by John F. Bauman and Edward K.Muller

ITH the help of the prominent Boston for their planner they chose Frederick Law Olmsted, landscaping firm of Olmsted Brothers, Jr., a familiar and trusted figure, best known among Pittsburgh's wealthiest citizens fash- the elite for his firm's private landscaping inPitts- ioned a beautiful and orderly private burgh. Olmsted, in 1909, stood at the center of the world in the suburban East End and young urban planning movement. His work as a the Sewickley area. With the same verve, they professional consultant on Pittsburgh planning looms undertook to redesign and to order the public as a benchmark inboth Pittsburgh and planning universe outside the stone portals guarding their history. Olmsted bequeathed a significant legacy; in landscaped estates. George Nicola's visionary civic addition to his impact on the Pittsburgh landscape, center inOakland, and Edward Bigelow's Schenley he instilled an ethos of cityplanning, which survived Park mirrored some of that reformist energy. But, as despite early falterings. this second of two articles on "The Olmsteds in Pittsburgh" argues, the crusade to make over the Atthe turn of the century, reform -minded urban-industrial environment went deeper than the Pittsburghers struggled in their battle for urban- quest for beauty for beauty's sake. 1 environmental change. In1901, when John C. The reform-minded among the region's rich — Olmsted and the younger Frederick Law Olmsted ascribed the appalling state of the urban landscape were stillcarving their reputation in the world of the teeming, moldering slums, the narrow unlit private and public landscaping, Pittsburgh appeared courts and alleys, the traffic-congested— streets, and environmentally debased and hopelessly politically the tangle ofrailroad yards to the irrational greed corrupt. Despite Nicola's Oakland and Bigelow's and competition of nineteenth century industrial Schenley Park, the City Beautiful movement in capitalism. Now, in the enlightened 20th century, Pittsburgh progressed haltingly and inpiecemeal they believed reason prevailed. Guided by scientific fashion; ithardly addressed the larger issue of urban and bureaucratic-minded experts, order could be squalor and decay. 2Reform-minded groups such as restored to the urban environment, making it safer, the Civic Club of Allegheny County, the Chamber of healthier, more efficient, more humane, more socially Commerce and the Voter's League blamed much of harmonious, and, ofequal importance, more profit- this urban blight on corrupt machine politics. Signifi- able for business. cantly, inhis recent book MakingIron and Steel, Between 1906 and 1911, Pittsburgh reformers John Ingham attributed the "great ferment of fullyembraced the gospel of urban progressivism, progressivism" inPittsburgh to the social and politi- especially the belief inthe need to control rationally cal anxieties of the city's major ironand steel families, the use of urban space. Atlast, when these progres- especially their concern that the city's Republican sive political forces had sufficiently coalesced in political machine blocked members of the elite 1909, they sponsored the city's first urban plan, and community from exerting moral control over working class behavior. Ingham identified the East End's John F.Bauman is Professor ofHistory and Urban Studies at Calvary Episcopal Church and its minister, the Rev. CaliforniaUniversity ofPennsylvania and anAdjunct Research George Hodges, as a hive oflate 19th century and Associate inHistory at the UniversityofPittsburgh. He is the early 20th century reform. Inspired by the English author of Public Housing, Race, and Renewal: Urban Plan- clergyman Charles Kingsley, founder of London's ning in Philadelphia, 1920-1974 (Temple University Press, Toynbee Hall, 1987) and numerous articles on American history and plan- the home of the settlement house movement, Hodges beseeched ning. History at his elite East End Edward K.MullerisProfessor of the Univer- parishioners bridge sityofPittsburgh. Heis co-editor ofThe AtlasofPennsylvania to the chasm separating them (Temple University Press, 1989) and author of numerous from the denizens ofSoho and the lower HillDis- articles on the history and geography of American cities, trict. Hodge's message ignited the social conscience including Pittsburgh. Both men are frequent contributors to of the elite, including George Guthrie, Henry D.W. Pittsburgh History. English, a board member of several large city corpo-

191 Pittsburgh History Winter 1993/94 rations including United States Glass, locomotive outrage, and millenarian optimism energized the Porter, Joseph Buffing- progressive "search for order" that informed the manufacturer H.Kirke and 6 ton.3 social and moral environmentalism of the era. That Moreover, when mass markets and bureaucratic passion aside, apparently the defining moment in rationalization engendered the restructuring of Pittsburgh's reform history unfolded less dramatically. industry and commerce, business elites regarded their InMarch 1906, several months before Guthrie took traditional costly "arrangements" withboss politicians office, AliceB. Montgomery, chief probation— officer such as Pittsburgh's Christopher Magee and William of the Allegheny County Juvenile Court inspired Flinn as increasingly intolerable. Elite and upper by an article in the social work journal Charities and middle class civicleaders excoriated not only the Commons reporting—a study ofsocial problems in corrupt and expensive "ring"control ofcity con- Washington, D.C. wrote the journal editors, tracts, but also the decentralized ward- based politics Edward Devine and Paul Underwood Kellogg, that validated immigrant working class values over requesting a similar study inPittsburgh. Kellogg what they perceived as the enlightened "normal" accepted. Montgomery won endorsements for the interest of the "commonweal." Byrestructuring survey from Pittsburgh's small but growing band of urban politics, they sought toregain control ofan upper class reformers including William Matthews, urban environment that they saw indisarray. 4 headworker at the Kingsley settlement house, and In1906 Pittsburgh elected a Democratic reform Judge Joseph Buffington of the U.S. Circuit Court. mayor, George W. Guthrie. Asocially prominent Pittsburgh's new reform -oriented Chamber of lawyer, a communicant at Calvary Episcopal, and a Commerce, headed by Calvary Episcopal's Henry longstanding member of the CivilService Reform D.W. English, sponsored the survey, and the CCAC Association, Guthrie perfectly fit the mold ofa 19th pledged financial support which was rendered century Pittsburgh reformer. A typical "Gilded Age" unnecessary when the Russell Sage Foundation good government crusader, Guthrie believed the allocated $7,000 tounderwrite the whole study. 7 panacea for urban ills was installing the "best men" in A sociological tour de force carried out by such office. Inhis own words, he had been "counted out" expert social surveyors as Elizabeth Butler, Margaret by the Flinn-Magee machine as the Municipal Byington and John Fitch, the study exposed the League's 1896 anti-ring mayoral candidate. Un- dichotomy between the efficient industrial production daunted, between 1896 and 1905, inalliance with in the Pittsburgh district and the resulting social and CCAC president and Municipal League founder environmental degradation. By blaming the worst Oliver McClintock and A.Leo Weil of the Voter's social injustice on Morgan interests and other League, Guthrie battled the ring over such reform "outside" owners ofPittsburgh capital, historian John issues as clean water, smoke abatement and the Ingham contends, the survey "deliberately" served annexation ofperipheral communities to form a the interest ofPittsburgh elites in their effort to Greater Pittsburgh. Lincoln Steffens's 1903 broadside maintain corporate as well as social control over the "Pittsburgh: A City Ashamed" fueled Guthrie's anti- destiny of the city. Nevertheless, Kellogg's exposures, ring campaign, which finally succeeded inFebruary serialized in Charities and Commons and reported 1906. 5 regularly in the local and national press, stung the As a Democratic mayor tilting against machine- pride and sensibilities of Pittsburgh's wealthy lead- controlled Republican legislative councils, Guthrie ers. 8 They also fueled crusading passions and excited faced almost insurmountable political odds. The 1907 a vision ofan environmentally purified city. In1907 annexation ofadjoining Allegheny City merely the Carnegie Institute and the Pittsburgh Chapter of buttressed machine domination. Accordingly, few of the American Institute ofArchitects hosted a graphic Guthrie's reforms happened. However, he introduced presentation of Pittsburgh as "The CityBeautiful." "economic" management ofcity departments, The imagined city featured not only Nicola's Oak- scrupulously awarded city contracts, and successfully land, but also a redesigned modern downtown replete persuaded the Pennsylvania Railroad to vacate Liberty with a dazzling Beaux Arts civic center, graced by a Avenue for an elevated right-of-way adjoining baroque plaza and wide tree-lined boulevard. 9 Duquesne Way. Ayear later Pittsburgh's Municipal League, the Nevertheless, ifProgressivism can be defined at American Civic Association, the Tuberculosis League least in part as the upheaval ofcivic outrage against and the CCAC combined forces to hold the first the physical ugliness and social injustice wrought by Civic Exhibit. Guthrie chaired the event whose industrialism, and as a moral crusade against the axis organizers included Voter's League head Weil, the of corporate greed and boss politics, then the years Municipal League's McClintock, as well as the 1906-1910 mark a shining moment inPittsburgh architects T. E. Billiquist and Benno Jannsen. In history. Reformers hailed Guthrie's election as the addition to displaying slum photographs and other "People's Victory" and "the passing of the old graphic documentary materials from the ongoing individualism." Ablend ofcivic consciousness, civic Pittsburgh Survey, the show featured Benjamin

