UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The evolution of urban public park design in Europe and America : Vancouver adaption to 1913 Hinds, Diane Beverley 1979

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1979_A8 H56.pdf [ 38.8MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094726.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094726-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094726-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094726-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094726-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094726-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094726-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094726-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094726.ris

Full Text

THE EVOLUTION OF URBAN PUBLIC PARK DESIGN IN EUROPE AND AMERICA: VANCOUVER ADAPTION TO 1913 by DIANE BEVERLEY HINDS B.A., U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1976 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES SCHOOL OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October, 1979 (c) Diane Beverley Hinds, 1979 In presenting th i s thes is in pa r t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary shal l make it f ree ly ava i l ab le for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of th is thesis for scho lar ly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representat ives. It is understood that copying or pub l i ca t ion of this thesis fo r f inanc ia l gain sha l l not be allowed without my writ ten permission. Diane Hinds Department of Community and Regional Planning The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date October 10 1979 - i i -ABSTRACT The 19th Century Victorian writer, John Ruskin, made the observation, "The measure of any great c i v i l i z a t i o n is i t s c i t i e s ; and the measure of a city's greatness is to be found in the quality of i t s public spaces — i t s parkland and squares". The objective of this thesis i s to trace the ideas, the development, and the evolution of the design of the public park from the eve of the movement for public parks in Victorian England, to the Vancouver park landscape in 1913. The identification and interpretation of historic design trends, social attitudes and regional influences on urban parks was based on: in the case of Europe and North America, an i n i t i a l literature review of the history of the urban park — starting in the 18th Century; and in the case of Vancouver, on archival material from the Vancouver City Archives, contem-porary literature and social histories of the City, and contemporary photo-graphs of Vancouver's early parks. The f i r s t public parks in England that were originally designed for public use, were largely the result of the negative effects of the industrial revolution. The already established natural landscape design traditions for the private estates, together with the desire to improve the city l i v i n g con-ditions, resulted in the naturalistic park, which was designed to enable people to "escape" back to nature. The historical study, showed that the f i r s t public parks were devel-oped in the industrial North of England,where local philanthropists donated their money, and more importantly, their time toward creating a better l i v i n g environment for the community. In the City of London where the effects of the - i i i -i n d u s t r i a l r e v o l u t i o n were not as evident on. the landscape, the e x i s t i n g r o y a l parks were redesigned to provide passive r e c r e a t i o n and a e s t h e t i c pleasure f o r the c i t i z e n s of Western London. New parks were a l s o c r e a t e d , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the East End of London, where a c c e s s i b i l i t y to the r o y a l parks was l i m i t e d . In the e a r l y 19th century, Georges Haussmann completely redesigned the c e n t r a l urban s t r u c t u r e of P a r i s . He and Alphand used the E n g l i s h N a t u r a l Landscape park as a model f o r the Bois de Boulogne and the Bois de Vincennes, former r o y a l hunting parks. Although these l a r g e r urban parks r e f l e c t e d the E n g l i s h i n f l u e n c e , Alphand created numerous smaller parks and squares throughout the c i t y which d i s p l a y e d very formal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and which d i s t i n g u i s h e d them from the B r i t i s h open space system. The Englishman's t r a d i t i o n a l love of the r u r a l countryside was t r a n s f e r r e d across the A t l a n t i c where F r e d r i c k Law Olmsted and h i s f o l l o w e r s became the major exponents of t h i s philosophy i n the many park landscapes that they designed i n North America. The Americans' most s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i -b u tion to the park movement was the development of park systems, which i n -volved the i n t e g r a t i o n of green space i n t o the c i t y s t r u c t u r e . The French sense of c i v i c p r i d e and f l a i r f o r f o r m a l i t y surfaced i n the United States at the end of the 19th century i n the Beaux A r t s i n s p i r e d C i t y B e a u t i f u l Movement. While the n a t u r a l i s t i c design of p u b l i c parks i n the U.S. d i d not change, the movement i n f l u e n c e d the design of the entrance to: many parks and the manner i n which parks were presented as an important component of the urban f a b r i c . - i v -In Canada, many c i t i e s i n h e r i t e d parklands from the f e d e r a l govern-ment, which were former defence posts or t r a i n i n g grounds f o r the m i l i t a r y . Canadians d i d not h i r e expert landscape a r c h i t e c t s to design these parks and consequently, the development of urban p u b l i c parks was u s u a l l y incremental. The study of Vancouver i n d i c a t e d that the a c q u i s i t i o n of Stanley Park, Vancouver's f i r s t and most important park, was not the r e s u l t of a com-mitted park p o l i c y , but the r e s u l t of the a v a i l a b i l i t y of the Coal P e n i n s u l a m i l i t a r y reserve. S i m i l a r l y , the a c q u i s i t i o n of Hastings Park i n 1888 was a grant from the P r o v i n c i a l Government, and Cla r k ' s Park was a g i f t to the C i t y from a Toronto r e a l t o r i n 1890. The d e s i r e to simply acquire land f o r park purposes was an a t t i t u d e that was to become prevalent i n Vancouver f o r many years. Between 1886 and 1913, the development of the Vancouver park land-scape was l a r g e l y i n f l u e n c e d by three t h i n g s : the a t t i t u d e s held by the people l i v i n g i n Vancouver at that time; the ideas and i n f l u e n c e s of other p l a c e s , p r i m a r i l y from B r i t a i n and the American West Coast; and the s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l make up of the community manif e s t i n g i t s e l f i n va r i o u s c i v i c assoc-i a t i o n s and ratepayers groups who asserted themselves i n the d e c i s i o n making process. The b a s i c design features of Stanley Park were developed i n the i n i t i a l years between 1886 and 1900. These c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s included: the park d r i v e running around the periphery of the park; the walking t r a i l s through the heart of the park; the Brockton Point A t h l e t i c f i e l d s ; the r e l a t i v e l y formal entrance to the park w i t h the nearby zoo; and the Second Beach bathing area. -v-During the very prosperous years of 1900 to 1913, these features were f u r t h e r developed i n the s t y l e that was r e f l e c t i v e of the current a t t i -tudes held by the i n f l u e n t i a l c i t i z e n s of Vancouver at that time. These years a l s o saw the f i r s t major park expansion i n Vancouver as the c i t i z e n s supported the Park Board's d e s i r e to acquire land f o r park purposes. The a c q u i s i t i o n and development of the neighbourhood parks were u s u a l l y the r e s u l t of lobbying by the ward ratepayers. S i m i l a r l y , the c r e a t i o n of supervised c h i l d r e n ' s playgrounds i n the 1920's and the develop-ment of Second, E n g l i s h Bay, and K i t s i l a n o Beaches i n the e a r l y 1900's, hap-pened only a f t e r p a r t i c u l a r groups provided the impetus f o r these f a c i l i t i e s . In 1913, Vancouver had an expanding and p l e a s i n g park system — but a system that had l u c k i l y experienced p o s i t i v e incremental development. Although the Park Board lacked a development p o l i c y f o r Vancouver's parks, the citizens'- i n s t i n c t i v e d e s i r e f o r n a t u r a l i s t i c parks guided the park system through the i n i t i a l years of development and managed to overcome a major threat to the n a t u r a l i n t e g r i t y of Stanley Park. - v i -TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. THOUGHTS, IDEAS, AND TRENDS THAT LED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC PARKS 1 Summary , 11 II. THE DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC PARKS IN BRITAIN, FRANCE AND THE CONTINENT 20 The Legacy of the Industrial Revolution 20 The Early Support of Public Parks . . . 22 The Contribution of Joseph Paxton 24 The Development in the North of England 31 The Development of Public Parks in London 34 The Parks of Paris 38 The Development of Public Parks on the Continent 44 Summary 46 III. THE DEVELOPMENT OF PARKS AND PARK SYSTEMS IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA 65 Introduction 65 Andrew Jackson Downing and the American Landscape 66 Fredrick Law Olmsted and Central Park . . 70 The Far Reaching Effects of Central Park 76 The Development of the Park System 80 The West Coast Experience 84 Active Recreation 89 The Development of Public Parks in Canada 91 Summary 100 IV. THE CITY BEAUTIFUL MOVEMENT 120 Introduction 120 The City Beautiful Movement in the United States 120 Civic Art in Britain 126 The City Beautiful Movement in Canada 130 Summary 137 - v i i -CHAPTER PAGE V. THE VANCOUVER PARK SYSTEM: 1886-1913 146 Stanley Park 146 The Beginnings of Stanley Park . 147 The I n i t i a l Years, 1886 - 1900 148 R e f l e c t i o n s on the I n i t i a l Years 152 The Boom Years, 1900 - 1913 157 Deadman's I s l a n d Issue 158 Mawson's Plan f o r the Head of Coal Harbour 161 R e f l e c t i o n s on the Boom Years 163 Summary 167 Hastings Park 168 The C i t y Park System to 1913 173 Playgrounds and P u b l i c Beaches . . . . 177 VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ..... 201 The Development of the P u b l i c Park 201 Vancouver's Park Landscape to 1913 203 A t t i t u d e s 204 Influences 206 The Community 209 BIBLIOGRAPHY 213 - v i i i -LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS CHAPTER I PAGE 1. Stowe Estate as designed by Bridgeman 1739 15 2. Stowe Estate as modified by Kent 1769 16 3. Stowe Estate as modified by Brown 1780 17 4. Brown's formula landscape and Repton's m o d i f i c a t i o n s . .. 18 5. Gardenesque landscape 19 CHAPTER I I 1. Adelaide Parkland, 1830's .. .. 51 2. Birkenhead Park, 1847 52 3. Paxton's C r y s t a l P alace, 1855 53 4. C r y s t a l Palace 54 5. I t a l i a n a t e landscape 55 6. A r c h i t e c t u r a l accompaniments to I t a l i n a t e gardens of the 1860's . 56 7. Gardenesque on a Park Scale: Joshua Major's design f o r the Leeds B o t a n i c a l and Z o o l o g i c a l Garden 57 8. V i c t o r i a Park, 1846 58 9. Bois de Boulogne before i t s transformation by Alphand 59 10. Bois de Boulogne a f t e r i t s transformation by Alphand . . . . . . . . . 60 11. Pare des Buttes-Chaumont . 61 12. E n g l i s c h e r Garten, Munich 1789 62 13. F r i t z Schumacher's Stadtpark, Hamburg 1909 63 14. Leberecht Migge's Reinhardt Garden 1910 . . . . . . . . 64 CHAPTER I I I 1. C e n t r a l Park, 1857 105 2. C e n t r a l Park, Southeast p o r t i o n , 1870 106 - i x -CHAPTER III (continued) PAGE 3. Prospect Park, New York, 1887 107 4. Fairmont Park, Philadelphia, 1868 108 5. General Plan of Riverside, Chicago by Olmsted and Vaux, 1869 . . 109 6. Detail of Plan of Riverside by Olmsted and Vaux 110 7. Back Bay, Boston, 1893 ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . -.. . . . . ... . . I l l 8. Franklin Park, Boston, 1885 112 9. Boston Park System, 1887 113 10. Kansas City Park System, 1893 114 11. Contemporary Kansas City Park System . . 115 12. Minneapolis Park System . ;. ..... 116 13. San Francisco Park System . 117 14. Los Angeles Park System 118 15. Seattle Park System . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. . >. . ,. ,. . ... 119 CHAPTER IV 1. Burnham Plan, Chicago 1909 141 2. Abbey Park, Leicester, 1877 - 82 142 3. Stanley Park, Blackpool, 1922 143 4. Mawson's Plan for Pittencrieff Park, Dunfermline, 1903 144 5. Geddes' Plan for Pittencrieff Park, Dunfermline, 1903 . . . . . . 145 CHAPTER V 1. Periphery Seashell Road, 1889 186 2. Entrance to Stanley Park, 1898 187 3. Avison's Cottage, 1896 188 4. Prospect Point, 1890 189 5. Deadman's Island bef oire the tirees were fallen 190 -x-CHAPTER V (continued) PAGE 6. Mawson's Plans for Coal Harbour, 1912 191 7. Mawson's Plan for Museum and Stadium in Coal Harbour 192 8. Mawson's Plan for Oblisk at the Entrance to Stanley Park . . . . 193 9. Formal Gardens at Malkin Bowl, 1916 , 194 10. Stanley Park, 1911 195 11. Hastings Park Stock Sale, 1890's 196 12. Exhibition Building, Hastings Park, 1910 197 13. Vancouver Exhibition Grounds, 1915 198 14. Vancouver Park System, 1913 199' 15. Cambie Street Grounds: Vancouver Peninsula, 1890 200 - x i -ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I wish to s i n c e r e l y thank Dr. Henry Hightower, and p a r t i c u l a r l y my Supervisor, Mr. Brahm Wiesman f o r t h e i r t h o u g h t f u l d i r e c t i o n , c o o p e ration, and encouragement during the past year. Also to T r i s h French, w i t h whom numerous t a l k s l e d to the s e l e c t i o n of t h i s t o p i c . Thanks a l s o to the Van-couver C i t y Archives f o r making the C i t y records to r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e . There are many f r i e n d s who have c o n t r i b u t e d by "being t h e r e " f o r me during the pr e p a r a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s , but I would s p e c i f i c a l l y l i k e to thank V l a d , Karen, Gaye, Cheryl and Gerry f o r t h e i r encouragement, as w e l l as for t h e i r help w i t h t y p i n g , proof-reading, photography and the i l l u s t r a -t i o n s . L a s t l y , to the members of my c l a s s , thank you f o r p r o v i d i n g such a p o s i t i v e and memorable atmosphere i n which to work. - x i i -To my Grandfather and my,Father, whose passion for gardening has undoubtably influenced my i n -terest in landscapes. CHAPTER I THOUGHTS, IDEAS, AND TRENDS THAT LED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC PARKS This chapter traces the ideas behind garden and landscape design that l e d up to the p u b l i c park movement of the e a r l y 19th Century. Garden design was an a r t that had been e v o l v i n g f o r c e n t u r i e s through Roman times and the Middle Ages, to Louis XIV's V e r s a i l l e s and England's Kew Gardens. England and France developed very d i f f e r e n t schools of garden design, but one could always f i n d a few gardens i n both c o u n t r i e s that had obviously been i n f l u e n c e d by the t r a d i t i o n s on the other side of the Channel. The French tended to be more i n f l u e n c e d by the Renaissance s p i r i t of man's dominance over nature, which r e s u l t e d i n a more geometric and angular garden design. Englishmen on the other hand have h i s t o r i c a l l y expressed a longing f o r the r u r a l countryside and an attachment to more n a t u r a l shapes. Throughout 18th Century England the wealthy and the n o b i l i t y supported what came to be known as the " E n g l i s h Landscape Movement". In the 18th Century, the term "park" meant a p r i v a t e area of land adjacent to a gentleman's residence which was o f t e n designed and planted by one of the supporters of the E n g l i s h Landscape School. These men; Lancelot " C a p a b i l i t y " Brown, W i l l i a m Kent, and p a r t i c u l a r l y Humphrey Repton were to have an undeniable i n f l u e n c e on e a r l y p u b l i c park design, even though t h e i r c o n t r i b u t i o n s were made h a l f a century e a r l i e r . The c r e a t i o n of a p u b l i c park as a place w i t h i n a town to be used and enjoyed by a l l of i t s citizens,was e s