was artistic effect. Devising an aesthetic and House grounds. Hubbard noted that the not built at this location, but Olmsted’s economical landscape scheme for such firm had spent “a great deal of loving concern regarding appropriate scale for a controversial building required recon- care in the investigation of this particu- treatment along the White House axis ciling the opposing positions of the lar problem, and it certainly would be a remained (see essays by Pamela Scott NCPPC, the Commission of Fine Arts, pity and a waste if the carefully matured and Carroll William Westfall). Echoing and the highway engineers from the Na- conception which has crystallized in Mr. these earlier concerns, Olmsted cau- tional Capital Parks. Hubbard later Olmsted’s mind were not given a fair tioned Cammerer that any monument commented that his role had been that chance of realization.”59 placed on this axis had to visually relate of diplomat more than designer.67 Some recommendations were im- to the already developed compositions Rick Olmsted returned to active par- plemented between 1935 and 1937. along the east-west axis from the Lin- ticipation in the memorial planning con- These involved renovation of the east coln Memorial to the Capitol and the troversy in the spring of 1941. Because

50 | Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. in the Nation’s Capital 51 purchased by the Washington Gas Light sell Pope. This was to be the unifying est memorial. Therefore, no automobiles Co. and was intended for industrial uses. feature of the island, “expressive of the should be allowed; instead there should The Theodore Roosevelt Memorial As- personality and work of Theodore Roo- be opportunities for moving through at sociation rescued this prime site by pur- sevelt,” and was to be visible from vari- leisure on foot or on horseback, with ac- chasing it in 1931 and deeding it to the ous points on the mainland as a compo- cess to the island by “a simple federal government for use as Roo- nent of the central monumental unassertive modest” footbridge and per- sevelt’s memorial, while retaining plan- composition. Thus Roosevelt would be haps by boat. Few changes should be Olmsted Brothers’ plan, in ning rights. In accepting the deed in represented among the panorama of cel- made to the natural ground surface, ex- collaboration with architects 1932, President Hoover commented on ebrated presidential monuments with a cept in the flood-prone marshy areas Eggers & Higgins, showing “the especial appropriateness” of this uniquely appropriate statement.73 where Olmsted recommended placing the “location and approxi- wooded island as this memorial, being The overgrown condition of the is- large irregular boulders to simulate a mate dominant elevations of “forever within the view of the Lincoln land prevented any real examination of rocky shoreline.76 the structure together with Memorial, the Washington Monument, its topography and significant vegetative Unfortunately, throughout the late the suggested relocation of the Capitol and the White House . . . a bit features. Therefore, in early 1934, in or- 1930s Olmsted’s plan went largely unre- roads” for the Thomas Jeffer- of nature within the boundaries of this der to begin comprehensive planning, alized except for the trail work, due to a son Memorial, October 1938. city which he loved, and where he ren- Olmsted requested that the Civilian chronic lack of funds from both the Park Additional notes on this dered such noble service.”71 Conservation Corps be brought in to Service and the Roosevelt Association. plan indicate it is intended The association contracted with clear the flammable debris, dead trees, The Olmsted firm, having committed it- to show “tree masses and re- Olmsted Brothers in May 1932 to pre- and weedy growth. From late 1934 self to this task, was essentially working lations of important open pare a general plan and report, turning through 1935, crews were at work clear- gratis. Nonetheless, the firm proceeded spaces and views to and from to Olmsted and Hubbard to advise them ing stumps and brush. They also devel- with a design for an overlook plaza at the the memorial.” on whether the army engineers should oped foot trails and bridle paths and island’s southern end where a memorial be allowed to fill the island’s tidal flats eventually replanted thousands of trees, could be constructed with reciprocal with dredging from the Potomac chan- shrubs, and ground cover for forest im- views toward the Mall and along the nel. Olmsted rejected the idea as too provement, while Olmsted and his firm’s river. Olmsted’s hope was for a simple early in the planning process to be plantsman, Hans Koehler, marked off ar- unpretentious monument to emphasize made, wisely observing that “it is a bad eas of special native vegetation to be to the public that the “entire beautiful is- beginning when parts of a block of mar- preserved.74 land” was the primary physical memorial ble are carved before a clear and self- By December 1932, Olmsted began to Theodore Roosevelt, “embodying so consistent artistic conception had been to conceptualize the principal elements many qualities which he keenly appreci- Gilmore Clarke, chairman of the Com- in achieving an artistic effect. The tem- Analostan Island’s acreage be acquired formed of the entirety and the spirit of of design and preservation for the island, ated . . . and which he led so many others mission of Fine Arts, had rejected the per of the times, the change in values, and suitably treated so that it would not the sculpture-to-be.”72 refining his ideas over the next three to appreciate and make a part of their planting plan as “out of scale with the the increasing complexity of diverse come into “disagreeable occupancy.”70 Although Olmsted was inspired by years.75 The dominant natural feature enjoyment of a full, well-rounded life.” Memorial, and in detail, much too pressures—particularly that of traffic Within sight of the west end of the Mall, the idea of developing the island as a was the woodland, which Olmsted But, he cautioned, until there was a per- fussy,” Olmsted agreed to reconsider the congestion and altered artistic priori- this isle of wilderness so close by offered “thoroughly worthy, dignified and self- hoped could be returned to the original manent means of pedestrian access and planting palette. However, agreeing with ties—significantly thwarted the grand the promise of unique recreational op- sufficient” memorial park, his health de- of rich variety that had once covered the a minimal amount of maintenance to Hubbard, he still questioned the wis- vision.69 portunities in contrast to the grandeur layed his early involvement, and so once Potomac islands. “With skillful, yet self- stabilize the balance of nature, there was dom of erecting any great memorial in of structures and vast sweep of formal again Henry Hubbard handled prelimi- subordinating and humble-minded aid little point in building a monument. this location before the traffic issues The Theodore Roosevelt greensward across the river. This juxta- nary planning matters in consultation from man,” he said, “nature can be in- Eventually, between 1945 and 1947, the were resolved and the relationship to the Memorial position was an echo of the Chicago with Olmsted. Hubbard’s list of “Con- duced to recreate here . . . the very sort of Olmsted firm finalized most of the plans, monumental core axes was deter- World’s Fair, where the senior Olmsted siderations Affecting the Design” set climax forest, full of enduring and noble bringing the job to a point where it mined.68 Although planting supervision The course of development for the had developed the Wooded Isle as a forth some determining features. The is- dignity and unity of character” that once would be ready for construction as soon was under the jurisdiction of the Na- Theodore Roosevelt Island National place of verdant respite in contrast to land was to be “a sanctuary—a sacred had existed in this area. At the southern as money became available. The associa- tional Park Service, implementation of Memorial on Analostan Island is a case the structured formality of the great grove,” primarily for pedestrian use with end of the island, the high ridge with tion had a goal of completing the work the design was plagued by problems of in point. Like the Jefferson Memorial, White City. minimal automobile access. Much of the good views to the mainland was an ideal before Roosevelt’s centenary in October substandard material and workmanship. this is one of the last major projects in- Located at the fall line of the Po- shore would be preserved in its natural location to have a commemorative in- 1958.77 While wartime exigencies and a limited volving Olmsted and his firm that tomac River, the ecologically diverse is- condition, subject to approval by the en- scription or the eventual monumental None of this was to be. The autoc- budget for such a significant structure emerged from the 1901 plan. From the land had an interesting social history. gineers. The architectural element, a me- structure. While convenient access was racy of the automobile thwarted the exacerbated the problems, Hubbard ex- outset, the report of the Senate Park Once owned by the family of George morial fitted to the natural conditions of essential, it should not interfere with the careful planning for such a unique me- pressed his own dismay at the difficulties Commission had recommended that Mason of Virginia, by 1913 it had been the site, was to be designed by John Rus- sense of seclusion proper to such a for- morial. Between the early 1950s and

52 | Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. in the Nation’s Capital 53 purchased by the Washington Gas Light sell Pope. This was to be the unifying est memorial. Therefore, no automobiles Co. and was intended for industrial uses. feature of the island, “expressive of the should be allowed; instead there should The Theodore Roosevelt Memorial As- personality and work of Theodore Roo- be opportunities for moving through at sociation rescued this prime site by pur- sevelt,” and was to be visible from vari- leisure on foot or on horseback, with ac- chasing it in 1931 and deeding it to the ous points on the mainland as a compo- cess to the island by “a simple federal government for use as Roo- nent of the central monumental unassertive modest” footbridge and per- sevelt’s memorial, while retaining plan- composition. Thus Roosevelt would be haps by boat. Few changes should be Olmsted Brothers’ plan, in ning rights. In accepting the deed in represented among the panorama of cel- made to the natural ground surface, ex- collaboration with architects 1932, President Hoover commented on ebrated presidential monuments with a cept in the flood-prone marshy areas Eggers & Higgins, showing “the especial appropriateness” of this uniquely appropriate statement.73 where Olmsted recommended placing the “location and approxi- wooded island as this memorial, being The overgrown condition of the is- large irregular boulders to simulate a mate dominant elevations of “forever within the view of the Lincoln land prevented any real examination of rocky shoreline.76 the structure together with Memorial, the Washington Monument, its topography and significant vegetative Unfortunately, throughout the late the suggested relocation of the Capitol and the White House . . . a bit features. Therefore, in early 1934, in or- 1930s Olmsted’s plan went largely unre- roads” for the Thomas Jeffer- of nature within the boundaries of this der to begin comprehensive planning, alized except for the trail work, due to a son Memorial, October 1938. city which he loved, and where he ren- Olmsted requested that the Civilian chronic lack of funds from both the Park Additional notes on this dered such noble service.”71 Conservation Corps be brought in to Service and the Roosevelt Association. plan indicate it is intended The association contracted with clear the flammable debris, dead trees, The Olmsted firm, having committed it- to show “tree masses and re- Olmsted Brothers in May 1932 to pre- and weedy growth. From late 1934 self to this task, was essentially working lations of important open pare a general plan and report, turning through 1935, crews were at work clear- gratis. Nonetheless, the firm proceeded spaces and views to and from to Olmsted and Hubbard to advise them ing stumps and brush. They also devel- with a design for an overlook plaza at the the memorial.” on whether the army engineers should oped foot trails and bridle paths and island’s southern end where a memorial be allowed to fill the island’s tidal flats eventually replanted thousands of trees, could be constructed with reciprocal with dredging from the Potomac chan- shrubs, and ground cover for forest im- views toward the Mall and along the nel. Olmsted rejected the idea as too provement, while Olmsted and his firm’s river. Olmsted’s hope was for a simple early in the planning process to be plantsman, Hans Koehler, marked off ar- unpretentious monument to emphasize made, wisely observing that “it