192 The Olmsteds inPittsburgh

Marsh's exhibit on the congested population ofNew Rapid Transit, Charitable Institutions, Industrial York City and a presentation of Pittsburgh's new Accidents, Public Hygiene and Sanitation, Municipal water filtration works near Aspinwall. Almost simulta- Research and Efficiency, Ward Organization, and neously, in 1908, the Voter's League launched an City Planning. Unlike the CCAC, no women sat on investigation into political graft which in1910 the commission.— The charge impelling these commit- produced the convictions and imprisonment ofover a tees -"tostudy the progressive policies ofother dozen Pittsburgh bankers and city councilmen. To cities, to grasp ... actual local conditions ... [and] celebrate the city's great "victory for civic righteous- formulate plans by which ness" and the success of the Pittsburgh Survey, city evils can be removed and reformers in 1910 staged a giant rally at Exposition necessary—improvements Hall at the Point, where before an audience ofover made" epitomized the 4,500 people the nation's No. 1Progressive, Col. progressive spirit. But,no Theodore Roosevelt, praised the city's "fight for the less important in that vein right," its "battle for the cause ofdecency and was the commission's righteousness." 10 assurance that the execu- The Pittsburgh Survey treated the urban-industrial tion ofits plans would be environment as a complex comprising numerous "secured through creating sectors: iron- and steel-making, the ethnic household, an effective and persistent housing, traffic, education and social welfare. By public opinion in their rooting urban problems incomplex regional-econom- favor."13 ic causes unresponsive to piecemeal reform, the Despite its avowed survey both posited and begged a comprehensive purpose, the commission planning perspective. Charles Mulford Robinson, the mainly ignored the social leading exponent of "CivicImprovement," and side of the progressive founder of the American Civic Association, stated this equation, favoring instead succinctly inhis brief report for the survey, "Civic "practical" or physical Improvement Possibilities ofPittsburgh." Robinson solutions. 14 Burns, like his noted the "curious mingling ofantagonistic condi- upper class/professional tions" in Pittsburgh, the "great wealth and squalor... colleagues on the commis- side by side," and "the royal munificence and public sion, attributed the city's abysmal social record to the benefaction [which] goes with a niggardliness that as chaos of19th century competitive capitalism which yet denies tomany children a decent place toplay...." had bequeathed a mottled, unplanned, inefficient "What Pittsburgh wants," wrote Robinson inFebru- twentieth century form. Historian Richard Fogelsong ary 1909, "what she has done and dreamed, what— she has observed that although American corporate must do as a community for her improvement, leaders dreaded the anti-capitalist implications of these are the questions for the citizens ofGreater planning, by 1909 they conceded the rational Pittsburgh, if 'greater' is to have all its true signifi- necessity of imposing some social or public control cance .... Surely, ifever a city needed the definiteplan over the use of urban space. 15 A bevy of proposals for that an outside commission could make forit> itis environmental reform inAmerican cities existed at Pittsburgh." 11 (authors' emphasis) the time for flood control, sewerage improvements, Guthrie in 1909 seized Robinson's advice and subways, and water purification. What Pittsburgh created the Pittsburgh Civic Commission, comprised needed, civic commission secretary Burns told the ofprominent "public spirited citizens" who were first meeting of the National Conference on City charged "to achieve as brilliantly inmunicipal affairs Planning and the Problems of Congestion, was "a as inprivate undertakings." The commission was "to cityplan comprehending as many, in fact more, ofall plan and promote improvements incivic and industri- the fundamental features in citylife than any plan yet al conditions which affect the health, convenience, made in America."16 education, and general welfare of the Pittsburgh Burns participated in the May 1909 national industrial district, [and] to create public opinion in conference in Washington because Benjamin Marsh favor of such improvements." 12 Presided over by had advertised the conference as an opportunity to Henry English, past president of the Chamber of move city planning away from CityBeautiful aesthet- Commerce, and withofficers such as industrialist H.J. ics toward the weightier sphere ofsocial, hygienic, Heinz— and Allen T. Burns of the Chicago Commons and economic concerns. Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. next to HullHouse, it was one—of the Windy spoke at the first session. The peripatetic Olmsted had City's most respected settlements the commission just returned from "some months ofhurried travel in boasted over 100 members organized into 14 Europe devoted to the study of urban planning." His committees. The responsibilities of those committees speech praised Europe's "conscious and organized seemed lifted directly from the Pittsburgh Survey: public effort at cityplanning," which he found

193 Pittsburgh History Winter 1993/94 particularly evident inits design of wide streets and Olmsted enlisted the noted traffic expert Bion J. main thoroughfares. Arnold and hydraulics engineer John R. Freeman, As Olmsted spoke in 1909, America's embryonic and by Christmas submitted a preliminary report that cityplanning profession existed in a twilight realm treated the issues of thoroughfares, mass transporta- somewhere between the architectural world visible in tion, sewers and water supply from the viewpoint of the building ofurban parks, tree-lined Hauss- the whole industrial district. The report outlined as manesque boulevards, and Beaux Arts civic centers, well the need for a more thorough study of, among and the civic engineering sphere responsible for other things, the city's freight-handling facilities, sewers, waterworks and street design. Olmsted's parks and playgrounds, local passenger railways, flood European tour compelled him to rethink the future and pure water problems, public markets and main development ofAmerican cities. Americans, he noted, thoroughfares. These detailed studies were to follow; had long recognized the "deficiency in their main and therefore, for the final report the PCC ordered thoroughfares, whether resulting from a wholly Olmsted to narrow his focus to the downtown unregulated natural growth oflocal streets, or from... district, including the "design ofa thoroughfare a mechanical standardizing plan such as has so often system for the outlying suburban district... where prevailed both inEnglish and American towns." He open country is being converted into streets and espied the advent of "a far broader, deeper, wiser lots."19 Olmsted contracted with the civic commis- attitude than that which merely set as an arbitrary sion to spend at least six days a month in the city, and minimum of street widths and establishes a mechani- assigned Edward Whiting from his Brookline office to cal method ofagglomerating block after block..." oversee daily operations in Pittsburgh. Whiting This new attitude, asserted Olmsted, recognizes that "the ultimate purpose of cityplanning is not to provide facilities for certain kinds of transportation or to obtain certain architectural effects, but is to direct the physical development of the cityby every means ofcontrol within the power of the municipality in such a manner that the ordinary citizen willbe able to live and labor under conditions as favorable to health, happiness and productive efficiency as his means will permit."17 Inhis speech, studded with references toFrench, Swiss, and German land use practice and law,Olmst- ed elevated the nascent art ofcity planning to a new scientific level, and himself to the deanship of the young profession. He proposed a process whereby cities might escape the "hapless fatalism" that perpet- uated social and physical ugliness, and leap beyond dabbling beauty. Planning the with must integrate — beauty withpracticality. Burns and the Pittsburgh Fifth Avenue a four-line thoroughfare Civic Commission had found their planner. Pitts- burgh's practical-minded elites had first embraced the Olmsteds as private landscapers and engaged the firm for some civic projects such as the Schenley Hotel Of the 530 miles of main thoroughfares within a radius of seven miles of City Hall, less than and Allegheny Cemetery; they were comfortable with one and one -half per cent have room for pas- the Olmsteds and trusted their aesthetic judgement in sage between cars and vehicles, slow-moving or private landscaping matters. Now they discovered standing at curb. See page 31. another forte of the Olmsted firm:planning the "City Useful." On behalf of the Pittsburgh Civic Commission, on June 9, 1909 Burns invited Olmsted to visit the city and consider devising "a complete plan for the whole Pittsburgh industrial district." Forthwith, Olmsted agreed to assemble a team of experts who would undertake "apreliminary examination of the situa- tion" and prepare a report on the "means ofbringing — about a more orderly and systematically planned Liberty Avenue a six-line thoroughfare development of the controllable physical features of the Pittsburgh Industrial District."18