s e n t i a l l y a V i c t o r i a n i d e a . E a r l y parks were touted as a r e l i e f from the unpleasant c o n d i t i o n s and phenominal p o p u l a t i o n growth brought about by the i n d u s t r i a l r e v o l u t i o n i n B r i t a i n . I t was t h e V i c t o r i a n -2-z e a l f o r reform, together w i t h the e s t a b l i s h e d gardening and landscaping t r a d i t i o n s that shaped the c r e a t i o n of the f i r s t p u b l i c parks i n B r i t a i n . V i s u a l "Greenery" other than Royal parks was f i r s t introduced i n t o London by "The London Squares". The emergence of the green space came out of the idea that homes are f o r comfort and p r i v a c y and thus they should be merged i n t o greenery or a s o f t edge as much as p o s s i b l e . The increased s t r e s s i n the 18th Century upon the connection of the d w e l l i n g w i t h nature, was i n f l u e n c e d by the trend of the time toward Jean Jacques Rousseau's w r i t i n g and the c u l t of " n a t u r a l man".l In London, these squares which were n a t u r a l environments w i t h i n a geometric s e t t i n g , began to appear. Rousseau's view on n a t u r a l man advocated that the o r i g i n a l human nature i s , i t s e l f , good before i t has been corrupted by s o c i e t y . "The s p i r i t of s o c i e t y alone introduces and permits i n e q u a l i t y unknown i n the o r i g i n a l s t a t e of man".2 Rousseau's very p o s i t i v e view on man's charac-t e r i s t i c s i n h i s n a t u r a l s t a t e became a tremendous i n f l u e n c e on 18th Century s o c i e t y , r e s u l t i n g i n the widespread d e s i r e f o r a c l o s e r a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h nature. The f i r s t squares o r i g i n a t e d i n the 17th Century, but were only composed of grass and plane t r e e s because at that time, the squares r i s k e d the f a t e , as a l l open squares d i d , of becoming a dumping ground f o r f i l t h of a l l k i n d s . Gradually, as s a n i t a r y c o n d i t i o n s improved, gardens and flowers were planted i n the squares. The London Squares were not p u b l i c p l a c e s , but were used by the w e l l to do,who l i v e d i n the houses that surrounded the squares and who had - 3 -keys to l e t themselves i n s i d e . While key parks d i d l i t t l e to advance the democratic process or encourage p u b l i c exchange i n an open c i t y space, they d i d symbolize the f a c t that man f e e l s a need to have some form of nature close to h i s place of residence and a c t i v i t y . This idea was a l s o expressed i n other ways during the l a t e 1760's. The design and development of the Royal Crescent, the C i r c u s , and Lansdowne Crescent i n Bath o f f e r e d a new form of l i v i n g . The designers were able to blend the residences together w i t h the n a t u r a l surroundings i n the form of "parks". The s t r u c t u r e s are a l l curved i n some way w i t h s o f t edges that melt i n t o the n a t u r a l backdrop. Lansdowne Crescent i s p a r t i c u l a r l y winding,which, from the a i r , looks l i k e a snake between the tr e e s . Again t h i s d e s i r e f o r nature as a part of ones l i v i n g environment created new urban landscapes f o r p r i v a t e enjoyment. By the end of the 18th Century,the n o b i l i t y were i n t e r e s t e d i n the development of t h e i r estates or parts of t h e i r estates i n t o designed " n a t u r a l landscapes". These estates were l o c a t e d i n r u r a l areas outside the great c i t i e s . Their s i g n i f i c a n c e l i e s i n the f a c t that the great e s t a t e proved to be a design concept i n i t s e l f . The " E n g l i s h N a t u r a l Landscape Movement" arose out of the E n g l i s h t r a d i t i o n a l love of the n a t u r a l l a n d -scape, and i t was from t h i s premise that the group of new garden designers worked. The p r i v a t e estates were al s o s i g n i f i c a n t because i n many cases, i t was these wealthy people's hunting parks and wooded r e t r e a t s that even-t u a l l y became the great p u b l i c parks of the 19th century. The Royal Parks of London are an example, and give the West End of London i t s unique character. There are many E n g l i s h towns that would have an inadequate park system i f i t were not f o r those parks which were o r i g i n a l l y e s t a t e s belonging to the -4-l o c a l n o b i l i t y . The new s t y l e of E n g l i s h landscape as a garden a r t form was d i r e c t l y i n f l u e n c e d by the l i t e r a r y r e d i s c o v e r y of nature,which immediately became an i n s p i r a t i o n to poets and a r t i s t s . The a r t of landscape p a i n t i n g became widely recognized when p a i n t e r s l i k e Claude L o r r a i n e and Nicholas Poussin produced romantic landscapes of the E n g l i s h c o u n t r y s i d e , and t h i s i n t u r n , i n f l u e n c e d garden a r t . Michael L a u r i e argues that n a t u r a l l a n d -scape gardening was the product of the Romantic Movement. " I t s form was based on d i r e c t observation of nature and the p r i n c i p l e s of p a i n t i n g . " 3 Unfortunately, a comprehensive understanding of the Romantic Movement d e f i e s d e f i n i t i o n w i t h a few pages. The Romantics from 1770 to 1845, were perhaps the f i r s t group i n recent h i s t o r y to regard a r t as an important p r o f e s s i o n , both s o c i a l l y and p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y . Other im-portant q u a l i t i e s of Romantic l i f e were energy and robustness. The concern fo r a r t t h e r e f o r e , together w i t h channelled energy and s o c i e t y ' s current i n t e r e s t i n nature, r e s u l t e d i n a tremendous d e s i r e and development of n a t u r a l landscape gardening. In the l a t e 19th Century the wealthy began to h i r e landscape gardeners to design the grounds of t h e i r great e s t a t e s . Lancelot ( C a p a b i l i t y ) Brown was one of the o r i g i n a l landscape designers to work i n the n a t u r a l s t y l e . ^ He was l a r g e l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r changing the c l a s s i c a l garden forms i n England to the n a t u r a l landscape s t y l e . He began h i s career as an a s s i s t a n t to S i r W i l l i a m Kent, the head gardener at Stowe, a famous garden e s t a t e i n Buckinghamshire. Brown worked on many gentleman's p r i v a t e e s t a t e s throughout England before he came back to completely r e v i s e Stowe i n 1780. -5-Brown's landscapes produced the e f f e c t s of smoothness, roundness, and gradual v a r i a t i o n r a t h e r than the c l a s s i c a l tendencies towards c o n t r a s t s i n t e x t u r e , colour and form. At the end of h i s career, colour played no part i n h i s designs; he r e l i e d on the softened land formations. The Brownian landscape park which was c a l l e d the "Picturesque" s t y l e of l a n d -scape gardening, became an accepted formula i n England. I t always i n c l u d e d : e n c i r c l i n g b e l t s of t r e e s to contain the view from w i t h i n ; clumps of beech trees w i t h i n the e s t a t e which v i t a l i z e d the middle d i s t a n c e ; wide r o l l i n g f i e l d s of t u r f ; and a serpentine lake of s t i l l water whose ends were con-cealed and whose banks were naked. The transformations of the gardens at Stowe are probably a good re p r e s e n t a t i o n of the e v o l u t i o n of landscape gardening during the 18th century. The Stowe e s t a t e was owned by General S i r Richard Temple who, by 1715 obtained the t i t l e , of Baron•Cobham. The Baron wanted to develop the extensive grounds i n a grand manner as v i s u a l evidence of h i s p o s i t i o n i n the world. He h i r e d the a r c h i t e c t Vahbrugh to remodel the house and a man named Bridgeman, a London nurseryman, to organize the grounds. I l l u s t r a t i o n 1 was the Bridgeman plan of Stowe, which c l o s e l y resembled V e r s a i l l e s . The major a x i s , a French c h a r a c t e r i s t i c , c l e a r l y defined the garden. I t a l s o contained f o u n t a i n s , p o o l s , s t a t u e s , parterres-* and c a n a l s , a l l of which are found at V e r s a i l l e s . In 1769, Stowe was modified by S i r W i l l i a m Kent, a former p a i n t e r and s c u l p t o r . ( I l l u s t r a t i o n 2). He softened the geometric r i g i d i t y of the garden and created I t a l i a n a t e gardens and c l a s s i c a l s t r u c t u r e s . The I t a l i a n s t y l e was to have untrimmed and unkempt trees to create a s e r i e s of p i c t u r e s , and to o b l i t e r a t e the r e l a t i o n s h i p of the parts of the garden -6-to the whole. Kent e s s e n t i a l l y softened Bridgeman's E n g l i s h v e r s i o n of V e r s a i l l e s . Stowe was a l t e r e d f o r the t h i r d time when the E n g l i s h landscape school was f i r m l y e s t a b l i s h e d by C a p a b i l i t y Brown and others. In 1780, Brown returned to Stowe and set about redesigning the gardens ( I l l u s t r a t i o n 3) A l l traces of geometry were removed as w e l l as the c l a s s i c a l s c u l p t u r e , tem-p l e s , and grottoes. What Brown wanted to achieve was a view from the mansion of a "pure" n a t u r a l E n g l i s h countryside; a picturesque view that L o r r a i n e or Poussin would l i k e to p a i n t . G.B. Tobey describes the tr a n s f o r m a t i o n ; "Gone was the f e e l i n g that the esta t e ' s c h a t e l a i n was master of a l l he su r -veyed as at V e r s a i l l e s , but was, i n e f f e c t , the custodian of a p o r t i o n of an e a r t h l y p a r a d i s e , h i s own Garden of Eden before the f a l l . " 6 C a p a b i l i t y Brown i n h i s work at Stowe and other E n g l i s h gardens, e s t a b l i s h e d a strong i n f l u e n c e i n Europe. Marie A n t o i n e t t e i n s i s t e d on a " n a t u r a l w i l d e r n e s s " garden at her chateau,modelled on what the French thought was an E n g l i s h landscape garden. In t h i s park was a l a k e , where, on the banks, there was a l i t t l e farm v i l l a g e i n c l u d i n g a " m i l l , d a i r y barns, and a l l the trappings of a stage set f o r Marie A n t o i n e t t e and her maids to play at being farmerettes."7 In 1789, a p o r t i o n of the V i l l a Borghese j u s t outside the P o r t a d e l Populo i n Rome, was remodelled i n the l a t e s t landscape s t y l e . What r e s u l t e d was the o r i g i n a l Borghese Gardens wi t h a l i t t l e v i s i o n of England. Although C a p a b i l i t y Brown devoted h i s career to "improving" the E n g l i s h landscape, other landscape gardeners, some through a p p r e n t i c e s h i p , soon began to "do" E n g l i s h gardens throughout Europe. - 7 -C a p a b i l i t y Brown was a l s o a tremendous i n f l u e n c e on European and North American c i t y parks. This was p r i m a r i l y because of the P i c t u r e s -que s t y l e s ' a d a p t a b i l i t y to l a r g e areas, and to i t s l i n g e r i n g i n f l u e n c e on e s t a t e design at the time of the I n d u s t r i a l R e v o l u t i o n , as w i l l be seen l a t e r . The s t y l e of E n g l i s h gardens went through f u r t h e r development w i t h the career of Humphrey Repton. Repton was always i n t e r e s t e d i n gardens, but h i s ideas f o r gardens were l a t e r a p p l i e d to parks. He would have undoubtedly been very i n v o l v e d i n the c r e a t i o n of the f i r s t parks i n England had he not died i n a boating accident at an e a r l y age. Repton's design s t y l e was an extension of Brown's n a t u r a l l a n d -scape s t y l e , b u t the s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was the s c a l e of spaces i n the gardens. Repton f e l t that there needed to be p r i v a c y i n a garden, so created many segregated spaces and d i d away w i t h the expansive view of the grounds from the mansion or house. Whereas Brown i n s i s t e d that grass con-tin u e up to the foundations of the house, Repton, on the other hand, modi-f i e d Brown's s t y l e to r e s t o r e the t e r r a c e to connect the house to the garden. ( I l l u s t r a t i o n 4). Gardens were no longer a planned u n i t y a f t e r Repton, w i t h n e i t h e r an a x i a l development or the c o n t r o l l i n g sweep of a b e l t walk to give p h y s i c a l coherance to the design. P r i v a t e areas i n the gardens began to be developed to the shape of the la n d . What e s s e n t i a l l y happened,was that the garden and landscape design went from the "landscape park" at i t s be s t , to the advocacy of a new system of gardening based upon a smaller s c a l e . This s c a l e was to become i n c r e a s i n g l y f a m i l i a r to the V i c t o r i a n s . Repton's personal theory went from the v i s u a l "picturesque" to the i d e a that the q u a l i t i e s of u t i l i t y (which Repton -8-d e f i e d as "convenience, comfort, neatness and everything that conduces to the purposes of h a b i t a t i o n w i t h elegance^") were most important i n landscape gardening.8 The idea of u t i l i t y i n a garden l e d to the p r a c t i c e of p l a n t i n g p l a n t s , not n e c e s s a r i l y where they had the best e f f e e t , but where they grew best. Poets and a r c h i t e c t s d i d not have t h i s t e c h n i c a l knowledge, whereas gardeners d i d . John Claudius Loudon, who l a t e r developed Repton's ideas one step f u r t h e r , i n h i s work and i n h i s w r i t i n g s , put h i s f i n g e r on the change from the 18th to 19th century. He noted that p r e v i o u s l y there had been many books a v a i l a b l e on the a e s t h e t i c s of gardening, but that these were a l l being replaced by b o t a n i c a l gardening l i t e r a t u r e . The career of Humphrey Repton t h e r e f o r e , was a tremendous i n f l u e n c e on the f i e l d of landscape design at the turn of the century. Although he died before becoming i n v o l v e d i n the design of parks f o r the p u b l i c , h i s ideas and designs can be recognized i n many parks today.. Regent's Park f o r example was designed by John Nash, an a r c h i t e c t who was once i n p a r t n e r -ship w i t h Repton. Although t h e i r a s s o c i a t i o n was broken o f f l a t e i n Repton's l i f e , the designs of Regent's. Park are c l e a r l y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of Repton's work. As the V i c t o r i a n age emerged, landscape gardening was at the stage where, i t , together w i t h f a c t o r s such as the new I n d u s t r i a l Revolution and extensive t r a v e l abroad, produced yet another landscape school c a l l e d the "Gardenesque". The Gardenesque school of design had e s s e n t i a l l y been i n -s p i r e d by Repton's work, but i t was f i n a l l y brought to the f o r e f r o n t of the p r o f e s s i o n i n the w r i t i n g s and the work of John Claudius Loudon. Loudon as -9-a f o l l o w e r of Repton, was al s o concerned w i t h smaller s c a l e landscape. His Gardener's Magazine was the f i r s t published on gardening., and i n a d d i t i o n , he ran s e v e r a l other j o u r n a l s which ran a r t i c l e s on the s t a t e of the gardening a r t . The Gardenesque s t y l e of landscape design i n v o l v e d arranging t r e e s , p l a n t s and shrubs according to t h e i r kinds .and t h e i r dimensions. I t brought, once again, an order to gardening although not i n the geometric sense of the former c l a s s i c a l gardens. Loudon i n h i s Gardener's Magazine explained what he saw as the d i f f e r e n c e and the e v o l u t i o n of landscaping from the Natu r a l Landscape or Picturesque School of C a p a b i l i t y Brown.to the Garden-esque School of the e a r l y V i c t o r i a n era. He saw the former N a t u r a l Land-scape School as being concerned w i t h t r e e s , shrubs, and flowers that were i n d i s c r i m i n a t e l y mixed and crowded together i n shrubberies, and g e n e r a l l y l e f t to grow up and destroy one another as they would have done i n a n a t u r a l f o r e s t . This trend was a l s o a c c e l e r a t e d by the t a s t e f o r landscape p a i n t i n g and poetry which p r e v a i l e d at the end of the century among the higher c l a s s e s of B r i t i s h s o c i e t y . Loudon pointed out that the e a r l y 1800's showed a s h i f t i n emphasis i n gardening from the Picturesque to that of botany and a g r i c