Presenting Nature

Cover

Contents

Foreword

Acknowledgements

Overview

Stewardship

Design Ethic Origins
(1916-1927)

Design Policy & Process
(1916-1927)

Western Field Office
(1927-1932)

Park Planning

Decade of Expansion
(1933-1942)

State Parks
(1933-1942)

Appendix A

Appendix B

Bibliography

Presenting Nature: The Historic Landscape Design of the National Park Service, 1916-1942

III. A POLICY AND PROCESS FOR DESIGN, 1916 TO 1927 (continued)

THE ROLE OF THE LANDSCAPE ENGINEER: CHARLES P. PUNCHARD (continued)

DEVELOPMENT OF CAMPGROUNDS

Campground improvements took a considerable amount of Punchard's time. Most parks needed new or enlarged campgrounds to serve the increasing numbers of motorists that visited the parks in the aftermath of World War I when Mather's efforts to promote parks coincided with the burgeoning popularity of automobile transportation. Punchard's work entailed locating and developing permanent automobile camps or rehabilitating existing camps.

No park experienced a greater increase in motor travel than Yellowstone, where Superintendent Horace Albright called for automobile camps on a "comprehensive scale." Albright envisioned a system of campgrounds that could be "progressively extended and improved year by year" and would make available no less than thirty camps. Much of Punchard's first visit to Yellowstone was spent studying conditions at the permanent camps run by concessionaires, which offered visitors a campsite and a nearby dining hail. He made suggestions to make these places more attractive. He mapped the existing conditions at Mammoth Hot Springs, Old Faithful, and the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone and during the winter developed plans for rearranging and improving the grounds. The construction of several large camps at Mammoth Hot Springs near the general park headquarters entailed removing stumps and dead wood, installing a water system, constructing toilets and fireplaces, and policing the grounds on a regular basis. [46]

By the end of 1919, Punchard had worked out the basic requirements for national park campgrounds. Top priorities were good drinking water and sanitary toilet facilities. Campgrounds were located where there was a supply of water and where they could be screened from the park roads and were reached by graded and surfaced side roads. At areas such as the Upper Geyser Basin at Yellowstone, small dams were built to create small reservoirs. Elsewhere water was piped in from streams and lakes known to be free of pollution. Trees were cut and stumps and dead wood removed to provide space for roads, parking, and outdoor living. Fireplaces with grills for open-air cooking not only provided a welcome amenity but also reduced fire hazards. Seats, tables, and shelters were additional improvements. [47]

By 1919, campers at Sequoia National Park had "outrun the whole Giant Forest" to the extent that shrubs and ground cover in the village were completely destroyed. Mather recommended that the area ultimately be reserved only for its scenery and that the hotel be relocated to another part of the forest because the most interesting and the largest trees were in the vicinity of the hotel camp and around the meadows. In the meantime, Punchard made some temporary improvements to achieve a greater harmony of site and setting. He found the store and studio to be harmonious with the forested setting and recommended that the post office be covered with cedar bark "to fit into the general scheme in a very satisfactory manner. He moved the post office closer to the store and studio to complete the "group already begun" and to open up a dangerous corner that could be flattened and regraded. New government buildings were added in designs that established a precedent to be followed in future construction. Old buildings were to be removed and replaced by new buildings on less conspicuous sites. He recommended that the canvas tents be replaced with a new type of structure built of redwood and cedar bark that "would add materially to the attractiveness of the buildings" and "be more in keeping with the spirit of the colony." Despite Punchard's changes, by 1920, the use of the Giant Forest for camping had increased to a point where it was becoming increasingly difficult to preserve the natural conditions and at the same time provide adequate accommodations. Punchard observed that heavy use had taxed the area to its utmost capacity and resulted in the "gradual destruction of the undergrowth, leaving the ground bare and dusty," In 1926, the area was finally closed to camping, the buildings removed, and the ground allowed to recover. [48]

Because of the rapid increase of park visitors equipped for automobile camping at Sequoia and Yellowstone, Punchard recognized campground improvements as his most important work. In 1920, he urged that the "higher development of the automobile camp ground" proceed "with renewed vigor." [49]

DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES

The 1918 statement of policy called for the preparation of comprehensive plans for future development of the national parks. It was many years, however, before funds became available for this purpose. To ensure that when funds became available improvements would be based on a preconceived plan making "special reference to the preservation of the landscape," Punchard began to draw up plans called development schemes. For the most part, these were versions of the village plans having a common architectural theme that Mark Daniels proposed in 1915.