is a bad eas of special native vegetation to be to the public that the “entire beautiful is- beginning when parts of a block of mar- preserved.74 land” was the primary physical memorial ble are carved before a clear and self- By December 1932, Olmsted began to Theodore Roosevelt, “embodying so consistent artistic conception had been to conceptualize the principal elements many qualities which he keenly appreci- Gilmore Clarke, chairman of the Com- in achieving an artistic effect. The tem- Analostan Island’s acreage be acquired formed of the entirety and the spirit of of design and preservation for the island, ated . . . and which he led so many others mission of Fine Arts, had rejected the per of the times, the change in values, and suitably treated so that it would not the sculpture-to-be.”72 refining his ideas over the next three to appreciate and make a part of their planting plan as “out of scale with the the increasing complexity of diverse come into “disagreeable occupancy.”70 Although Olmsted was inspired by years.75 The dominant natural feature enjoyment of a full, well-rounded life.” Memorial, and in detail, much too pressures—particularly that of traffic Within sight of the west end of the Mall, the idea of developing the island as a was the woodland, which Olmsted But, he cautioned, until there was a per- fussy,” Olmsted agreed to reconsider the congestion and altered artistic priori- this isle of wilderness so close by offered “thoroughly worthy, dignified and self- hoped could be returned to the original manent means of pedestrian access and planting palette. However, agreeing with ties—significantly thwarted the grand the promise of unique recreational op- sufficient” memorial park, his health de- of rich variety that had once covered the a minimal amount of maintenance to Hubbard, he still questioned the wis- vision.69 portunities in contrast to the grandeur layed his early involvement, and so once Potomac islands. “With skillful, yet self- stabilize the balance of nature, there was dom of erecting any great memorial in of structures and vast sweep of formal again Henry Hubbard handled prelimi- subordinating and humble-minded aid little point in building a monument. this location before the traffic issues The Theodore Roosevelt greensward across the river. This juxta- nary planning matters in consultation from man,” he said, “nature can be in- Eventually, between 1945 and 1947, the were resolved and the relationship to the Memorial position was an echo of the Chicago with Olmsted. Hubbard’s list of “Con- duced to recreate here . . . the very sort of Olmsted firm finalized most of the plans, monumental core axes was deter- World’s Fair, where the senior Olmsted siderations Affecting the Design” set climax forest, full of enduring and noble bringing the job to a point where it mined.68 Although planting supervision The course of development for the had developed the Wooded Isle as a forth some determining features. The is- dignity and unity of character” that once would be ready for construction as soon was under the jurisdiction of the Na- Theodore Roosevelt Island National place of verdant respite in contrast to land was to be “a sanctuary—a sacred had existed in this area. At the southern as money became available. The associa- tional Park Service, implementation of Memorial on Analostan Island is a case the structured formality of the great grove,” primarily for pedestrian use with end of the island, the high ridge with tion had a goal of completing the work the design was plagued by problems of in point. Like the Jefferson Memorial, White City. minimal automobile access. Much of the good views to the mainland was an ideal before Roosevelt’s centenary in October substandard material and workmanship. this is one of the last major projects in- Located at the fall line of the Po- shore would be preserved in its natural location to have a commemorative in- 1958.77 While wartime exigencies and a limited volving Olmsted and his firm that tomac River, the ecologically diverse is- condition, subject to approval by the en- scription or the eventual monumental None of this was to be. The autoc- budget for such a significant structure emerged from the 1901 plan. From the land had an interesting social history. gineers. The architectural element, a me- structure. While convenient access was racy of the automobile thwarted the exacerbated the problems, Hubbard ex- outset, the report of the Senate Park Once owned by the family of George morial fitted to the natural conditions of essential, it should not interfere with the careful planning for such a unique me- pressed his own dismay at the difficulties Commission had recommended that Mason of Virginia, by 1913 it had been the site, was to be designed by John Rus- sense of seclusion proper to such a for- morial. Between the early 1950s and

52 | Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. in the Nation’s Capital 53 1964, heated negotiations to preserve Olmsted’s pioneering model of a wilder- Aerial view over Theodore ness sanctuary in the central city came Roosevelt Island with Rosslyn to naught. The association was caught in in the foreground and the a devil’s dilemma between preserving Kennedy Center in the back- “the integrity and sanctity of . . . an area ground, 1970s. The bridge of wild solitude in the very heart of the severed all intended views to- Nation” or allowing traﬃc congestion to ward the monumental core. disrupt the aesthetic harmony of the na- A circular memorial space in tional capital that Theodore Roosevelt the woods at the northern end had cherished.78 They allowed a bridge of the island was designed to pass over the southern end of the is- by Eric Gugler and contains a land, destroying all possibility of the in- monumental statue of Presi- tended visual connections. Also de- dent Roosevelt designed by stroyed was the innovative concept to Paul Manship. complement the classic architectural memorializations in the Mall with a living wilderness set aside as a monument to a president so closely associated with American conservation. In 1967 a plaza public parks. The unique memorial idea scape over his long and multifaceted ca- memorial to Roosevelt was inserted into of a public landscape consisting of a reer. Fortunately for the stewards of this the woods on the island’s north side healthy, evolving climax forest abutting landscape patrimony, he left a treasure and, in 1976, a footbridge was added to an intensely urban area seems to have trove of material, an extensive record of provide pedestrian access to the island.79 stemmed from this thinking. From his prescient reports, insightful correspon- work to establish the National Park dence, and imagery to guide the The Enduring Legacy Service in 1916 to his planning for the thoughtful evolution of his landscape Florida Everglades, the California state creations. Nowhere are the productive Olmsted did not live to see the destruc- parks, Yosemite, or the Colorado River results of his professional and collaborative intrusion into his innovative con- Basin, Olmsted’s endeavors ensured that tive endeavors more evident than in the cept for the Roosevelt memorial. In the America’s extraordinary scenery would diverse landscape environments of the fifty-year span from the high ideals of continue to provide opportunities for nation’s capital. Over his half century of the Senate Park Commission planning that sense of “enlarged freedom” that he public service to the city, he molded to post-World War II conditions, preser- treasured.80 Washington’s terrain by policy, by plan, vation of architectural treasures and Looking back over his long career and by shovel to ensure that the land- landscape legacies was in ebb. Cities from the vantage point of his fiftieth Har- scapes of monument and park were uni- were depleted by flight to the suburbs, vard reunion, Olmsted emphasized the fied expressions of a controlling aes- and the means of flight—the automo- satisfaction he had gained from his pro- thetic motive, a continuing and bile—ruled decision making. The com- fession, from solving problems that evolving stewardship of the L’Enfant plexity of urban planning had moved “would result in appropriately beautiful concept and the McMillan Plan. Under- beyond the manageable collaborative landscapes, whatever kind of use the land standing the comprehensive nature of approaches that Olmsted and his col- might serve.” He enthused over the en- Olmsted’s thinking and his ability to in- leagues had devised to new utilitarian joyment of the collaborative process, the tegrate the grand concept with the priorities that no longer valued artistic interchange of ideas, the continual learn- smallest detail and to balance nature considerations, let alone spacious ing from the reactions of people inter- with artifice in his creations will ensure greenswards and verdant passages of acting with their environment. But he was a future for his legacy of artistry for the top: General Plan for Development, Theodore Roosevelt Island, May 1945. Critical attention is paid to the design of the vistas scenery. Well before his death in 1957, equally clear that the designer’s role was nation’s capital. east and south; a network of trails curve with the contours through woods and skirt the large marsh on the island’s eastern edge. Olmsted had begun to direct his major to steward and enhance the beauty inher- Provision is made for a comfort station and two boat landings on the north and south points. professional eﬀorts to planning for the ent in the land, not to overwhelm it.81 • above: Aerial rendering of the southern end of the island, showing the proposed primary boat landing and the curving wall below acquisition, management, and preserva- Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. left an the suggested area for a commemorative element. tion of scenic and natural resources as indelible legacy on the American land-

54 | Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. in the Nation’s Capital 55 1964, heated negotiations to preserve Olmsted’s pioneering model of a wilder- Aerial view over Theodore ness sanctuary in the central city came Roosevelt Island with Rosslyn to naught. The association was caught in in the foreground and the a devil’s dilemma between preserving Kennedy Center in the back- “the integrity and sanctity of . . . an area ground, 1970s. The bridge of wild solitude in the very heart of the severed all intended views to- Nation” or allowing traﬃc congestion to ward the monumental core. disrupt the aesthetic harmony of the na- A circular memorial space in tional capital that Theodore Roosevelt the woods at the northern end had cherished.78 They allowed a bridge of the island was designed to pass over the southern end of the is- by Eric Gugler and contains a land, destroying all possibility of the in- monumental statue of Presi- tended visual connections. Also de- dent Roosevelt designed by stroyed was the innovative concept to Paul Manship. complement the classic architectural memorializations in the Mall with a living wilderness set aside as a monument to a president so closely associated with American conservation. In 1967 a plaza public parks. The unique memorial idea scape over his long and multifaceted ca- memorial to Roosevelt was inserted into of a public landscape consisting of a reer. Fortunately for the stewards of this the woods on the island’s north side healthy, evolving climax forest abutting landscape patrimony, he left a treasure and, in 1976, a footbridge was added to an intensely urban area seems to have trove of material, an extensive record of provide pedestrian access to the island.79 stemmed from this thinking. From his prescient reports, insightful correspon- work to establish the National Park dence, and imagery to guide the The Enduring Legacy Service in 1916 to his planning for the thoughtful evolution of his landscape Florida Everglades, the California state creations. Nowhere are the productive Olmsted did not live to see the destruc- parks, Yosemite, or the Colorado River results of his professional and collaborative intrusion into his innovative con- Basin, Olmsted’s endeavors ensured that tive endeavors more evident than in the cept for the Roosevelt memorial. In the America’s extraordinary scenery would diverse landscape environments of the fifty-year span from the high ideals of continue to provide opportunities for nation’s capital. Over his half century of the Senate Park Commission planning that sense of “enlarged freedom” that he public service to the city, he molded to post-World War II conditions, preser- treasured.80 Washington’s terrain by policy, by plan, vation of architectural treasures and Looking back over his long career and by shovel to ensure that the land- landscape legacies was in ebb. Cities from the vantage point of his fiftieth Har- scapes of monument and park were uni- were depleted by flight to the suburbs, vard reunion, Olmsted emphasized the fied expressions of a controlling aes- and the means of flight—the automo- satisfaction he had gained from his pro- thetic motive, a continuing and bile—ruled decision making. The com- fession, from solving problems that evolving stewardship of the L’Enfant plexity of urban planning had moved “would result in appropriately beautiful concept and the McMillan Plan. Under- beyond the manageable collaborative landscapes, whatever kind of use the land standing the comprehensive nature of approaches that Olmsted and his col- might serve.” He enthused over the en- Olmsted’s thinking and his ability to in- leagues had devised to new utilitarian joyment of the collaborative process, the tegrate the grand concept with the priorities that no longer valued artistic interchange of ideas, the continual learn- smallest detail and to balance nature considerations, let alone spacious ing from the reactions of people inter- with artifice in his creations will ensure greenswards and verdant passages of acting with their environment. But he was a future for his legacy of artistry for the top: General Plan for Development, Theodore Roosevelt Island, May 1945. Critical attention is paid to the design of the vistas scenery. Well before his death in 1957, equally clear that the designer’s role was nation’s capital. east and south; a network of trails curve with the contours through woods and skirt the large marsh on the island’s eastern edge. Olmsted had begun to direct his major to steward and enhance the beauty inher- Provision is made for a comfort station and two boat landings on the north and south points. professional eﬀorts to planning for the ent in the land, not to overwhelm it.81 • above: Aerial rendering of the southern end of the island, showing the proposed primary boat landing and the curving wall below acquisition, management, and preserva- Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. left an the suggested area for a commemorative element. tion of scenic and natural resources as indelible legacy on the American land-