194 The Olmsteds inPittsburgh

collected reams of demographic, economic, traffic, the "municipal housekeeping" agenda of many engineering and other data from both European and commission members. With Woods and Taylor, American sources. Basic questions about the form Olmsted viewed the modern cityas "a mosaic" of and use ofurban space drove Whiting's international functioning parts, "a complex ofinterrelated sys- search for information: How are streets used? How tems." 21 Social and economic efficiency derived from are rivers used? How do street grades and widths the rational integration of streets, thoroughfares, affect the intensity of street use? Can we relate street sewers, water systems, housing, markets, and public size and design to property values? 20 buildings into an organic unity that encompassed the urban core as well as the expanding suburban periph- The Plan ery. These progressives viewed tortuous, ill-paved For an architect- planner aspiring to position the streets, and typhoid-laden water supplies, as wellas youthful planning profession in the vanguard of boss-ruled government, as a costly burden for modern progressivism, Pittsburgh presented an ideal consumers, manufacturers, and retail businessmen. venue. Olmsted's invitation itself stemmed from the According to Harold F. Howland, the "practical" Pittsburgh Survey, in which Robinson pleaded for an steel-and-money-making men of Pittsburgh em- urban plan. Indeed, Paul U. Kellogg, together with braced scientific "CityUseful" planning. Efficient such prominent urban progressives as Robert A. arterial highways facilitated commerce and communi- Woods, Graham Taylor, and Robert de Forest, cations and enriched the city. Unfortunately, be- comprised the civic commission's advisory board. moaned Olmsted, planners "had not always made it However, Olmsted's vision ofplanning transcended clear that... in a well ordered municipal life,civic beauty should be as clearly the by-product ofutility as individuals' happiness should be a by-product of healthy living. Civic beauty inits most healthy and PITTSBURGH CIVIC COMMISSION normal development is the nearly inevitable by- product of the most absolute civic utility,ofefficiency and fitness." 22 Olmsted's completed plan, entitled Pittsburgh, PITTSBURGH Main Thoroughfares and the Down Town District: Improvements Necessary to Meet the City's Present and MAIN THOROUGHFARES AND THE Future Needs, dealt narrowly as the title implied with DOWN TOWN DISTRICT "remodeling in the downtown district and improve- ment ofmain traffic between the heart of the city and the outlying districts." He defined his planning task as IMPROVEMENTS NECESSARY TO being "torearrange and improve what had been unwisely [in to] wisely MEET THE CITY'S PRESENT AND done the past, and and economically layout what stillremained tobe done." FUTURE NEEDS Nevertheless, Olmsted's recommendations for widened streets, tunnels, and broad boulevards linking the East End and South Hills suburbs to the 21 Report downtown for functional, accessible waterfronts, and BY for the systematization ofkeeping and updating municipal maps and other vitalplanning data, FREDERICK LAW OLMSTED embodied the essence of the new "CityPractical." 23 Many of the ideas contained in Olmsted's report had simmered for years on various city back burners. These included a plan to reduce the steep grades of the Grant's Hillhump, which impeded wagon traffic Prepared under the direction of The Committee on City Planning and other commerce approaching Grant Street at the key intersections ofFifth,Sixth, and Seventh avenues and, in Olmsted's words, prevented the area from becoming "a first class commercial district." Guthrie in 1906 had ranked the "hump cut" project a ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION priority. Three years later, in1909, the next mayor, DECEMBER, I9IO William Magee, who had built his mayoral campaign on a pro-development platform, immediately pressed FOURTH AVENUE FEBRUARY, 1911 324 to approve cutting hump, widening Publication No. 8 the councils the Diamond Street, building a new city hall, and mod- ernizing the city's waterfronts. Magee asked Olmsted

195 Pittsburgh History Winter 1993/94 to submit his hump cut recommendations in July, five progressivism, and inurban ichnographic terms months before his report deadline. The Boston cathedral-like civic centers visually proclaimed the architect urged the city to lower the hump by 15 to victory ofcivic virtue over the demons of political 16 feet, to widen radically what he considered— as the corruption, typhoid fever, smoke, and traffic conges- three main downtown thoroughfares— Fifth and tion. Sixth avenues and Diamond Street and to extend Olmsted treated the Civic Center as a necessary, Grant Street through to Webster. Olmsted viewed albeit not indispensable, part of the downtown urban Fifth,Sixth and Diamond as "natural arteries" leading fabric. Itfit as much into his scheme for traffic to the city's four main east-west thoroughfares of articulation as into his plans for a new city hall. Fifth,Forbes, Penn and Liberty avenues, and stressed Keenly sensitive to landscape considerations, Olmsted the importance ofincreased traffic flow from the quickly identified the site for the center: a dreary, downtown to "the great areas lying between Belle- billboard-defiled freight yard located at the foot of field,East Liberty and Homestead." Inhis plan a fifth the bluff occupied by the Holy Ghost College, now "high-level" artery (later to be called the Boulevard Duquesne University. According to Whiting, Olmst- of the Allies) should extend along the Monongahela ed found the rugged site "eminently characteristic" of hillside from Forbes Street to the Glenwood Bridge the hillycity. The site, wrote Olmsted in the report, is inHazelwood. Significant action was ultimately taken serendipitously "flanked on the northwest by the on all of these projects. Indeed, work began on the noble and distinguished— architecture of the court hump cut within months ofOlmsted's report.24 house and the jail masterpieces ofRichardson, The South Hills tunnel project had been brewing priceless examples of the work of one of the few great since 1908. Indeed, twoproposals for such a tunnel artists America has yet produced." 26 There, in faced Olmsted in 1910. Highway Commissioner imitation ofPrinces Street inEdinburgh, Scotland, Edward Bigelow, allied witha group ofSouth Hills and also Park Avenue inNew York, Olmsted pro- residential land developers, favored a low-tunnel posed that "the central area oflow ground, occupied approach. Frank Gosser of the South HillsBoard of by the railroad, be decked over at about the level of Trade backed the high- tunnel route. Persuaded by Fifth Avenue, and that a great public square with Gosser, Olmsted adopted the shorter 2,000-foot- gardens be laid out" modeled after the celebrated long, higher tunnel, believing as Gosser did that it public gardens of Europe. About this great square afforded greater and easier Olmsted would assemble the city's proposed new access to the already settled public buildings. On the east side of the grand South Hillsregion, includ- square, "as though terraced on the hillside," ex- ing the suburbs of Dor- plained Olmsted, "would be the principal municipal mont, Beechview and building culminating in a tower which would spring Mount Lebanon. Ultimately from the highest level at BluffStreet, where the Bigelow and the South Hills playground of the Holy Ghost College could be real estate developers utilized as a park. The ground enclosing the square triumphed. Work finally would be completed by another building at the north began in1920 on a lower, withfrontage onForbes Street, Fifth Avenue, and 6,000 foot-long- tunnel Sixth Avenue, and by a low building on the south whose southern portal serving to screen the factories and freight yards south emptied traffic into the ofSecond Avenue but leaving open the view of the Liberty Avenue valley near opposite hills."27 Likewise along the east side of the Bell Tavern. Although the square with its imperial formal gardens and "ascend- city spurned Olmsted's ing gently from Forbes Street," would run the grand triangulations for the tunnel approach to the new South Hillsbridge across the project, his bridge site recommendations were Monongahela River.28 followed, and his emphasis on the crucial significance Recommending a design for the new city hall of the project for regional growth helped spur proved harder. After rejecting Edward Bennett, of action.25 Daniel Burnham and Bennett, as "too high [priced]," Olmsted's Main Thoroughfares plan highlighted and finding that another authority, Cass Gilbert, the South HillsBridge (now the Liberty Bridge) as wasn't available, Olmsted and PCC Planning Com- the eastern gateway to a proposed Pittsburgh Civic mittee Chairman T.E. Billiquist settled upon Wilhelm Center, the planner's nod to the enduring vitalityof Bernhard, an architect on Olmsted's Brookline staff. the CityBeautiful idea. This idea, too, did not Already at work on a Pittsburgh waterfront plan, originate withOlmsted; nor would itdisappear after Bernhard was assigned the cityhall job as an addition his departure. No matter how "practical" they to his workload. 29 Inmulling over a style for Pitts- imagined themselves, civic leaders in 1910 demanded burgh's Civic Center, Olmsted, Whiting and Bern- a magnificent civic center. Boosterism infused urban hard shunned the Baroque architectural motif