u l t u r e and the i n t r o d u c t i o n of new p l a n t s from other c o u n t r i e s . In order f o r some of these p l a n t s to s u r v i v e i n the open B r i t i s h c l i m a t e , new systems of l a y i n g out and p l a n t i n g grounds to d i s p l a y these new p l a n t s were introduced.. The i n f l u e n c e s f o r t h i s new gardening were coming from England's access to many parts of the world. G.A. J e l l i c o e pointed out t h a t , " i t was the double v i c t o r i e s of Tr a f a l g a r and Waterloo i n 1805 and 1815 which gained England access to a l l parts of the world and made i t p o s s i b l e f o r a l l kinds of p l a n t s to be -10-introduced to t h i s country."9 There arose an i n t e r e s t f o r the " e x o t i c specimen" that was consequently r e f l e c t e d on the landscape and became the strongest c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the Gardenesque. ( I l l u s t r a t i o n 5) The o r i g i n a l method of "bedding" began to be widely used because these p l o t s could d i s p l a y s i m i l a r specimens i n a neat and t i d y manner. This garden s t r u c t u r e was very d i f f e r e n t from the N a t u r a l Landscape s t y l e and was a l s o r e f l e c t e d i n p a i n t i n g . Whereas a landscape p a i n t e r would d e a l w i t h d i s t i n c t foregrounds, middlegrounds, and d i s t a n c e , a p a i n t e r of a Gardenesque landscape would be concerned w i t h the grouped i n d i v i d u a l species that would almost serve as a r c h i t e c t u r a l embellishments i n the garden. J e l l i c o e was aware of the i n f l u e n c e of the Gardenesque on l a t e r park layouts and saw t h i s as a negative i n f l u e n c e . He noted that "the meaningless s c a t t e r i n g of 'specimen t r e e s ' or shrubs over the lawn between the foreground flower garden and background e n c i r c l i n g trees was a problem of V i c t o r i a n parks as w e l l as of present day parks."10. Whether one agrees w i t h t h i s viewpoint or not, i t i s obvious that t h i s "specimen" s t y l e of E n g l i s h gardening and landscaping has been c a r r i e d over to park and garden design i n North America as w e l l as England today. The idea of the b o t a n i c a l garden, although o r i g i n a t i n g long before the V i c t o r i a n e r a , i s a strong example of t h i s manner of d i s p l a y i n g p a r t i c u l a r species. Most l a r g e c i t y parks have some s e c t i o n that i s devoted to t h i s method of gardening. The e a r l y 1830's were the formative years i n the cry f o r p u b l i c open space.- 1833-saw the appointment of a Select Committee on P u b l i c Walks which was appointed to consider the best means of securing "open spaces i n the v i c i n i t y of populous towns, as p u b l i c walks and places of e x e r c i s e -11-c a l c u l a t e d to promote the h e a l t h and comfort of the i n h a b i t a n t s . " The committee, understandably, favoured the p r o v i s i o n of P u b l i c open spaces and suggested l e g i s l a t i o n to f a c i l i t a t e the d e d i c a t i o n of land f o r that purpose. The l e g i s l a t o r s were not convinced however, so the p u b l i c r e -mained dependent upon the generosity of some i n d i v i d u a l s to open t h e i r gardens or to donate t h e i r land. Loudon wrote i n h i s Gardener's Magazine i n 1835, " P u b l i c gardens are j u s t beginning to be thought of i n England and l i k e most other great domestic improvements i n our country, they have o r i g i n a t e d i n the s p i r i t of the people r a t h e r than the government. " H SUMMARY In the eve of the p u b l i c park movement i n England, the w e l l known landscape designers were s t i l l p r o v i d i n g t h e i r t a l e n t to r o y a l t y , the n o b i l i t y , and the wealthy. Although these p r i v a t e estates and parks were f o r the p r i v i l e g e d few, they, together w i t h the London Squares, p u b l i c walks, and Medieval remnants of the p a s t , were forerunners of the urban p u b l i c park. They were the expression of the " s t a t e of the a r t " i n l a n d -scape and garden design, and provided a design b a s i s upon which the new p u b l i c park designer would b u i l d , i n the e a r l y stages of the movement. In some cases, such as the Royal parks i n West London, these p r i v a t e l a n d -scapes were e v e n t u a l l y turned over f o r p u b l i c enjoyment. In B r i t a i n at t h i s time, the acceptance and vogue of Rousseau's w r i t i n g s about man and nature, the r e j e c t i o n of the formal design trends i n France, and the B r i t o n ' s recent r e a l i z a t i o n of t h i s t r a d i t i o n a l love of the B r i t i s h countryside were a l l forces that l e d to the p a r t i c u l a r design b a s i s f o r the development and transformation of the B r i t i s h landscape. -12-The B r i t i s h landscape went through a transformation from the t r a d i t i o n a l formal type of landscape to the more n a t u r a l "Picturesque" and "Gardenesque" s t y l e s . The formal B r i t i s h landscapes, l i k e V e r s a i l l e s , i n c l u d e d a major a x i s i n the garden as w e l l as f o u n t a i n s , canals, s t a t u e s , and r e f l e c t i n g p o o l s . While E n g l i s h e s t a t e s never d i s p l a y e d the extreme geometry and f o r m a l i t y of the French e s t a t e s , they were nevertheless i n -fluenced by the French Renaissance s t y l e of landscape gardening. The Picturesque s t y l e of landscape design, which o r i g i n a t e d w i t h C a p a b i l i t y Brown, was a s t y l e that was d i r e c t l y i n f l u e n c e d by the current l i t e r a r y and a r t i s t i c s t y l e s of England. These s t y l e s emphasized man's p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p to nature as r e f l e c t e d i n p a i n t i n g s of p a s t o r a l E n g l i s h landscapes. Picturesque landscapes were c h a r a c t e r i z e d by huge expanses of lawn, w i t h s c a t t e r e d groups of trees surrounding the f i e l d s of t u r f . Brown u s u a l l y created an u n i n t e r r u p t e d view of the grounds from the mansion. These landscapes showed a smoothness of n a t u r a l shapes and a gradual v a r i a t i o n between lawn, shrubs, and t r e e s . Colour was not important i n the Picturesque landscape, and Brown's l a t e s t works were completely devoid of c o l o u r . The Gardenesque s t y l e of landscape gardening evolved out of the Picturesque s t y l e when Humphrey Repton and l a t e r , John Claudius Loudon developed the concern f o r more p r i v a c y and thus a smaller s c a l e garden. The Gardenesque.landscape designers d i s p l a y e d the i n d i v i d u a l beauty of trees and p l a n t s by specimen groups, o f t e n enhancing the " e x o t i c specimen from abroad." This s t y l e incorporated- the o r i e n t a l bedding method, which provided a more s o p h i s t i c a t e d method of d i s p l a y i n g p l a n t s , w h i l e c r e a t i n g smaller contained spaces w i t h i n a garden. Colour appeared i n the landscape once again and a -13-concern f o r botany and a g r i c u l t u r e i n gardening began to replace the e a r l i e r emphasis on a r t and philosophy. F i n a l l y , the Gardenesque s t y l e of landscape gardening was to become the primary design s t y l e f o r the V i c t o r i a n parks, both i n B r i t a i n , and i n North America. -14-FOOTNOTES 1 S i g f r i e d Giedion, Space, Time and A r c h i t e c t u r e ; the growth of  a new t r a d i t i o n (Cambridge, Mass: 1967), p. 711. ^ Stephen E l l e n b u r g , Rousseau's P o l i t i c a l Philosophy (It h a c a : C o r n e l l P ress, 1976), p. 61. 3 Michael L a u r i e , An I n t r o d u c t i o n to Landscape A r c h i t e c t u r e (New York: American E l s e v i e r Pub. Co. Inc., 1975), p. 32. While the diagonal was s t i l l a p r i n c i p l e element of romantic p a i n t i n g , i t i s "nature".as the subject of p a i n t i n g to which L a u r i e i s r e f e r r i n g . ^ • To the wealthy people Brown worked f o r , he very soon acquired the nickname " C a p a b i l i t y " because when he f i r s t viewed a gentleman's e s t a t e , he would say that the place had c a p a b i l i t i e s of improvement." - A p a r t e r r e i s a l e v e l space i n a garden which i s subdivided by beds of p l o t s i n which flowers are grown. The garden i s on the eart h and i s to be looked down upon ra t h e r than to be looked out a t . ^ G.B. Tobey, A H i s t o r y of Landscape A r c h i t e c t u r e ; the R e l a t i o n s h i p  to Environment, (New York: American E l s e v i e r Pub. Co. Inc., 1973), p. 135. 7 I b i d . , p. 137. Q George Chadwick, The Park and The Town; P u b l i c Landscape i n the  19th and 20th Centuries (New York: F r e d r i c k A. Praeger, Pub., 1966), p. 22. 9 I b i d . , p. 56. 1 0 I b i d . , p. 57. 1 1 I b i d . , p. 52 ILUASTRAXIOM \ STowe: ESTATE I A S D E S I G N E D B y B R I D G E M A M 1 7 5 ^ . ToB .&y p. 1 3 2 . ILUASTRATION! 2. STOVMS ESTATE AS HoDlRet> -17-(after En-own) <*• 2-1 - i i FIGURE 93 ILLUSTRATION 3 STOVM^ ESTATE AS MODIFIED ^ BfcOVMtsl | - 7 8 C T O B E ^ P 13^ -20-CHAPTER II THE DEVELOPMENT.OF PUBLIC PARKS IN BRITAIN, FRANCE AND THE CONTINENT The Legacy of I n d u s t r i a l B r i t a i n The great i n d u s t r i a l c i t i e s came into existence during the early 1800's on the new economic foundations l a i d i n the eighteenth century. These foundations were based on the growth i n population and expansion of industry i n B r i t a i n at that time. The pressure of r a p i d l y increasing numbers of people and the s o c i a l consequences of the new i n d u s t r i a l tech-niques and new ways of organizing work involved a sharp break with the past. The population gradually had to deal with these new i n d u s t r i a l c i t i e s and t h e i r eventual reorganization as a r e s u l t of s o c i a l concerns. The recog-n i t i o n and encouragement of public parks was, i n part, a reaction to the conditions i n these c i t i e s , and during the mid-1800's the B r i t i s h govern-ment began to acknowledge the i n t e g r a l part that parks could play i n the a l l e v i a t i o n of unfavourable conditions. This chapter w i l l discuss the various steps that were a part of the development of public parks; both i n terms of the change i n attitu d e towards parks designed for the public and i n terms of the actual l e g i s l a t i o n and government support. The d i s -cussion w i l l focus f i r s t on B r i t a i n , and then on France and Europe. John Ruskin was one of the f i r s t writers to enunciate the unpleasant l i v i n g conditions of the c i t i e s . He was an extremely i n f l u e n t i a l writer i n B r i t a i n during the early 1800's, and often wrote i n "near h y s t e r i a " about the f i l t h and unpleasantness of the new i n d u s t r i a l c i t i e s . He i d e n t i f i e d the negative aspects of i n d u s t r i a l development, and he c a r e f u l l y watched newspapers and advertisements i n the c i t y for i n d i c a t i o n s of the d i r e c t i o n of society. Ruskin a r t i c u l a t e l y expressed a f e e l i n g that many -21-other w r i t e r s and c i t i z e n s f e l t at that time: "And beneath i t l i e s a more serious s o c i a l p r o t e s t : one that was shared by many other commentators at that time. I t included such f a c t o r s as a hatred of the mammoth i n d u s t r i a l c i t y and i t s d e b r i s : a f e a r of the techniques of manufacturing i n d u s t r y and what damage they would do to the d i g n i t y of man: a prophecy of the d e p e r s o n a l i z a t i o n of the worker because of mass production techniques. The i m p l i c a t i o n i s that a e s t h e t i c , moral and s o c i a l judgements are a l l r e l a t e d to one another: and the environment i s an expression of them - an expression of l i f e and culture."1 There were many people i n B r i t a i n at the time who had the f o r e -s i g h t to r e a l i z e that the environment as an expression of the s t a t e of " a e s t h e t i c s " , would undoubtably s u f f e r w i t h the e f f e c t s of i n d u s t r i a l i s m . Unfortunately the government d i d not i n i t i a l l y concern i t s e l f w i t h the i s s u e of the environment because i n the V i c t o r i a n economy, i n d u s t r y had p r i o r i t y , over environmental and housing concerns. The urban problems created by i n d u s t r i a l expansion caused some e n t h u s i a s t i c and educated V i c t o r i a n s to make bo l d attempts at reform. Parliament was o b l i g e d to l i s t e n to concerned i n d i v i d u a l s and i n t e r e s t groups, but a c t i o n was u s u a l l y not taken u n t i l many years a f t e r the problems were enunciated. Bad h e a l t h and s a n i t a t i o n standards q u i c k l y became the focus f o r p r o t e s t . By the 1830's there were va r i o u s o r g a n i z a t i o n s created to combat the s a n i t a r y c o n d i t i o n s . One of these, the Health of Towns A s s o c i a t i o n had a check l i s t to present to l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s to ensure minimum h e a l t h standards. The e a r l y supporters of p u b l i c parks used the argument ;that p u b l i c parks and walks would improve the general h e a l t h of the c i t y ' s i n h a b i t a n t s . - 2 2 -Asa Briggs p o i n t s out that V i c t o r i a n s began to take an i n t e r e s t i n t h e i r c i t i e s i n the l a t e 1830's when i t became impossible to avoid urgent urban problems.2 P r e v i o u s l y people had looked at the i n d u s t r i a l c i t y w i t h horror or f a s c i n a t i o n . I n d u s t r i a l i s m ceased to be thought of as f a s c i n a t i n g however, when i t became common place and complaints about i t s s o c i a l consequences were ignored by government. I t was at t h i s time that the V i c t o r i a n z e a l f o r reform began to surface and the movement f o r p u b l i c parks found a p l a t f o r m f o r a c t i o n . The E a r l y Support of P u b l i c Parks I t i s obvious that the government d i d not i n i t i a t e the park movement that swept through B r i t a i n during the 19th Century. I t s f i r s t involvement w i t h the movement was i n 1833, when Parliament appointed a s e l e c t Committee to make a record of the c o n d i t i o n and a v a i l a b i l i t y of p u b l i c open space i n England. The appointment of the Committee was very s i g n i f i c a n t . I t recognized the r a p i d increase i n popu l a t i o n i n the l a r g e towns engaged i n manufacturing and saw,the need f o r p u b l i c walks and open spaces f o r the e x e r c i s e and pleasure of the middle and lower c l a s s e s . The Committee pointed out that r e c r e a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s would undoubtedly improve the h e a l t h of the workers, and r e s u l t i n greater p r o d u c t i v i t y . The Com-mittee's recommendations to Parliament i n c l u d e d : 1. grants from the government should be made to towns to help finance the c r e a t i o n of p u b l i c walks. 2. some of t h i s money should be r a i s e d by l o c a l s u b s c r i p t i o n . 3. that a s m a l l r a t e should be assessed on property owners. 4. p r o p r i e t o r s of land developments should dedicate a c e r t a i n amount of land f o r p u b l i c walks. 5. r e c r e a t i o n grounds should be operated by p u b l i c a u t h o r i t i e s . 