54 | Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. in the Nation’s Capital 55 26 Charles F. McKim to Newlands, March 31, 1904, Box 6, Folder 64, 49 See Commission on Fine Arts, H.R. Rep. 407 (February 8, 1910); 4 The Olmsted family at the time of Rick’s birth consisted of his full 16 Frederick Law Olmsted Jr., “Landscape in Connection With Pub- Newlands MSS. Emphasis McKim. Commission of Fine Arts, H.R. Rep. 1292 (May 9, 1910). sister Marion (1861–1948); his half sister Charlotte (1855–1908); lic Buildings in Washington,” in Brown, comp., Papers Relating to 27 Newlands to McKim, December 19, 1904, Box 7, Folder 72, New- 50 The Committee on the Library had oversight of the congressional and two half brothers, John Charles (1852–1920) and Owen Fred- the Improvement of the City of Washington, 34. lands MSS. library, congressional art collection, and U.S. Botanic Garden. erick (1857–81). His half siblings were the children of his mother, 17 Jon A. Peterson, The Birth of City Planning in the United States, 1840– 28 McKim to Newlands, March 3, 1905, Box 8, Folder 77, Newlands 51 Gilbert, Cook, Trowbridge, Burnham, Millet, Blashfield, French, and Mary Cleveland Perkins Olmsted (1830–1921), and her first hus- 1917 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003), 69–71. MSS. Olmsted had also been named to Roosevelt’s Council of Fine Arts. band, Dr. John Hull Olmsted (1825–57), Frederick Law’s younger See also Mel Scott, American City Planning Since 1890 (Berkeley: 29 Newlands to Burnham, October 7, 1906, Box 10, Folder 95, New- 52 R. S. Owen to William H. Taft, May 25, 1910, and H. D. Money to brother who had died of tuberculosis. Frederick Law Olmsted mar- University of California Press, 1969), 31–37. More than the im- lands MSS. Taft, May 27, 1910, Series 5, Reel 333, Case file 801, William Howard ried his brother’s widow in 1859 and adopted her children. John portance of exemplary architecture and landscapes arranged into 30 Burnham to Newlands, October 13, 1906, Box 10, Folder 95, New- Taft Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress (hereafter Charles Olmsted would become Rick’s partner in the firm of Olm- trend-setting groupings, the World’s Columbian Exposition was no- lands MSS. cited as Taft MSS). sted Brothers. table for what has been labeled its “Renaissance ideal of artistic col- 31 Executive Order No. 306, March 14, 1905. 53 Daniel H. Burnham to George P. Wetmore, May 19, 1910, Series 5 In addition to the New York parks, Olmsted Sr. and his partner, laboration among architects, sculptors, painters, and fine craftsmen” 32 Daniel H. Burnham to Charles F. McKim, February 5, 1907, Box 2, 5, Reel 333, Case file 801, Taft MSS. Calvert Vaux, had advised on park work in Newark, New Jersey, Buf- who labored over this enterprise. Jon A. Peterson, “The Hidden Ori- Folder 50, Daniel H. Burnham Collection, Ryerson and Burnham 54 Burnham to Wetmore, May 19, 1910, Taft MSS. Anderson and Ben- falo, New York, New Britain, Connecticut, Philadelphia, Pennsyl- gins of the McMillan Plan for Washington, D.C., 1900–1902,” in Archives, the Art Institute of Chicago (hereafter cited as Burnham nett had worked for Burnham and Bennett was his co-author for the vania, Fall River, Massachusetts, etc; had planned several subdivi- Historical Perspectives on Urban Design: Washington, D.C. 1890–1910, MSS). Chicago Plan of 1909. sions including Riverside, Illinois, and Tarrytown, New York; and ed. Antoinette J. Lee (Washington, DC: Center for Washington Area 33 McKim to Burnham, February 13, 1907, Box 2, Folder 50, Burnham 55 Burnham to Wetmore, May 19, 1910, Taft MSS. had worked on various academic and residential institutions. After Studies, George Washington University, 1983), 8. MSS. 56 Burnham to Francis D. Millet, May 19, 1910, Series 5, Reel 333, Case the dissolution of their partnership in 1872, Olmsted’s work expanded 18 Jon A. Peterson, “The Senate Park Commission Plan for Washing- 34 Burnham to McKim, February 13, 1907, Box 2, Folder 50, Burnham file 801, Taft MSS. to include the U.S. Capitol Grounds and the capitol grounds for Hart- ton, D.C.: A New Vision for the Capital and the Nation,” in Kohler MSS. 57 Newlands to William H. Taft, May 25, 1910, Box 21, Folder 208, ford, Connecticut, and Albany, New York; park work, in Boston, Mas- and Scott, Designing the Nation’s Capital, 1–19; Gutheim and Lee, 35 William H. Taft to Burnham, February 14, 1907, Box 3, Folder 66, Newlands MSS. Taft to Newlands, May 26, 1910, Series 8, Reel 502, sachusetts, Detroit, Michigan, and at Niagara Falls, New York; nu- Worthy of the Nation, 122–27; Charles Moore, Daniel H. Burnham: Burnham MSS. Taft MSS. merous institutional projects; residential subdivisions; and estate work Architect, Planner of Cities, vol. 2 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin 36 “A Showy Sham, The Concoction of a Sham Commission,” Evening 58 See May 1910, Series 5, Reel 333, Case file 801, Taft MSS and cer- and railroad station grounds for the Boston and Albany Railroad. Company, 1921), 147; and Thomas S. Hines, Burnham of Chicago: Star, January 14, 1908, 4. tificate, June 15, 1910, OP 11, Burnham MSS. 6 Roper, FLO, 435. Architect and Planner (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 37 In addition to Trowbridge and Brown, the committee included 59 “Waiting for Judson,” Evening Star, March 15, 1909. 7 Susan L. Klaus, “Intelligent and Comprehensive Planning of the Com- 1979), 401n8. George B. Post, William A. Boring, Robert S. Peabody, and C. Grant 60 Burnham to Charles Norton, July 20, 1910, Series 6, Reel 372, Case mon Sense Kind: Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. and the Emergence of 19 Harvard College Class of 1894, 25th Anniversary Report, 1894–1919 La Farge. See Brown to Newlands, January 9, 1908, Box 12, Fold- file 187, Taft MSS. Comprehensive Planning in America, 1900–1920” (master’s thesis, (Norwood, MA: Plimpton Press, 1919), 346. er 118, Newlands MSS. 61 Burnham to Norton, August 8, 1910, Series 6, Reel 372, Case file George Washington University, 1988), 32. 20 Charles Moore, “Makers of Washington,” (unpublished manuscript) 38 60th Cong. 2nd Sess. S. Doc. 665 at 7–10. 187, Taft MSS. 8 Payroll Ledger #1, PR-1, Administrative Records, Frederick Law Olm- as quoted in Klaus, “Intelligent and Comprehensive Planning,” 75. 39 60th Cong. 2nd Sess. S. Doc. 665 at 21. sted National Historic Site. 21 ”Appendix G: List of Lands in the District of Columbia Devoted to 40 S. B. P. Trowbridge to Newlands, January 11, 1909, Box 16, Fold- . 9 Pamela Scott, “Two Centuries of Architectural Practice in Wash- Public Use”; “Appendix H: List of Proposed Additional Reserva- er 155, Newlands MSS. ington,” in Buildings of the District of Columbia, ed. Pamela Scott tions”; and “Appendix I: Proposed Additions to Existing Parks,” in 41 Trowbridge to Newlands, January 21, 1909, Box 16, Folder 156, New- 1 Most projects in the Olmsted firm files were assigned an individual and Antoinette J. Lee (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), Charles Moore, ed., The Improvement of the Park System of the Dis- lands MSS. job number. However, for the numerous Washington, D.C., proj- 14–19. trict of Columbia Report (Washington, DC: Government Printing 42 Military aide Archibald Butt wrote about many Washington per- ects, particularly for the public work, the numbering reflects a com- 10 Frederick Law Olmsted (Sr.) (hereafter “Olmsted Sr.”) to J. R. Mor- Office, 1902), 155–71. sonalities to his sister-in-law, Clara Butt, beginning in 1909 until he plex system that indicates the point of origin or organizational spon- rill, chairman of the Committee for Public Grounds, U.S. Senate, 22 Gutheim and Lee, Worthy of the Nation, 201–05, 214–15, 254–55. died in 1912 in the sinking of the Titanic. Archibald Willingham Butt sorship of the work. Thus, subsumed under the File #2843 assigned January 22, 1874, Frederick Law Olmsted Papers Manuscript Di- See also National Park Service,” The Fort Park System,” part II, chap- was born in Augusta, Georgia, on September 9, 1865. He attended to the Commission of Fine Arts projects is a complicated list of ma- vision, Library of Congress (hereafter cited as Olmsted MSS). ter III, in Civil War Defenses of Washington, [D.C.]: Historic Resource the Summerville Academy near Augusta and then the University of jor projects and consultations covering decades of work. Moreover, 11 At this time, remnants of earlier design treatments and prior uses Study (www.nps.gov/history/online_books/civil war/hrs1,2-3.htm). the South at Sewanee, Tennessee, majoring in journalism. He worked some projects became independent work and are given separate job decorated the mall. Various buildings intruded into the space at the In the spring of 1947, Gilmore Clarke as chairman of the Com- for two southern newspapers before becoming the Washington cor- numbers; so, for example, Rock Creek Park is assigned File #2837; periphery. The Tiber Creek and the Botanic Garden were immediately mission of Fine Arts, made a valiant last stand to forestall the D.C. respondent for the Augusta Chronicle. During this time, he met Gen- Rock Creek & Potomac Parkway is assigned File #2843 RC; and yet west of the Capitol Grounds, followed by an inchoate area of erratic commissioners from their plan to abandon “the so-called Fort Drive eral Matt W. Ransom, a former Confederate officer and U.S. Sen- another Rock Creek folder is numbered File #2843-Folder C-4. As tree groups, crossing paths, and railroad appurtenances. Andrew Jack- Project [for] the recapture lands already acquired by the Federal ator from North Carolina. In 1895, Ransom became the U.S. Min- a result there exists today in the Olmsted records a byzantine series son Downing’s picturesque park of meandering paths and arbore- Government” for new uses or to be “‘returned to taxation.’” The ister to Mexico, and Butt entered the diplomatic world as his pri- of overlapping administrative records concerning Washington. al excesses fronted the Smithsonian Institution, while to its west, gar- claim at the time was that this project was no longer economical- vate secretary. With the outbreak of the Spanish-American War, Butt 2 In 1901, architect and planner Daniel H. Burnham (1846–1912) was denesque flower beds and miscellaneous greenhouses covered the ly feasible to provide for the city’s necessary transportation needs. returned to the States and first entered the U.S. Army as a first lieu- nearly fifty-four; architect Charles Follen McKim (1847–1909) was grounds of the Department of Agriculture. The still incomplete Wash- Clarke’s plea that Fort Drive was of significance in Washington’s tenant. After the war, he remained in the army and ultimately gained a year younger; sculptor Augustus Saint-Gaudens (1848–1907) was ington Monument was surrounded by construction with tidal history and as a component of the plan for Washington fell on deaf the rank of major, serving for six years in the Philippines, where he nearly fifty-two. Charles Moore (1855–1942), Senator McMillan’s marshes close by its southern side. ears. Gilmore D. Clarke to John Russell Young, president, Board met Taft, and then in Cuba, before