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)

REVIEW OF CONCESSIONAIRES' DESIGNS

Another important function of the landscape engineering department was the review of concessionaires' plans and designs. Mather wrote, "It is in connection with the location and design of all new structures by these operators, and their harmonious relation to existing structures and the landscape, that the landscape engineering department fulfills one of its most important functions." [61]

After visiting a number of parks in 1919, Punchard became convinced that the quality of design and construction in the developments of concessionaires greatly needed improvement. He urged concessionaires to employ architects, for his own review of proposals was frequently stymied by inadequate plans that lacked information and made it impossible for him to visualize the finished structures. He also discouraged the construction of temporary buildings, because they tended to become permanent after several years. [62]

Much of Punchard's initial effort was spent encouraging concessionaires to improve the appearances of facilities that included lodges, hotels, campgrounds, stores, and photographic studios. At Yosemite, Punchard spent a great deal of time studying and approving the development plans for an extensive building program for Yosemite Lodge. The plans included sixty-five new cabins and an industrial group. The industrial group consisted of a garage and several repair shops; although the group was centrally located, it was well hidden and constructed in the same architectural style as the company's other buildings. At Yellowstone, Punchard reviewed designs for gas stations, which he praised as attractive and "unique in this field of automobile service, and deserving of the highest commendation from a designer's standpoint." These were constructed of logs and stone and carefully located in relation to their surroundings. [63]

Punchard gathered ideas from the designers hired by the park concessionaires, on whose work he was to make recommendations and give approval prior to construction. He met with Mary Colter and reviewed the Fred Harvey Company's plans for new development after the Grand Canyon was made a park on February 26, 1919. Reviewing proposals submitted by the concessionaires was Punchard's only opportunity to make recommendations and affect the character of the larger buildings being built in the parks. This role would occupy an increasing amount of the interest and time of his successor, Daniel Hull, in the 1920s.

So appropriate was the design for Kiser's Photographic studio (1919) at Crater Lake's Rim village that the building was later incorporated into the design of the rim promenade and adapted for park service use as an information office. Landscape engineer Charles Punchard strongly influenced the design of the building, with its stone lower story of stone masonry, upper story of logs, and log pergola. visible in this 1933 photograph are the stone parapet with crenulating piers, picturesque ghost trees, walkway, and views of the lake that characterize the promenade design of the late 1920s. (National Park Service Historic Photography Collection)

Punchard's suggestions for the design and location of Fred H. Kiser's studio at the Rim Village at Crater Lake illustrates Punchard's approach to locating buildings along a rim and to using landscape features such as terraces to achieve an acceptable and harmonious design. It also illustrates the extent to which Mather and Punchard conferred on these matters. In January 1920, Mather asked Punchard's opinion on the photographer's proposal to build a studio on the rim at Victor's Rock in the form of a log structure with a ten-foot porch extending across the lakeside elevation. Mather questioned the proposed location of the studio on the rim of the crater, disliking as he did the Kolb Studio and several other buildings at the Grand Canyon where the tendency was "to get right down to the rim." Mather felt that the hotel at Crater Lake should have been set back some distance from the rim and that if anything were built at Victor Rock it should be "simply an open-air observation station for the tourists with the photographic studio being placed back on the other side of the road." [64]

Although Punchard agreed that buildings should be situated well back from the rim, he felt that a distance of seventy-five feet was adequate provided the building did not stand out alone and was inconspicuous. If care were taken to design an attractive building above Victor Rock, noted Punchard, the result could be "pleasing and satisfactory." Instead of log, which the park had used for its entrance buildings, Punchard recommended that the volcanic stone found in the park, which was "so interesting and works up so well in buildings," be used to some degree in the construction of the studio. He further suggested,

To attract tourists and at the same time have a physical connection with the rim of the crater, Mr. Kiser might work in a terrace effect on the axis of the rim. This terrace might be paved with flat stones and seats and benches placed there. There might be a covering of this terrace if necessary during the heat of the day which could take the form of a log frame supporting a log rafter roof on which could be stretched a dark brown canvas which could be rolled back when not in use. In this manner he would be attracting the tourist and still not be building directly on the rim of the crater. [65]

Punchard's recommendations were followed. The building's lower story was made of random masonry of irregularly cut stone while the upper story and gable were board and batten. There was an overhanging roof with exposed log purlins. The building reflected the influence of the Arts and Crafts movement, and was moreover one of the first buildings built with the recommendations of the service's landscape engineer and incorporating the landscape architect's use of terraces, open pergola-like porch, accommodations for seating to enjoy scenic views, and native stone materials in creating a terrace wall and flagstone floor. Punchard set forth the concept that harmony required the careful selection of location but also the utmost consideration of design and materials. Screening, viewpoint, and vista figured importantly in Punchard's solution. Vista was considered in terms of both the building's conspicuousness and its ability to present a scenic view. Favoring the use of local stone at Rim Village, he wrote, "The volcanic rock which is found close at hand offers unlimited possibilities when used alone or in combination with logs in the design of simple attractive buildings." [66]

Several years later when a promenade was built along the rim from the Crater Lake Lodge to a point west of the studio, the building with its terrace and porch area was readily incorporated into the design. So well did the building suit its site and the emerging ethic of rustic park architecture that when Kiser closed his business about 1930 the park service adapted the building for use as an information center.