196 The Olmsteds inPittsburgh fashionable nationally for civic center design. Bern- already rendered the city's wharves obsolete for hard explained to Olmsted that "the disgusting commercial purposes, Olmsted pressed the city to atmosphere of Pittsburgh which annihilates all smaller lavishly redesign its waterfront to accommodate both form details must be considered." 30 Olmsted and commerce and recreation. Inaddition to widening Whiting unquestionably concurred, urging Bernard Water Street and Duquesne that "a picturesque and happy arrangement of Way, Olmsted recommend- building masses witha faithful adherence to any well ed a masonry commercial defined classical style willlead to the most appropriate quay, accessible, as in and harmonious result. The [site] certainly does not Berlin, from the street by call for any nicely balanced, refined beaux arts inclined ramps "of reason- architecture." 31 Pittsburgh, as Olmsted so clearly able gradient, parallel with implied in his report, was not, after all,Paris. the river... and equipped At the Civic Center site, Olmsted promised to with power cranes for direct transform the mottle ofrailroad yards, industrial loading and unloading sheds, and billboards plastering the hillside into between steamers or barges, something functional and beautiful. And he would do tied up at the quay, and the same for Pittsburgh's equally defiled riverfronts. wagons upon it."Floating Olmsted assailed as "ineffective and primitive" landing stages reached by Pittsburgh's Monongahela wharf, where in 1910 gangplanks and bridges draymen stillhauled goods up and down muddy would aid the movement of embankments. He contrasted Pittsburgh's antiquated cargo from ship to shore. 34 port facilities with the "useful and attractive" river- While in the years after front facilities ofParis, Lyon, Frankfurt, and Berlin. 1911 Pittsburgh decision- In his discussion of Pittsburgh's waterfronts, Olmsted makers prudently balked at lashed out most vituperatively at the "shortsighted- Olmsted's elaborate plans ness and wasteful commercialism of the late nine- for a commercially revital- teenth century" America. Europeans were aesthetical- ized waterfront (the lymore sensitive, charged Olmsted, and combined promenade idea reemerged in the 1970s), the city their working quays with parks and promenades. On took seriously another ofOlmsted's recommenda- the other hand, Americans, believing falsely that tions for the waterfront. Traffic congestion already economic and useful things were normally ugly, jammed Pittsburgh's downtown streets in 1909. "disregardefd] what might have been the aesthetic According to Olmsted, "an isolated and limited by-product of economic improvement." 32 business district like that of Pittsburgh, made up Working with the Flood Commission, Olmsted almost wholly ofnarrow streets and connected with proposed to widen Water Street and Duquesne Way the rest of the city by a series ofbridges and of into tree -lined riverfront parkways useful for traffic bridge-like gaps in the hills which wall itin... [de- but also "forpedestrians to walk and sit under mands] a wide circuit street connecting these outlets pleasant conditions, where they can watch the water together, so that not all the travel is forced to filter and the lifeupon it,where they can enjoy the breadth through the midst of the business district." He ofoutlook and the sight of the open sky and the proposed to utilize Water Street and Duquesne Way opposite bank and the reflections in the stream." not only as part ofa waterfront promenade, but as Olmsted contended that such tree-shaded walks part ofan inner loop that would circulate traffic off along the commercial streets inParis, Lyon and downtown streets. Olmsted's loop idea long resonat- hundreds oflesser cities ofEurope added greatly to ed inPittsburgh planning circles. During the 1920s the "comeliness of the city itself, the health and the Citizens Committee on CityPlanning pressed the happiness of the people and their loyalty and local city for what became touted as an Inter-District pride." He added that "Pittsburgh has an unusual Traffic Circuit. Although the City Planning Commis- opportunity to secure this incidental value for recre- sion adopted the plan in1925, no action followed. ation in the treatment ofits riverfront... [because] However, the spectacle ofdowntown streets chroni- immediately across the Monongahela are the high cally clogged with traffic kept the idea brewing and rugged hillsides ofMt.Washington and Du- through the 1930s until parts ofit were actually quesne Heights, and below these are the lesser but implemented in the 1940s and 1950s. 35 stillstriking hills along the Ohio from the West End Olmsted's imagination soared to almost mystical to McKees Rocks. The outlook over the river withits heights as he pondered the significance of the various activities to these hills immediately beyond, Pittsburgh waterfront, especially the Point itself. At would be notable in any part of the world."33 one level, the Point merely—joined the twolines of his Citing Europe again, but ignoring the reality that waterfront improvement following the Allegheny by 1900 railroad transportation inPittsburgh had and the Monongahela shores. At another, he seized

197 Pittsburgh History Winter 1993/94 upon the historical significance ofthe Point, although improvements to intersections and thoroughfares in 1910 the tangle of rail yards, warehouses, and throughout the city. Others were more specific- tenements all but obscured the remnants ofFort Pitt proposals. One, not carried out, called for moving the city's farmers' market at the historic Market Square nearer to rail connections at Fourth Avenue and Penn Street. Another given more attention urged that the city plan its new suburban streets to conform to the beauty ofits naturally hillv terrain, and that it develop a system of parks and recreational facilities.38 Inseeking informa- tion on parks, streets, property descriptions, assessed valuations, and other planning data. Olmsted and Whiting encountered one and the blockhouse. As early as August 17, 1910, obstacle after another. As early as April 1910 the chief Olmsted wrote to Whiting that "Ithink the end of engineer of the Pittsburgh Flood Commission the point ought tohave a pointed form projecting warned Olmsted about the dearth of city survey data beyond and below whatever high level concourse may available for planning. George Lehman apprised be designed for the bridge." 36 His report affirmed his Olmsted "that the city does not even possess reliable belief that here the city's "most inspiring associa- ordinary street maps." Replying to Lehman, Olmsted tions... are chiefly concentrated, that politically this suggested that a exhibit be prepared for Magee spot, at the meeting of the rivers, stands for Pitts- detailing the "inaccurate, inconsistent and incom- burgh." Olmsted hoped "that the city [would] rise to plete" state of current survey data. His 1911 report its opportunity and nobly form The Point into a great exhorted Pittsburghers that there was nothing of monument." InMain Thoroughfares, Olmsted wrote greater consequence or of "more vital import to every that it was taxpaying citizen of the present and future city... [than] making comprehensive and accurate topo- essential that the whole Pointbe regarded as one single graphical maps. Itis only on the basis of such maps monument, that no pains be spared in bringing the that all municipal engineering, and indeed much best artistic skill to bear in working out the details of other work directly managed by the City, can be the plan, and that the general plan, when thus worked planned and carried out with proper economy and out, shall really determine the construction of"all the efficiency." Such maps, concluded Olmsted, "are parts. Atany time conditions may arise, as inregard to absolutely essential to an intelligent planning or one ofthe bridges, for which the general plan does not control which willavoid the heavy penalties that exactly provide; but, ifso, the plan should be adapted follow haphazard city growth, especially in such a 39 as a whole to meet the new conditions, so that work hilly region." may still proceed in accordance with the complete plan. Never can a single feature ofThe Point safely be Magee, Olmsted, Politics and the Main designed independent of the rest, ifworthy results are Thoroughfares Report to be obtained. And what is true of this great monu- Clearly Olmsted's report had an impact on the mental feature is true in large measure of all public shaping of twentieth century Pittsburgh. As the dean improvements in relation to a comprehensive city ofAmerican city planning, Olmsted affirmed the plan.37 legitimacy and priority status of long-debated city projects such as the hump cut, the South Hillsbridge Although purporting to discuss only the "down- and tunnel, and the widening of such main arteries as town" and "main thoroughfares," Olmsted's report Fifth Avenue and Diamond Street. We have observed covered much more. Dozens ofpages discussed earlier that his plan for downtown traffic circulation

198 The Oi.msteds in Pittsburgh remained a fixture of the city planning agenda until magazine and Survey. But, given the great progressive implemented after World War II.Likewise, between expectations attending its birth,the report should 1911 and 1916, guided by Olmsted's plan, the city have attracted greater attention. Its tepid reception undertook toimprove such major thoroughfares as forecast the report's failure to become the beacon for Fifth and Forbes avenues, aiding downtown traffic Pittsburgh's future development. 41 flow to and from the East End. Italso eliminated From the outset, Olmsted's plan became em- dangerous grade crossings and reduced steep roadway broiled inProgressive Era political battle between the grades. This work continued into the 1920s, when Pittsburgh Civic Commission and William A.Magee, the city also acted on Olmsted's Boulevard of the nephew ofpolitical boss William Magee. The young Allies recommendation. The city adhered in the short Magee had served out his uncle's term inthe state run to Olmsted's appeal to leave Market Square an Senate. But by 1909 then 36-year-old Magee had open space, but from 1914 to 1915 iterected the emerged as an anti-state political machine reformer Diamond Market there. In 1962 that market was torn who was pro-business and "pro-growth." Unlike his down, ultimately vindicating Olmsted. And, although Democratic predecessor, Guthric, the Republican it took 40 years, Pittsburgh also heeded Olmsted's Magee relished "practical" politics. Moreover, his injunction to make the Point a shrine to the city's sizeable 1909 mayoral victory presented him not only heroic past. 40 with politically compatible city councils, but a stage Nevertheless, Olmsted's plan failed to be "munici- to earn' out his own ambitious pro-growth program pal conservation," the basis for a comprehensive of city development. 42 improvement program for the next 25 years. Olmsted The Guthrieappointed Pittsburgh Civic Commis- completed his Main Thoroughfares report in Decem- sion viscerally opposed Magee, viewing him as a her 1910. The civic commission published itin political opportunist whose extravagant development March 1911. Articles about the report appeared in schemes pandered to civic boosterism rather than Pittsburgh newspapers as well as in The Outlook rationally restructuring the chaotic urban environ-