President Theodore Roosevelt secretary who was responsible for much of the organization concerning 12 Olmsted Sr. to William Hammond Hall, March 28, 1874, Olmsted of Commissioners, March 11, 1947; Young to Clarke, April 4, 1947, selected him to be one of his military aides. President Taft was less the McMillan Commission and who would go on to chair the Com- MSS. Records of the Commission of Fine Arts, Record Group 66, Entry interested in employing military aides; however, he asked Butt to mission of Fine Arts, was closest in age to Olmsted at forty-five. 13 The confused layering of jurisdictional controls over public struc- 17, Box 60, National Archives Building, Washington, D.C. (here- continue to serve in this capacity. Butt wrote to his sister-in-law, in 3 Laura Wood Roper, FLO: A Biography of Frederick Law Olmsted (Bal- tures and landscapes in the nation’s capital, the intricate political ma- after cited NAB). part, it seems, for future generations. See Archibald Butt, Taft and timore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973), 338. Mrs. Roper cites neuvering to develop the Senate Park Commission, and the creation 23 From 1905 to 1909, the Consultative Board established by Presi- Roosevelt: The Intimate Letters of Archie Butt (Garden City, NY: Dou- a conversation with Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. as a source, but cor- of the Commission of Fine Arts are well addressed in various essays dent Roosevelt and later enlarged into a Council of Fine Arts, at- bleday, Doran & Company, 1930), 2:540. respondence as late as 1877 continues to indicate confusion over the in Sue A. Kohler and Pamela Scott, eds., Designing the Nation’s Cap- tempted to protect the artistic effect of new public structures and 43 Butt, Taft and Roosevelt, 2:746–47. youngest son’s name. Frederick Law Olmsted Sr., writing to John ital: The 1901 Plan for Washington, D.C. (Washington, DC: U.S. Com- statuary; but the legal jurisdiction of these bodies was dubious. The 44 “Francis G. Newlands,” Washington Post, December 26, 1917, 6. Charles Olmsted in England in October 1877, discusses “sending mission of Fine Arts, 2006). board members lobbied to fulfill the heroic agreement for Union 45 Christian F. Reisner, Roosevelt’s Religion (New York: Abingdon Press, Rick there (Henry, Frederick, ‘Erick’, Rick)” See Charles E. Bev- 14 Frederick Gutheim and Antoinette J. Lee, Worthy of the Nation: Station, removing the trains from the Mall; and they negotiated with 1922), 204–05. eridge et al., eds., The Papers of Frederick Law Olmsted: Volume VII Washington, D.C., from L’Enfant to the National Capital Planning an intransigent secretary of agriculture to prevent his new building 46 Reisner, Roosevelt’s Religion, 209. Parks, Politics, and Patronage, 1874–1882 (Baltimore: Johns Hop- Commission, 2nd ed. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, from infiltrating the Mall’s sacred greensward, enlisting President 47 Sue A. Kohler, “The Commission of Fine Arts: Implementing the kins University Press, 2007), 335, 337. Several incidents in the mid- 2006), 178–181, chapter 8. Roosevelt to enforce the sanctity of its centerline. Finally, after the Senate Park Commission’s Vision,” in Kohler and Scott, Designing 1870s may have influenced the senior Olmsted’s concern over a lega- 15 Frederick Law Olmsted Jr., “Landscape in Connection With Public election of William Howard Taft, legislation was successful to es- the Nation’s Capital, 255. cy name, including the death of his own father, John, in 1873 and Buildings in Washington,” in Glenn Brown, comp., Papers Relating tablish a permanent advisory Commission of Fine Arts. See Sue A. 48 Quoted in Sue A. Kohler, “The Commission of Fine Arts: Imple- the commencement of one of the most significant design commis- to the Improvement of the City of Washington, District of Columbia Kohler, “The Commission of Fine Arts: Implementing the Senate menting the Senate Park Commission’s Vision,” Kohler and Scott, sions of his career for the U.S. Capitol Grounds. (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1901), 28, 34. Park Commission’s Vision,” in Kohler and Scott, Designing the Na- Designing the Nation’s Capital, 255. tion’s Capital, 245–73. Relevant correspondence is found in Files

26 Charles F. McKim to Newlands, March 31, 1904, Box 6, Folder 64, 49 See Commission on Fine Arts, H.R. Rep. 407 (February 8, 1910); 4 The Olmsted family at the time of Rick’s birth consisted of his full 16 Frederick Law Olmsted Jr., “Landscape in Connection With Pub- Newlands MSS. Emphasis McKim. Commission of Fine Arts, H.R. Rep. 1292 (May 9, 1910). sister Marion (1861–1948); his half sister Charlotte (1855–1908); lic Buildings in Washington,” in Brown, comp., Papers Relating to 27 Newlands to McKim, December 19, 1904, Box 7, Folder 72, New- 50 The Committee on the Library had oversight of the congressional and two half brothers, John Charles (1852–1920) and Owen Fred- the Improvement of the City of Washington, 34. lands MSS. library, congressional art collection, and U.S. Botanic Garden. erick (1857–81). His half siblings were the children of his mother, 17 Jon A. Peterson, The Birth of City Planning in the United States, 1840– 28 McKim to Newlands, March 3, 1905, Box 8, Folder 77, Newlands 51 Gilbert, Cook, Trowbridge, Burnham, Millet, Blashfield, French, and Mary Cleveland Perkins Olmsted (1830–1921), and her first hus- 1917 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003), 69–71. MSS. Olmsted had also been named to Roosevelt’s Council of Fine Arts. band, Dr. John Hull Olmsted (1825–57), Frederick Law’s younger See also Mel Scott, American City Planning Since 1890 (Berkeley: 29 Newlands to Burnham, October 7, 1906, Box 10, Folder 95, New- 52 R. S. Owen to William H. Taft, May 25, 1910, and H. D. Money to brother who had died of tuberculosis. Frederick Law Olmsted mar- University of California Press, 1969), 31–37. More than the im- lands MSS. Taft, May 27, 1910, Series 5, Reel 333, Case file 801, William Howard ried his brother’s widow in 1859 and adopted her children. John portance of exemplary architecture and landscapes arranged into 30 Burnham to Newlands, October 13, 1906, Box 10, Folder 95, New- Taft Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress (hereafter Charles Olmsted would become Rick’s partner in the firm of Olm- trend-setting groupings, the World’s Columbian Exposition was no- lands MSS. cited as Taft MSS). sted Brothers. table for what has been labeled its “Renaissance ideal of artistic col- 31 Executive Order No. 306, March 14, 1905. 53 Daniel H. Burnham to George P. Wetmore, May 19, 1910, Series 5 In addition to the New York parks, Olmsted Sr. and his partner, laboration among architects, sculptors, painters, and fine craftsmen” 32 Daniel H. Burnham to Charles F. McKim, February 5, 1907, Box 2, 5, Reel 333, Case file 801, Taft MSS. Calvert Vaux, had advised on park work in Newark, New Jersey, Buf- who labored over this enterprise. Jon A. Peterson, “The Hidden Ori- Folder 50, Daniel H. Burnham Collection, Ryerson and Burnham 54 Burnham to Wetmore, May 19, 1910, Taft MSS. Anderson and Ben- falo, New York, New Britain, Connecticut, Philadelphia, Pennsyl- gins of the McMillan Plan for Washington, D.C., 1900–1902,” in Archives, the Art Institute of Chicago (hereafter cited as Burnham nett had worked for Burnham and Bennett was his co-author for the vania, Fall River, Massachusetts, etc; had planned several subdivi- Historical Perspectives on Urban Design: Washington, D.C. 1890–1910, MSS). Chicago Plan of 1909. sions including Riverside, Illinois, and Tarrytown, New York; and ed. Antoinette J. Lee (Washington, DC: Center for Washington Area 33 McKim to Burnham, February 13, 1907, Box 2, Folder 50, Burnham 55 Burnham to Wetmore, May 19, 1910, Taft MSS. had worked on various academic and residential institutions. After Studies, George Washington University, 1983), 8. MSS. 56 Burnham to Francis D. Millet, May 19, 1910, Series 5, Reel 333, Case the dissolution of their partnership in 1872, Olmsted’s work expanded 18 Jon A. Peterson, “The Senate Park Commission Plan for Washing- 34 Burnham to McKim, February 13, 1907, Box 2, Folder 50, Burnham file 801, Taft MSS. to include the U.S. Capitol Grounds and the capitol grounds for Hart- ton, D.C.: A New Vision for the Capital and the Nation,” in Kohler MSS. 57 Newlands to William H. Taft, May 25, 1910, Box 21, Folder 208, ford, Connecticut, and Albany, New York; park work, in Boston, Mas- and Scott, Designing the Nation’s Capital, 1–19; Gutheim and Lee, 35 William H. Taft to Burnham, February 14, 1907, Box 3, Folder 66, Newlands MSS. Taft to Newlands, May 26, 1910, Series 8, Reel 502, sachusetts, Detroit, Michigan, and at Niagara Falls, New York; nu- Worthy of the Nation, 122–27; Charles Moore, Daniel H. Burnham: Burnham MSS. Taft MSS. merous institutional projects; residential subdivisions; and estate work Architect, Planner of Cities, vol. 2 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin 36 “A Showy Sham, The Concoction of a Sham Commission,” Evening 58 See May 1910, Series 5, Reel 333, Case file 801, Taft MSS and cer- and railroad station grounds for the Boston and Albany Railroad. Company, 1921), 147; and Thomas S. Hines, Burnham of Chicago: Star, January 14, 1908, 4. tificate, June 15, 1910, OP 11, Burnham MSS. 6 Roper, FLO, 435. Architect and Planner (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 37 In addition to Trowbridge and Brown, the committee included 59 “Waiting for Judson,” Evening Star, March 15, 1909. 7 Susan L. Klaus, “Intelligent and Comprehensive Planning of the Com- 1979), 401n8. George B. Post, William A. Boring, Robert S. Peabody, and C. Grant 60 Burnham to Charles Norton, July 20, 1910, Series 6, Reel 372, Case mon Sense Kind: Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. and the Emergence of 19 Harvard College Class of 1894, 25th Anniversary Report, 1894–1919 La Farge. See Brown to Newlands, January 9, 1908, Box 12, Fold- file 187, Taft MSS. Comprehensive Planning in America, 1900–1920” (master’s thesis, (Norwood, MA: Plimpton Press, 1919), 346. er 118, Newlands MSS. 61 Burnham to Norton, August 8, 1910, Series 6, Reel 372, Case file George Washington University, 1988), 32. 20 Charles Moore, “Makers of Washington,” (unpublished manuscript) 38 60th Cong. 2nd Sess. S. Doc. 665 at 7–10. 187, Taft MSS. 8 Payroll Ledger #1, PR-1, Administrative Records, Frederick Law Olm- as quoted in Klaus, “Intelligent and Comprehensive Planning,” 75. 39 60th Cong. 2nd Sess. S. Doc. 665 at 21. sted National Historic Site. 21 ”Appendix G: List of Lands in the District of Columbia Devoted to 40 S. B. P. Trowbridge to Newlands, January 11, 1909, Box 16, Fold- . 9 Pamela Scott, “Two Centuries of Architectural Practice in Wash- Public Use”; “Appendix H: List of Proposed Additional Reserva- er 155, Newlands MSS. ington,” in Buildings of the District of Columbia, ed. Pamela Scott tions”; and “Appendix I: Proposed Additions to Existing Parks,” in 41 Trowbridge to Newlands, January 21, 1909, Box 16, Folder 156, New- 1 Most projects in the Olmsted firm files were assigned an individual and Antoinette J. Lee (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), Charles Moore, ed., The Improvement of the Park System of the Dis- lands MSS. job number. However, for the numerous Washington, D.C., proj- 14–19. trict of Columbia Report (Washington, DC: Government Printing 42 Military aide Archibald Butt wrote about many Washington per- ects, particularly for the public work, the numbering reflects a com- 10 Frederick Law Olmsted (Sr.) (hereafter “Olmsted Sr.”) to J. R. Mor- Office, 1902), 155–71. sonalities to his sister-in-law, Clara Butt, beginning in 1909 until he plex system that indicates the point of origin or organizational spon- rill, chairman of the Committee for Public Grounds, U.S. Senate, 22 Gutheim and Lee, Worthy of the Nation, 201–05, 214–15, 254–55. died in 1912 in the sinking of the Titanic. Archibald Willingham Butt sorship of the work. Thus, subsumed under the File #2843 assigned January 22, 1874, Frederick Law Olmsted Papers Manuscript Di- See also National Park Service,” The Fort Park System,” part II, chap- was born in Augusta, Georgia, on September 9, 1865. He attended to the Commission of Fine Arts projects is a complicated list of ma- vision, Library of Congress (hereafter cited as Olmsted MSS). ter III, in Civil War Defenses of Washington, [D.C.]: Historic Resource the Summerville Academy near Augusta and then the University of jor projects and consultations covering decades of work. Moreover, 11 At this time, remnants of earlier design treatments and prior uses Study (www.nps.gov/history/online_books/civil war/hrs1,2-3.htm). the South at Sewanee, Tennessee, majoring in journalism. He worked some projects became independent work and are given separate job decorated the mall. Various buildings intruded into the space at the In the spring of 1947, Gilmore Clarke as chairman of the Com- for two southern newspapers before becoming the Washington cor- numbers; so, for example, Rock Creek Park is assigned