Plans were necessary for all forms of development. In 1920, Mather announced that all future improvements by both the service and the concessionaires were to be based on an organized scheme of development. Concessionaires were to submit "intelligent, well-prepared plans" for Punchard's review. [50]

The first plans took the form of organized schemes of development for areas of the parks called villages where both government and concessionaire's facilities were centered. The planning process involved the director of the National Park Service, the park superintendents, members of the park advisory committees, and the park concessionaires. Each scheme clustered buildings together functionally and aesthetically into an attractive and harmonious "ensemble." This often meant examining the condition and design of existing government and concessionary buildings to determine what should remain, what should be altered, and what should be removed to achieve a unified, harmonious appearance.

The major goal of planning was to uphold the visual attractiveness of these areas, either by designing and arranging new structures, by removing unnecessary buildings, or eliminating unsightly conditions. Such schemes were intended to avoid many of the types of mistakes that the service had inherited and to remedy the previous pattern of development that was described as "topsy-turvy," [51]

Park development and operations required maintenance facilities. Equipment was necessary for the construction and maintenance of roads, trails, and buildings. Such activities included ongoing repairs and the annual clearing of debris from winter storms on mountain roads. Some parks were already excellently arranged administratively, but conditions varied widely, In the worst cases, buildings were scattered, inadequate in size, and poorly located, and this lack of organization led to inefficiency, To remedy this situation, Punchard outlined a typical industrial group that included structures essential for park maintenance, including stables, wagon and equipment sheds, a garage, a warehouse, and shops for machinery, blacksmithing, electrical work, painting, plumbing, and carpentry, Housing and mess halls for laborers were included in permanent camps. Buildings were arranged to make maintenance activities more efficient. The industrial group was often located within the headquarters area. Punchard and Hull continued to study these conditions with a view to coordinating these developments in a single area for "most effective administration." [52]

By the end of 1920, development schemes had been formed for several parks. The development of administrative groups and facilities used by the concessionaires were central to most of these plans. In most parks such schemes had to accommodate existing development as well as future needs. An organized plan for the development of the areas, including commercial, industrial, and residential zones, had been formulated at Yosemite. At Mount Rainier, plans were approved for future building at Paradise Valley to accommodate rapidly increasing tourist travel and for the development of the newly acquired land at Longmire as the park's administrative headquarters. The Longmire development called for the removal of old buildings and the development of an open meadow as in Yosemite village. At Rocky Mountain National Park, plans for an administrative site in the village of Estes Park were developed and the problems of housing park employees and storing park equipment necessary for improvement work reviewed. [53]

General Grant National Park provided a different challenge and opportunity for park development. Although it covered only four square miles of territory, its scenic interest and the possibilities for development, in Punchard's opinion, could make it one of the "gems" of the national park system. Existing buildings were old, deteriorating, and unsuitable for park use. Punchard seized this opportunity to locate and design an entirely new village, removing the old structures and setting new buildings in an artistic arrangement that was both serviceable and harmonious. The location selected was a little meadow that Punchard described as a "delightfully refreshing spot after a long hot climb up the mountain road to the park." The village was to be the "vestibule" of the park, and a pleasing place for the visitor to stop for "rest and reflection." An administration building—well constructed, attractive, and well placed—provided a "model and nucleus" for additional structures to be built as the growth of the park demanded. Punchard described the plan for the new village:

In connection with . . . the administration building, which has already been erected, it is proposed to group the structures about three sides of a square which will open toward the road, the administration building on one side, the store and post office on the rear, and a building for the photographer on the side opposite the administration building. By such an arrangement an orderly, attractive village group may be developed on a site which is suitable for the purpose, unoccupied at the present time and centrally located. [54]

Topographic maps, which provided a record of contours, drainage patterns, and existing built features were essential to park planning and design. Such maps were central to the process of landscape design as it had evolved in the United States under the influence of the Olmsted firm. Punchard, who had spent much effort surveying existing conditions on the ground, urged park superintendents to prepare maps of their parks showing the location of all buildings; roads; bridges; water and sewer mains; electric light, power, and telephone lines; and other elements in relation to the contours and natural features of the park. This information was essential to planning development areas, to coordinating the engineering and landscape work, and to working with park superintendents, engineers, and concessionaires. Such mapping was generally conducted by park engineers and preceded the layout of roads, utilities, and other facilities in the developed areas of national parks. In the 1930s, much of the mapping was done by crews of Civilian Conservation Corps enrollees before planning and construction. [55]