3 -23-B i l l s f o r open space were heatedly debated, but were defeated i n the e a r l y 1830's because most parliamentarians s t i l l saw the c r e a t i o n of p u b l i c parks as a p h i l a n t h r o p i c r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . England had to wait another ten years before the government i n i t i a t e d a p o l i c y to f i n a n c i a l l y support the development of p u b l i c parks. One r e s u l t of t h i s p e r i o d of awareness of p u b l i c open space was i t s i n f l u e n c e on the C o l o n i a l O f f i c e and i t s d i r e c t i o n s to b u i l d e r s of towns i n the c o l o n i e s . The C o l o n i z a t i o n Commissioners f o r South A u s t r a l i a f o r example sent a l e t t e r of i n s t r u c t i o n to Colonel W i l l i a n L i g h t who l a i d out Adelaide i n 1836. "When you have determined the s i t e of the f i r s t town, you w i l l proceed to l a y i t out i n accordance w i t h the r e g u l a t i o n s f o r the p r e l i m i n a r y sales of C o l o n i a l lands i n t h i s country (acre town l o t s ) . You w i l l make the s t r e e t s of ample width and arrange them w i t h reference to the convenience of i t s i n h a b i t a n t s and the beauty and s a l u b r i t y of the town; and you w i l l make the necessary reserves f o r squares, p u b l i c walks and quays. Li g h t went f a r beyond t h i s requirement and created the Adelaide c i r c u l a r b e l t plan i n which parkland completely surrounded the o r i g i n a l town ( I l l u s t r a t i o n 1). I t has not been c l e a r l y traced where L i g h t derived the i d e a , and i t was never mentioned i n h i s d i a r i e s . I t was p o s s i b l e that the idea was s t r i c t l y h i s own a f t e r v i s i t i n g European towns. In h i s book S i c i l i a n Scenery published i n 1823, L i g h t i n c l u d e d sketches and a des-c r i p t i o n of the town of Catania, which had a c i r c u l a r open space.5 Another theory i s that the idea f o r a park system came from Edward Gibson Wakefield, a " C o l o n i z e r " whose id e a i t was to found Adelaide and who was i n constant communication w i t h L i g h t when he was l a y i n g out the town. Wakefield was a l s o - 2 4 -responsible for the colonization of towns in New Zealand, which also have variations on the park belt, and i f this is the case, i t would seem that Adelaide's park belt was a part of Wakefield's colonization theory. (He wrote a book entitled, "The Art of Colonization"). Wakefield could have been influenced by the very early ideas for public parks in Britain and the work of Robert Owen. Owen was the f i r s t person to suggest that industrialism did not necessarily have to be tied to bigger c i t i e s , but could be introduced into smaller towns; "ideal Villages" incorporating open space.6 The f i n a l theory as to the origins of Adelaide's extraordinary public parkland, i s the possiblity that Light got the idea from a book published in 1830 (and later in 1836) called the "Friend of Australia". The book is aimed at a specific audience, the colonizers of Australia, and i t contains a plan of a town provided with squares and parks. As the book was published in England, i t may have originated as an academic exercise as a result of the early stirrings in Britain for public open space, and Light used i t as an opportunity to implement this idea. It was certainly one of the f i r s t plans in the Commonwealth to specify the inclusion of public parks. It is interesting that Ebenezer Howard made a journey to Adelaide early in his l i f e and was greatly inspired by the parklands sur-rounding the city. He acknowledges that i t is this principle that he followed and built.upon--for the agricultural/parkland belt in his "Garden City". 7 The Contribution of Joseph Paxton One of the f i r s t persons to become involved in the design of public parks, and who received some of the earliest commissions, was -25-Joseph Paxtcm. He worked i n the north and midlands of England before Loudon died and launched the H o r t i c u l t u r e R e g i s t e r i n competition w i t h Loudon's Gardener's Magazine. In the e a r l y stages of Paxton's career, Loudon and Paxton were at odds on some approaches, but l a t e r Loudon r e c -ognized Paxton's competence i n h i s own f i e l d and i n v i t e d him to c o n t r i b u t e to the Gardener's Magazine. Paxton was not only a designer of parks and gardens but became i n v o l v e d i n the movement to provide gardens f o r the general p u b l i c . He wrote two a r t i c l e s i n h i s H o r t i c u l t u r a l R e g i s t e r i n 1831 i n support of p u b l i c parks.8 The f i r s t park that Paxton designed was P r i n c e ' s Park i n L i v e r -p o o l . I t was i n i t i a t e d and financed by Richard Vaughan Yates i n 1842, who was i n t e r e s t e d i n the betterment of the town. I t passed i n t o p u b l i c ownership i n 1905. P r i n c e ' s Park was a 900 acre landscape of which 50 acres were i n the form of a c e n t r a l park, and the remaining area a s e r i e s of v i l l a s . The v i l l a s were l a r g e detached homes, each w i t h t h e i r own treed groves and p l a n t s , commanding a c e r t a i n area of the park l a n d -scape, and adding to the o v e r a l l landscape e f f e c t . This type of development was becoming popular i n B r i t a i n both f o r , p u b l i c and p r i v a t e parks because the e x t r a cost of l a y i n g out a park was thus covered by the value of the improved housing s i t e s on the periphery. This method of development had been used i n Regent's Park i n London on a l a r g e r s c a l e , and echoed the design of Lansdowne Crescent i n Bath from the 18th Century. John Nash, when l a y i n g out Regent's Park was upset when the Commissioners reduced the number of v i l l a s to be b u i l t be-cause he f e l t that the absence of the v i l l a s would r e s u l t i n a more open -26-" d u l l e r landscape" w i t h a simple s c a t t e r i n g of t r e e s . He d i d not want uninterr u p t e d views from w i t h i n the park and considered the foreground of tremendous importance. Thus the v i l l a s themselves were an important part of the design scheme f o r Regent's Park. The design of the P r i n c e ' s Park i t s e l f tended to be i n the Gardenesque s t y l e w i t h a small l a k e , Swiss boat house, and r u s t i c f o o t b r i d g e . The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c b e l t s or groups of trees and s p e c i a l specimen s e c t i o n s r e f l e c t the i n f l u e n c e that Loudon had on young Paxton. In 1845 Paxton l a i d out the Coventry Cemetery , h i s f i r s t con-n e c t i o n w i t h the town which he was l a t e r to represent i n Parliament. Although a cemetery i s not a park i n the conventional sense, i t was, at that time, a p u b l i c open space which was very f r e q u e n t l y used. Cemeteries were places of peace and s o l i t u d e , and as the c i t i e s became more unin-h a b i t a b l e , cemeteries were i n c r e a s i n g l y used as places of escape and en-joyment. The designs f o r cemeteries were followed very c l o s e l y and development i n cemetery design was c e r t a i n l y recorded and discussed. Paxton began work on Birkenhead Park i n 1844, regarded by many as the f i r s t p u b l i c park e x c l u s i v e l y designed f o r p u b l i c enjoyment. ( I l l u s t r a t i o n 2). Birkenhead was a completely new settlement being d e v e l -oped by Government Improvement Commissioners "as a r i v a l to L i v e r p o o l across the r i v e r , which was expanding at an extremely r a p i d r a t e . " ^ . The a c q u i s i -t i o n f o r the park was p o s s i b l e because of a major breakthrough i n p a r l i a -ment the year before. In A p r i l 1843, the T h i r d Improvement Act was given r o y a l ascent and enabled the a c q u i s i t i o n of land f o r the purposes of p u b l i c parks, f o r the f i r s t time by an Act of Parliament. -27-At t h i s time town houses were s t i l l being b u i l t w i t h i n park grounds as i n P r i n c e ' s Park and Regent's Park. At Birkenhead, however, of the 226 acres developed, 125 acres were to be used f o r p u b l i c use i n p e r p e t u i t y and the remainder f o r housing. Birkenhead was a f i n a n c i a l success w i t h a cost of excavating and p l a n t i n g at around£lQ,000. A thousand men were s a i d to have been employed f o r more than two years.10 The r e t u r n on the land around the park upon which handsome v i l l a s were b u i l t was very high. Birkenhead Park c l o s e l y resembled P r i n c e ' s Park i n f u n c t i o n , but w h i l e the development of P r i n c e ' s Park was a p h i l a n t h r o p i c gesture, the development of Birkenhead was due to the intended purpose of c r e a t i n g a p u b l i c park. The c e n t r a l government was a l s o i n v o l v e d w i t h the c r e a t i o n of Birkenhead park. Birkenhead Park was opened on A p r i l 5, 1847. From the beginning i t was designed to accommodate games,and f o r t h i s reason, was an immediate s o c i a l success. The idea of games i n a park was r e v o l u t i o n a r y , even more so than the idea of the p u b l i c park i t s e l f . This was the f i r s t B r i t i s h park i n h i s t o r y to be designed f o r a c t i v e p u r s u i t s . The p u b l i c walk was the f i r s t amenity developed i n Europe and p a r t i c u l a r l y i n B r i t a i n i n response to a need f o r p u b l i c " r e c r e a t i o n " . These walks are a prominent feature on the B r i t i s h landscape today a l -though they were o f t e n on the urban edge i n the e a r l y 1800's. The "promenade" i n one of Loudon's p u b l i c gardens served a d i f f e r e n t purpose because w h i l e the promenade was a form of e x e r c i s e i t was p r i m a r i l y a s o c i a l outing. Birkenhead Park was opened w h i l e "promenading" was s t i l l a general form of r e c r e a t i o n . -28-Th e idea of r e c r e a t i o n as a use of open space was acknowledged by the government i n 1838, when Joseph Hume introduced a r e s o l u t i o n i n the B r i t i s h House of Commons t h a t , " i n f u t u r e , i n a l l enclosure b i l l s , a pro-v i s i o n should be made f o r l e a v i n g an open space s u f f i c i e n t f o r purposes of e x e r c i s e , and r e c r e a t i o n f o r the neighbouring p o p u l a t i o n . " H One reason f o r the i n t e r e s t i n games and r e c r e a t i o n and the government's acknowledgement and support might have been the growing phenomenon of the middle c l a s s i n V i c t o r i a n S o c i e t y . I t was widely accepted that "The V i c t o r i a n Age was the era of the middle class."12 i t was the f a s t e s t growing part of s o c i e t y and advanced i t s p o s i t i o n , and more im p o r t a n t l y , e f f e c t i v e l y a sserted i t s values during that time. One very important c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the V i c t o r i a n middle c l a s s was f a m i l y l o y a l t y . For V i c t o r i a n s of every c l a s s , the fa m i l y was the centre i n l e i s u r e as w e l l as l i f e . F a m i l i e s i n v a r i a b l y d i d things together, or i n groups w i t h other f a m i l i e s . The park became a l o g i c a l extension f o r t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s , so i t was not s u r p r i s i n g that group games e v e n t u a l l y became a popular form of r e c r e a t i o n i n p u b l i c parks. In 1850, F r e d e r i c k Law Olmsted, often c a l l e d the "Father of landscape a r c h i t e c t u r e i n North America", and who w i l l be discussed l a t e r i n the t h e s i s , v i s i t e d Birkenhead Park. He was enormously impressed by the park, and took back the ideas to be reformulated and reworked on a l a r g e r s c a l e , i n the c r e a t i o n of C e n t r a l Park i n New York. In h i s work, Walks and Talks of an American Farmer i n England, Olmsted recorded h i s impressions of Birkenhead Park: "... f i v e minutes of admiration, and a few more spent i n studying the manner i n which a r t had been employed to o b t a i n from nature so much beauty, and I was ready to admit that i n democratic America, there was nothing to be thought of as comparable w i t h t h i s People's Garden. Indeed, gardening had here reached -29-a p e r f e c t i o n that I never before dreamed of. I cannot undertake to describe the e f f e c t of so much t a s t e and s k i l l as had e v i d e n t l y been employed ... While watching the c r i c k e t e r s , we were threatened w i t h a shower, and hastened back to look f o r s h e l t e r , which we found i n a pagoda, on an i s l a n d approached by a Chinese b r i d g e . I t was soon f i l l e d as were the other ornamental b u i l d i n g s by a crowd of those who, l i k e ourselves had been overtaken i n the grounds by the r a i n ; and I was glad to observe that the p r i v i l e g e s of the garden were enjoyed by about e q u a l l y a l l c l a s s e s . There were some who were attended by s e r v a n t s , and sent at once f o r t h e i r c a r r i a g e s , but a l a r g e p o r t i o n were of common ranks..." 13 The i n f o r m a l Picturesque s t y l e of landscaping which Brown and Repton pioneered i s w e l l expressed i n Birkenhead Park. I t was o r i g i n a l l y f r e e of the l a t e r excesses of the Gardenesque. The greatness of the Park l i e s i n i t s u t i l i t y and i t s p u b l i c r e c r e a t i o n area, ahead of anything e l s e i n i t s time. Joseph Paxton began to r e c e i v e numerous cont r a c t s to design other p u b l i c parks and redesign gardens that were turned over, to the p u b l i c i n the 1850's. He t r i e d a new approach to landscape design at C r y s t a l Palace at Sydenham i n 1852, but i t i s f e l t that he was, i n general, un-s u c c e s s f u l w i t h the garden s e c t i o n because i t "degenerated" i n t o l a r g e s c a l e Gardenesque as i t was widely p r a c t i c e d i n the second h a l f of the century.1^ The C r y s t a l Palace was a glass b u i l d i n g set i n spacious grounds. ( I l l u s t r a t i o n 3). Paxton's o r i g i n a l design f o r the Palace was a "Winter Garden and Garden under Glas s " s i t u a t e d i n Hyde Park f o r the education and r e c r e a t i o n of the people of London. The s i g h t f o r the Palace was chosen at Sydenham however, so he had to deal w i t h an enormous but superb s i t e on the o u t s k i r t s of London. Paxton developed very l a v i s h I t a l i a n e s q u e type grounds w i t h broad f l i g h t s of s t e p s , urns, s t a t u e s , formal flower beds -30-and huge - fountains and water d i s p l a y s . ( I l l u s t r a t i o n s 4 and 5 and 6). The flowers at Sydenham were an a t t r a c t i o n from the beginning. Their c o l o u r , b r i l l i a n c e and type brought people from London i n a. steady stream. Chadwick s t a t e s , "the p u b l i c loved the C r y s t a l Palace f o r many years w i t h i t s flower shows, dog shows, brass band c o n t e s t s , Handel, f e s t i v a l s , i t s e x h i b i t i o n s , and perhaps most of a l l i t s fireworks.15 i t seems that although landscape c r i t i c s thought that Paxton was not t o t a l l y s u c c e s s f u l w i t h regard to the o v e r a l l composition of the C r y s t a l Palace grounds, i t was a place that was a l i v e w i t h people and used and enjoyed by many f o r years.16 Paxton was a man of great f o r e s i g h t , and seemed to understand the V i c t o r i a n need f o r a c t i v i t y i n parks. While most B r i t i s h l a n d s c a p i s t s were s t i l l concerned w i t h " p a s s i v e " landscapes as places to escape the urban environment, Paxton sensed the d e s i r e f o r f a m i l y r e c r e a t i o n areas. He r e a l i z e d that the success of the C r y s t a l Palace.beyond the suburbs of London would depend upon the movement and c i r c u l a t i o n of l a r g e crowds, and perhaps more i m p o r t a n t l y , that the crowds should be able to get to and from Sydenham q u i c k l y . Paxton became instrum e n t a l i n the extension of a r a i l w a y l i n e w i t h two s t a t i o n s , the High L e v e l at the C r y s t a l Palace and the Low L e v e l which was connected to the Palace by a glazed c o r r i d o r . Joseph Paxton recognized the need f o r a new s o r t of landscape, one that would be f u n c t i o n a l as w e l l as a e s t h e t i c , and used by a l l s e c t o r s of the pop u l a t i o n . Unfortunately he was not capable of r e a l i z i n g t h i s i n an o r i g i n a l way. He attempted a garden on a l a r g e s c a l e Gardenesque s t y l e . The s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h i s attempt i s that i t had a vast impact on park designers who were l a y i n g out parks i n the l a t e r part of the century. -31-I r o n i c a l l y i n h i s l a t e r parks Paxton g e n e r a l l y returned to the i n f o r m a l landscape s t y l e w i t h which he was so p r o f i c i e n t , but the formal precedent had been set at Sydenham, and was taken up by others at the end of the V i c t o r i a n e r a . Park .Development i n the North of England In the north of England, many see the botanic gardens as the forerunner of the p u b l i c park. They were u s u a l l y created and maintained by a l o c a l s o c i e t y and some of these gardens date to as e a r l y as the 17th Century. With the 19th Century i n t e r e s t i n botany and h o r t i c u l t u r e and w i t h new species introduced from t r a v e l abroad, there was a renewed i n -t e r e s t i n the l o c a l botanic gardens. Loudon had e a r l i e r been i n v o l v e d i n designing the b o t a n i c a l gardens f o r L i v e r p o o l and Birmingham. In 1840, the Town Council of L i v e r p o o l purchased the r i g h t of free access to the Botanic Gardens on Sundays and another day a week f o r a l l s e c t i o n s of the po p u l a t i o n of L i v e r p o o l . In the 1840's there were al s o plans f o r the development of botanic gardens i n Manchester, B r i s t o l and Cheltenham. The North of England seemed to be g r e a t l y i n v o l v e d w i t h b o t a n i c a l gardens and the park movement as the i n d u s t r i a l c i t i e s i n p a r t i c u l a r were beginning to be concerned about the q u a l i t y of t h e i r environment. This concern, together w i t h the enthusiasm and e f f o r t of a few i n d i v i d u a l s , were in s t r u m e n t a l i n the push f o r p u b l i c parks. A manufacturer named Mark P h i l i p s , f o r example, was ins t r u m e n t a l i n o r i g i n a t i n g p u b l i c parks i n Manchester. When he began to lobby f o r the p r o v i s i o n of parks, he presented evidence to the p r e v i o u s l y mentioned S e l e c t Committee on P u b l i c Walks i n 1833, and he was al s o r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a p u b l i c meeting i n 1844 w i t h the l o c a l community to c a l l a t t e n t i o n to the need f o r parks. -32-A month l a t e r another meeting was h e l d i n the Free Trade H a l l , where the working c l a s s e s of Manchester and S a l f o r d constructed a r e s o l u t i o n . "... Parks must be e s t a b l i s h e d , l i f e preserved, h e a l t h confirmed or r e s t o r e d , i n t e l l e c t c u l t i v a t e d and morals improved, and working men and women must each cast t h e i r mites and work h e a r t i l y i n the cause."