File #2837; periphery. The Tiber Creek and the Botanic Garden were immediately mission of Fine Arts, made a valiant last stand to forestall the D.C. respondent for the Augusta Chronicle. During this time, he met Gen- Rock Creek & Potomac Parkway is assigned File #2843 RC; and yet west of the Capitol Grounds, followed by an inchoate area of erratic commissioners from their plan to abandon “the so-called Fort Drive eral Matt W. Ransom, a former Confederate officer and U.S. Sen- another Rock Creek folder is numbered File #2843-Folder C-4. As tree groups, crossing paths, and railroad appurtenances. Andrew Jack- Project [for] the recapture lands already acquired by the Federal ator from North Carolina. In 1895, Ransom became the U.S. Min- a result there exists today in the Olmsted records a byzantine series son Downing’s picturesque park of meandering paths and arbore- Government” for new uses or to be “‘returned to taxation.’” The ister to Mexico, and Butt entered the diplomatic world as his pri- of overlapping administrative records concerning Washington. al excesses fronted the Smithsonian Institution, while to its west, gar- claim at the time was that this project was no longer economical- vate secretary. With the outbreak of the Spanish-American War, Butt 2 In 1901, architect and planner Daniel H. Burnham (1846–1912) was denesque flower beds and miscellaneous greenhouses covered the ly feasible to provide for the city’s necessary transportation needs. returned to the States and first entered the U.S. Army as a first lieu- nearly fifty-four; architect Charles Follen McKim (1847–1909) was grounds of the Department of Agriculture. The still incomplete Wash- Clarke’s plea that Fort Drive was of significance in Washington’s tenant. After the war, he remained in the army and ultimately gained a year younger; sculptor Augustus Saint-Gaudens (1848–1907) was ington Monument was surrounded by construction with tidal history and as a component of the plan for Washington fell on deaf the rank of major, serving for six years in the Philippines, where he nearly fifty-two. Charles Moore (1855–1942), Senator McMillan’s marshes close by its southern side. ears. Gilmore D. Clarke to John Russell Young, president, Board met Taft, and then in Cuba, before President Theodore Roosevelt secretary who was responsible for much of the organization concerning 12 Olmsted Sr. to William Hammond Hall, March 28, 1874, Olmsted of Commissioners, March 11, 1947; Young to Clarke, April 4, 1947, selected him to be one of his military aides. President Taft was less the McMillan Commission and who would go on to chair the Com- MSS. Records of the Commission of Fine Arts, Record Group 66, Entry interested in employing military aides; however, he asked Butt to mission of Fine Arts, was closest in age to Olmsted at forty-five. 13 The confused layering of jurisdictional controls over public struc- 17, Box 60, National Archives Building, Washington, D.C. (here- continue to serve in this capacity. Butt wrote to his sister-in-law, in 3 Laura Wood Roper, FLO: A Biography of Frederick Law Olmsted (Bal- tures and landscapes in the nation’s capital, the intricate political ma- after cited NAB). part, it seems, for future generations. See Archibald Butt, Taft and timore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973), 338. Mrs. Roper cites neuvering to develop the Senate Park Commission, and the creation 23 From 1905 to 1909, the Consultative Board established by Presi- Roosevelt: The Intimate Letters of Archie Butt (Garden City, NY: Dou- a conversation with Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. as a source, but cor- of the Commission of Fine Arts are well addressed in various essays dent Roosevelt and later enlarged into a Council of Fine Arts, at- bleday, Doran & Company, 1930), 2:540. respondence as late as 1877 continues to indicate confusion over the in Sue A. Kohler and Pamela Scott, eds., Designing the Nation’s Cap- tempted to protect the artistic effect of new public structures and 43 Butt, Taft and Roosevelt, 2:746–47. youngest son’s name. Frederick Law Olmsted Sr., writing to John ital: The 1901 Plan for Washington, D.C. (Washington, DC: U.S. Com- statuary; but the legal jurisdiction of these bodies was dubious. The 44 “Francis G. Newlands,” Washington Post, December 26, 1917, 6. Charles Olmsted in England in October 1877, discusses “sending mission of Fine Arts, 2006). board members lobbied to fulfill the heroic agreement for Union 45 Christian F. Reisner, Roosevelt’s Religion (New York: Abingdon Press, Rick there (Henry, Frederick, ‘Erick’, Rick)” See Charles E. Bev- 14 Frederick Gutheim and Antoinette J. Lee, Worthy of the Nation: Station, removing the trains from the Mall; and they negotiated with 1922), 204–05. eridge et al., eds., The Papers of Frederick Law Olmsted: Volume VII Washington, D.C., from L’Enfant to the National Capital Planning an intransigent secretary of agriculture to prevent his new building 46 Reisner, Roosevelt’s Religion, 209. Parks, Politics, and Patronage, 1874–1882 (Baltimore: Johns Hop- Commission, 2nd ed. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, from infiltrating the Mall’s sacred greensward, enlisting President 47 Sue A. Kohler, “The Commission of Fine Arts: Implementing the kins University Press, 2007), 335, 337. Several incidents in the mid- 2006), 178–181, chapter 8. Roosevelt to enforce the sanctity of its centerline. Finally, after the Senate Park Commission’s Vision,” in Kohler and Scott, Designing 1870s may have influenced the senior Olmsted’s concern over a lega- 15 Frederick Law Olmsted Jr., “Landscape in Connection With Public election of William Howard Taft, legislation was successful to es- the Nation’s Capital, 255. cy name, including the death of his own father, John, in 1873 and Buildings in Washington,” in Glenn Brown, comp., Papers Relating tablish a permanent advisory Commission of Fine Arts. See Sue A. 48 Quoted in Sue A. Kohler, “The Commission of Fine Arts: Imple- the commencement of one of the most significant design commis- to the Improvement of the City of Washington, District of Columbia Kohler, “The Commission of Fine Arts: Implementing the Senate menting the Senate Park Commission’s Vision,” Kohler and Scott, sions of his career for the U.S. Capitol Grounds. (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1901), 28, 34. Park Commission’s Vision,” in Kohler and Scott, Designing the Na- Designing the Nation’s Capital, 255. tion’s Capital, 245–73. Relevant correspondence is found in Files

#2823 and #2839, Olmsted Associates Records, Manuscript Divi- 30 Olmsted even traveled as far as Panama in 1914 with fellow com- this 1910–20 decade, Olmsted had managed, around his continu- minutes, June 19, 1934 and October 10, 1934. sion, Library of Congress (hereafter cited OAR). missioner Daniel Chester French to advise Colonel Goethals on beau- ing teaching schedule and his monthly meetings for the CFA, to write 52 Olmsted, Report of Meeting, September 17, 1934, File #2834 M.Un., 24 See File #2838, OAR, especially Charles Moore, “Some Popular Mis- tification possibilities around the canal and its newly constructed com- several influential planning reports for cities such as Pittsburgh, Penn- OAR; and CFA minutes, September 17, 1934, and October 19, 1934. conceptions Corrected,” November 1907. In this document, Moore munities. CFA minutes, November 15, 1912–May 9, 1913; Sue A. sylvania, and Rochester, New York (both of which involved Whit- 53 Harvard College Class of 1894, 50th Anniversary Report, 1894–1944 also makes a plea for a municipal art commission like other cities have, Kohler, “The Commission of Fine Arts,” in Kohler and Scott, De- ing’s analysis), and to maintain his active involvement in lecturing (Norwood, MA: Plimpton Press, 1944), 407. noting, “The city of Washington, which should be a model for oth- signing the Nation’s Capital, 259–62. Olmsted made several work- and writing for city planning organizations. As scholars have not- 54 File #2843 M.Un., OAR and Kay Fanning, Cultural Landscape In- er cities, seems not able to even profit by their example.” See also ing tours of the small parks and reservations, altering plans from the ed, however, his earlier enthusiasm for planning as a comprehen- ventory for National Mall & Memorial Parks: Union Square. Kay Fanning, Cultural Landscape Inventory for National Mall & Me- Office of Public Buildings and Grounds. CFA minutes, January 23, sive panacea for urban ills was waning in the face of increasing re- 55 Olmsted to Colonel U.S. Grant III, January 24, 1928, File #2843 EX, morial Parks: Union Square (Washington, DC: Department of the 1914–1917. He paid special attention to the transformation of the liance on “the expert” approach, rather than on a more multidisci- OAR. Interior, National Park Service, 2006). former Boyce mansion grounds into Montrose Park, trying to blend plined collaboration. See Klaus, “Intelligent and Comprehensive Plan- 56 CFA minutes, October 19, 1934. 25 Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. (hereafter “Olmsted”) to Daniel H. Burn- the character of its plantings and forested slope with the new user ning,” and John J. Pittari Jr. “Practical Idealism: Frederick Law Olm- 57 CFA minutes January 31, 1936; Olmsted to G. Marshall Finnan, June ham, August 2, 1907, File #2839, OAR. This letter was in response amenities. CFA minutes, 1912–1918. Meridian Hill Park received care- sted Jr. and Modern American City Planning Movement,” (PhD diss., 12, 1934, File #2843 EX, OAR; and Thomas E. Beaman Jr., “Williams, to earlier Olmsted correspondence with Burnham. In West Potomac ful scrutiny from Olmsted and fellow commissioners Cass Gilbert University of Washington, 1997). His professional landscape prac- Morley Jeffers,” in Pioneers of American Landscape Design, ed. Charles Park, Olmsted had tried to refine the haphazard filling, road build- and Charles Platt over its spatial arrangements, constructed details, tice for private clients continued to grow, now with several substantial A. Birnbaum and Robin Karson (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2000), ing, and tree planting of the army corps, which was in haste to open and plantings, as its unique Italianate form emerged. CFA minutes, community residential commissions: a landmark design for Forest 455–457. this section for public use. Considering a compromise over estab- April 4, 1913–February 24, 1922. Hills Gardens in New York and planning for resort communities such 58 OB, “Report to the President of the United States on Improvements lishing lines and grades, Rick aroused a sharp rebuke from Burnham, 31 CFA minutes, May 20, 1915; July 29, 1915; October 2, 1915; De- as Mountain Lake, Florida, and Palos Verdes, California. Both of these and Policy of Maintenance for the Executive Mansion Grounds,” Oc- who admonished him to “stand for the real thing” for the west end cember 3, 1915; September 5, 1916; and October 6, 1916. latter projects would be extensive, complex, and long-term endeavors, tober 1935, File #2843 EX, OAR. of the Mall, as this would “be a virtual adoption of the whole plan” 32 Gutheim and Lee, Worthy of the Nation, 168–181. Park efforts dur- reaching fruition over the following decades. 