LOCATING AND DESIGNING PARK FACILITIES

The landscape engineer played an important role in locating all park facilities. Beyond the basic engineering questions of suitability of soil and terrain, provision of water, and accessibility, the location of park facilities involved a number of landscape issues, particularly the effect that facilities had on scenic views. From the beginning, facilities were to be as inconspicuous as possible and to be situated so that they did not interfere with or intrude upon scenic vistas. The landscape engineer was involved in the decision on where to locate not only government buildings but also those of the concessionaires. Incinerators, power plants, maintenance shops, and garages all were placed where they would not be seen by the visiting public but where they could efficiently serve their essential functions. The location of gas stations was commonly a matter of dispute between the park staff and concessionaires. The landscape architects wished them to be screened and not noticeable, whereas the concessionaires, who wanted to sell their products, wished them to be located in prominent locations on plazas or beside roadways.

The location of buildings within existing park villages posed other considerations. Distance from the rim became an important factor as Charles Punchard negotiated the location for the Kiser Studio at Crater Lake's Rim Village, and twenty-five yards was finally agreed upon as the distance at which the building would not be visible along the rim from distant points. Sites where structures could lie gently and unobtrusively on the land were sought. Where it was desirable to afford a view from the building, the landscape engineers made sure that construction would not impair natural features or interrupt pristine scenic vistas from other viewpoints.

Park designers discovered, however, that location and siting of facilities was only part of the solution, for administration buildings, ranger stations, museums, and the like needed to be visible to the public. Designers therefore began to look to the character of design, materials, and method of construction as ways to achieve harmony with nature. When they constructed buildings that successfully blended into the site and setting, the designers realized that distance from the rim mattered little.

Since forested locations and rising elevations often provided best cover, it was not surprising that screening development by planting stands of trees became a standard practice by the late 1920s, especially in the case of maintenance buildings, comfort stations, and gas stations. Of the many planting conventions practiced by park designers in the early years of the service, screening was the most important and the one that the service continued to practice on a large scale and promoted in its portfolios of the 1930s, Park Structures and Facilities and Park and Recreation Structures.

Where stands of trees did not already exist, they could be planted in masses that followed the species and character of the surrounding area's natural vegetation. In areas of little or scattered tree cover, designers provided other forms of closure and concealment in the form of ornamental fences or walls that complemented the area's architectural scheme. The first of these fences was built at the concessionaire's camp at Mammoth Hot Springs in 1919 to conceal the service yards from public view. In the open subalpine meadow of Yakima Park, a stockaded fence was built in the early 1930s to hide the maintenance shops and motor pool of service vehicles and provided the same pioneer feeling as the blockhouses that served as administration buildings. In the deserts of the Southwest, adobe walls were stuccoed to blend with the natural soil and rock. This concern for concealment led designers like Punchard and Hull to lay out maintenance areas in quadrangles in which garages and shops were connected to form an enclosed central court where maintenance activities could be screened from the view of the general public.

Increasing numbers of visitors put pressure on the National Park Service to improve and develop new facilities, such as museums, observation stations, checking stations, comfort stations, and administration buildings. Plans made in the early 1920s to move the old village in Yosemite Valley out of the open meadows to a new site under the trees and against the valley walls established the concept of the "plaza" as the center of park business and of locating development under the screen of vegetation. Overcrowding in many parks led designers to identify additional areas for development and to separate the areas for park housing and maintenance. The influx of automobiles into parks created the need for parking areas, campgrounds, gasoline stations, and watering stops. Concessionaires wishing to expand accommodations or develop new ones worked closely with park designers to reach solutions that were appropriate for park use and harmonious with park scenery.

Designing park buildings was another important function of the landscape engineer. Punchard designed employees" cottages, ranger stations, automobile checking stations, comfort stations, and other buildings. Except for Mark Daniels's brief tenure as landscape engineer for the national parks, park superintendents designed the buildings for their parks or approved the work of architects hired by concessionaires for their buildings. In an advisory role, Punchard was now able to critique the plans drawn up by the superintendents and to encourage them to accept his assistance. The locations of buildings, whether built by the government or the concessionaire, were selected by the park superintendent in "conference with the landscape engineer on the ground." The landscape engineers selected and marked all timber to be cut to make way for construction. This was the beginning of the collaboration between park superintendents and landscape engineers in all matters pertaining to park design. This collaboration resembled the professional and client relationship common to the professional practice of landscape architecture and would characterize the process of national park design for years to come. [56]