-'-7 A fund was set up by the people of Manchester, w i t h c o n t r i b u t i o n s from Mark P h i l i p s and a few other enlightened manufacturers. There was enough money r a i s e d to purchase three s i t e s , two i n Manchester and one i n S a l f o r d . A design competition was held f o r the design of the parks and over 100 design schemes were submitted. A man named Joshua Major, a s s i s t e d by h i s son Henry, won f i r s t p r i z e . Major was a very knowledgeable gardener and i n 1852 wrote a book c a l l e d The. Theory and P r a c t i s e of Landscape  Gardening. In i t he t r a c e d the development of the ideas of C a p a b i l i t y Brown and Humphry Repton, and wholeheartedly supported the work that Loudon had done i n the e v o l u t i o n of the Gardenesque s t y l e of landscaping. Major's adaption of the Gardenesque on a park s c a l e i s shown i n I l l u s t r a t i o n 7, the design f o r the Leeds B o t a n i c a l and Z o o l o g i c a l Garden. The Manchester committee had required that besides the t r a d i t i o n a l features of a park, the competitors provide playgrounds and space f o r as many v a r i e t i e s of games as p o s s i b l e . Major responded w i t h 12 to 15 acres f o r " c r i c k e t , knor and s p e l l , l e a p i n g p o l e s , f o o t b a l l and f o o t r a c e s , archery and bowling greens, etc."IS Major a l s o recommended that the area f o r games should be grazed by sheep because i t would provide an economical way of keeping a l a r g e area of grass i n order. This idea i s s t i l l used i n p a r t s of New Zealand today, where there i s o f t e n a sheep paddock to house the "lawnmowers". -33-In 1844 the id e a of f a c i l i t i e s f o r games was s t i l l r e v o l u t i o n a r y , f o r as l a t e as 1875, the term p u b l i c . p a r k was s t i l l synonymous w i t h a pub-l i c walk as used i n the P u b l i c Health Act of 1875. The park was s t i l l thought of as a place f o r walking e x e r c i s e and peaceful r e l a x a t i o n of the mind. Paxton was i n v o l v e d i n the plans f o r Birkenhead Park at that time but i t i s unclear whether the people of the Manchester Committee were aware of h i s accommodation f o r games or whether they a r r i v e d at the d e c i s i o n to have space f o r games on t h e i r own. The t o t a l cost f o r the Manchester parks i n c l u d i n g the a c q u i s i t i o n of land was about ^ 30,000, ^3,000 of which had been donated from the government's m i s e r l y fund of ^10,000 f o r the encouragement of p u b l i c parks i n a l l of England,and set up grudgingly a f t e r the 1833 Select Committee f o r P u b l i c Walks. Most of the money f o r the p u b l i c parks was c o n t r i b u t e d by the people of Manchester and S a l f o r d . The C i t y of Manchester continued to be a pioneer of p u b l i c parks o and played a key r o l e i n the e v o l u t i o n of the urban park. By the 1850 s i n two of the parks, a gymnasium and swimming baths f o r women had- been i n -s t a l l e d . The importance of the Manchester parks l i e s i n the f a c t that the novelty of t h e i r conception made a r e a l c o n t r i b u t i o n to urban l i f e r a ther than j u s t being examples of good landscape. Edward Kemp, a clos e a s s o c i a t e of Paxton's, was very i n f l u e n t i a l i n the e v o l u t i o n of park design i n the nort h . He had worked w i t h Paxton on Birkenhead Park, and e v e n t u a l l y became i t s f i r s t s u p e r v i s o r . He was most i n f l u e n t i a l perhaps i n h i s use of the Gardenesque s t y l e of landscaping when he l a i d out p u b l i c parks. His r a t i o n a l e f o r using t h i s s t y l e i n gardens -34-rather than a geometric or picturesque s t y l e i s e x p l a i n e d , "The geometric or formal s t y l e was q u i t e acceptable, but obviously had i t s l i m i t s w i t h i n the general s e t t i n g of the E n g l i s h landscape; the Picturesque w h i l e a t t r a c t i v e i n i t s t h e o r e t i c a l p o s s i b i l i t i e s , was sadly l a c k i n g i n i t s p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n . T h e Gardenesque then was a l o g i c a l development p a r t i c u l a r l y i n i t s h i s t o r i c a l context. Joseph Paxton's i n f l u e n c e was c a r r i e d out not only by Edward Kemp, but a l s o by John Gibson and Edward M i l l e r . The r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r many p u b l i c parks and p r i v a t e gardens i n England and on the Continent, belonged to these three men. The 1860's saw numerous new p u b l i c parks opened i n the North of England; A l b e r t Park was opened i n Middleborough, Alexandra Park i n Manchester, and L i v e r p o o l obtained three new parks which, together, formed a r i n g of park on the upland edge of town. Development of P u b l i c Parks i n London The development of p u b l i c parks was somewhat d i f f e r e n t i n the C i t y of London. The people of London had a c t u a l l y been able to walk through the r o y a l hunting parks f o r many years. In 1649 these were declared the property of the Commonwealth and by the l a t e 1700's the p r i v i l e g e of walking i n St. James Park, Green Park, Hyde Park, and Kensington Gardens, had become a p u b l i c r i g h t . With t h i s h i s t o r i c a l development London faced r a t h e r d i f f e r e n t circumstances than the i n d u s t r i a l c i t i e s i n the north. F i r s t l y , most parks i n London o r i g i n a l l y belonged to the Crown, and although they were l a r g e , they were not o r i g i n a l l y designed f o r p u b l i c use. Loudon pointed out that they were t o t a l l y inadequate f o r the "mere p e d e s t r i a n " . Secondly, London faced the problem of being so l a r g e , and at that time l o c a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e bodies were so hopeless at making improvements and g e t t i n g things done, that the c e n t r a l government was the only body that was i n the p o s i t i o n to t a c k l e the problems of that time. The t h i r d problem was that the B r i t i s h Government had i t s own p o l i c y on the development of p u b l i c parks i n London. They maintained that n o n - p r o f i t a b l e undertakings such as parks were the business of p h i l a n t h r o p i s t s . George Chadwick s t a t e s t h a t , " I t i s not s u r p r i s i n g that the f i r s t of London's V i c t o r i a n parks were only grudgingly provided by Government a c t i o n , pressed by p u b l i c c o n c e r n . " ^ These parks remained i n the hands of the H.M. Commissioners of Woods and Forests and the O f f i c e of Works u n t i l 1887, a f t e r which they were t r a n s f e r r e d to the M e t r o p o l i t a n Board of Works. By the mid 19th Century, the popu l a t i o n of London had doubled from 958,000 i n 1801 to 1,948,000 i n 1841. The 1833 Select Committee on P u b l i c Walks noted that although there had been a tremendous growth of population i n the C i t y of London, there was however, a problem of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of parks. The e x i s t i n g open spaces were a l l l o c a t e d i n London's West End - an area already endowed w i t h f i n e gardens and squares w h i l e the East End was v i r t u a l l y v o i d of r e c r e a t i o n space. A B r i t i s h MP, Joseph Hume i s u s u a l l y c r e d i t e d w i t h the c a l l f o r a p u b l i c park f o r the East End. He was al s o d i r e c t l y i n v o l v e d w i t h a p u b l i c meeting f o r i n t e r e s t e d persons that was h e l d i n 1840, to urge the Crown to provide the Eastern area w i t h a park. 30,000 people i n the eastern hamlets signed a memorial p e t i t i o n f o r the new park. Seven years l a t e r , the Commissioners of Woods and Forests provided the sum o f ^ H 5 , 6 8 3 -36-f o r the c o n s t r u c t i o n of "the park to be c a l l e d V i c t o r i a Park." The s i t e f o r V i c t o r i a Park was on the o u t s k i r t s of London near the v i l l a g e s of Hackney and Bethnal Green. The design was done by James Pennethorne, an employee of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. The park was to be 193 acres plus 103 acres f o r h o u s i n g , l i k e Regent's Park and P r i n c e ' s Park. Pennethorne was not concerned w i t h landscape gardening, which i n the end was very sparse, but w i t h the general p a t t e r n of develop-ment. He recei v e d scathing c r i t i c i s m from many sources and the Gardener's  Chronicle accused the government of c o n s i d e r i n g anything good enough f o r the east of London.^1 John Gibson, a man who worked w i t h Paxton was then h i r e d as superintendent of the park and w i t h i n two years he had made p o s i t i v e a l t e r a t i o n s and m o d i f i c a t i o n s to i t . I t i s due to Gibson that V i c t o r i a Park today has a r e p u t a t i o n f o r i t s l o v e l y f l o r a l d i s p l a y s . ( I l l u s t r a t i o n 8 ) . When the land f o r V i c t o r i a Park was acquired, the Commission f o r the Improvement of the Me t r o p o l i s was set up ? and i t reported i n 1844 that i t considered the improvement of the embankment of the Thames to be a worthwhile p r o j e c t . Although t h i s open space was not opened f o r 26 years, the d i s c u s s i o n l e d to the c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the Battersea F i e l d s as a place of r e c r e a t i o n . The f i e l d s were already used as l o c a l pleasure grounds f o r Sunday games and they were extremely a c c e s s i b l e to a l l parts of London by using Thames steamboats. Because of the idea and c r e a t i o n of p u b l i c parks i n the North, and w i t h the precedent of V i c t o r i a Park i n London, the Com-mission considered the p o s s i b i l i t y of the Battersea F i e l d s . In 1846 the government passed the enabling Acts to spend d£200,000 on the a c q u i s i -t i o n of land and the c o n s t r u c t i o n and p l a n t i n g f o r B a t t e r s e a . I t was p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t e d because there were obvious advantages to combining the park w i t h the embanking of the northern Chelsea shore of the Thames and the c o n s t r u c t i o n of a b r i d g e . B u i l d i n g p l o t s would subsequently be-come more a c c e s s i b l e and v a l u a b l e . The program f o r B a t t e r s e a Park ran i n t o d i f f i c u l t i e s when the Loans Commission made only a token advance f o r the a c q u i s i t i o n of the land. In 1849 the Commission of Woods and Forests was moved to r e p o r t , "Our proceedings f o r the a c q u i s i t i o n of t h i s property have been impeded by the want of funds, the delay being m a n i f e s t l y i n j u r i o u s to the i n t e r e s t s of 9 9 the Crown." The Park was completed i n 1857, but at a considerably higher cost than was estimated ten years p r e v i o u s l y . Pennethorne., and Gibson worked f o r the Commission, and were r e s -p o n s i b l e f o r the development of B a t t e r s e a . Gibson was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the d e t a i l e d s e c t i o n s of the park; the many species of t r e e s , the choice shrubs, and the ornamental water, w h i l e working w i t h i n Pennethorne's framework and s u p e r v i s i o n . The r e s u l t was a f a i r l y s a t i s f y i n g landscape that was f i n a l l y completed i n 1861. In 1855 the M e t r o p o l i t a n Management Act set up the M e t r o p o l i t a n Board of Works. I t was the f i r s t comprehensive body that was put together f o r the purpose of l o c a l government i n London, and i t r e l i e v e d the Govern-ment of d i r e c t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r such things as the p r o v i s i o n of parks. By t h i s time the wheels were t u r n i n g i n B r i t a i n toward e s t a b l i s h i n g p u b l i c parks wherever the urban populations were i n need. The Board of Works began making p r o v i s i o n s and a c q u i r i n g more parks; Finsburg and Southwark Parks were soon added. In 1887, the r o y a l p a r k s , V i c t o r i a , B a t t e r s e a , and Kennington were t r a n s f e r r e d to the M e t r o p o l i t a n Board of Works forming the -38-nucleus of the present park system i n London. The development of p u b l i c parks i n London t h e r e f o r e , was a r a t h e r piecemeal process. Most of London's parks were not o r i g i n a l l y l a i d out f o r p u b l i c use and had to go through improvements and renovations i n order to b e t t e r serve the p u b l i c need. London experienced a d i f f e r e n t process than the i n d u s t r i a l c i t i e s i n the n o r t h , l a r g e l y because of the nature and the character of the C i t y , i t s h i s t o r y , s o c i a l make-up and r e s i d e n t i a l segregation. The Parks i n the East End were developed only a f t e r considerable lobbying by a few members of Parliament, and by an organized community e f f o r t . The Parks of P a r i s The c i t y of P a r i s was to experience a d i f f e r e n t phenomenon during the i n d u s t r i a l r e v o l u t i o n . The i n d u s t r i a l r e v o l u t i o n occurred a h a l f century l a t e r i n France than i t d i d i n England, so P a r i s was s t i l l a l a t e Baroque c i t y w h i l e England was coping w i t h the new i n d u s t r i a l c i t i e s . By the time that i n d u s t r i a l i s m was taken up i n P a r i s , i t was a much more modern c i t y than had been the case i n England. Jere Stuart French a t t r i b u t e s the d i f -ference to the f a c t that P a r i s was, and i s , a very "urbane c i t y . " 2 3 The parks of P a r i s were not created as a r e a c t i o n to unpleasant surroundings or as a place of escape, but as a part of the c i t y environment. As e a r l y as 1793, the Plan de l a Commission des A r t i s t e s expressed the d e s i r e to organize and modernize P a r i s . Napoleon I I I had a c l e a r idea of what he wanted to do w i t h h i s c i t y and went as f a r as to o u t l i n e s e v e r a l p r o j e c t s . Most of h i s d e s i r e s were f o r the sake of m i l i t a r y s t r a t e g y . He h i r e d Georges Eugene Haussmann i n 1853 to transform P a r i s i n t o an e f f i c i e n t c i t y , yet one that possessed a green environment. Almost overnight i t became -39-a modern c i t y . I t was a " c i t y of l i g h t s " and the P a r i s i a n s f l o c k e d to the sidewalk cafes and the park promenades. Within 30 years the "cen-t u r i e s of medieval c l u t t e r