199 Pittsburgh History Winter 1993/94

ment. Naturally the commission fought Magee's ofHarvard University's first course on urban plan- 1910 $10 million bond issue proposal for street- ning, and putatively the founder of the modern widening, a new city hall,waterfront improvements profession ofcityplanning, Olmsted in 1911 be- and the hump cut, and heralded Olmsted's report as strode the world ofurban planning, despite his fate in the authentic blueprint for Pittsburgh's future, not Pittsburgh. Just as inthe years preceding 1909, after Magee's uncoordinated hodgepodge of projects. 43 1911 the Olmsted firm toiled inboth the public, Campaigning to defeat Magee's bond issue in the quasi-public, and the private sector. Asnoted in the fallreferendum, the PCC's A.T.Burns pressured first article about the Olmsteds' influence inthe Olmsted to quickly finish his Main Thoroughfares Pittsburgh region, much of the firm's work in the report. Delaying the report, Burns wrote Olmsted, "is area from 1911 to 1919 flowed directly from Olmst- losing for us the opportunity to secure funds and ed's sojourn inPittsburgh for the Main Thoroughfares influence improvements." 44 Lacking Olmsted's report. For example, in1911, at the urging of the recommendations, the PCC engaged two civil civic commission, Pittsburgh created a Department of engineers to debunk Magee's list ofimprovements. CityPlanning overseen by a nine member planning Magee, however, launched his own flanking move- commission. Heavily weighted with civilengineers, ments. He created his own Committee ofOne nonetheless, the commission also included the Hundred elite citizens, then hosted a gala luncheon notorious contractor- financier WilliamFlinn. Like the where he touted his devotion to comprehensive Municipal Art Commission, created the same year, planning while unveiling his own pro-growth vision the planning commission possessed advisory powers of the city's future. Magee won. On November 8 only and was described by critics as "an administrative Pittsburgh voters approved the mayor's bond issue 7 eunuch." 47 Nevertheless, from 1912 to 1913, as to I.45 "someone particularly knowledgeable about Pitts- The bond issue affair left Olmsted's reputation burgh's development needs," Olmsted was periodi- unscathed, but not his plan, which had been tar- cally consulted by the commission about the role and nished by the PCC's seeming apostasy. Rather than a mission ofcityplanning. key event inPittsburgh's planning history, the The city ofJohnstown also solicited Olmsted's publication of Olmsted's plan inMarch 1911 attract- ideas about cityplanning. Olmsted gave turgid advice ed, as noted, relatively littlenotice. City newspapers to both Pittsburgh and Johnstown, emphasizing to reviewed the plan more as a contribution to the the latter that the goal ofplanning must be to literature than as a guide establish a process, not a plan. He denied that a city for the city's future plan can ever be complete, and that there could be development. Press reports such a thing as the city plan. Ideally, inOlmsted's praised Olmsted's talent eyes, planning departments functioned as a clearing and imagination, while house, a knowledge base, and an agency for the dismissing his plan as "too collection and maintenance ofcritical planning data. 48 costly" and "fitfor a capital Olmsted, in fact, regarded himself as a storehouse city not Pittsburgh." ofplanning knowledge ripe for dispensing. When the But,all the same, art commission in 1913 retained Edward H.Bennett Olmsted's influence in torevise the plans for the bridge approaches to the Pittsburgh endured. Point, Bennett directly contacted Olmsted, who, of Olmsted and Magee course, directed the Chicago planner tohis now two- enjoyed friendly relations year-old report. 49 On several occasions Olmsted was and mutual respect. Magee asked to jury design competitions, including one for actually liked the Main the Schenley Park entrance which he brusquely Thoroughfares plan, refused. 50 extolling itas a guide for A1919 letter to Olmsted from the Water Street the city's future. Intruth, District and Lower Downtown Triangle Improve- Olmsted's plan only ment Association conveyed best the architect's differed with Magee's by a importance toPittsburgh planning. Seeking advice on few inches on the mayor's planning the Sawmill Run Parkway, the Triangle favorite project, the hump Association addressed Olmsted inWashington, D.C., cut. Both championed the where he now headed the United States Housing South Hillsbridge and tunnel, and they concurred as Corporation, the World War Ifederal agency charged well on the need for a topographical survey and the with building modern housing for war workers. The creation ofa Bureau ofSurveys. 46 Downtown Improvement Association, including Esteemed inPittsburgh as both a talented land- Franklin Nicola and planning commission member scape architect and a brilliant planner, chair of the Albert J. Logan, informed Olmsted that his Main 1911 National Conference on CityPlanning, teacher Thoroughfares report "has been used quiet (sic)

200 The Olmsteds inPittsburgh extensively... [and that] one of the subjects under dimming— was their faith inmoral environmentalism, discussion is the Saw MillRun thoroughfare, which that good housing, public baths, and an end to you recommended. ... Iknow that you are always eyesore billboards would help create better people anxious to see your projects come into being, and I under the influence ofa growing army of university thought you would write me a word recommending trained experts. But the same this improvement." Olmsted's lengthy favor stressed reformers increasingly substi- the importance of acquiring land as soon as possi- tuted the positivistic/scientific ble.51 Similarly, a few years later officials of the Henry language of the engineer for Clay Frick estate importuned Olmsted for advice on the earlier plaintive appeals of implementing the planner's ideas for improving and the social-minded aesthete. enlarging Frick Park. Olmsted responded with a full- Like the elite businessmen and blown park development strategy. Although the Frick industrialists who frequently people balked at undertaking such an ambitious plan, retained Olmsted to landscape by 1930 action on his recommendations was under- their private estates, Olmsted way.52 in 1909 decried the tattered urban fabric bequeathed by Conclusion root, hog or die capitalism. Bursting late upon the Pittsburgh stage in the Indeed, inOlmsted's eyes,- as 1890s, the Olmsteds by 1930 had left a significant in those ofprogressive mark on this region. They initiallysecured their minded but more pragmatic reputations inPittsburgh as town planners and politicos including William landscapers for the elite. AtVandergrift and in estate Magee, who succeeded landscaping work for the Thaws, Heinzes, Mellons, Guthrie in 1909, public and other families, the Olmsteds demonstrated their planning — once decried in ability to architecturally mold the environment and the 19th century as antitheti- shape a moral ethos compatible with elite and upper cal to democracy and free middle-class sensibilities. enterprise — promised But in 1900 the manicured, verdant, gracefully measurable rewards. Not only contoured private domains of the Pittsburgh haute did planning bring positive social benefits by lessen- bourgeois clashed with the welter and impoverish- ing traffic congestion and providing more space for ment of the old immigrant city.Motivated by a parks, but equally important, itconserved threatened complex set ofbeliefs, including a sincere conviction downtown land values and assured an economically that the ferocious individualism and pell mell indus- strong, profitable city. trialism ofthe 19th century had created a chaotic, Inaddition to disclosing the Olmsted connection dangerous, and socially and physically degraded urban to progressivism and environmental reform, this environment, wealthy civic leaders set out to rebuild article considers Olmsted's public work inPittsburgh, an orderly moral and more humane Pittsburgh. particularly his Pittsburgh: Main Thoroughfares and Viewing the city as organic, and seeking to heal its the Down Town District, as having significance on battered and fragmented parts, reform organizations several other important planes. First, because of such as the Civic Club of Allegheny County and the Olmsted's stature as a distinguished landscape Voter's League espoused not only political reform, architect and nationally renowned urban park plan- better schools, public baths, and control ofsmoke ner, he lent credence to several long-standing Pitts- and billboard pollution, but also the CityBeautiful, burgh development ideas, namely the hump cut and to uplift the souls of the working class and provide an the South Hillsbridge and tunnel. Hisrecommenda- aesthetic footing for heightened civic consciousness. tions for widening key downtown arteries such as From 1906 to 1910 the tide ofurban reform in Diamond Street and Forbes, Fifth and Sixth avenues, Pittsburgh crested, as evidenced by Guthrie's elec- as well as his proposal for a new artery, the future tion, the graft investigations and trials,and the Boulevard of the Allies,were ultimately acted upon in Pittsburgh Survey. Itwas at the height of this reform ways that stillaffect the Pittsburgh landscape. intensity that Mayor Guthrie appointed the Pitts- However, Olmsted's physical imprint on Pitts- burgh Civic Commission that in turn enlisted Freder- burgh derived less from the Main Thoroughfares ick Law Olmsted, Jr. recommendations than from his apostleship of the Olmsted's appearance as a planner in Pittsburgh, gospel of planning. Olmsted arrived inPittsburgh not however, proclaimed not only the ascendancy of only at the height ofhis national influence as a progressive environmentalism, but also the triumph planner, but at the defining moment— in the history of of the gospel ofefficiency, which increasingly equated the young planning profession a moment he beauty with well-ordered urban space, especially a helped create. Although the younger Olmsted never carefully articulated system of thoroughfares. Never abjured the faith ofhis father, Frederick Olmsted, Sr.

