Mission 66 : Modernism and the National Park Dilemma / Ethan Carr

LC 2006037077 ISBN-13: 978-1-55849-587-6 ISBN-10: 1-55849-587-8

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Carr, Ethan, 1958- Mission 66 : modernism and the National Park dilemma / Ethan Carr. p. cm. “In association with Library of American Landscape History, Amherst.” Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13: 978-1-55849-587-6 (cloth : alk. paper) ISBN-10: 1-55849-587-8 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Park facilities--United States--Design and construction--History. 2. Park facilities--United States--Maintenance and repair--History. 3. National parks and reserves--United States--Design. 4. United States. National Park Service--History. 5. Landscape design--United States--History. 6. Modern movement (Architecture)--United States. I. Library of American Landscape History. II. Title. III. Title: Mission sixty-six. SB486.F34C37 2007 333.78'30973--dc22 2006037077 contents

Preface ix Acknowledgments xiii

Introduction: “The People Who Use the Parks” 3 part i: mission 66: planning 1: Newton Drury and the “Dilemma of Our Parks” 19 2: Conrad Wirth and Postwar “Recreational Planning” 39 3: Planning Principles and the “MISSION 66 Prospectus” 63 4: Public Policy and “Our Heritage” 103 part ii: mission 66: design 5: Architecture 127 6: Preservation and Interpretation 175 7: Landscape Architecture 199 part iii: mission 66: construction 8: Concessions and Controversy 227 9: Park Roads and Wilderness 255 10: “Parks for America” 291

Conclusion: “The Capacity to Provide Enjoyment” 333

Notes 343 Bibliography 375 Index 385

vii the 1930s. In these cases he fervently insisted park purposes. As a result Isle Royale National that he would hold the line on the development Park only became a reality in 1940. Although its of roads or any other kinds of park facilities. legislation did not specifically prohibit road Ickes demanded a greater role in shaping devel- building, its remote, insular situation made it a opment policies for the new “wilderness parks” perfect case for Ickes to state categorically in (an unofficial designation), such as Everglades 1938 that the new park would “have no roads.”19 (Florida, 1934), Big Bend (Texas, 1935), But for most historians, the first true “wilder- Olympic (Washington, 1938), and Kings Canyon ness park” was Everglades National Park, be- (California, 1940). The first park to include ex- cause in this case the 1934 legislation was plicit wilderness protection in its legislation was shaped by the wilderness debates of the time. Grand Teton National Park (Wyoming), which The extraordinary bird populations of South was established in 1929 with language that pre- Florida, and the bloody history of their exploita- cluded the construction of any roads, hotels, or tion and attempted protection, were bound to other lodging. The legislation in this case, how- influence any discussion of a national park in ever, responded to the concerns of dude ranch- the area. The “river of grass” was an awesome ers worried about competition more than a landscape, but it lacked specific scenic features desire to preserve wilderness.18 At Isle Royale Na- or dramatic tourist attractions typical of earlier The Shark Valley observation tional Park in Michigan, the park legislation of national parks. The character of the landscape tower in Everglades National 1931 depended on the acquisition of private and its importance as habitat suggested that it Park and the “river of grass” as seen from the tower’s viewing land by the state, since Congress was unwilling to should become a different kind of park, one left platform. Author’s photos. fund directly the acquisition of private land for in a “primitive” or “wilderness” condition. How

26 mission 66: planning View of the surrounding desert through “the window,” Chisos Basin, Big Bend National Park. Author’s photo.

exactly park planners would achieve this was a anticipation of the economic stimulus that question that would be put off until the state of could follow from the development of a national Florida finished the acquisitions of private land park. From the first plans that were drawn up in in 1947.20 As was the case with many of the the mid-1930s, however, the Park Service ac- wilderness parks of the Ickes years, the ultimate knowledged the constraints of working in an disposition and physical management of the “untouched wilderness area,” and although a Everglades would only be resolved—and de- lodge was developed in the Chisos Basin, the bated—later, as part of the Mission 66 program. overall level of development, and the impact of The situation was similar at Big Bend National the park on local economies, remained re- Park, which was established in 1935 but with strained, even during Mission 66.21 property acquisition by the state of Texas not The creation of Olympic National Park was finished until 1944. The original legislation for entwined in the long and fierce battles over the the park was supported by local business inter- enormous potential wealth represented by the ests and many citizens of surrounding towns in dense, mature expanses of fir, hemlock, spruce,

newton drury and the “dilemma of our parks” 27 The cover of a Mission 66 public information brochure illustrates an idealized visitor center as an almost transparent pavilion, offering a sequence of views through window walls and from outdoor terraces. NPS History Collection.