59 Hubbard to Moore, May 14, 1935, File #2843 EX, OAR. to settle the Mall against all future attacks. Burnham to Olmsted, July ing this period included encouraging donations of land or funds to 40 Olmsted to Warren H. Manning, December 27, 1920, and Olmst- 60 File #2843 EX, Folders 1 and 2, OAR; Moore to the President, May 29, 1907, File #2839, OAR. fulfill the park system goals. In 1923–24, Charles Glover and Anne ed to Representative Robert Luce, April 28, 1921, File #2845, OAR. 14, 1935, File #2843 EX, OAR; CFA minutes, January 29, 1937 and 26 In addition, during this time Olmsted also maintained a full teach- Archbold gave considerable acreage of the Foundry Branch valley 41 File #2845, OAR. Having acquired the land, attempts to establish pro- CFA minutes, January 29, 1937, exhibit A, letter from Clarke to Moore, ing schedule at Harvard, developing the first courses in landscape to become part of the D.C. park system. Together with other mem- cedures for design and construction and an efficient arboretum man- March 2, 1936. architecture; wrote several city planning reports (for Queens and bers of NCPPC, Olmsted examined this property, preparing a report agement under the Department of Agriculture were constantly be- 61 CFA minutes, April 25, 1935. Utica, New York, Holyoke, Massachusetts, and Detroit, Michigan) in April 1930. He praised the “sylvan mystery” and spiritual re- set with delays, to the continual frustration of both Olmsted and Fred- 62 Olmsted to C. Grant La Farge, October 30, 1923, File #2847, OAR; and periodical articles; and was an active organizer and lecturer for freshment of this woodland, analyzed the character of its various com- eric Delano, chair of the NCPPC, who joined him on the Arboretum quoted in Sue A. Kohler, The Commission of Fine Arts: A Brief His- the American Civic Association and later the National Conference ponent parts, and recommended management procedures to pro- Advisory Council. tory, 1910–1995 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, on City Planning. A sampling of his design and planning commis- tect beauty while enabling its use as a public park. Gutheim and Lee, 42 ”The National Arboretum,” Olmsted to Frederick T. Coville, May 1996), 69–71. sions for this period includes park systems in Baltimore and Hart- Worthy of the Nation, 178, 201–05; File #2844, Folder F-9, OAR. 8, 1927, File #2845, OAR. 63 Olmsted to Cammerer, “Memorandum Report by Frederick Law ford; a network of playground parks in Chicago’s south side; con- 33 CFA minutes, October 2, 1915; December 4, 1915; September 5, 43 CFA minutes, September 1931, exhibit D, letter from Commission Olmsted on Proposed Sites for a Memorial to Thomas Jefferson in tinued implementation of Boston’s metropolitan parks; plans for nu- 1916; and October 6, 1916; File # 2843, Folder C-7, OAR. of Fine Arts to Senator Simeon D. Fess, November 2, 1931, 24–26. the National Capital,” July 22, 1935, File #2843 PPJ, OAR. merous educational institutions, among them the Taft School, in Wa- 34 Considerations of East Potomac Park, Rock Creek Park, and, finally, 44 Pamela Scott, “‘A City Designed as a Work of Art’: The Emergence 64 CFA minutes, March 20, 1937, including minutes of joint meeting tertown, Connecticut (for President Taft’s brother); and residen- Mount Hamilton and Anacostia were reviewed by the commission of the Senate Park Commission’s Monumental Core,” in Kohler and with NCPPC and Olmsted to Harlean James, April 18, 1937, File tial designs for numerous private clients. with recommendations for the latter. CFA minutes, January 23, 1914; Scott, Designing the Nation’s Capital, 107–11. #2843 PPJ, OAR. 27 Olmsted to Colonel Charles S. Bromwell, January 14, 1907, File and CFA minutes, September 18, 1917, letter from Colonel William 45 CFA minutes, October 4, 1932–November 29, 1932 (NCPPC min- 65 CFA minutes, September 29, 1937. #2839, OAR. Frederick Law Olmsted, “City Plan for the City of Wash- W. Harts to Representative James L. Slayden, 45–62; and File #2845, utes of November 17–19, 1932 are filed with CFA minutes, November 66 CFA minutes, March 20, 1937; February 3, 1938; and March 24, 1938; ington,” Journal of Proceedings of the Thirty-Sixth Annual Conven- OAR. 18–19, 1932); Olmsted to Frederic A. Delano, October 18, 1932, exchange of correspondence between Hubbard and Fiske Kimball tion, American Institute of Architects (1902), 55. A photograph of 35 Olmsted Sr., “Part of Draft Report Preliminary to Plan for Nation- NCPPC minutes, appendix H. See also File # 2848, OAR and Thomas in October and November 1938, File #2843 PPJ, OAR. Langdon’s plan for East Potomac Park can be found in the Com- al Zoological Park,” addressed to Dr. Frank Baker, c. 1890, Olmst- C. Jeffers, “The Washington Monument: Various Plans for Im- 67 Hubbard to Otto Eggers, July 25, 1938; Kimball to Hubbard, Oc- mission of Fine Arts collection. Langdon presented his plans for re- ed MSS; Moore, The Improvement of the Park System of the District provement of Its Surroundings,” Landscape Architecture 39 (July tober 19, 1938; and Hubbard to Kimball, November 22, 1938, File view to the commission in 1915. Commission of Fine Arts minutes, of Columbia, 87; and File #2822, OAR. 1949): 157–63. #2843 PPJ, OAR. October 2, 1915 (hereafter CFA Minutes). Copies of all minutes are 36 Moore, The Improvement of the Park System, 85–86, 88–89 and File 46 Olmsted to Frederic A. Delano, October 18, 1932, NCPPC minutes, 68 Clarke to Newton Drury, March 4, 1941; Hubbard to Olmsted, March held in the offices of the Commission of Fine Arts, Washington, D.C. #2837, OAR. For a thorough exploration of the development of the appendix H.; Delano to “My Colleagues on the Park and Planning 31, 1941; Olmsted to Drury, April 16, 1941; Olmsted to A. E. De- James G. Langdon began as an employee of the Olmsted firm in 1892, Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway, see Timothy Davis, “Rock Creek Commission,” October 7, 1932, NCPPC minutes; CFA minutes, Jan- maray, August 5, 1941; and Clarke to Olmsted, August 11, 1941, File coming to Washington with Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. to be his and Potomac Parkway, Washington, D.C.: The Evolution of a Con- uary 6, 1933, letter from Henry V. Hubbard to Gilmore D. Clarke, #2843 PPJ, OAR. draftsman for the McMillan Commission work. Langdon remained tested Urban Landscape,” Studies in the History of Gardens & De- January 3, 1933. See also File #2843, Folder MG, and File #2844, 69 Eggers to OB, July 14, 1942; Carl Rust Parker to Olmsted, July 16, in the Washington-Baltimore area, designing a number of public proj- signed Landscapes 19:2 (Summer 1999): 123–237. Folder 2, OAR. 1942; and Olmsted, “Report of Visit,” July 28, 1942, File #2843 PPJ. ects, many of which were collaborations with the Olmsted firm. 37 Olmsted, “Report for Senator Wetmore on the Rock Creek Matter,” 47 Olmsted to A. B. Cammerer, September 27, 1933, File #2843 M.Un., 70 Moore, Improvement of the Park System, 58. 28 Senator McMillan died unexpectedly on August 10, 1902. Given his March17, 1911, File #2843, Folder C-4, OAR; CFA minutes, November OAR. 71 Olmsted to F. A. Delano, July 2, 1936, File #2843 AI, OAR; Kay Fan- involvement in legislation to protect the District’s water system, the 28, 1916, letter from Charles Moore to Representative James L. Slay- 48 See File #2838, OAR. ning, “National Register of Historic Places Registration Form for area around this reservoir, which he had sponsored, was designat- den, 390; and CFA minutes, September 18, 1917, letter from Colonel 49 Olmsted, “Memorandum as to Data for Union Square, Washington,” Theodore Roosevelt Island,” January 31, 1999, section 8, 46–47. ed by President Taft as an appropriate location for a neighborhood Harts to Representative James L. Slayden, 45–62. October 11, 1933; Olmsted, “Statement in Regard to General Plan 72 Hermann Hagedorn to John Russell Pope and Olmsted, May 10, park, also in recognition of McMillan’s work for the improvement 38 Olmsted Brothers (hereafter “OB”) to the Board of Control of Rock for Union Square, Washington, D.C.,” April 19, 1934; and Olmsted 1932; Olmsted to Hagedorn, May 13, 1932, File #2843-AI, OAR. of the park system. Little remains today of the Olmsted design on Creek Park, December 1917, File #2837, OAR; and Timothy Davis, to Cammerer, June 21, 1944, all found in File #2843 M.Un., OAR. 73 Olmsted to Hagedorn, May 5, 1932; OB [HVH], “Notes on Certain the ground, and the elegant sculptural fountain designed by Her- “Beyond the Mall: The Senate Park Commission’s Plans for Wash- 50 Regarding the sanctity of the 1901 plans, Olmsted noted that there Considerations Affecting the Design,” December 22, 1932, File bert Adams and Charles Platt is reputed to be in storage. See File ington’s Park System,” in Kohler and Scott, Designing the Nation’s are parts “which McKim and I never did thrash out as thoroughly #2843-AI, OAR. #2840, OAR and NARA, Record Group 66, Box 101. In 1934, the Com- Capital, 137–81. Following Humphrey Repton’s “Redbook” prac- as we did most of the other parts of the central scheme (except the 74 CFA minutes, December 15, 1933, and January 18–19, 1934 and Olm- mission of Fine Arts forestalled an inappropriately placed playground tice of illustrating before-and-after views for his landscape propos- Capitol cascades).” Olmsted to C. Grant La Farge, October 30, 1923, sted, “Outline of Projected Improvement Work by the C.C.C,” June that impinged on the fountain. CFA minutes, January 25, 1934, letter als, many of these Rock Creek Park images showed extant conditions File #2847, OAR. A January 1935 memorandum about the Union 18, 1935, File #2843-AI, OAR. from Charles Moore to Major Arthur. with an overlay of idealized improvements. Square project noted: “Introduction of cascade too grandiose and 75 An extensive number of plans was produced for this project, of which 29 The new appointees were architects Thomas Hastings and Cass 39 OB, December 1917 Rock Creek Park Report, File #283, OAR. In out of character with Capitol.” [Olmsted], “Memorandum,” Janu- at least 273 are extant in the Olmsted National Historic Site, Brook- Gilbert, sculptor Daniel Chester French, and artist Francis D. Mil- the Olmsted Brothers collaborative practice, individual work was ary 1935, File #2843 M.Un., OAR; CFA minutes, April 24, June 1, June line, Massachusetts, collection. Some were produced by the Olmsted let. They were chosen from among a considerable list of suggested subsumed under the Olmsted rubric. At the time of this report, 19, September 17, 1934; and Olmsted to A. B. Cammerer, June 21, office; others came either from the Office of Public Buildings and Pub- candidates. Sue A. Kohler, “The Commission of Fine Arts,” in Kohler 1917–18, as his tenure was ending on the Commission of Fine Arts, 1934, File #2843 M.Un., OAR. lic Parks, the NCPPC, or from another federal agency. Given its wa- and Scott, Designing the Nation’s Capital, 257–59. Olmsted was heavily engaged in the wartime planning for military 51 Olmsted, “Statement in Regard to General Plan for Union Square, terfront location along the Virginia shore, work on Analostan Island and industrial workers’ housing. Characteristic of his energy during Washington, D.C.,” April 19, 1934, File #2843 M.Un., OAR; and CFA involved multiple jurisdictions. The preliminary general plan #2843-

26 Charles F. McKim to Newlands, March 31, 1904, Box 6, Folder 64, 49 See Commission on Fine Arts, H.R. Rep. 407 (February 8, 1910); 4 The Olmsted family at the time of Rick’s birth consisted of his full 16 Frederick Law Olmsted Jr., “Landscape in Connection With Pub- Newlands MSS. Emphasis McKim. Commission of Fine Arts, H.R. Rep. 1292 (May 9, 1910). sister Marion (1861–1948); his half sister Charlotte (1855–1908); lic Buildings in Washington,” in Brown, comp., Papers Relating to 27 Newlands to McKim, December 19, 1904, Box 7, Folder 72, New- 50 The Committee on the Library had oversight of the congressional and two half brothers, John Charles (1852–1920) and Owen Fred- the Improvement of the City of Washington, 34. lands MSS. library, congressional art collection, and U.S. Botanic Garden. erick (1857–81). His half siblings were the children of his mother, 17 Jon A. Peterson, The Birth of City Planning in the United States, 1840– 28 McKim to Newlands, March 3, 1905, Box 8, Folder 77, Newlands 51 Gilbert, Cook, Trowbridge, Burnham, Millet, Blashfield, French, and Mary Cleveland Perkins Olmsted (1830–1921), and her first hus- 1917 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003), 69–71. MSS. Olmsted had also been named to Roosevelt’s Council of Fine Arts. band, Dr. John Hull Olmsted (1825–57), Frederick Law’s younger See also Mel Scott, American City Planning Since 1890 (Berkeley: 29 Newlands to Burnham, October 7, 1906, Box 10, Folder 95, New- 52 R. S. Owen to William H. Taft, May 25, 1910, and H. D. Money to brother who had died of tuberculosis. Frederick Law Olmsted mar- University of California Press, 1969), 31–37. More than the im- lands MSS. Taft, May 27, 1910, Series 5, Reel 333, Case file 801, William Howard ried his brother’s widow in 1859 and adopted her children. John portance of exemplary architecture and landscapes arranged into 30 Burnham to Newlands, October 13, 1906, Box 10, Folder 95, New- Taft Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress (hereafter Charles Olmsted would become Rick’s partner in the firm of Olm- trend-setting groupings, the World’s Columbian Exposition was no- lands MSS. cited as Taft MSS). sted Brothers. table for what has been labeled its “Renaissance ideal of artistic col- 31 Executive Order No. 306, March 14, 1905. 