was scraped from the face of Paris."24 In 1851 P a r i s had only 47 acres of municipal parks; the Champs Elysees, the Place des Vosges, the T u i l e r i e s , and the Luxembourg Gardens. Within 19 years the acreage had expanded to 4500 acres. The designs r e f l e c t e d the E n g l i s h very i n f o r m a l use of broad sweeping areas w i t h planted t e r r a i n so as to i n t e g r a t e the s e n s i t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of design on the ground. The r e l a t i o n of these new parks i n P a r i s to the parks of England was obvious, and i n developing parks f o r p u b l i c use, i t was very n a t u r a l to turn to the E n g l i s h examples that could be seen and understood as part of the pioneer movement i n p u b l i c park design. In t a c k l i n g the problems that faced the c i t y , Haussmann con-centrated on three major areas: a) the improvement of h e a l t h c o n d i t i o n s by c l e a r i n g away narrow a l l e y s and i n t r o d u c i n g l i g h t , a i r , and s a n i t a t i o n ; b) the improved appearance of the c i t y . To provide new amenities w h i l e at the same time e s t a b l i s h i n g a p o l i c y to d i s p l a y the c i t y ' s o l d monuments and a r c h i t e c t u r a l t r e a s u r e s ; c) the improvement of c i r c u l a t i o n to make b e t t e r access from palaces and barracks to a l l parts of the c i t y i n time of emergency. Haussmann addressed a l l three c r i t e r i a when he created a new park,, garden and open space system. He, w i t h the help of Alphand, l a i d out new parks, redesigned those,parks from e a r l i e r eras, and connected the parks and open space by the massively planted new boulevards. -40-The importance of Haussmann's park plans i s r e f l e c t e d i n s t i t u t i o n -a l l y . There was a planning agency, the D i r e c t i o n du Plan de P a r i s under the d i r e c t i o n of Deschamps; the Service des Eaux et des'Egouts under the engineer Belgrand; and the Service des Promenades et P l a n t a t i o n s under the j a r d i n i e r i n g e n i e u r , Alphand. Work on the Bois de Bolgone had a c t u a l l y s t a r t e d i n 1852 before Haussman was appointed. The Emperor wanted a park to r i v a l Hyde Park and the other Royal Parks i n London, so the C i t y of P a r i s took over the Bois from the Crown on the understanding that two m i l l i o n francs were to be spent on improvements. The Emperor's i n t e r e s t was l i k e l y the l a r g e s t f a c t o r i n reproducing the E n g l i s h landscape s t y l e that the Bois was to become. P r e v i o u s l y , the park had been used f o r t r a d i t i o n a l hunting r i d e s complete w i t h roundpoints ( I l l u s t r a t i o n 9) before Jean-Alphonse Alphand took over c r e a t i n g l e v e l a l t e r a t i o n s , broad open spaces, and serpentine l a k e s . He t r e a t e d the smaller, s c a l e s e c t i o n s a l i t t l e d i f f e r e n t l y by p l a n t i n g many c o l o u r f u l flowers. The Longchamps race t r a c k was a l s o s i t u a t e d i n the park and helped to make the Bois de Boulogne i n the bouregois West of P a r i s , a r e c r e a t i o n space not even equal l e d by London's West End. ( I l l u s t r a t i o n 10) There was no evidence that the P a r i s i a n p u b l i c was organized i n any way to v o i c e the d e s i r e and need f o r p u b l i c parks. Perhaps i t i s because they were not experiencing the negative e f f e c t s of the i n d u s t r i a l r e v o l u t i o n before the d e c i s i o n was made to " b e a u t i f y " the c i t y . Nor were the lower c l a s s e s f o r g o t t e n . Only a few years a f t e r the commencement on the Bois de Boulogne, Haussmann o u t l i n e d plans f o r an even l a r g e r park, the Bois de -41-Vincennes i n the East End of P a r i s . P r i o r to 1840, the area had been a l a r g e wood w i t h a few r i d i n g paths. This park evolved much more slo w l y because i t was much more expensive than the Bois de Boulogne, c o s t i n g an estimated 32.7 m i l l i o n francs i n the end. The Bois de Vincennes was ceded to the m u n i c i p a l i t y i n 1860, when at that time a new l a k e , Lac des Minimes had been excavated, and there were conside r a b l y more d r i v e s through the woods. Alphand then added more l a k e s , some which were embellished w i t h i s l a n d s "amidst lawns and t r e e s " . He used the excavated m a t e r i a l to form a l a r g e mound c a l l e d the Pla t e a u de C r a v e l l e which aff o r d e d a magnificent view of the c i t y . Besides the u s u a l paraphernalia of a p u b l i c park, Alphand and Haussmann al s o added a r a c e t r a c k and m i l i t a r y t r a i n i n g areas. In a d d i t i o n to two l a r g e "landscape parks", Haussmann provided three smaller " p a r c - i n t e r i c u r s " i n the c i t y ; the Pare de Monceau, the Buttes-Chaumont which was created out of an abandoned gypsum quarry i n the north of the c i t y , and the Pare de Montsouris i n the southern part of the c i t y . In the case of the Pare des Buttes-Chaumont, a major road and a r a i l -way were i n g e n i o u s l y absorbed by the grading of the park. ( I l l u s t r a t i o n 11) L i k e the l a r g e r parks, these smaller ones were designed i n the s t y l e of the E n g l i s h landscape park w i t h only small s e c t i o n s devoted to the "French f r i l l s " such as geometric s e t t i n g s and a concern f o r colour and a r c h i t e c t u r a l embellishments. Between 1855 and 1868 twenty two squares were l a i d out, but u n l i k e London, these were p u b l i c squares that were maintained by the c i t y . The emperor wanted Alphand to reproduce the character of the squares that he had -42-seen i n London's West End. Alphand, however, d i d not produce t h i s l i k e n e s s . While h i s l a r g e r parks were l a i d out on the i n f o r m a l E n g l i s h s t y l e , smaller s c a l e areas and p l a n t i n g were-handled d i f f e r e n t l y . Alphand loved flowers and created the squares i n h i s " j a r d i n f l e u r i s t e " s t y l e . He saw garden squares as "a melody of c o l o u r s . " The flower areas found on the Champs Elysees and i n the squares of P a r i s were used to smooth the j u n c t i o n between grass and shrubs, and were q u i t e narrow w i t h p a r a l l e l bands of fl o w e r s . Alphand l a i d out smaller open spaces throughout the c i t y which were to be green i n t e r l u d e s i n the o v e r a l l park p a t t e r n of P a r i s . He a l s o r e -modelled the gardens along the Champs Elysees i n t o s o f t kidney shapes w i t h i n the formal rectangular framework plus the garden s t r i p s that adorned the boulevards. Haussmann even went as f a r as to have the o l d J a r d i n au Luxem-bourg remodelled i n 1867 at the time of the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the Avenue de 1'observatare. The French garden e s s e n t i a l l y followed the development of the E n g l i s h garden of the f i r s t h a l f of the 19th century. The Picturesque garden of the 18th century became i n c r e a s i n g l y elaborate as the i n f l u e n c e of the Gardenes-que spread. The French devoted more space to paved areas which was l o g i c a l because the lawn d i d not do as w e l l i n the French c l i m a t e . I t a l s o made sense when i t i s r e a l i z e d that the French's conception of l e i s u r e was prom-enading, and t h e r e f o r e an elaborate system of walks and r i d e s was necessary. In England the formal p u b l i c walks were g i v i n g way to more games areas and l e s s formal space, but i n France, t h i s was never the case. One p u b l i c park t r a d i t i o n that North Americans have i n h e r i t e d from the French, i s the p r a c t i c e of u s i n g very complex flower designs to s p e l l or -43-d i s p l a y messages. The use of f l o r a l c l o c k s and designs of welcome, "Welcome to S m i t h v i l l e " , and s p e c i a l f e s t i v e features i s a t r a d i t i o n that o r i g i n a t e d i n France. Despite-high labour costs today,, t h i s t r a d i t i o n i s s t i l l c a r r i e d out i n many urban parks. Haussmann i s u s u a l l y c r e d i t e d w i t h three b a s i c accomplishments i n the r e o r g a n i z a t i o n of Paris:' a communications system which was of p a r t i -c u l a r value to the m i l i t a r y ; a park system; and an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o r g a n i -z a t i o n that enabled the enormous changes to be c a r r i e d out i n P a r i s w i t h i n 15 years. The park system was a l s o a part of m i l i t a r y s t r a t e g y to move and t r a i n troops q u i c k l y , as w e l l as a response to environmental concerns. Nevertheless the r e s u l t was the f i r s t park system i n Europe and one that was w e l l balanced i n terms of a c c e s s i b i l i t y to most s o c i a l s e c t o r s . I t seems that the French never looked upon t h e i r parks as places of escape, but as a c o n t i n u a t i o n of t h e i r c i t y . The French have t r a d i t i o n -a l l y been very urbane people and have not experienced the same phenomena of suburbanization and d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n that the B r i t i s h and North Americans have. The French urban dweller does not seem to long f o r the " r u r a l country-s i d e " as h i s B r i t i s h counterpart has t r a d i t i o n a l l y done. I t seems f a t e f u l that the Emperor of the time was so taken w i t h Hyde Park that he ordered Haussmann to develop the same type of landscape i n the two B o i s . Had t h i s not been the case, the French may have evolved a new and d i f f e r e n t type of park system, one that was i n greater harmony w i t h the urban f a b r i c and experience i n P a r i s . -44-Development.of P u b l i c Parks on the Continent The park movement on the continent seemed to have gone through two phases; the f i r s t occurred about a decade before the movement i n England, p r i m a r i l y because of damage done i n the Napoleonic Wars, and the second was a resurgence of concern about open space as a r e s u l t of the spread of i n -d u s t r i a l i s m . Germany was the leader among the c o n t i n e n t a l c o u n t r i e s and had p u b l i c gardens that were i n use before the end of the 1700's The f i r s t p u b l i c park i n Germany was opened i n Munich i n 1789. I t was c a l l e d the " E n g l i s c h e r Garden" which was along the River I s a r and was a 3 mile long r i v e r s i d e promenade. The park was l a i d out i n the e a r l y " E n g l i s h Landscape" s t y l e . ( I l l u s t r a t i o n 12) The i n f l u e n c e came from an Englishman named Benjamin Thompson, who went to Munich i n 1784 at the i n v i t a t i o n of K a r l Theodor of Bavaria. Thompson i s c r e d i t e d w i t h suggesting a "people's park" to the p r i n c e and subsequently had an i n f l u e n c e on i t s design.25 He was ahead of h i s time when he suggested a park f o r the German people, based on the current E n g l i s h p r i v a t e e s t a t e design. His i n f l u e n c e was immediately popular and i n 1807, s i m i l a r s e r i e s of small p u b l i c gardens were l a i d out i n F r a n k f u r t . The E n g l i s h s t y l e of landscaping was used i n many cases where there had been damage from the Napoleonic Wars. A landscape a r c h i t e c t , Peter Joseph Lenne, was i n v o l v e d i n the r e s t o r a t i o n of s e v e r a l places and was g r e a t l y i n f l u e n c e d by the B r i t i s h p r i v a t e e s t a t e s . In 1824, Lenne planted 120 acres of o l d town f o r t i f i c a t i o n s i n Magdeburg, which so impressed Loudon that he wrote about i t -in h i s Encyclopedia of Gardening. Lenne became very i n -f l u e n t i a l i n the development of p u b l i c gardens i n Germany as w e l l as the f i r s t p u b l i c parks i n B e r l i n . He was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r remodelling the Neuer -45-Gaten of Potsdam i n 1816, and presented proposals f o r Sans-Souci i n 1816 and Charlottenburg i n 1819. Although the German p u b l i c b e n e f i t e d from the opening of p u b l i c parks very e a r l y i n the 19th Century, these parks had e s s e n t i a l l y a l l been remodelled from e a r l i e r r o y a l gardens or o l d f o r t i f i c a t i o n s . The c r e a t i o n of completely new parks d i d not occur u n t i l Germany too,began to f e e l the e f f e c t s of the i n d u s t r i a l r e v o l u t i o n . Chadwick f e e l s that Lennes work was the German forerunner of the park system.26 gy 1871 a l l the l a r g e towns i n Germany had p u b l i c parks and B e r l i n even had a V i c t o r i a n park, j u s t l i k e any E n g l i s h town of that time. Germany e v e n t u a l l y e s t a b l i s h e d i t s own "park s t y l e " , but t h i s d i d not occur u n t i l the 20th Century when park design had s u c c e s s f u l l y shaken the Gardenesque i n f l u e n c e . German -landscape a r c h i t e c t s developed a new s t y l e along formal l i n e s that was a c t u a l l y an extension of the Gardenesque, and that l e d the world i n new ideas i n p u b l i c parks f o r a time. ( I l l u s t r a t i o n 13) The Germans were among the f i r s t i n the world to produce t r u l y modern l a n d -scapes under the auspices of people l i k e Leberecht Migge. ( I l l u s t r a t i o n 14) The development of parks f o r the p u b l i c was slower to s t a r t i n Holland. In the 1850's the land i n s i d e the c i t y f o r t i f i c a t i o n s of Amsterdam had been used up, so there was pressure to b u i l d o u t s i d e . A new plan c a l l e d the UITBREIDINGSPLAN was drawn up i n 1886. I t was i n a l l l i k e l i h o o d i n -fluenced by Haussmann and Alphand's work i n P a r i s , because the plan had a d e f i n i t e p a t t e r n of c i t y parks. The f i r s t p u b l i c parks i n Copenhagen, apart from e x i s t i n g r o y a l -46-gardens, were o l d f o r t i f i c a t i o n s l a i d out i n 1870. E a r l i e r George Cartensen, i n a p h i l a n t h r o p i c gesture, took over part of the ramparts i n 1843 and opened them as the T i v o l i . In A u s t r i a , Josef I I had already given the P r a t e r to Vienna i n 1776, but again, t h i s was a former r o y a l park and A u s t r i a was a long time i n developing a "park system". I t seems that w h i l e Kent, Brown and Repton were c r e a t i n g p r i v a t e parks a l l over England at the t u r n of the 18th century, Germany and Vienna were going ahead w i t h p u b l i c parks and "people's parks". Indeed, C o n t i n e n t a l v i s i t o r s to B r i t a i n were s u r p r i s e d to f i n d that the use of Regent's Park and the London Squares were r e s t r i c t e d to surrounding houseowners. The c i t i e s of the Continent however, d i d not develop a park system, or l a y out new p u b l i c parks u n t i l a f t e r they had experienced the e f f e c t s of the i n d u s t r i a l r e v o l u t i o n and had seen Haussmann's "new P a r i s " . The Continent i n i t i a l l y seemed to be very i n f l u e n c e d by B r i t a i n and France and i t was not u n t i l w e l l i n t o the 20th century, that German and Dutch p u b l i c park design came to the f o r e f r o n t w i t h new ideas. Summary At the end of the 19th Century i n B r i t a i n , two a l t e r n a t i v e approaches had evolved to deal w i t h the problems created i n c i t i e s by the i n d u s t r i a l r e v o l u t i o n . One of these was to b u i l d the new i n d u s t r i a l c i t y , as advocated by people l i k e Robert Owen. These were intended to accommodate the i n f l u x of i n d u s t r y , and were l a i d out f o r the i n d u s t r i a l workers. Parks were an i n -t e g r a l part of these new c i t i e s and the parks' designs r e f l e c t e d the a e s t h e t i c and r e c r e a t i o n a l needs of people. When these new c i t i e s were s t i l l i n the conceptual stages some of the ideas were t r a n s f e r r e d to the Colonies by people l i k e W i l l i a m Wakefield, who, from the beginning, ensured that p u b l i c parks were a major part of c i t y design. The other approach was the redevelopment and improvement of e x i s t i n g c i t i e s . In the C i t y of London the e x i s t i n g r o y a l parks and gardens were r e -designed to provide open space f o r the popu l a t i o n and t h e i r design was th e r e -fore h i s t o r i c a l and l e s s f l e x i b l e . Another form of open space was the c r e a t i o n of t o t a l l y new parks which were intended f o r the r e c r e a t i o n a l needs of the surrounding population. V i c t o r i a and Battersea Parks were the f i r s t parks i n London to be designed t h i s way. The f i r s t response to the negative aspects of i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n seen on the landscape, was i n the north of England. The e a r l y i n d u s t r i a l c i t i e s were becoming an i n t o l e r a b l e , environment. I t was t h i s r e a c t i o n , plus the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s k i l l s of a few people, that r e s u l t e d i n Birkenhead, and the Manchester Parks - the f i r s t examples of parks o r i g i n a l l y designed f o r p u b l i c use and the f i r s t parks that were an attempt to improve the i n -d u s t r i a l c i t y . By 1900 P a r i s had a park system, the f i r s t i n the Western World. The system came out of a d e s i r e to r e j u v i n a t e the c i t y f o r a e s t h e t i c as w e l l as m i l i t a r y purposes, not out of a r e a c t i o n to unfavourable l i v i n g c o n d i t i o n s . The c l e a r mandate that Haussmann and Alphand had, r e s u l t e d i n a very d i f f e r e n t process than what t h e i r many B r i t i s h counterparts experienced. F i n a l l y , the Co n t i n e n t a l c o u n t r i e s opened t h e i r r o y a l parks, o l d f o r t i f i c a t i o n s , and p u b l i c gardens i n the l a t e 1700's and e a r l y 1800's, -48-but d i d not consider new forms and a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r parks, u n t i l w e l l a f t e r the B r i t i s h and French experience. These are the t r a d i t i o n s and developments from which the North Americans learned, as they s e r i o u s l y began to consider urban p u b l i c open space i n the l a t t e r h a l f of the 19th Century. -49-FOOTNOTES 1 P a t r i c k Nuttgens, The Landscape of Ideas (London: Faber and Faber L t d . , 1972), p. 82. 