museum design. Those rustic buildings were 66 visitor center—as long as it was minimal and sited to form elements of pictorial landscape did not visually contrast with its surroundings or compositions experienced by visitors moving call too much attention to itself—was almost in- through and around a park village. Great effort consequential. The removal of most ornamenta- and expense went into the design of elaborate tion and historical allusion was another aspect façades that evoked Swiss chalets, “pioneer” con- of modernism that ﬁt the purpose of the new struction, or “Indian” culture. But the outward buildings perfectly, since they were meant not to stylistic or aesthetic appearance of the Mission have a powerful presence themselves but to re-

150 mission 66: design cede visually even as they facilitated the appreci- ful examples included many smaller, less expen- ation of park landscapes and resources by ever sive buildings. Cecil Doty’s Zion (1957) and larger numbers of people. The architecture, ide- Montezuma Castle visitor centers (1958) typify ally, should be nearly transparent: a composition an unpretentious, functional approach to archi- of functional, overlapping spaces and outward tecture that met pressing needs for visitor and views, not of structural mass and decorative administrative functions with dignified effi- façades. ciency and minimal visual intrusion on the The best Mission 66 visitor centers achieved landscape. At Zion, from the public (front) side this adaptation of contemporary modernist the visitor center appears to be a low, horizon- ideas to the goals espoused by Park Service tal earth-tone structure. It was sited on a slope, landscape architects and interpreters. Success- however, so that two stories of maintenance and

From rustic to modern in Zion National Park. The park’s rustic museum (top left), sited on a dangerous curve near the park entrance, was overwhelmed by postwar levels of use. The new visitor center (1957-1961) was built just inside the park. The public spaces featured window walls, an outdoor terrace, a contact desk, and other facilities, all well separated from the extensive office and maintenance areas attached in a long, low wing. Zion National Park Archives.

architecture 151 frigerators, linoleum floors in kitchens and bathrooms, central heating, and connections for washers and dryers. Superintendents were to pick preferred plans and submit them to their regional directors.60 In 1958 Wirth observed, “So far we have taken between 200 and 250 park service families out of rundown, outmoded—well, shacks is the right word—and put them in new houses and apartments more suited to the dignity of the job they are performing so ably.” The next year the National Park Service Women’s Organization again undertook a housing survey, this time under the direction of Inger Garrison, the wife of Yellowstone superintendent Lon Garrison. By February 1959, Garrison observed, 368 new housing units for permanent employees had Standard housing plans for multiple units and the three- been built. This put the program on schedule to bedroom ranch. NPS Denver Service complete 1,000 units in ten years (not the Center, Technical Information Center. hoped-for five), although the total need was now estimated at almost 1,500 units. The tenor of the 107 survey responses that Garrison tabu- lated was very positive. About half of those ques- tioned reported that Mission 66 housing had been built in their parks. In general that half responded positively at a ratio of about five to one to questions such as “Have the plans been ade- quate for site placement. . . . number of bed- rooms. . . . number of bathrooms. . . . eating space. . . . traffic flow?” The general appearance of the houses was considered “fitting for the lo- cation and the Park” by a majority of twenty-five to three. The aesthetic, or style, of the houses was either widely approved or simply not a sub- ject of comment; the major complaint was that the nearly flat roofs of the typical ranch were not appropriate in snow country. The respon-