53 Daniel H. Burnham to George P. Wetmore, May 19, 1910, Series 5 In addition to the New York parks, Olmsted Sr. and his partner, laboration among architects, sculptors, painters, and fine craftsmen” 32 Daniel H. Burnham to Charles F. McKim, February 5, 1907, Box 2, 5, Reel 333, Case file 801, Taft MSS. Calvert Vaux, had advised on park work in Newark, New Jersey, Buf- who labored over this enterprise. Jon A. Peterson, “The Hidden Ori- Folder 50, Daniel H. Burnham Collection, Ryerson and Burnham 54 Burnham to Wetmore, May 19, 1910, Taft MSS. Anderson and Ben- falo, New York, New Britain, Connecticut, Philadelphia, Pennsyl- gins of the McMillan Plan for Washington, D.C., 1900–1902,” in Archives, the Art Institute of Chicago (hereafter cited as Burnham nett had worked for Burnham and Bennett was his co-author for the vania, Fall River, Massachusetts, etc; had planned several subdivi- Historical Perspectives on Urban Design: Washington, D.C. 1890–1910, MSS). Chicago Plan of 1909. sions including Riverside, Illinois, and Tarrytown, New York; and ed. Antoinette J. Lee (Washington, DC: Center for Washington Area 33 McKim to Burnham, February 13, 1907, Box 2, Folder 50, Burnham 55 Burnham to Wetmore, May 19, 1910, Taft MSS. had worked on various academic and residential institutions. After Studies, George Washington University, 1983), 8. MSS. 56 Burnham to Francis D. Millet, May 19, 1910, Series 5, Reel 333, Case the dissolution of their partnership in 1872, Olmsted’s work expanded 18 Jon A. Peterson, “The Senate Park Commission Plan for Washing- 34 Burnham to McKim, February 13, 1907, Box 2, Folder 50, Burnham file 801, Taft MSS. to include the U.S. Capitol Grounds and the capitol grounds for Hart- ton, D.C.: A New Vision for the Capital and the Nation,” in Kohler MSS. 57 Newlands to William H. Taft, May 25, 1910, Box 21, Folder 208, ford, Connecticut, and Albany, New York; park work, in Boston, Mas- and Scott, Designing the Nation’s Capital, 1–19; Gutheim and Lee, 35 William H. Taft to Burnham, February 14, 1907, Box 3, Folder 66, Newlands MSS. Taft to Newlands, May 26, 1910, Series 8, Reel 502, sachusetts, Detroit, Michigan, and at Niagara Falls, New York; nu- Worthy of the Nation, 122–27; Charles Moore, Daniel H. Burnham: Burnham MSS. Taft MSS. merous institutional projects; residential subdivisions; and estate work Architect, Planner of Cities, vol. 2 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin 36 “A Showy Sham, The Concoction of a Sham Commission,” Evening 58 See May 1910, Series 5, Reel 333, Case file 801, Taft MSS and cer- and railroad station grounds for the Boston and Albany Railroad. Company, 1921), 147; and Thomas S. Hines, Burnham of Chicago: Star, January 14, 1908, 4. tificate, June 15, 1910, OP 11, Burnham MSS. 6 Roper, FLO, 435. Architect and Planner (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 37 In addition to Trowbridge and Brown, the committee included 59 “Waiting for Judson,” Evening Star, March 15, 1909. 7 Susan L. Klaus, “Intelligent and Comprehensive Planning of the Com- 1979), 401n8. George B. Post, William A. Boring, Robert S. Peabody, and C. Grant 60 Burnham to Charles Norton, July 20, 1910, Series 6, Reel 372, Case mon Sense Kind: Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. and the Emergence of 19 Harvard College Class of 1894, 25th Anniversary Report, 1894–1919 La Farge. See Brown to Newlands, January 9, 1908, Box 12, Fold- file 187, Taft MSS. Comprehensive Planning in America, 1900–1920” (master’s thesis, (Norwood, MA: Plimpton Press, 1919), 346. er 118, Newlands MSS. 61 Burnham to Norton, August 8, 1910, Series 6, Reel 372, Case file George Washington University, 1988), 32. 20 Charles Moore, “Makers of Washington,” (unpublished manuscript) 38 60th Cong. 2nd Sess. S. Doc. 665 at 7–10. 187, Taft MSS. 8 Payroll Ledger #1, PR-1, Administrative Records, Frederick Law Olm- as quoted in Klaus, “Intelligent and Comprehensive Planning,” 75. 39 60th Cong. 2nd Sess. S. Doc. 665 at 21. sted National Historic Site. 21 ”Appendix G: List of Lands in the District of Columbia Devoted to 40 S. B. P. Trowbridge to Newlands, January 11, 1909, Box 16, Fold- . 9 Pamela Scott, “Two Centuries of Architectural Practice in Wash- Public Use”; “Appendix H: List of Proposed Additional Reserva- er 155, Newlands MSS. ington,” in Buildings of the District of Columbia, ed. Pamela Scott tions”; and “Appendix I: Proposed Additions to Existing Parks,” in 41 Trowbridge to Newlands, January 21, 1909, Box 16, Folder 156, New- 1 Most projects in the Olmsted firm files were assigned an individual and Antoinette J. Lee (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), Charles Moore, ed., The Improvement of the Park System of the Dis- lands MSS. job number. However, for the numerous Washington, D.C., proj- 14–19. trict of Columbia Report (Washington, DC: Government Printing 42 Military aide Archibald Butt wrote about many Washington per- ects, particularly for the public work, the numbering reflects a com- 10 Frederick Law Olmsted (Sr.) (hereafter “Olmsted Sr.”) to J. R. Mor- Office, 1902), 155–71. sonalities to his sister-in-law, Clara Butt, beginning in 1909 until he plex system that indicates the point of origin or organizational spon- rill, chairman of the Committee for Public Grounds, U.S. Senate, 22 Gutheim and Lee, Worthy of the Nation, 201–05, 214–15, 254–55. died in 1912 in the sinking of the Titanic. Archibald Willingham Butt sorship of the work. Thus, subsumed under the File #2843 assigned January 22, 1874, Frederick Law Olmsted Papers Manuscript Di- See also National Park Service,” The Fort Park System,” part II, chap- was born in Augusta, Georgia, on September 9, 1865. He attended to the Commission of Fine Arts projects is a complicated list of ma- vision, Library of Congress (hereafter cited as Olmsted MSS). ter III, in Civil War Defenses of Washington, [D.C.]: Historic Resource the Summerville Academy near Augusta and then the University of jor projects and consultations covering decades of work. Moreover, 11 At this time, remnants of earlier design treatments and prior uses Study (www.nps.gov/history/online_books/civil war/hrs1,2-3.htm). the South at Sewanee, Tennessee, majoring in journalism. He worked some projects became independent work and are given separate job decorated the mall. Various buildings intruded into the space at the In the spring of 1947, Gilmore Clarke as chairman of the Com- for two southern newspapers before becoming the Washington cor- numbers; so, for example, Rock Creek Park is assigned File #2837; periphery. The Tiber Creek and the Botanic Garden were immediately mission of Fine Arts, made a valiant last stand to forestall the D.C. respondent for the Augusta Chronicle. During this time, he met Gen- Rock Creek & Potomac Parkway is assigned File #2843 RC; and yet west of the Capitol Grounds, followed by an inchoate area of erratic commissioners from their plan to abandon “the so-called Fort Drive eral Matt W. Ransom, a former Confederate officer and U.S. Sen- another Rock Creek folder is numbered File #2843-Folder C-4. As tree groups, crossing paths, and railroad appurtenances. Andrew Jack- Project [for] the recapture lands already acquired by the Federal ator from North Carolina. In 1895, Ransom became the U.S. Min- a result there exists today in the Olmsted records a byzantine series son Downing’s picturesque park of meandering paths and arbore- Government” for new uses or to be “‘returned to taxation.’” The ister to Mexico, and Butt entered the diplomatic world as his pri- of overlapping administrative records concerning Washington. al excesses fronted the Smithsonian Institution, while to its west, gar- claim at the time was that this project was no longer economical- vate secretary. With the outbreak of the Spanish-American War, Butt 2 In 1901, architect and planner Daniel H. Burnham (1846–1912) was denesque flower beds and miscellaneous greenhouses covered the ly feasible to provide for the city’s necessary transportation needs. returned to the States and first entered the U.S. Army as a first lieu- nearly fifty-four; architect Charles Follen McKim (1847–1909) was grounds of the Department of Agriculture. The still incomplete Wash- Clarke’s plea that Fort Drive was of significance in Washington’s tenant. After the war, he remained in the army and ultimately gained a year younger; sculptor Augustus Saint-Gaudens (1848–1907) was ington Monument was surrounded by construction with tidal history and as a component of the plan for Washington fell on deaf the rank of major, serving for six years in the Philippines, where he nearly fifty-two. Charles Moore (1855–1942), Senator McMillan’s marshes close by its southern side. ears. Gilmore D. Clarke to John Russell Young, president, Board met Taft, and then in Cuba, before President Theodore Roosevelt secretary who was responsible for much of the organization concerning 12 Olmsted Sr. to William Hammond Hall, March 28, 1874, Olmsted of Commissioners, March 11, 1947; Young to Clarke, April 4, 1947, selected him to be one of his military aides. President Taft was less the McMillan Commission and who would go on to chair the Com- MSS. Records of the Commission of Fine Arts, Record Group 66, Entry interested in employing military aides; however, he asked Butt to mission of Fine Arts, was closest in age to Olmsted at forty-five. 13 The confused layering of jurisdictional controls over public struc- 17, Box 60, National Archives Building, Washington, D.C. (here- continue to serve in this capacity. Butt wrote to his sister-in-law, in 3 Laura Wood Roper, FLO: A Biography of Frederick Law Olmsted (Bal- tures and landscapes in the nation’s capital, the intricate political ma- after cited NAB). part, it seems, for future generations. See Archibald Butt, Taft and timore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973), 338. Mrs. Roper cites neuvering to develop the Senate Park Commission, and the creation 23 From 1905 to 1909, the Consultative Board established by Presi- Roosevelt: The Intimate Letters of Archie Butt (Garden City, NY: Dou- a conversation with Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. as a source, but cor- of the Commission of Fine Arts are well addressed in various essays dent Roosevelt and later enlarged into a Council of Fine Arts, at- bleday, Doran & Company, 1930), 2:540. respondence as late as 1877 continues to indicate confusion over the in Sue A. Kohler and Pamela Scott, eds., Designing the Nation’s Cap- tempted to protect the artistic effect of new public structures and 43 Butt, Taft and Roosevelt, 2:746–47. youngest son’s name. Frederick Law Olmsted Sr., writing to John ital: The 1901 Plan for Washington, D.C. (Washington, DC: U.S. Com- statuary; but the legal jurisdiction of these bodies was dubious. The 44 “Francis G. Newlands,” Washington Post, December 26, 1917, 6. Charles Olmsted in England in October 1877, discusses “sending mission of Fine Arts, 2006). board members lobbied to fulfill the heroic agreement for Union 45 Christian F. Reisner, Roosevelt’s Religion (New York: Abingdon Press, Rick there (Henry, Frederick, ‘Erick’, Rick)” See Charles E. Bev- 14 Frederick Gutheim and Antoinette J. Lee, Worthy of the Nation: Station, removing the trains from the Mall; and they negotiated with 1922), 204–05. eridge et al., eds., The Papers of Frederick Law Olmsted: Volume VII Washington, D.C., from L’Enfant to the National Capital Planning an intransigent secretary of agriculture to prevent his new building 46 Reisner, Roosevelt’s Religion, 209. Parks, Politics, and Patronage, 1874–1882 (Baltimore: Johns Hop- Commission, 2nd ed. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, from infiltrating the Mall’s sacred greensward, enlisting President 47 Sue A. Kohler, “The Commission of Fine Arts: Implementing the kins University Press, 2007), 335, 337. Several incidents in the mid- 2006), 178–181, chapter 8. Roosevelt to enforce the sanctity of its centerline. Finally, after the Senate Park Commission’s Vision,” in Kohler and Scott, Designing 1870s may have influenced the senior Olmsted’s concern over a lega- 15 Frederick Law Olmsted Jr., “Landscape in Connection With Public election of William Howard Taft, legislation was successful to es- the Nation’s Capital, 255. cy name, including the death of his own father, John, in 1873 and Buildings in Washington,” in Glenn Brown, comp., Papers Relating tablish a permanent advisory Commission of Fine Arts. See Sue A. 48 Quoted in Sue A. Kohler, “The Commission of Fine Arts: Imple- the commencement of one of the most significant design commis- to the Improvement of the City of Washington, District of Columbia Kohler, “The Commission of Fine Arts: Implementing the Senate menting the Senate Park Commission’s Vision,” Kohler and Scott, sions of his career for the U.S. Capitol Grounds. (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1901), 28, 34. Park Commission’s Vision,” in Kohler and Scott, Designing the Na- Designing the Nation’s Capital, 255. tion’s Capital, 245–73. Relevant correspondence is found in Files