2 Asa B r i g g s , V i c t o r i a n C i t i e s (Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1963) p. 12. 3 F r e d r i c k Law Olmsted, Forty Years of Landscape A r c h i t e c t u r e : C e n t r a l Park (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1973), p. 8. 4 I b i d . , p. 9. 5 Geoffrey Dutton, Founder of a C i t y (Melbourne, F.W. Chesire, 1960), p. 125. ^ Gerald Burke, Towns i n . the Making (London: Edward Arnold Pub., L t d . , 1971), p. 136. 7 Ebenezer Howard, Garden C i t i e s of Tomorrow (London: Faber and Faber L t d . , 1946), pp. 140 - 142. George F. Chadwick, The Park and the Town: P u b l i c Landscape  i n the 19th and 20th Centuries (New York, F r e d r i c k A. Praeger Pub., 1966), p. 66. 9 I b i d . , p. 68. 1 0 I b i d . , p. 71. 11 I b i d . , p. 52. 12 Eugene C. Black, ed, V i c t o r i a n Culture and Society (New York: Walker and Co., 1974), p. 153. 13 F r e d r i c k Law Olmsted, Walks and Talks of an American Farmer i n  England (London: 1852), pp. 78-82. 1 4 Chadwick, p. 91. -50-1 5 I b i d . , p. 93. 16 Although the C r y s t a l Palace became an i n s t i t u t i o n , i t s t e a d i l y ran i n t o d i f f i c u l t i e s f i n a n c i a l l y . The gardens began to be unkempt and as a r e s u l t p a r ts were e v e n t u a l l y s o l d on the perimeter f o r b u i l d i n g . The b u i l d i n g a l s o s u f f e r e d n e g l e c t . In 1913 i t was bought f o r the n a t i o n , p a r t l y through the promptitude of the E a r l of Plymouth and p a r t l y by p u b l i c c o l l e c t i o n . I t was reopened i n 1920 a f t e r a wartime use f o r t r a i n i n g , and featured new uses: a motor r a c i n g course; roundabouts; sports grounds; and dance h a l l s . The b u i l d i n g was completely destroyed i n a f i r e i n 1936. In 1966 there was a proposal to construct a n a t i o n a l youth and sports centre to r e i n v i g o r a t e the park. 1 7 Chadwick, p. 98. 1 8 I b i d . , p. 99. I b i d . , p. 101. 19 20 21 22 23 I b i d . , p. I l l . I b i d . , p. 123. I b i d . , p. 127. Jere Stuart French, Urban Green, C i t y Parks of the Western World (Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Pub., Co., 1973), p. 18. 2 4 I b i d . , p. 18. 2 5 Chadwick, p. 249. I b i d . , p. 250. 26. KEFGRT O l THE NETRbPDUTAN AREA OF ADELAIDE, -St-- 5 5 -Str -57-- 5 8 -I L L U S T K A T I O M 8 V'CTORVA B \ R K B^j J A M B feviMETHoT3»JE \64£>. c m i » N \ c V c R 1 1 4 -\LULJ£>T*9\T\ON n Bo is . de BOUJLOQNJ e B e R y f c e r e s -<aO-| LL_U£>T^AT1 ON IO Bois «de "BouLaSAJgr AFTER ITS TRAMSFOTSMATiCM By ALTHAMT^. CNAPVVUCX, p. i t s . -62.-IU-XT3T BAfT I C M 1 2 . ENterUSCVAETe- G > W ^ M , M U M lCt+ 1 7 8 4 |LLUSTT2AT\oM 13 m r r z , S C H U M A C H E R S S T A P T W R * : , -65-CHAPTER 3 THE DEVELOPMENT OF PARKS AND PARK SYSTEMS IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA  In t r o d u c t i o n In the Americas, the f i r s t forms of p u b l i c open space were the town squares and the v i l l a g e commons. In these New World towns the French, the Spanish, and the E n g l i s h t r i e d to create a c e n t r a l meeting place l i k e those i n Europe. These spaces u s u a l l y stood beside a church, a town h a l l , or the main b u i l d i n g s of the town. The people of Savannah f o r example, created one of the most i n t e r e s t i n g s e r i e s of town squares. The c i t y was o r i g i n a l l y l a i d out w i t h a simple c e n t r a l square but w i t h the p r o v i s i o n that t h i s form should be r e p l i c a t e d as the g r i d was extended. By 1856, Savannah had 24 small squares and open spaces i n a d d i t i o n to the c e n t r a l p u b l i c garden. The commons were u s u a l l y used f o r p a s t u r i n g stock, and as a place to ho l d p u b l i c markets. Some of these commons have survived the t r a n s -i t i o n to modern parks; the Boston Common and the H a l i f a x Common are perhaps the most s u c c e s s f u l examples. However most v i l l a g e commons and town squares have not made the t r a n s i t i o n to what we consider a "park" today, but continue to be a very important part of the urban s t r u c t u r e p a r t i c u l a r l y when they are of h i s t o r i -c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e to that town or c i t y . Although the o r i g i n a l need was out-grown by the e a r l y 1800's, the idea of open space.was r e t a i n e d and ev e n t u a l l y expressed i n a d i f f e r e n t form. The Americans d i d not have the long t r a d i t i o n of monarchy, and - 6 6 -therefore d i d not i n h e r i t former r o y a l parks and hunting grounds as European c i t i e s d i d . Nor were any great estates donated or purchased f o r the purpose of p u b l i c parks. From the very beginning the Americans were to acquire land f o r the e x p l i c i t purpose of c r e a t i n g a park, and they were to r e l y h e a v i l y on the B r i t i s h design experience. The development of p u b l i c parks i n the U.S. was s t r o n g l y i n f l u e n c e d by a few i n d i v i d u a l s who modelled t h e i r work on the English, landscape s t y l e , but implemented m o d i f i c a t i o n s to s u i t the American c u l t u r e and c l i m a t e . The genius of these men w i l l be d e a l t w i t h i n d i v i d u a l l y so as to o u t l i n e each person's c o n t r i b u t i o n to the ideas and development of p u b l i c parks, as the park movement swept the country i n the l a s t h a l f of the 19th century. The Canadian case was somewhat d i f f e r e n t . The move f o r p u b l i c parks occurred l a t e r than i n the U.S. and was e s s e n t i a l l y a c o n t i n u a t i o n of the movement across North America. There were no prominent landscape a r c h i t e c t s i n Canada at that time and, subsequently, many ideas f o r p u b l i c parks were borrowed from the U.S. and B r i t a i n , but o f t e n without the a d m i n i s t r a -t i v e s t r u c t u r e to implement these ideas and designs. Andrew Jackson Downing and the American Landscape The man who f i r s t brought the E n g l i s h landscape t r a d i t i o n to. the American landscape was Andrew Jackson Downing. He i s perhaps, the American equivalent of John Claudius Loudon because he p e r s o n i f i e d popular t a s t e i n garden design i n the U.S. through h i s works and h i s w r i t i n g s , j u s t as Loudon had i n England. Downing's f a t h e r had a nursery near the Hudson River i n New York, which provided an a l l encompassing l e a r n i n g environment. As a c h i l d t h e r e -f o r e , Downing became very s e n s i t i v e and responsive to nature. -67-Contemporary garden design of t h i s era was b a s i c a l l y E n g l i s h garden design which r e s u l t e d i n a very strong i n f l u e n c e of the ph i l o s o p h i e s of Brown, Repton and Loudon. Downing was an e a r l y f o l l o w e r of the E n g l i s h landscape s c h o o l , but was able to s u c c e s s f u l l y make h i s own m o d i f i c a t i o n s to the American c u l t u r e and c l i m a t e . He was an e a r l y advocate of p u b l i c parks, drew a t t e n t i o n to the need, and at the same time provided a b a s i s f o r the study i n which they were to be designed. Downing maintained that the n a t u r a l character or p r e v a i l i n g "ex-pre s s i o n of the p l a c e " should be preserved. He i n s i s t e d on the r e c o g n i t i o n of the "genius l o c i " , which i s the understanding of the bas i c v i s u a l s i t e qualities.-*- Every s i t e had i t s own unique c h a r a c t e r , land form and vege-t a t i o n cover. This p r i n c i p l e c o n s t i t u t e s Downing's major c o n t r i b u t i o n to landscape design i n America. L i k e Loudon, Downing thought that small s c a l e flowers should be near the house or i n an enclosed flower garden removed from the general l a n d -scape. Downing used the B r i t i s h i d e a of la r g e lawn areas a great deal and he wrote about t h i s important element. "Quite an area, i n the re a r of the house i s devoted to a lawn, which must be kept c l o s e and green by frequent mowings so that i t w i l l be s o f t to the tread as a carpet, and i t s deep ver -dure w i l l set o f f the gay colours of the f l o w e r i n g p l a n t s i n the surrounding beds and par t e r r e . " 2 He used h i s landscape s t y l e on many p r i v a t e e s t a t e s throughout New England. One mid century (1850) mansion e s t a t e i n New York looks very much l i k e Stowe i n Buckinghamshire a f t e r C a p a b i l i t y Brown f i n i s h e d h i s renovations of the gardens. Downing n a t u r a l l y i n c o r p o r a t e d pleasure d r i v e s -68-in s t e a d of pleasure walks, and a l s o created a s e r i e s of open and closed v i s t a s or a progression of landscape scenes. This element was l a t e r picked up by Ca l v e r t Vaux and F r e d r i c k Law Olmsted i n t h e i r design f o r C e n t r a l Park. Downing was a strong i n f l u e n c e on improving suburban and country homes, not only i n the a e s t h e t i c sense, but w i t h a view towards i n s p i r i n g other people's minds and encouraging them towards t h e i r own i d e a l s . His w r i t i n g s were widely read and h i s " T r e a t i s e on the Theory and P r a c t i c e of Landscape Gardening Adapted to North America With a View to the Improvement of Country Residences1,', published i n 1841, e s t a b l i s h e d him as the main a u t h o r i t y i n the U.S. on r u r a l a r t . In 1849 he became very i n t e r e s t e d i n a r c h i t e c t u r e . He t r a v e l l e d to England and brought back C a l v e r t Vaux who as an a r c h i t e c t , could provide some of the e x p e r t i s e that Downing lacked. The expansion i n t o the concern f o r a r c h i t e c t u r e was a n a t u r a l r e a c t i o n to some of the things being w r i t t e n about Young America at the time. For example, Charles Dickens, f o l l o w i n g a tour i n 1842 produced American Notes which sharply c r i t i c i z e d America f o r i t s l a c k of c u l t u r a l refinement.3 Downing, i n h i s work t r i e d to counteract these European's impressions, and encourage what people could recognize as a f i n e American c u l t u r e . At the i n v i t a t i o n of the P r e s i d e n t , Downing began to l a y out the grounds near the C a p i t a l , the White House, and the Smithsonian I n s t i t u t e i n Washington. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , Downing drowned i n a steam boat race i n J u l y of 1852 and h i s work was not completed. -69-He would have undoubtedly been i n v o l v e d i n the design of the f i r s t American p u b l i c parks had he s u r v i v e d . His f i r s t advocacy of p u b l i c parks was i n 1848 when he pointed to the success and heavy use of park ceme-t e r i e s . Park cemeteries were forerunners of the p u b l i c parks i n America, and f o r twenty years or more, provided the only p u b l i c open space that could be used by the popu l a t i o n to walk i n and a t t a i n that d e s i r e d peacefulness. In 1831, Dr. L. Biglow designed a " n a t u r a l " Reptonian type landscape at the Mount Auburn Cemetery, i n Boston. I t was immediately s u c c e s s f u l as a place to go wa l k i n g , and other New England c i t i e s soon e s t a b l i s h e d t h e i r own landscaped cemeteries. In the summer of 1848, 30,000 people came to look, admire and be emotionally s t i r r e d by the Auburn Cemetery. As i n England, there were i n i t i a l d i f f i c u l t i e s due to the l a c k of respo n s i b l e a u t h o r i t i e s to set up and maintain p u b l i c parks . Downing and W i l l i a m C u l l e n Bryant, the e d i t o r of the New York Evening Post, were among the f i r s t to suggest a need f o r a park i n New York C i t y . In the October, 1848, is s u e of the H o r t i c u l t u r i s t (of which he was the e d i t o r ) Downing wrote a piece c a l l e d "A Talk about P u b l i c Parks and Gardens". A f t e r h i s v i s i t to England i n 1850, he used the London Parks as an example of the type of open space f o r which Americans should s t r i v e . I t was to be another decade a f t e r Downing's death however, before t h i s need was a c t u a l i z e d . Andrew Jackson Downing's work and w r i t i n g s were to provide the foundations f o r the o p p o r t u n i t i e s and work of men l i k e F r e d r i c k Law Olmsted, Calvert Vaux, Charles E l i o t and many others. His acceptance and advocacy of the E n g l i s h s t y l e of landscaping r a t h e r than the Co n t i n e n t a l s t y l e , was one of the strongest f a c t o r s which has i n f l u e n c e d park design i n North America -70-over the l a s t century. F r e d r i c k Law Olmsted and C e n t r a l Park The man who i s r e f e r r e d to as the f a t h e r of landscape a r c h i t e c t u r e , and who was perhaps the person most re s p o n s i b l e f o r the form of the urban park today i s F r e d r i c k Law Olmsted. He was born i n 1822 i n r u r a l America and died i n 1903 at the age of 81. He l i v e d during an extremely important p e r i o d of development i n the United States. He was to see the disappearance of the f r o n t i e r and the s h i f t from r u r a l to urban l i v i n g . I t was the era of i n d u s t r i a l i s m and of the r a i l r o a d . The r a i l w a y s had t h e i r beginnings around 1826, and by 1869, they spanned the North American continent. These profound changes re q u i r e d people of that time to r e t h i n k t h e i r values and t h e i r approach to l i f e . F r e d r i c k Law Olmsted was a man who was able to keep abreast w i t h the d i r e c t i o n of American S o c i e t y , maintain an openness to new i d e a s , and develop the a b i l i t y to t h i n k about the environ-ment of the f u t u r e . I t was Olmsted's quick r e a c t i o n and p r e d i c t i o n of change that produced a b e t t e r environment f o r the people of h i s time, and f o r the people of generations to come. Olmsted grew up i n r u r a l Connecticut and at a very e a r l y age developed a love of the countryside. A f t e r he had s t u d i e d a r c h i t e c t u r a l science and engineering at Yale he took up farming on Staten I s l a n d , but was not s u c c e s s f u l . He t r a v e l l e d i n Europe i n 1850, and i t was at t h i s time that he saw Birkenhead Park i n England. In 1852-53 Olmsted t r a v e l l e d on horseback through the south and southwestern S t a t e s , and i n 1856 he t r a v e l l e d through-out I t a l y . Before Olmsted began h i s career as a landscape a r c h i t e c t then, he had seen many landscapes, both n a t u r a l and designed. - 7 1 -Olmsted's e a r l y a s s o c i a t i o n and love of r u r a l landscapes seemed to be the strongest f a c t o r i n h i s eventual advocacy of the r u r a l landscape i n the c i t y . He b e l i e v e d that the " s o c i a l v a l u e s " of the r u r a l l i f e would help to develop a democratic and c u l t u r a l urban environment. 