.gif)
Presenting Nature
MENU
Design Ethic Origins
(1916-1927)
Design Policy & Process
(1916-1927)
Western Field Office
(1927-1932)
Decade of Expansion
(1933-1942)
State Parks
(1933-1942)
|
Presenting Nature:
The Historic Landscape Design of the National Park Service, 1916-1942 |
|
VII. A NEW DEAL FOR STATE PARKS, 1933 — 1942 (continued)
PORTFOLIOS AND PUBLICATIONS (continued)
PARK STRUCTURES AND FACILITIES
The new volume, Park Structures and Facilities, was intended as an honor roll of outstanding examples of park structures, many of which had been constructed through Emergency Conservation Work. It was edited by Albert Good, the designer of buildings for Virginia Kendall Park, a new Akron park being developed through ECW. His earlier work was at the nearby Boy Scout camp, Camp Manatoc, and featured a stockaded entrance with carved totem pole pylons, which was illustrated in Waugh's portfolio. Good's other buildings included a Swiss chalet-style dining room and numerous cabins and cottages.
Other members of the editorial board were Thomas C. Vint; Paul V. Brown; Herbert Maier; Oliver G. Taylor, the deputy chief engineer of the Eastern Division of the Branch of Engineering; and Norman T. Newton, the landscape architect for ECW Region Two. Although Good wrote the apologia and comments throughout the book, the ideas set forth represented the thinking of the committee as a whole. These ideas were principles and practices that Vint and Maier especially had formulated in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Herb Evison, the supervisor of the State Park Division and the former executive secretary of the National Conference on State Parks, also offered "helpful counsel" based on his broad experience in state park work. [53]
The volume stands as a comprehensive index of national park principles and practices for naturalistic landscape design and rustic architecture. Although the book focused on construction methods and materials of park structures, it provided some general guidelines on locating and planting facilities to harmonize with the natural landscape. The park service published 2,350 copies of Park Structures and Facilities in 1935. The popularity of the work led to the much larger distribution of an expanded three-volume set in 1938, entitled Park and Recreation Structures.
Both editions included drawings of floor plans and elevations carefully delineated in the same neat hand, presumably that of Good himself. Photographs were drawn from many sources; most of those depicting national park work were taken by George Grant, who had begun working as a park service photographer out of the Western Field Office in the late 1920s and had created a visual record of newly completed work of the Education, Engineering, and Landscape Divisions. A number of photographs were from Maier's own portfolio. The majority of photographs, however, came from the illustrated narrative reports submitted by camp superintendents, landscape inspectors, and resident landscape architects.
Although the books primarily depicted state park construction, they did include some of the earlier rustic structures built in the national parks. A number of park buildings designed by Vint's office and Herbert Maier were shown, perhaps drawn from previous portfolios and their own "libraries" of successful designs. Examples are the administration buildings at Longmire and Yakima Park and the community buildings at Paradise and Longmire in Mount Rainier; park housing at Yosemite; museums at Fishing Bridge, Madison, Madison and Norris Geyser Basin in Yellowstone; the Yavapai Point Observation Building at Grand Canyon; and the entrance station at Tioga Pass in Yosemite. Views of the Trail Ridge Road in Rocky Mountain illustrated the masonry techniques of the Landscape Division. Nonetheless, the experience of the national park designers was limited in view of the full range of structures needed in state parks, many of which were being developed primarily for recreational uses.
The books omitted a number of the outstanding national park structures because they were not considered practical models for CCC work given the capabilities and resources found in state park camps. Those works left out included the Ahwahnee Hotel at Yosemite, the Golden Gate Bridge at Yellowstone, and the Kaibab Trail Suspension Bridge at Grand Canyon.
Diverse examples of state park structures dominated the books and Good praised the ingenuity of their designers, who remained nameless throughout the books. For example, Iowa was noted for its shelters and entrance stations, Texas for its entrance pylons of native stone, and Virginia for its cabins. Sometimes the work in a particular park was highlighted—for example, the cabins in Bastrop State Park in Texas, where Arthur Fehr, the park architect, developed a prototypical set of cabins. These became standard drawings that were circulated in the form of blueprints and copied in other Southwest parks, such as Lake Murray in Oklahoma.