201 Pittsburgh History Winter 1993/94

in the socially redeeming power of the romantic growth, planning perforce challenged the most landscape, contoured hillsides, tastefully arranged sacred tenets ofLockean individualism, namely the shrubbery, delightful vistas, and well designed public sovereignty ofprivate property. And,—at every point gardens, he had emerged in 1910-1911 as the where the public planning impetus exercised— apostle ofboth planning professionalism and the avowedly in the name of the commonweal "CityEfficient."53 Olmsted's Main Thoroughfares, confronted individual property rights, the politics while focusing on Pittsburgh's downtown district and arbitrated the outcome. Between 1911 and 1948 the the city's principal arteries, nevertheless eloquently process obscured much of the vision of orderly stated his philosophy of—planning as a highly complex environmental change embodied in the Olmsted and continuous process the efficient husbandry plan. 54 and management ofurban space to accommodate the Still,as this article has asserted, the Olmsteds' evolving social and economic needs of a growing city. presence inPittsburgh had implications that tran- In conceit with Bion J. Arnold and John Freeman, scended the vagaries ofpolitical power. The Boston Olmsted in1910—fullyexamined the dynamic physical firm's role reflected, as historians Francis Couvares form of the city its topography, its residential and and John Ingham have suggested, the flowering ofa industrial land uses, its parks, its waterways and cosmopolitan culture ofconsumption among Pitts- streetways. Using that information, Olmsted con- burgh's notoriously parsimonious urban elite. This structed not a blueprint or master plan, but a perma- cosmopolitanism manifested itselfinboth the vogue nent mechanism or system for rationally planning the for landscaped estates and inthe campaign for civic continuous development of the city that emphasized art and improvement. Indeed,— it was these same above all the importance ofcollecting and maintain- Pittsburgh social elites the Thaws, Heinzes, and— ing an extensive archive of planning data as a scientific Mellons, whose estates the Olmsted's landscaped foundation for future planning decision making. that sought to impose order and beauty upon the The planning euphoria of1911 nurtured the industrially degraded urban environment. private more than the public sector. The Department The Olmsteds in the early twentieth century were of CityPlanning, newly created in1911, was soon at the forefront ofboth the private and public world emasculated, and the City Planning Commission ofenvironmental change. As landscape consultants proved impotent. However, the voluntary planning for some ofPittsburgh's most socially and economi- sector thrived. Inany case, as a sometime consultant cally distinguished families, the Olmsteds helped before and after World War Ito the fledgling Pitts- shape the character ofboth the suburban East End burgh Planning Commission and the Citizen's and the more remote Sewickley area. Their influence Committee on CityPlanning, successor to the PCC, on the private landscape was broader than their work Olmsted helped to instill an ethos ofplanning in onindividual estates. Through their expansive Pittsburgh that, despite political obstacles, endured. network ofPittsburgh contacts, the Olmsteds The ethos that the Olmsteds articulated in their engaged inplanning both upper middle-class suburbs private and public work flowed, as we have seen, from and industrial towns such as Vandergrift. a concern for environmental beauty and order Likewise, the Olmsteds inscribed their mark on embedded inthe late nineteenth and early twentieth Pittsburgh's public landscape. Evidence of the century urban elite and upper middle-class mentality. Brookline firm's handiwork appears in the Oakland True to the Olmsted vision,between 1920 and 1950 Civic Center, inFrick Park, and in the Allegheny Pittsburgh endeavored to impose order upon the Cemetery. Politics aside, enough of what Frederick industrial landscape. And the planning methodology Law Olmsted, Jr. recommended inhis Main Thor- differed little from the 1909-1911 era. Indeed, we see oughfaresplan happened to make the 1911 report an strong elements ofcontinuity linking the planning of historic document. Olmsted's designation of the the Olmsted years and the post-World War IIera. Point as the key to Pittsburgh redesign, his ideas for Consultants were employed, and park and riverfront the Boulevard of the Allies,a wider Fourth, Fifth, development, smoke control, and ofcourse transpor- and Sixth avenues, and his institution ofplanning as tation planning, especially the unsnarling of the city's an ongoing process, all underscore his importance. worsening downtown traffic congestion, continually Finally, there may be a peculiar irony to the topped the agenda. Olmsted planning legacy inPittsburgh stemming Furthermore, notwithstanding the vitalityof the from Frederick Olmsted, Jr.'s reputation as the city's planning tradition, political problems consis- apostle of the "CityPractical." While inhis plan he tently vexed planning efforts. As Lubove, Hancock, emphasized efficiency and practicality, his devotion Schultz, Boyer, and other planning historians have to the ideal ofbeauty infused the language of the observed, planning has historically presented a report. Indeed, in the firm's private and public paradox for the American private city. Rooted in the Pittsburgh work, inlandscape reports and public desire ofAmerican business and professional elites to plans, the Bostonian beseeched Pittsburgh to appre- rationally tame the exuberant forces ofcapitalistic ciate and exploit the special natural beauty of its