AI-625 was dated in early 1936. It remained as a draft until it was re- was Daniel’s great-grandfather; he served as an officer in the Rev- 36 Christopher A. Thomas, “The Lincoln Memorial and its Architect, 60 Panama Canal Report Draft, February 26, 1913, Folder April vised in spring 1945 and again in October 1946, when it was issued olutionary War. Henry Bacon (1866–1924)” (PhD diss., Yale University, 1990) 99. 1913, French MSS. as Plan #2843-AI-815. 10 Quoted in Kristen Schaffer, “The Plan of Chicago as a Map of Heav- 37 Henry Bacon to Burnham, August 14, 1911, Box 1, Folder 3, Burn- 61 The commission’s recommendations focused on a breakwater light 76 Olmsted, “Draft of Preliminary Report Upon a Plan for the Per- en: The Influence of Burnham’s Swedenborgianism,” Chicago Ar- ham MSS. and fog signal. They were not carried out due to cost and space. See manent Development of Roosevelt Island,” May 16, 1934, File #2843- chitectural Journal 10 (2002): 75. 38 Quoted in Thomas, Lincoln Memorial, 73. CFA minutes, September 25, 1913, 3. AI, OAR. 11 Schaffer, “The Plan of Chicago as a Map of Heaven,” 74. 39 “A Memorial to Lincoln Worthy Alike of the Nation and the Man,” 62 Executive Order No. 1862, found in Sue A. Kohler, The Commission 77 OB to General Frank R. McCoy, June 13, 1947; Olmsted, “Report 12 Speech, “On the Necessity of Dreaming,” 1 ff., Box 63, Folder 23, New York Tribune, January 7, 1912, Pt. II, 1. of Fine Arts: A Brief History 1910–1995 (Washington, DC: Gov- of Visit,” June 4, 1943; and Olmsted to Hagedorn, 17 May 17, 1947, Burnham MSS. The audience and date of the speech are not 40 Willliam H. Taft to Daniel H. Burnham, February 9, 1912, Series 6, ernment Printing Office, 1996), 242. File #2843-AI, OAR. known. The Court of Honor was the principal space at the 1893 Reel 372, Case file 187, Taft MSS. 63 CFA minutes, November 15, 1912, 181. The fact that the commis- 78 Hagedorn to the secretary of the Interior, quoted in Kay Fanning, World’s Columbian Exposition. 41 Daniel Chester French to Burnham, February 21, 1912, Box 1, Fold- sion called for a restoration of the Federal-era building in the Colo- “National Register Registration Form,” Section 8, 58. 13 The statement has ambiguous origins and may have been an amal- er 31, Burnham MSS. nial style reflects the then-commonly-held belief that the styles were 79 Fanning, “National Register Registration Form,” Section 8, 60–61. gamation of Burnham’s statements assembled by his friend, San Fran- 42 Herbert Adams to Millet, February 28, 1912, Box 1, Folder 1, Burn- synonymous. 80 ”Olmsted, “National Parks and Forest: Inherent Values,” Edward cisco architect Willis Polk, after Burnham had died. See Thomas S. ham MSS. 64 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1913 Annual Report of the Office of Clark Whiting and William Lyman Phillips, “Frederick Law Olm- Hines, Burnham of Chicago: Architect and Planner (Chicago: Uni- 43 Erik Larson, Devil in the White City (New York: Crown Publishers, Public Buildings and Public Park (Washington, DC: Government sted—1870–1957: An Appreciation of the Man and His Achieve- versity of Chicago Press, 2009) 401n8. 2003) 389. Printing Office), 3210. An appreciation of Burnap’s design intent ments,” Landscape Architecture 48 (April 1958): 155; and Olmsted, 14 Executive Order No. 1259, October 25, 1910. Only the Bureau of 44 Moore, Daniel H. Burnham, 2:151–53. can also be ascertained from various statements in his 1915 book “Vacation in the National Parks and Forests,” Landscape Architec- Engraving and Printing was built. 45 Quoted in Thomas, Lincoln Memorial, 119. Parks: Their Design, Equipment and Use (1915, repr.; Philadelphia: ture 12 (January 1922): 107–11. 15 This dollar amount and all subsequent amounts were calculated at 46 Henry Lodge to Taft, April 29, 1912, Series 6, Reel 372, Case file J.B. Lippincott Co., 1916), 71, 98, 106, and 225. 81 Harvard Class of 1894, 50th Anniversary Report, 408–09; and “Re- www.measuringworth.com using the consumer price index. 187, Taft MSS. 65 See “Old-Time Mansion Falls into Decay,” Washington Star, Jan- marks at the Dedication of Olmsted Grove 24 July, 1953,” Landscape 16 Cammerer received his bachelor of law degree in 1911; he served 47 Spencer Cosby to Taft, May 16, 1912, and Thomas Hastings to Taft, uary 8, 1914, 3. Architecture 44 (October 1953): 38. as the director of the National Park Service from 1933 to 1940. May 20, 1912, Series 6, Reel 372, Case file 187, Taft MSS. 66 By the middle of 1915, a significant amount of landscaping had been 17 This four-story, molded-brick commercial building, erected between 48 Taft to Root, May 26, 1912 and Root to Taft, May 30, 1912, Series done as well as the construction of two tennis courts and the per- 1890 and 1891, was built for a printing company and razed in 1971 6, Reel 372, Case file 187, Taft MSS. gola, the repair of the summerhouse, and the relocation of a Victorian- to make way for the new headquarters of the American Institute of 49 George Wetmore to Taft, June 7, 1912, Series 6, Reel 372, Case file era lodge that stood previously in Lincoln Park on Capitol Hill. See 1 See Richard Guy Wilson, The American Renaissance 1876–1917 (New Architects. 187, Taft MSS. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1915 Annual Report of the Office of York: The Brooklyn Museum, 1979). 18 “Note for Convention of Art Commissions held May 13, 1913,” 50 The third partner, prominent designer Stanford White, had died in Public Buildings and Public Parks (Washington, DC: Government 2 “Taft for Single Head but Against Suffrage,” Washington Post, May Daniel Chester French Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Con- 1906. Printing Office), 3714. 9, 1909, 1, 3, and 12. gress (hereafter French MSS). 51 Taft to Cosby, June 10, 1912, and Cosby to Taft, June 22, 1912 Se- 67 French to Fredrick Law Olmsted Jr., May 25, 1915, Folder May 1915, 3 A 1908 Sundry Civil bill provided an appropriation for the District 19 See Sue A. Kohler and Pamela Scott, eds. Designing the Nation’s Cap- ries 6, Reel 372, Case file 187, Taft MSS. French MSS. commissioners to exhume L’Enfant from an unmarked grave at Green ital: The 1901 Plan for Washington, D.C. (Washington, DC: U.S. Com- 52 Nicholas Henry Butler to Taft, June 25, 1912, and Richard B. Chase 68 Olmsted Jr. to French, May 27, 1915, Folder May 1915, French MSS. Hill in Prince George’s County, Maryland. The task was carried out mission of Fine Arts, 2006), 207 ff. to Taft, June 28, 1912, Series 6, Reel 372, Case file 187, Taft MSS. 69 Report of the Commission of Fine Arts, Fiscal Year ending June 1916 on April 22, 1909, and the body was held at Mount Olivet Ceme- 20 Burnham to Millet, July 26, 1910, Box 63, Folder 5, Burnham MSS. Austin Lord was a principal in the firm of Lord, Hewlett & Tallant. (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1917), 15. tery until the morning of April 28, 1909, when it was taken to the 21 At that time, they were stored in the basement of the Library of Con- He had served as the first director of the American School of Ar- 70 The following decisions were made at the July meeting: demolish Capitol where he laid in state for three hours. See James Morgan, gress; many were damaged, and some had been lost. chitecture in Rome from 1894 to 1896 (renamed the American Acad- the kitchen wing-turned-comfort station; relocate the summerhouse; “The Reinterment of Major Pierre Charles L’Enfant,” Records of the 22 See Archibald Butt, Taft and Roosevelt: The Intimate Letters of Archie emy in Rome in 1896). He had been appointed the architect for the reduce the width of the ropewalk; thin the Osage orange hedge along Columbia Historical Society (1910) 13:119–125; “Dedicate Memorial Butt (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Doran & Co., 1930) 1:228. Panama Canal (1912–13) and served as the director of the School the walk to allow vistas across the entire park; eliminate one tennis to Major L’Enfant,” New York Times, May 23, 1911; and Sara But- 23 Burnham to Elihu Root, February 29, 1912, Box 63, Folder 7, Burn- of Architecture at Columbia University (1912–15). court; and the approval of the elliptical pool at the formal entrance. ler, “The Monument as Manifesto: The Pierre Charles L’Enfant Me- ham MSS. 53 Taft Memorandum, July 3, 1912, Series 6, Reel 372, Case file 187, See CFA minutes, July 13, 1917, 6–8. morial, 1909–1911,” Journal of Planning History 6, no. 4 (Novem- 24 The commission moved twice more, to Lafayette Square in 1970 and Taft MSS. 71 Report of the Commission of Fine Arts: Eighth Report Jan. 1, 1918–July ber 2007): 283–310. to its present location in the National Building Museum, the former 54 Margaret French Cresson, Journey into Fame: The Life of Daniel 1, 1919 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1920), 120. 4 William Howard Taft, “Washington: Its Beginning, Its Growth, and Pension Building, in 1990. Chester French (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1947), 72 French to Harts, December 12, 1914, Folder December 1914, French Its Future,” National Geographic Magazine, 27, no. 3 (March 1915): 25 For a comprehensive analysis of the Lincoln Memorial, see Christo- 227. MSS. 221–92. pher Thomas, The Lincoln Memorial & American Life (Princeton, NJ: 55 In November, the commission members selected a medal de- 73 French to Harts, January 9, 1915, Folder December 1914, French 5 Daniel H. Burnham to Charles Norton, June 20, 1910, Series 5, Reel Princeton University Press, 2002). signed by John Flanagan. They may have been inclined to choose MSS. 333, Case file 801, William Howard Taft Papers, Manuscript Divi- 26 The L’Enfant Plan’s general notes indicated that each of the fifteen the design submitted by James Fraser, but he did not make a sub- 74 French to Harts, January 18, 1915, Folder January 2–21, French MSS. sion, Library of Congress (hereafter cited as Taft MSS). The Office states was to be assigned a square and held responsible for embel- mission for the obverse side of the medal and therefore was dis- 75 French to Harts, January 27, 1915, Folder January 22–31, French of Public Buildings and Grounds (OPBG) was created in 1867 when lishing it with statues, columns, obelisks, or other ornaments. qualified. See Daniel Chester French to Spencer Cosby, November MSS. Congress transferred the authority over public buildings and 27 The library committees had oversight of the congressional library, 20, 1912, Folder June–November 1912, French MSS. In 1921, Pres- 76 CFA minutes, December 3–4, 1915, 4. grounds in the District of Columbia from the commissioner of Pub- congressional art collections, and the U.S. Botanic Garden. ident Warren Harding would sign an executive order requiring de- 77 Olmsted Jr. to French, January 21, 1915, Reel 18, Folder Lincoln lic Buildings in the Department of the Interior. The chief of engi- 28 Quoted in Thomas, Lincoln Memorial, 26. sign review of all new medals, insignia, and coins. Memorial 1, French MSS. neers of the U.S. Army was designated as the head of OPBG. The office 29 Joseph Cannon to Burnham, March 6, 1911, Box 1, Folder 13, Burn- 56 The monument, featuring two allegorical figures, was approved as 78 French to Harts, February 20, 1914, Folder February 1914, French existed until 1925 when Congress transferred its authority to the Of- ham MSS. The Peace Monument, also known as the Naval Monu- a final design in January 1913. It was erected on the east side of the MSS. fice of Public Buildings and Public Parks. The head of the OPBG served ment, dedicated in 1877, was located at Pennsylvania Avenue and Ellipse later that year. 79 See French to Reverend Teunis Hamlin, Folder March 1907, French as the commission’s secretary until 1922, when a separate position First Street, NW. 57 CFA minutes, November 21, 1913, 11. The Titanic Memorial (1916) MSS. The subject arose in this letter to Hamlin, who was associat- was created. 30 Burnham to William H. Taft, June 13, 1911, Series 6, Reel 372, Case was erected along the Potomac River at the original terminus of New ed with the Presbyterian Congregation at 1316 Connecticut Avenue, 6 Burnham to Francis Millet, May 19, 1910, Taft MSS. File 187, Taft MSS. Hampshire Avenue; it was relocated to the Southwest Waterfront NW, regarding the commission for the Dr. John Witherspoon stat- 7 Daniel H. Burnham to Elizabeth Burnham, May 11, 1868, Box 25, 31 Millet to Burnham, June 19, 1911, Box 63, Folder 6, Burnham MSS. Park in 1968. ue. French turned the commission down the following month. Folder 2, Daniel H. Burnham Collection, Ryerson and Burnham 32 Burnham to Millet, June 20, 1911, Box 63, Folder 6, Burnham MSS. 58 “Mrs. H. P. Whitney Wins: Her Design for the Titanic Memorial Cho- 80 Just as the 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition proved to be the stim- Archives, Art Institute of Chicago (hereafter cited as Burnham MSS). 33 Taft to Burnham, June 28, 1911, Series 6, Reel 372, Case File 187, sen in Sculptors’ Contest,” New York Times, January 8, 1914. See ulus for the injection of Beaux-Arts principles into American plan- Burnham was twenty-two years old at the time. Taft MSS. French to William Harts, January 9, 1914, Folder January 1914, and ning, architecture, and sculpture, the 1913 International Exhibition 8 Louis Sullivan, The Autobiography of an Idea (New York: Dover Pub- 34 “Report of the Commission of Fine Arts to the Lincoln Memorial French to Harts, February 4 and February 13, 1914, Folder February of Modern Art in New York—better known as the Armory Show— lications, Inc., 1956), 286. Commission, July 17, 1911,” in Commission of Fine Arts Annual Re- 1914, French MSS. changed the outlook of American art. Organized by the Association 9 Charles Moore, Daniel H. Burnham: Architect, Planner of Cities port, Fiscal Year 1912 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Of- 59 French to Cosby, December 12, 1912, Folder December 1912, and of American Painters and Sculptors, the show provided a cross sec- (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1921) 2:164. John Burnham fice) 16–22. French to Cosby, January 4, January 14, and January 19, 1913, Fold- tion of contemporary art, with a number of younger and more rad- 35 Commission of Fine Arts minutes, July 31, 1911, 90. er January 1913, French MSS. ical artists dominating the roster of exhibitors, including Constan- tin Brancusi, Pablo Picasso, Alexander Archipenko, and Wilhelm

Web Analytics