The structures were drawn from examples in natural parks, as distinguished from naturalistic or formal city parks. Natural parks were generally national and state parks. The committee included examples from metropolitan and county parks that members felt "would be equally at home in a completely natural environment." These included examples from the Blue Hills Reservation in Massachusetts, the Virginia Kendall Park near Akron, and the parks of Boulder, Chicago, Denver, and Oklahoma City, as well as the parks in Essex County, New Jersey, and Reading, Pennsylvania. [54]
|
| Park Structures and Facilities illustrated the comfort station developed for Union Point and several other sites in Yosemite National Park, The book offered details, elevations, sections, and floor plans and photographs of the completed structures, providing instructions for simple, commonplace structures that could be adapted to many sites and local materials. (Park Structures and Facilities) |
The illustrations were intended to show not prototypes to be copied but examples to foster imaginative harmonious solutions adapted to the needs and character of each situation. The Landscape Division had published a volume on representative park buildings in national parks in 1932 and one on cabins in 1934-35. The idea of portfolios was not new, and its use in promulgating principles of design was highly successful. Vint had worked many years before illustrating plans and drawings of bungalows for a Los Angeles real estate development firm. Maier had compiled his own personal Library of Original Sources. And in format the 1935 and 1938 volumes most closely resembled Augustus Shepard's Camps in the Woods, a portfolio of Adirondack architecture, which was published in 1931 and familiar to Vint and Maier.
In the introduction to Park Structures and Facilities, Director Arno Cammerer recognized the efforts of the National Park Service, state park authorities, and other agencies in achieving a "constantly improved technique of design and execution for the structures that are required for safe, convenient, and beneficial public use of these parks." He emphasized the fact that construction of any type was an intrusion into a natural landscape and that the basic objective of designers in such areas was to "hold these intrusions to a minimum" and design them so they appeared "to belong to and be a part of their settings." He credited the work of the architects of the Emergency Conservation Work program, with its emphasis on recreational facilities, for the marked progress in this field. He stated that the purpose of the book was to present some of the successful structures of natural parks, to stimulate "still further improvement in this special field of landscape design." [55]
Speaking of the committee's goal, Good wrote,
It is firmly of the opinion that the aim should be toward a comprehensive presentation of structures and appurtenances in which principles held in esteem by park planners, landscape designers, engineers, and architects, have been happily combined in adequate provision for man's need with minimum sacrifice of a natural setting. [56]
The book was not intended as a primer, an encyclopedia, or a handbook, but as a record and honor roll of good practices in designing park structures and facilities. The examples were intended to illustrate principles and stimulate new designs. The examples selected fit into one of three categories:
1. Minor facilities that were "developed to a pleasing and thoroughly satisfying expression" and that were illustrated in sufficient detail so that they could be duplicated and closely adapted to other localities.
2. Designs "eminently suited to particular locations" that, illustrated in limited detail, were intended to portray "the spirit" of structures in a natural setting and inspire ideas and further examples for harmonizing design and setting.
3. Outstanding solutions to highly individual problems that were unlikely to occur elsewhere. These were intended "to inspire in those to whom more complex park structures may be entrusted in the future, a high purpose to approach their specific problems with equally refreshing individuality, ingenuity, and forthrightness." [57]
Designers were to subordinate construction to the park plan, which determined the size, character, location, and use of every structure. In addition, park structures were to be subordinated to the environment and located to take advantage of any natural screening that existed on the site. Where natural screening did not exist, the site was to be "planted out" to integrate structures and natural setting. Signs played a particularly important role in natural parks, marking the way to buildings that were concealed behind vegetation. Little advice was given on planting other than the suggestion to plant around foundations to erase the line between the ground and structure. Good explained "naturalization" in simple terms of following nature's lead in the selection of plants for vegetative screens:
The subordination of a structure to environment may be aided in several ways. One of these is to screen the building by locating it behind existing plant material or in some secluded spot in the terrain partly screened by some other natural feature. In the absence of such screening at a site otherwise well suited for the building's function an adequate screen can be planted, by repeating the same plant material which exists nearby. Preferably, structures will be so located with reference to the natural features of the landscape that it is unnecessary to plant them out. [58]
Adaptation rather than imitation was the preferred approach for designers using Park Structures and Facilities. Good particularly discouraged the copying of the more elaborate and complex buildings in the third category. The more involved and extensive a structure, Good explained, "the more evident that it is the result of an altogether unique interplay of needs, topography, traditions, materials and many other factors." What was unique to one location and set of circumstances could hardly be successfully duplicated in another place. [59]
Good noted that "rustic" was the term generally used to refer to the style widely used in the forested national parks and in other wilderness parks but felt the term was misused and inaccurate to describe the greater meaning of the style practiced by park designers in state and national parks. Although he hoped a more apt and expressive term for the style would evolve, the term "rustic" endured. Good defined rustic design as a style that "through the use of native materials in proper scale, and through the avoidance of rigid, straight lines, and over-sophistication, gives the feeling of having been executed by pioneer craftsman with limited hand tools. . . . It achieves sympathy with natural surroundings and with the past." [60]
Park Structures and Facilities explained and illustrated the basic principles of design as developed by Vint, Maier, and others. The striking similarity between Maier's 1935 speech and Good's text makes it impossible to discern the originality of either author and supports the idea that they represent the consensus of the committee and the contributions of the committee's varied members.