As early as 1917, the landscape engineers recognized that the best approach for designing harmonious park structures was to use native materials. The practical problem of getting building materials to remote locations made this not only desirable, but essential. Economics was a factor, too, since the construction of buildings of any type was limited by the $1,500 ceiling that Congress had placed on the cost of park buildings unless special appropriations were granted. In 1919, Punchard urged that this amount be raised to $2,500. Mather and Hull continued to make similar recommendations throughout the 1920s. Punchard argued that the high cost of lumber made it impossible to construct facilities of an adequate size under the allotment. In some parks, materials were salvaged as older buildings were dismantled to alleviate the problem, but many parks had no existing structures that could be used for this purpose. Punchard urged the careful dismantling of dilapidated buildings so that materials could be salvaged for lumber suitable for framing or other rough work and to keep construction costs within the limit set by Congress. This amount remained a constant problem throughout the 1920s, despite efforts by Hull and Mather to increase the ceiling or drop it altogether. [57]

Gateways were developed at several parks that were to be "entirely unique, yet harmonious with their surroundings." Mather praised the advantages of the park gateway, "not the least of which are the sense of pride and thrill of pleasure that are inspired in the American tourist as he passes through imposing pillars or arches that announce to him that he is entering a great playground that belongs to him and to all America." The construction of many of these gateways relied upon special appropriations, and plans were often prepared with the hope that funding would follow. In 1919, Punchard designed gateways for Yellowstone's Cody Entrance and Yosemite's Wawona Entrance. It was not until the following year, however, that there were funds to construct the Cody Entrance, which featured a portal of massive local logs that was in scale and character with the surrounding forest and modeled after the Mount Rainier arch. [58]

While Punchard relied upon the use of local materials as a key to harmonizing park structures, he understood that this practice could potentially conflict with the policy of landscape preservation. In his design for the gateway to General Grant, he resolved this problem and established a sound approach for future design and construction by calling for a semirustic effect, in which structures reflected their function but were constructed of natural materials.

He reported,

In studying the problem . . . I felt that it should be constructed of materials which could be found within the park or would suggest the interior of the park in some manner. The chief attraction of the park is the General Grant Tree. Therefore, redwood seemed to be the medium to use. To use sections of the trunks of the trees seemed to me a useless sacrifice of these monarchs which we hold so dearly and treasure so carefully. At the same time it did not seem that a satisfactory rustic gateway could be obtained in this manner. Therefore, I suggested the use of redwood from fallen trees, cedar bark, and local stone, all materials which would be found in the park, and instead of working for a rustic effect, I worked for a semi-rustic effect, acknowledging frankly that it was a gateway. It should be dignified, perform its function frankly and definitely, and be harmonious and attractive. [59]

Punchard encouraged the construction of community buildings. Located in the larger campgrounds and accessible to both the government free camps and the concessionaire's complexes, these buildings would contain bathing facilities for both men and women, laundry tubs, a store, and perhaps a post office. They could also house one or more rangers. Of great importance was the large room with table and chairs and fireplaces where campers could enjoy evening lectures on the natural history of the park and find shelter in inclement weather. During 1921, several of these buildings, constructed of logs, were built at the Canyon and Old Faithful campgrounds and another proposed for the Lake Junction in Yellowstone. This building type would continue to be a popular feature of park campgrounds in the 1920s and 1930s, and several outstanding examples are those built at Paradise and Longmire at Mount Rainier in the late 1920s.

Under Punchard the architectural program was basic and meager. Unless special annual appropriations were justified, only the most basic and essential structures could be built. Yellowstone, for example, required new ranger stations and needed to replace snowshoe cabins in the backcountry. Mather adamantly pleaded with the secretary of the interior and Congress to fund the most basic park facilities to house park employees. He wrote, "The ranger force of every park, considering the nature of its work, should have dry, sanitary quarters and, in winter, the means of overcoming the effects of exposure while on long patrols in below-zero weather." Buildings were primitive in their construction and relied upon natural materials available at each site and tools that could be transported by pack animal or on foot. A standard snowshoe cabin consisted of a single room of twelve by sixteen feet, was built of pole framing and log siding chinked with mud, and had sturdy shutters made of planks to protect the ranger from bears. Many of the cabins at Yellowstone had an earthen roof consisting of a rubberoid base surmounted by six inches of soil. [60]

Punchard established a standard for the functionalism and harmonious construction of park buildings in keeping with the character of other buildings and the natural setting. Punchard explored the use of native materials, from volcanic rock to natural timbers. He worked out solutions for comfort, sanitation, convenience, and pleasure in park campgrounds. Although Punchard's tenure was a brief one, he established a program of landscape review and design that would guide the park service for many years.

Continued >>>

Last Modified: Mon, Oct 31, 2002 10:00:00 pm PDT
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/mcclelland/mcclelland3e1.htm