202 The Olmsteds inPittsburgh

Jr., particu- City Planning Since 1890 (Univ. ofCalifornia Press, 1969), river-bounded site. Frederick Olmsted, in 68; and Lubove, Twentieth Century Pittsburgh^ 20. lar, saw Pittsburgh endowed with spectacular natural 7On originsofsurvey, see ClarkA.Chambers, Paul U.Kellogg advantages comparable to Edinburgh, Paris, and and the Survey: Voices for Social Welfare and Social Justice Lyon. His Main Thoroughfares, a paean to Pitts- (Univ.ofMinn.Press, 1971 );and Lubove, TwentiethCentury burgh's beauty, is an exhortation worth reading and Pittsburgh, 6-7. 8 See Charles Hilland Steven Cohen, "John A.Fitch and the re-reading. Indeed, the Olmsteds' appeal that early Pittsburgh Survey," Western Pennsylvania HistoricalMagazine 20th century Pittsburghers should realize the city's (Jan. 1984), 17-19; also, for an insight into the Pittsburgh extraordinary potential as a place ofbeauty still Survey and the survey movement ofthe era, especially on the resonates at the end of the century as a significant critical role of women, see Linda Gordon"s article "Social Public The Influence ofGender in goal \u25a0 Insurance and Assistance: for the future. Welfare Thought inthe UnitedStates, 1890-1935 ,"American 1Inresearch for this two-part series onthe Olmsteds' influence HistoricalReview 97 (Feb. 1992), 38-40; see also Ingham, inPittsburgh, the authors wish to gratefullyacknowledge the MakingIron and Steel, 157-182. generous assistance of:Frederick W. Bauman, Jr. and Jeffrey 9 "Giant Group Plans, Wide Thoroughfares in a New M. Flannery, senior manuscript librarians of the Library of Pittsburgh," Pittsburgh Dispatch, Nov. 17, 1907, 6, found in Congress; Joyce Connolly, reference archivist at the Frederick City Planning News Clipping File, Archives of Industrial LawOlmsted NationalHistoricSite, Brookline, Mass.; Audrey Society, Univ.ofPittsburgh, (hereafter AIS). Iacone, librarian at the Historical Society of Western 10 Theodore Roosevelt, "CivicResponsibility," Survey XXIV Pennsylvania; Prof.Roy Lubove oftheUniversityofPittsburgh; (Sept. 17, 1910), 853, 856-57; Kellogg, "Pittsburgh: An MaryBethPastorius ofthe Sewickley ValleyHistorical Society; Interpretation," 59; onthe exhibit,also see Lubove's footnote and the staffs of the Pennsylvania Room of the Carnegie 11,in Twentieth Century Pittsburgh, 7. Libraryand theUniversityofPittsburgh's Archives ofIndustrial 11 Robinson's Feb. 6, 1909 "report" for the Pittsburgh Society. This project was supported by a grant from the Survey, "CivicImprovement Possibilities ofPittsburgh," was Faculty Professional Development Council ofthe State System reprinted inKellogg,"CoalitionofCivicForces," inPittsburgh ofHigher Education ofthe Commonwealth ofPennsylvania. CivicFrontage, 53. 2 Inhis The CityBeautiful Movement (Johns Hopkins Press, 12 "The Trend ofThings," Survey XXIII(Oct. 1910), 130. 1989), WilliamH.Wilson argues that the CityBeautifulplans 13 See "Pittsburgh Civic Commission," n.d. (c. 1910), a were far more comprehensive and "scientific" than critics phamphlet found in the Pittsburgh Dept. ofCity Planning allowed.Moreover, the plans Wilson examines inhis book — library,200 Ross St., Pittsburgh. Harrisburg, Seattle, Kansas City, Denver, and Dallas — did 14 See Harold F.Howland, "The CityPractical: ACityPlan to address social problems. Pittsburgh's City Beautiful plans, Relieve and Prevent Congestion and to Regulate the Cost of however, more nearly fit the older model scorned by critics. Living,"inThe Outlook(March 1911), 394, foundinBox242, 3 See John Ingham, MakingIron and Steel: Independent Mills file10, papers ofFrederick LawOlmsted, Manuscript Division inPittsburgh, 1820-1920( OhioState Univ.Press, 1991), 159- of the Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. (hereafter, 240;Francis Couvares makes asimilarpointinhis TheRemaking OAP). of Pittsburgh: Class and Culture in an Industrializing City, 15On upper middleclass motives forplanning, see Fogelsong, 1877-1919 (State Univ.ofN.Y. Press, 1984), passim. Planning the Capitalist City, 199-201; see also John L. 4 See Samuel P. Hays, "Politics of Reform in Municipal Hancock, "Planners in the Changing American City,1900- Government in the Progressive Era," Pacific Northwest 1940," Journal ofthe American Institute ofPlanners ?>?> (Sept. QuarterlySS (Oct.1964), 166-82; and RoyLubove, Twentieth 1967), 291. Century Pittsburgh: Government, Business and Environmental 16 A.T. Burns, "CityPlanning inPittsburgh," Proceedings of Change (John Wiley,1969), 20-40; Joel A. Tarr discusses the the FirstNational Conference on CityPlanning, Washington, Magee-Flinn machine inSamuel P. Hays, City at the Point: D.C,May21-22, i909(National Conference onCityPlanning, Essays on the SocialHistory ofPittsburgh (Univ. ofPittsburgh 1909), 92. In his The Rise of the Community Builders: The Press, 1989), 232-235; Richard Fogelsong, Planning the American Real Estate Industry and Urban Land Planning Capitalist City:The ColonialEra tothe1920s (Princeton Univ. (Columbia Univ. Press, 1987), Marc Weiss traces (p. 19) a Press, 1986), 199-201; for a convincingly argued different significant portion of the turn-of-century enthusiasm for view see Christine Meisner Rosen, "Business, Democracy, and urban planning tolarge scale real estate developers (Pittsburgh's Progressive Reform in the Redevelopment ofBaltimore after Nicola wouldbe a localexample), whowere inWeiss's words, the Great Fire of1904," Business History Review 63 (Summer "committed to improving the pattern ofland-use and the 1988), 283-328. quality ofdevelopment," and saw planning as a wayto control 5 Allen Humphrey Kerr, "George W. Guthrie 40th Mayor, the smalltimeoperators or "curbstoners," whose individualism April 2, 1906-April 5, 1909," in Kerr, "The Mayors and thwarted the developers' goal oforderly suburban growth. Recorders ofPittsburgh, 1816- 1951, "(mimeographed, 1952) 17 Frederick LawOlmsted, Jr., "The Scope and Results ofCity inPennsylvania Room ofCarnegie Library,Pittsburgh; "Mayor Planning inEurope," Proceedings ofFirstNationalConference, Elect George W. Guthrie," Pittsburgh Post, Feb. 25, 1906, in 63-66. Guthrie News ClipFile,Pennsylvania Room; Paul U. Kellogg, 18 Burns to Frederick Law Olmsted, June 9, 1909, and FLO "Pittsburgh: An Interpretation," in The Pittsburgh District: to BionJ. Arnold, June 23, 1909, both inBox 241, file 3462, Civic Frontage (Russell Sage Foundation, 1914); Lincoln OAP. Steffens, The Shame of the Cities(Hilland Wang, 1960, 101- 19 Burns to Olmsted, Jr.,Dec. 22, 1909, Box 241,file1,OAP; 133 [rep., orig.pub. McClure,Phillips &Co., 1904]). Note also Olmsted, Jr., to Burns, Aug. 16, 1909, Box 241, file 1, thatin addition to being asuccessful Pittsburgh businessman, OAP; onputting together a team, see Olmsted toBurns, Aug. OliverMcClintock, founder oftheMunicipalLeague, was also 2,"1909, Box 241, file LOAP. °president of the Western Theological Seminary. 2 On Olmsted procedure for conducting study, see Olmsted Arthur S. Link and Richard L. McCormick, Progressivism to Burns, Dec. 24, 1909, Box 241, file 1, OAP; also see (Arlington Heights, 111., 1983); for Kellogg on "People's Whiting to Olmsted Jr., March 1, 1910, and Olmsted, Jr., to Victory,"see Paul U. Kellogg,"Pittsburgh: AnInterpretation," Whiting, March 2, 1910, inBox 241, file3, OAP. 21-23; Rosen, "Business, Democracy, and Progressive 21 Scott, American Urban Planning, 72. Reform;" onmoral environmentalism, see MelScot, American 22 Frederick Law Olmsted, "Draft ofReport [on Pittsburgh