170 mission 66: design dents continued to show a strong preference for individual houses over multiple units, noting the need for privacy after working long days with fellow park staff who were also often neighbors. The three-bedroom ranch was widely favored, as was an additional dining area in the kitchen. The survey continued to show a strong consis- tency with the desires and expectations of Amer- icans in general during the 1950s, as well as approval of Mission 66 housing policies.61 Ranch house under construction In February 1960 the 1957 standard plans in Grand Canyon in 1957. NPS His- were revised in an attempt to provide more toric Photo Collection. space and amenities, still within the $20,000 per unit limit. Five types of housing were now offered: three-bedroom standard, four-bedroom standard, two-bedroom duplex (attached side by side), three-bedroom “superintendent” (slightly larger), and four-bedroom superintendent. The ﬂoor plans showed improvement in circulation and organization, with more storage, and a more deﬁned entrance area, in addition to a slight increase (200 square feet) in overall size. Garages were now always attached (they had been detached in some of the 1957 plans). Two- bedroom houses were replaced by the two-bedroom duplex, consisting of two identical house plans (one reversed) linked by adjacent car- ports. Standard plans now included front eleva- tion sketches, although the choice of siding remained open. The 1959 Women’s Organiza- tion survey had affected the new plans, which now featured entry vestibules with closets, extra storage, and a dining area adjacent to the New ranch houses, 1957-1959, kitchen, as well as a garage with additional stor- in Grand Teton National Park (middle) and Lincoln Home 62 age. The standard plans served as the basis for National Historic Site (bottom). quickly developing working drawings that neces- NPS Historic Photo Collection. sarily were adapted to an individual building

architecture 171 National park campers as illustrated in a slide from “Mission 66 in Action” in 1958. NPS History Collection.

village—was supplanted by visitor center plan- all been trained as landscape architects. As they ning and design as the visitor center complex reached senior administrative positions, they centralized and replaced many of the public and were running the agency many of them had administrative functions of the prewar rustic vil- joined over twenty years earlier. As a massive lage. For obvious reasons, architects and inter- park modernization program, Mission 66 was es- preters were more essential than landscape sentially a landscape architectural project. Along architects in the design of visitor center build- with other agency officials, Park Service land- ings. There were a few new concessioner areas scape architects were responsible for Vint’s “Plan with overnight accommodations that were de- B,” the “guiding principles” of the Mission 66 scribed as “villages” under Mission 66, but the program, and other basic revisions of park plan- rustic village idea had largely been superseded ning procedures. In the broadest sense, Wirth’s by the new day use facilities that embodied the national recreational planning efforts, and the strategy and priorities of Mission 66. overall concept and implementation of the Mis- While landscape architects no longer con- sion 66 program itself, were the most important trolled to the same degree the way parks were products of Mission 66 landscape architecture. planned and developed, they had become more The significance of landscape architecture un- influential than ever within the Park Service. der Mission 66 was clearly not limited to individ- Wirth, Vint, EODC chief Edward Zimmer, chief ual design projects, such as the layout of of the Mission 66 working staff Bill Carnes, and campgrounds and day use areas. Nevertheless, many other agency designers and managers had the role of the landscape architect in national

202 mission 66: design park planning clearly changed, and even de- creased, under Mission 66. This shift reflected parallel developments in the profession of landscape architecture as a whole, and in the long re- lationship between landscape architects and American park making. “Landscape architecture” had historically meant the profession of park planning and design in the United States. Frederick Law Olm- sted coined the term to describe his work with Calvert Vaux designing municipal parks and park systems in the 1860s. By the end of the nineteenth century, scores of municipalities, counties, and states had hired landscape architects to plan and design systems of parks and “scenic reservations” all over the country. The Department of the Interior began using landscape architects to plan the development of national parks in 1914. When the National Park Service was created in 1916, the agency’s man- date, as it was understood by the framers of its legislation and its first directors, was to expand and modernize a system of federal scenic reservations for the enjoyment of an increasingly au- tomotive public, and to do so in a manner that would allow future generations to enjoy the same privilege. In the late 1920s, while he was convincing Al- bright of the importance of park master planning, Vint argued that landscape architecture was a profession that offered “a practical solu- tion to the problem at hand” while also taking into consideration “the element of beauty.” The Mission 66 campground design latter could be attained in park development, he in Yellowstone. Typical campground layout, comfort observed, only when the “congruity of parts station, and amphitheater. gives harmonious form to the whole.” The “first Author’s photos. work” of the agency, therefore, was “the protec-

landscape architecture 203