On the orientation of park buildings and the importance of all sides as facades, the book said,
It should be remembered that park buildings will be viewed from all sides, and that design cannot be lavished on one elevation only. All four elevations will be virtually front elevations, and as such merit careful study. Admittedly, one side of major park buildings will always provide for service while enclosures on park areas are to be deplored and only installed where necessary, a palisade or some other suitable enclosure on this side of the building should completely screen all service operations. [61]
|
| Park Structures and Facilities (1935) illustrated designs for naturalistic rock harriers and guardrails in state and national parks. Many of these came from Herbert Maier's collection and appeared in the "Inspector's Photographic Handbook" produced by his office for emergency conservation work in state parks. (Park Structures and Facilities) |
On the principle of horizontality. Good wrote that park structures were less conspicuous and more readily subordinated to their settings when horizontal lines predominated and the structure's silhouette was low to the ground. Horizontality called for roofs that were low in pitch, perhaps no greater than one-third. [62]
The volume upheld the use of native materials. Good claimed that it was character, not the fact of "nativeness," that gave rocks or logs their value as building materials. He cautioned against cutting stone or forming concrete blocks to a regular size and surface and shaping logs like rigid telephone poles or commercial lumber. Good, echoing the principles of Andrew Jackson Downing, warned his readers against introducing boulders that were moved from a distance into "a location where Nature failed to provide them" and against incorporating heavy alien timbers into structures in treeless areas.
Rockwork was to be proper in scale. The average size of the rocks employed was to be large enough to justify the use of masonry. Good wrote,
Rocks should be placed on their natural beds, the stratification or bedding planes horizontal, never vertical. Variety of size lends interest and results in a pattern far more pleasing than that produced by units of common or nearly common size. Informality vanishes from rockwork if the rocks are laid in courses like brick work or if the horizontal joints are not broken. In walls the larger rocks should be used near the base, but by no means should smaller ones be used exclusively in the upper portions. Rather should a variety of sizes be common to the whole surface, the larger predominating at the base. Rock should be selected for its color and hardness. [63]
Logs were to be carefully selected. Most desirable were those "pleasingly knotted." Knots were not to be removed by saw but left to add texture and character to the log. Good addressed the debate on using unpeeled logs:
Strong as may be the immediate appeal of structures built of logs on which bark is left, we do well to renounce at once this transitory charm. If the bark is not intentionally stripped, not only will this process naturally and immediately set in, but the wood is subjected to aggravated deterioration through ravages of insects and rot. It is in the best interests of the life of park structures, as well as in avoidance of a long period of litter from loosening bark, and of unsightliness during the process, that there has come about general agreement that the bark should be entirely sacrificed at the outset. [64]
Good encouraged designers to seek inspiration from pioneering and primitive expressions of a region or from Native American habits and ingenuity:
In fitting tribute he graces his encroachments by adapting his structures such as their traditions and practices as come within his understanding. . . . Over the covered wagon routes the ring of the pioneer's axe is echoed in the efforts of today. The habits and primitive ingenuity of the American Indian persist and find varied expression in park construction over a wide area. All these influences contribute to a growing variety in expression promising eventual high attainment. [65]
The harmonious relationship of component architectural features was essential to good design. Foundations were the key to uniting land and structure and fostering harmony with nature. Echoing the writings of Hubbard and Waugh and the philosophy of the Arts and Crafts movement, Good wrote,
Rough rock footings artfully contrived to give the impression of natural rock outcroppings, are a means of blending the structure to the site. A batter to a stone wall, with skillful buttressing of the corners, if done with true finesse, will often bring to the building that agreeable look of having sprung from the soil. Park structures giving that impression are of the elect. [66]
Roofs were to exhibit the quality of weight to be in character with the heavy walls of rock and timber that they crowned. This quality was achieved in several ways: verge members in gables were to be oversized, eave lines were to be thick, and the roofing material was to appear correspondingly heavy and durable. Where wood shingles or shakes were used, they were to be a full inch in thickness if possible, with the doubling of every fifth course or so, unless the building was quite small. This would bring the roof texture into more appropriate scale with the rest of the structure. Good advised his readers, "The primitive character we seek to create is furthered tremendously if we shun straight rigid eave and course lines in favor of properly irregular, wavering, 'freehand' lines. The straight edge as a precision tool has little or no place in the park artisan's equipment." [67]