203 Pittsburgh History Winter 1993/94

Main Thoroughfares]," circa. Nov.1910, inBox 241, fileS, Survey (Feb. 4, 1911), 728-730; Harold F. Howland, "The OAP;Olmsted suggested hisunderstanding ofthe complexity CityPractical: APlan toRelieve and Prevent Congestion and ofthe "urban problem" ina letter to Burns, June 29, 1909, to Regulate the Cost ofLiving," The Outlook(March 1911), Box 241, file 1, OAP; in another letter to Graham Taylor, 393-402, inBox242,nle 10,OAP. Joel Tarr,in"Infrastructure June 30, 1909, Olmsted talked about the importance of and CityBuilding,"(242-243) argues that the Olmsted report mastering the "controllable features on the physical plan of was not more fullyimplemented because of"unwillingness of the city."In the same letter he spoke ofthe "uncontrolled those whocontrolled CityCouncil and county government to competitive development ofthe railroadlines and the frequent surrender control ofdevelopment." lack ofproper correlation between the several systems and 42 AllenHumphrey Kerr, "WilliamMagee, First Term, April between the railroads and the street plan ...," inBox 241,file 5, 1909-January 15, 1914," mimeographed, inPennsylvania LOAP. Room, Carnegie Library, Oakland. 23 Frederick Law Olmsted, Pittsburgh Main Thoroughfares 43 On Magee's bond issue, see William Magee, "Annual and theDown TownDistrict:Improvements Necessary toMeet Report of the Mayor," in Annual Report of the Executive the City's Present and Future Needs, A Report (Pittsburgh Departments of the City of Pittsburgh for the Tear Ending Civic Commission, 1911), 1. January 31, 1912 (City of Pittsburgh, 1912); on Civic 24 Edward Whiting wrote Olmsted, July 8, 1910, that Commission opposition, see AllenT.Burns, "What the Civic "Mayor Magee is very anxious that we reach definite Commission Engineers Found," unidentified newspaper conclusions inregard to our hump cut and street widening clipping,Nov. 4, 1910, in Box 242, file 10, OAP; also two recommendations as he isobligedto prepare new ordinances unidentified news clippings, "Mayor Jolts the Civic for the same. Certain portions ofthe Hump workand some Commission," and "Answer isMade byCommission," inBox 242, 10, of the street widening schemes depend largely upon our ,U1Vfile 1U, OAP. decision inregard to the Civic Center," in Box 241, file 5, 44 Burns to Olmsted, Nov. 14, 1910, Box 242, file 7, OAP. OAP;Olmsted had presented his "preliminaryreport"on the 45 "Greater and Better City is to be the Aim ofPittsburgh hump cut to the Pittsburgh Civic Commission, Jan. 17, Men," news clipping, circa. Oct. 1910, in City Planning 1910, Box 241, file2,OAP; also see Olmsted toMagee, Jan. Commission Papers, AIS,University ofPittsburgh; and John 7, 1910, Box 241, file2, OAP; and "Plans forHump's Cut P. Fox to Whiting,Nov. 11, 1910, explaining failure ofCivic Are Suggested," Pittsburgh Gazette, Jan. 16, 1911, inBox Commission. Fox wrote to Whiting that "itseems to me that 242, file 10, OAP; Olmsted discussed the hump cut inhis the influence ofthe Commission is just about ended, as far as Main Thoroughfares, 10, 11, 128. public improvements go," inBox 242, file 7, OAP. 46 25 On the South Hills bridge and tunnel, see Olmsted to See WilliamA.Magee to Olmsted, March 18,1911, where Edward Bigelow,July 20, 1910; Frank Gosser to Olmsted, Magee wrote: "The Report is a great work and it will,not July25, 1910; Olmsted toBigelow,October 5,1910, where doubt, be the basis ofall future public improvements in this Olmsted stresses, "This tunnel willbe, of course, a very vicinity of that nature." Box 242, file 9, OAP; note that important linkinthe city's thoroughfare system;" Olmsted, Olmsted invitedMagee to be his guest at the Third National Pittsburgh Main Thoroughfares, 49-54; news clip on "South Conference on City Planning held in Philadelphia, May 15 Hollows Tunnel," Pittsburgh Dispatch, July 15, 1910, all in and 16,1911. Olmsted chaired the conference, and Magee did Box242, file10,OAP. Alsosee Stephen J.Hoffman, '"APlan attend. See Olmsted to Hon. William A. Magee, March 22, of Quality': The Development of Mt.Lebanon, a 1920s 1911, Box 242, file 9, OAP. Automobile Suburb," mJournal of Urban History 18 (Feb. 47 See Tarr, "Infrastructure and City Building,"243. 1992), 148-154; the South Hills tunnel and artery are 48 Tarr observes in "Infrastructure and City Building,"243- discussed inOlmsted's Main Thoroughfares, 49-56. 244, that planning commissions ofthe era, like bureaus of 26 Olmsted, Main Thoroughfares, 13. engineering and divisions ofinspection, wereoftenineffectual, 27 Main Thoroughfares, 14. staffed withpolitical appointments and used by politicians for 28 Main Thoroughfares, 11-17. partisan purposes." On Pittsburgh's Dept. ofCityPlanning 29 On Bennett and Gilbert, see Olmsted to Whiting, March and Planning Commission seeking Olmsted's advice, see news 15, 1910, Box 241, file 3, OAP; also Bernhard to Whiting, clipping"Planning Board is Selected," Sept. 19, 1911;and J. June 28, 1910, Box 241, file 5, OAP; also Whiting to D. Hailman, Secretary of the Dept. of City Planning, to Olmsted, March 11, 1910, Box 241, file 3, OAP. Olmsted, July29, 1912; and Olmsted toMr.Joseph Winslow, 30Bernhard to Whiting,May28, 1910, Box241, file5,OAP. CityPlanning Commission, Nov.4,1912; Olmsted toHailman, 31 Whiting to Bernhard, July 6,1910, Box241, file5,OAP. Dec. 10, 1913, all in Box 243, job file 3463, OAP; on 32Olmsted, Main Thoroughfares, 21. Johnstown, see Olmsted to Leo J. Buettner, Secretary of 33Main Thoroughfares, 22-23. Johnstown City Planning Commission, Feb. 25, 1916; and 34 Main Thoroughfares, 25-26. Olmsted to Buettner, March 20, 1916, inBox 290, OAP. 35 Main Thoroughfares, 21. 49 Olmsted to Edward H. Bennett, December 3, 1913, Box 36Olmsted to Whiting,Aug. 17, 1910, Box 242,file6, OAP. 242, file 10, OAP. 37 Olmsted, Main Thoroughfares, 29. 50 Folder announcing "The Beaux Arts Salon Architectural 38 On market, see Diamond Market: Conference with Mr. Competition for a Municipal Improvement," in Box 353, Haines, Market Clerk, Jan. 2, 1910; also notes on OAP. Philadelphia's Reading TerminalMarket,Feb. 8,1910, both 51G. Garrick O'Bryan, Secretary ofWater Street District and inBox 241, file 2, OAP; on parks, Whiting to Olmsted, Lower Downtown Improvement Association, to Olmsted, February 10, 1910, Box 241, file 2,OAP. Jan. 28, 1919; and Olmsted to O'Bryan, March 14, 1919, 39See Olmsted, MainThoroughfares, 3-4;George W.Lehman both inBox 242, file10, OAP. to Olmsted, April19, 1910; and Olmsted to Lehman, April 52 On Frick Park, see correspondence between Frederick 25, 1910, both in Box 241, File 4, OAP; see also N.S. Bigger of the Citizens Committee on City Planning of Sprague, Department ofPublic Works, to Pittsburgh Civic Pittsburgh, which acted for Frick Trust on the park matter, Commission, July 5,1910, Box241,File 5, OAP; and "Final and James Frederick Dawson ofOlmsted Brothers, June 24, Outline ofReport on Surveys forPittsburgh," circa. Oct. 1924; and Olmsted and Bigger,June 9,1924; and Olmsted to 1910, Box 242, file 8, OAP. CD. Armstrong, president of the CCCP, June 28, 1924, in 40See Tarr,"Infrastructure and CityBuilding,"inHays, ed., Box 243, job file3464, OAP. Cityat The Point, 243. 53See Howland's, "The CityPractical," in The Outlook, 393- 41Charles MulfordRobinson, "The Pittsburgh Street Plan," 394.

204 The Olmsteds inPittsburgh

54Lubove, Twentieth Century Pittsburgh; Hancock, "Planners Planning(MYT Press, 1983); Stanley K.Schultz, Constructing in the Changing American City;" Christine M. Boyer, Urban Culture: American Cities and CityPlanning, 1800- Dreaming the Rational City: The Myth of American City 1920 (Temple Univ. Press, 1989).

PHOTOGRAPH CREDITS

Pittsburgh's Bettis Field Archives ofIndustrial Society Page 156-167 Historical Society ofWestern Page 175-79 Historical Society, Scholter Collection Pennsylvania, Kenneth W. Scholter Page 180 Archives ofIndustrial Society (top); Collection Historical Society, Scholter Collection Some A-B-Cs ofLocal Aviation (bottom) Page 168 Courtesy Pittsburgh Institute of Page 181-82 Historical Society, Scholter Collection Aeronautics (top);courtesy Edward Vance, Cambridge Springs Chess Congress Pittsburgh (bottom) Photographs courtesy of author Page 169 Pittsburgh Institute ofAeronautics The Olmsteds inPittsburgh (Part II) Page 170 Historical Society, Scholter Collection Illustrations and period photos fromFrederick Law Remembrances ofBettis Field Olmsted, Jr., Pittsburgh, Main Thoroughfares and the Page 171 Historical Society, Scholter Collection Down Town District:Improvements Necessary toMeet the Page 172-73 Pittsburgh Institute ofAeronautics Cityys Present and Future Needs (1911); photograph page (large photo ofPIA);others from 198 fromHistorical Society ofWestern Pennsylvania, Historical Society, Scholter Collection Robert C. Alberts Papers, courtesy Allegheny Conference Page 174 Courtesy University ofPittsburgh, on Community Development. — Index to Volume 76 1993

America, by James b. No. 4 City,77 122-40; (co- Aero ClubofPgh., 158, Whisker, rev. of, 188 Ball, Clifford,159, 162, author), "The Olmsteds 159 Army AirCorps, 159, 168, 172-76 inPittsburgh: (Part II) Agricultural Col. ofPa. 173 balloons, 158, 160 Shaping the Progressive (now Pa. State Univ.), "ArtFarrar: LittleStart for a "Ballpark Figures: The City," 191-205 24,28-30 BigBand Stylist," by Story ofForbes Field," Beaver Falls, Pa., 72-74 Allegheny City, 79-88 Paul Roberts, 5-8 byDaniel L.Bonk, Becker, Charles R., 100-15 Allegheny Co. Airport, The ArtofAmerican 52-70 Beltzhoover, Daniel, 117, 158, 168, 179 Livestock Breeding, pub. baseball, 52-70, 72-74, 119 The AlleghenyRiver: by American Minor 76-78, 99: owner Benswanger, WilliamE., Watershed of the Nation, Breeds Conservancy, cooperation in early 65-67, 99 by Jim Schafer and rev. of, 43 20th century, 54- Best, Elmer, "Pittsburgh's Mike Sanja, rev. Aspinwall Filtration Plant, 55; westward expan- Bettis Airport,"156- of, 189 85 sion, 66; radio broad- 168 Allen,WilliamH., 29, 31 aviator pioneers, Western casting, 72-74; Best, Mildred,158 Alliance Col., 187 Pa., 162; stories about, manipulation of Bettis Airport,156-182 AlongInterstate 80, byDr. 156-168, 170-182 statistics in, 76-78; Bettis Atomic Power Lab, Stephen C. Price, rev. academic journals, 76; 157, 169 of, 188 B social history, 76-78 Bettis, Lt.Cyrus, 157, 168 American Medical Assoc, Babcock, Edward Vose, The ButtleforHomestead, BigBand music, 5-8 11 143-45 1880-1892: Politics, bond issue of1910, 200 American Osteopathic Babcock Lumber Co., Inc., Culture, and Steel, by Bonk, Daniel L.,"Ballpark Assoc, 13 144 Paul Krause, rev. of, Figures: The Story of American School of back page features: Convict 151-52 Forbes Field," 52-70 Osteopathy, 11 Inn, No. 1;pre-radio Bauman, John F. (co- broadcasting, back page anthropometric research, baseball reports, No. 2; author), "The Olmsteds feature, No. 2 18-23 Union City,No.3; Pgh. inPittsburgh: (Part I) "Burning a Babcock— Arms Makers ofColonial Chemical Laboratory, Landscaping the Private Mansion Historic

205