PROFESSIONAL STEWARDSHIP

While Punchard's work was primarily focused on the problems and details of park development, his professional sense of stewardship led him to raise questions about the boundaries and commercial exploitation of the parks. He urged the expansion of park boundaries in the General Grant and Sequoia parks to include additional areas of big trees, and Sequoia Lake, which although artificially created for logging operations had scenic potential and was threatened by the development of vacation homes. Grazing practices and the development of water resources for power and irrigation were timely issues that concerned Punchard [67]

Although the 1918 statement of policy restricted grazing to particular remote areas, these restrictions had been relaxed during the war and seriously threatened native flora. On the situation in Yosemite, he commented,

The destruction to the small mountain meadows caused by intensive grazing of large number of cattle will become a very serious matter. In Yosemite the appearance of these meadows after one year of grazing as a war measure was very disheartening indeed. The forest floor of the Sierra offers very little forage on account of the great area of rock and the steep canyon walls. Therefore, the small meadows suffer the greatest amount of destruction and their resources are soon depleted concentrated feeding. [68]

In 1920, he spoke out against a federal power bill that proposed to remove the control and administration of national parks from Congress and place it under a commission empowered to control all federal land and to develop water resources and irrigation. In his annual report and Landscape Architecture, Punchard unequivocally outlined the threats of water projects to parks such as Glacier, Yellowstone, and Yosemite, and he cautioned against placing the control of national parks under a commission whose purpose was to promote and develop water resources for irrigation or power. Recalling the controversy over the damming of the Tuolumne River in Yosemite's Hetch Hetchy Valley earlier and mentioning the destruction of scenery to be caused by several proposed water projects affecting Glacier National Park, he wrote,

Although this is not the first time in the history of the national parks that their beautiful valleys, lakes, streams, and scenic areas have been in danger of commercial exploitation, the movement has come at this time with a new vigor and determination to transgress upon these areas and develop them selfishly and for the benefit of a comparatively small number of citizens within the immediate vicinity of the project, compared with thousands and thousands of citizens for whom, and who, through their representatives, have set these areas aside and preserved them forever as national playgrounds for themselves, their children and their children's children. [69]

Following his study of national parks, Punchard was overwhelmed by the many problems and frustrated that only the most urgent could be addressed. Mather recognized that success depended not only on the engineer's training but also on a "clear and practical understanding and appreciation of the relation of these varied problems to the limitations of existing appropriations." The process was in no way aimed at compromising ideals, but rather was "simply getting the best possible results out of every situation." Mather commented on how much greater effort was spent in advising superintendents and concessionaires on what not to do as upon what to do to uphold the natural character of each park. [70]

The many small changes recommended by Punchard would have a cumulative and lasting effect on the character of park development. Mather commented on the marked results of the changes at Yellowstone: "Although many of them were of a minor nature, all had a direct bearing on each other and the whole, and obviously their continuance will eventually knit the whole ensemble into a harmonious whole, eliminating many of the unpleasant conditions which we have inherited." [71]

EXPERT ADVICE

During Punchard's tenure, the National Park Service forged ties with experts outside the service. Several prominent landscape architects visited the parks and advised on landscape matters. Jens Jensen assisted with plantings and provided advice at Hot Springs in December 1918. Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr., visited the newly established Lafayette National Park and gave advice on its future development. He even helped locate some industrial buildings inconspicuously at Annie Springs while visiting Crater Lake in 1921. Charles Moore, chairman of the Commission of Fine Arts, visited Yosemite with Mather, initiating the commission's involvement in planning and designing the new village in Yosemite Valley. [72]

Although decisions were made by the superintendent of each park, Mather kept well informed of issues and proposals for development. The park service landscape engineer faced the challenge of conveying practices that upheld a philosophy of harmonization and landscape preservation to superintendents from various backgrounds. In the parks, advisory boards were important players in decisions on park development; these boards were commonly made up of local businessmen, representatives of the regional "good roads" associations, members of mountaineering and hiking clubs, leaders of environmental clubs, and other park supporters. Mather was professionally affiliated with many prominent park officials. He regularly attended the annual meetings of the National Conference on State Parks and followed with great interest the progress of state park systems. He sat on the National Capital Park and Planning Commission and he likely consulted with fellow members on park issues. From time to time, he requested assistance and advice from the federal fine arts commission and its prominent members.

Continued >>>

Last Modified: Mon, Oct 31, 2002 10:00:00 pm PDT
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/mcclelland/mcclelland3e2.htm