|
| CCC enrollees at Gooseberry state Park, Minnesota, in June 1936 used hand-tools to peel and assemble native logs into naturalistic guardrail for the parking concourse and overlook constructed near the Gooseberry River on U.S. Highway 61, which passed through the park. The retaining wall for the concourse alone required about 646 cubic yards of native granite and contained stones weighing as much as three tons. (National Archives, Record Group 79) |
Good built upon Maier's concept of overscaling, recommending that in high, mountainous, and forested regions the various structural elements of rustic construction were to be reasonably overscaled to surrounding large trees and rough terrain. For pleasing harmony, he suggested that the scale of structural elements be reduced proportionately as the ruggedness and scale of the surroundings diminished. [68]
Structures were to incorporate the colors that occurred in nature and were dominant in the immediate surroundings. In general, warm browns were recommended for "retiring a wooden building in a wooded or partly wooded setting." Another "safe" color was driftwood gray. Where contrast was desired for architectural accents, such as window muntins, a light buff stone color could be used sparingly. Good discouraged the use of green, saying, "Strange enough, green is perhaps the hardest of all colors to handle because it is so difficult to get just the correct shade in a given setting and because it almost invariably fades to a strangely different hue." He pointed out that a green roof, while expected to blend with surrounding trees, did not result in harmony because foliage was an uneven surface, mingling with other colors and broken up into patches of deep shadow and bright openings, whereas a roof was a flat plane that reflected a solid continuous color. Good recommended brown or weathered-gray roofs to blend with the colors of earth and tree trunks. [69]
Promoting the basic concept of architectural unity, Good recommended that in one park a single style and a limited range of materials and construction methods be used for all structures. This meant harmonizing new buildings with older ones or abandoning discordant old styles in favor of a new, more suitable, and unified scheme. [70]
Good urged designers to keep down the number of buildings in any one area and to combine functions in one structure wherever practical. The book illustrated examples of lodges that combined concessionaire operations such as dining rooms and stores, with administrative uses and community rooms for social gatherings and lectures. Bathhouses, boat houses, and overlook shelters were commonly combined with other functions. Good wrote, "The grouping of two or more facilities under one roof tends to bring welcome variety to park structures generally. The limited range of expression of any simple, one-purpose building is vastly widened as other purposes are combined with it." [71]
One issue that the committee disagreed on and that, as a result, was left unresolved was the "long debated" question of honesty in the use of materials in the rustic or pioneer style. One opinion held that park buildings "should not appropriate the semblance of primitive structures without appropriating as well all the primitive elements and methods of the prototypes." Others argued that "there were not at hand the seemingly inexhaustible resources of pioneer days" and that to insist on the use of logs might waste those resources whose conservation was at the "very root of the impetus toward park expansion." Another point of view advocated the use of pioneer log construction for the more important park structures so that they could allow the observation and study of "fast-disappearing frontier construction methods." Minor and often commonly duplicated units, such as cabins or comfort stations, could utilize a "more economical even though picturesque and durable, method." In the administrative facilities being built in national parks with PWA funds, economy and accessibility of materials had already dictated the use of alternative materials such as concrete and corrugated iron. In the state parks, concrete was used to a great extent in the construction of bridges, buildings, dams, and culverts but was generally faced with locally available stone. The latitude given park designers in experimenting with alternate materials led to other techniques to achieve naturalism. These techniques included the creation of naturalistic rockwork and stepping-stones of concrete in parks such as Palmetto State Park in Texas and the covering of concrete abutments of dams and bridges with mantles of climbing vines in parks such as Ludington State Park in Michigan. [72]
Continued >>>
Top
Last Modified: Mon, Oct 31, 2002 10:00:00 pm PDT
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/mcclelland/mcclelland7e1.htm
.gif){kind=small}