4 For Olmsted, the i d e a l urban environment was to be a s y n t h e s i s of landscape and c i t y s c a p e . He became f a m i l i a r w i t h the work of Andrew Jackson Downing and C a l v e r t Vaux both of whom were advocating the garden a r t of England rather than the f o r m a l i z e d gardens of the Continent'. I t was t h i s type of gardening that s t r u c k a sympathetic note i n Olmsted, who because of h i s l i f e previous to that time, found t h i s a most welcome con f i r m a t i o n of h i s own propen-s i t i e s . Thus developed Olmsted's w e l l thought out p h i l o s o p h i e s on the a r t of the i n f o r m a l landscape and i t s p o s s i b i l i t i e s and advantages i n the c i t y . In the United S t a t e s , the beginning of the park movement can be traced to C e n t r a l Park. P r i o r to i t s c r e a t i o n there were no urban parks i n American which had been designed s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r the p u b l i c . Olmsted b e l i e v e d that the d e c i s i o n to create such a park was not a d i r e c t i n f l u e n c e from Europe, but was a " u n i v e r s a l phenomena". " I t i s now evident that the movement was not taken up i n a country from any other, however, i t may have been i n f l u e n c e d or a c c e l e r a t e d . I t d i d not run l i k e a f a s h i o n . I t would seem r a t h e r to have been a common spontaneous movement of that s o r t which we conveniently r e f e r to as Genius of C i v i l i z a t i o n . " 5 Although the idea of p r o v i d i n g open space f o r a c i t y ' s population had been r e a l i z e d simultaneously i n many European co u n t r i e s f o r a century, and was expressed i n the opening of r o y a l s t a t e s and the transformation of l o c a l f o r t i f i c a t i o n s , the idea of c r e a t i n g a landscape "de nouveaux" f o r -72-the purposes of a p u b l i c park, d i d "run l i k e a f a s h i o n " , and that f a s h i o n began i n England. When Birkenhead Park was a tremendous success other B r i t i s h c i t i e s created t h e i r own p u b l i c parks; the French incorporated the E n g l i s h s t y l e p u b l i c park i n t o the o v e r a l l design f o r the redevelopment of P a r i s ; and the c a t a l y s t f o r the very r a p i d American park movement was a l s o the B r i t i s h p u b l i c parks. The two strongest advocates of a p u b l i c park f o r New York were Andrew Jackson Downing and W i l l i a m C u l l e n Bryant, both of whom had t r a v e l l e d to England and pointed to the E n g l i s h p u b l i c parks as an example to f o l l o w . In 1811 the Commissioners of S t r e e t s and Roads submitted a plan f o r Manhatten I s l a n d i n the f a m i l i a r g r i d - i r o n f a s h i o n . Although the p l a n b o l d l y provided f o r a c i t y of f a r greater s i z e than e x i s t e d , i t only provided seven squares and a parade ground as open space because "few spaces were now a v a i l a b l e and the land cost was so great."6 The fabulous opportunity f o r a r i v e r s i d e park was a l s o missed. There were a number of pleasure gar-dens i n New York C i t y , but g r a d u a l l y these were replaced by b u i l d i n g s and by 1855 there were none l e f t . Greenwood Cemetery;was the only place where the people could enjoy the pleasure of f o l i a g e and lawns and i t was estimated that 60,000 people v i s i t e d the cemetery i n a year at that time, many to en-joy the " r u r a l " atmosphere. New York, l i k e any other c i t y of i t s s i z e was a l s o s u f f e r i n g from overcrowding, n o i s e , and a t o t a l l y man made v i s u a l en-vironment. The workers of New York, l i k e those of the northern i n d u s t r i a l c i t i e s i n England, needed a place of peace, t r a n q u i l i t y , v i s u a l greenery, and space f o r p h y s i c a l e x e r c i s e . In the e a r l y 1850's New York C i t y b e n e f i t t e d from a group of strong c i v i c leaders who were i n f l u e n c e d by W i l l i a m C u l l e n Bryant's e d i t o r i a l s , and -73-began to acquire land f o r C e n t r a l Park i n 1853.. In May of 1856, the C i t y Council of New York gave the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r i t s establishment and manage-ment to a Board c a l l e d the "Commissioners of C e n t r a l Park". F r e d r i c k Law Olmsted was h i r e d as the park superintendent i n 1857. The commissioners a d v e r t i s e d f o r plans f o r the park. C a l v e r t Vaux, who had worked w i t h Downing t a l k e d Olmsted i n t o c o l l a b o r a t i n g w i t h him on a design, and they were awarded f i r s t p r i z e f o r t h e i r "Greensward" plan which included a comprehensive r e -port e x p l a i n i n g t h e i r reason f o r every design f e a t u r e . They p r e d i c t e d a huge popu l a t i o n growth f o r New York C i t y as the j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r a huge c e n t r a l parkland on Manhatten I s l a n d . Olmsted l a t e r , wrote many books and manuscripts on h i s park and landscape philosophy and how i t was so very important i n developing a good s o c i a l theory i n the U.S. He recognized the f a c t that the farm was no longer the nucleus of American l i f e , and that "the c i t y would shape the modes of thought and b a s i c values of a l l f u t u r e Americans".'' He reasoned that unless the c i t i e s were e n l i g h t e n i n g and u p l i f t i n g they would not be t r u l y democratic. Because of h i s e a r l i e r t i e s w i t h the c o u n t r y s i d e , Olmsted b e l i e v e d that to be able to "escape" to a r u r a l landscape w i t h i n the c i t y , would a f f o r d p e a c e f u l "^recreation and would be conducive to a temperate, good natured, and healthy s t a t e of mind. A park as a place of "escape" became the primary j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r most parks i n the eastern United S t a t e s , and the b a s i c design f o r these parks was c a r r i e d a l l over the continent - even to places where the t h r e a t of "overwhelming u r b a n i t y " was many years down the road. This idea was p a r t l y as a r e s u l t of c o n d i t i o n s i n New York at the time, but a l s o as a r e s u l t of the E n g l i s h northern i n d u s t r i a l c i t y experience. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g that the " e s c a p i s t theme" was so very d i f f e r e n t from what was happening i n P a r i s at that time, where Haussmann and Alphand were c r e a t i n g -74-landscaped parks as an extension of the c i t y . The d i f f e r e n t ideas of what i s "urbanism" to the French and to the English-Americans c e r t a i n l y surfaces i n the d i s c u s s i o n of open spaces. Olmsted's importance as a landscape a r c h i t e c t and c i t y planner r e s t e d as much on h i s s o c i a l thought as on h i s t e c h n i c a l and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a b i l i t y . In h i s report on C e n t r a l Park, as w e l l as those that were to f o l l o w i n d i f f e r e n t c i t i e s , he s p e l l e d out the needs of the people f o r the years ahead. His theory of urban design was g e n e r a l l y acceptable to the p o l i t i c a l d e c i s i o n makers of h i s day and understood by the p u b l i c as w e l l . The r e s u l t was that the ideas and i n f l u e n c e of F r e d r i c k Law Olmsted are t o -day, seen on many landscapes i n the United States and Canada. He was the s i n g l e most important for c e i n the development of landscape a r c h i t e c t u r e as a p r o f e s s i o n and i n the d i r e c t i o n of the p u b l i c park movement i n the United States and Canada. The C e n t r a l Park Commissioner's design c o n d i t i o n s f o r the 770 acre s i t e were very s p e c i f i c . To be inc l u d e d were: four or more crossings of the park; a main m a l l ; a parade ground of up to 40 ac r e s ; three p l a y -grounds of up to ten acres; s i t e s f o r an e x h i b i t i o n h a l l , a fo u n t a i n and a prospect-tower; and p r o v i s i o n f o r a s k a t i n g r i n k . Olmsted and Vaux were s u c c e s s f u l i n u n o b t r u s i v e l y i n c o r p o r a t i n g these features i n t o a plan which was r e a l l y a r u r a l landscape - a strong contrast w i t h the r e c t i l i n e a r frame of the park and the monotanous s t r e e t s around i t . ( I l l u s t r a t i o n 1 and 2). The park s i t e was extremely v a r i e d , w i t h u n d e r l y i n g gneiss rock outcropping i n many p l a c e s , and with marshy areas i n others. Olmsted and Vaux i n the s t y l e of Downing, used these v a r i a t i o n s i n the landscape to -75-create a s e t t i n g of romantic v i s t a s and r u r a l p e r s p e c t i v e s - a s t y l e that was to be followed i n many c i t i e s across the U.S. In t h e i r report they men-tioned the d e s i r e to provide a place f o r r u r a l r e l a x a t i o n f o r the poorer people of New York w h i l e at the same time pr e s e r v i n g the n a t u r a l contours of Manhatten I s l a n d . 8 Shaggy border t r e e s were placed around the park to prevent a person i n the park from seeing the adjacent b u i l d i n g s . In time of course, w i t h the event of skyscrapers, t h i s became impossible but i n the o r i g i n a l p l a n they were to provide a sense of enclosure i n the woods. The border p l a n t i n g a l s o acted as a sound b u f f e r to the noises of the c i t y . The r e q u i r e d features such as the main m a l l were not the main features of the park, but subservient to the general character of the design. The a r c h i t e c t u r a l accompaniments to the m a l l were minimized at the entrance. Olmsted set aside a p a r t i c u l a r area i n the park, the eastern s i d e , which accommodated b u i l d i n g s such as a music h a l l , palm house, and a conservatory overlooking the proposed flower garden.9 This area, which a l s o contained the m a l l , was the only area that contained "formal elements" - a l l e l s e was an essay i n E n g l i s h landscaping. Perhaps the most i n n o v a t i v e and ingenious feature of C e n t r a l Park that was to have widespread i m p l i c a t i o n s on fu t u r e landscape design was the c i r c u l a t i o n p a t t e r n which separated four types of movement and t r a f f i c . (See I l l u s t r a t i o n 2) Both men had seen Birkenhead Park and had undoubtedly been i n f l u e n c e d by Paxton's s o l u t i o n of separating pedestrians and c a r r i a g e ways, but they took t h i s p r i n c i p l e one step f u r t h e r . They provided com-p l e t e l y separate c i r c u l a t i o n systems f o r c a r r i a g e s , horsemen, p e d e s t r i a n s , and ordinary s t r e e t t r a f f i c c r o s s i n g from one si d e of the park to another. A l l t h i s was done at v a r y i n g l e v e l s to f i t the contours of the land. The value of t h i s i n n o v a t i o n d i d not only l i e i n greater s a f e t y to the pedestrians -76-and other t r a f f i c , but a l s o i n the freedom from d i s t r a c t i o n and the greater r e l a x a t i o n o f f e r e d to the people who used the park. Another element of the Park that should be mentioned here i s the i n c l u s i o n of playgrounds. Although i t seems that Olmsted and Vaux both considered C e n t r a l Park as a place of p a s s i v e r e c r e a t i o n and enjoyment and as a place of "escape" from the c i t y , they d i d inc o r p o r a t e an area f o r organized games - an idea that was not yet popular i n England. Paxton's playgrounds i n Birkenhead Park must have been the i n f l u e n c e because Olmsted and Vaux i n t h e i r r e p o rts d i d not s t r e s s at any time, a great need of p l a y -grounds of any k i n d . Work on the Park began i n the summer of 1851 and continued under t h e i r , s u p e r v i s i o n u n t i l 1878, when Olmsted was dismissed. Both Olmsted and Vaux resigned a number of times because of p o l i t i c a l i n t e r f e r e n c e , but were persuaded to r e t u r n i n each case. The Park was c o n s t a n t l y threatened by en-croachments, but the presence of Olmsted, Vaux and a few powerful c i t i z e n s prevented t h i s from happening. I t i s understandable that many c i t i e s were not able to prevent such encroachments without a few very i n f l u e n t i a l i n -d i v i d u a l s w i t h a w e l l thought out park philosophy. The Far Reaching E f f e c t s of C e n t r a l Park The e f f e c t s of C e n t r a l Park i n New York were enormous, both l o c a l l y , and n a t i o n a l l y . The p u b l i c - the poor as w e l l as the r i c h - loved the park. This was evident from the beginning, when over four m i l l i o n v i s i t o r s used i t i n 1863, seven and a h a l f m i l l i o n i n 1865, and eleven m i l l i o n i n 1871. The Park a l s o made New York a t t r a c t i v e to v i s i t o r s and t h e r e f o r e increased business f o r the c i t y . I t was reported that the investment had r a i s e d r e a l e s t a te values i n i t s v i c i n i t y s u f f i c i e n t to r e t u r n increased taxes to the c i t y i n excess of the a c t u a l cost of the Park. The Park i s recorded as having a good e f f e c t on the p u b l i c h e a l t h . One doctor maintained, "Where I formerly ordered p a t i e n t s of a c e r t a i n c l a s s to give up t h e i r business a l t o g e t h e r and go out of town, I now o f t e n advise simply moderation, and p r e s c r i b e a r i d e i n the Park before going to t h e i r o f f i c e s , and again i n a d r i v e w i t h t h e i r f a m i l i e s before dinner."10 In those years, i t was perhaps d i f f i c u l t to determine the p o s i t i v e e f f e c t that C e n t r a l Park had on the mental and p h y s i c a l w e l l being of many of the poor people who l i v e d i n the c i t y but i t was undoubtably tremendous. C e n t r a l Park was probably an i n c e n t i v e f o r the growing p o p u l a r i t y of winter s p o r t s . Skating was an immediate success when the park opened. Saturday band concerts were i n s t i t u t e d i n 1859, and hel d weekly i n the summer months. A l l these a c t i v i t i e s began to happen even before the park was f i n i s h e d i n the l a t e 1870"s. When the C i v i l War came the Park Commissioners persuaded the municipal government to continue w i t h the work. Olmsted was i n Washington during that time working f o r the Red Cross and l a t e r went to C a l i f o r n i a but returned r e g u l a r l y to New York to c o l l a b o r a t e w i t h Vaux. The e f f e c t that t h i s landscaped park had on the r e s t of the n a t i o n was a l s o very s i g n i f i c a n t . I t was completed j u s t a f t e r the C i v i l War, when many c i t i e s were going through a dramatic growth and r e j u v e n a t i o n . N a t u r a l l y , every c i t y wanted a c e n t r a l park. While C e n t r a l Park i n some cases i n f l u e n c e d c i t i e s to merely acquire land somewhere i n the c i t y f o r a park, i t a l s o i n -fluenced some c i t i e s i n developing parks according to a u n i f i e d design, so -78-that today, these c i t i e s not only have breathing space, but a work of landscape a r t . One of the e a r l i e s t commissions that Olmsted and Vaux d i d a f t e r C e n t r a l Park was Prospect Park i n Brooklyn i n 1866. ( I l l u s t r a t i o n 3) I t was one of the great urban open spaces and the d r i v e through i t seemed that the designers' dream of seeming to be completely i n the country was r e a l i z e d . Again t a l l border t r e e s were used to block the view and noise of the c i t y and there were grand v i s t a s down the Great Meadow i n the park. In 1871 Olmsted and Vaux d i d p r e l i m i n a r y sketches f o r the S c h u y l k i l l R i v e r Park i n P h i l a d e l p h i a which was to become the l a r g e s t urban park i n America. These 3,500 acres were l a t e r to be named Fairmount Park and became the b a s i s of what l a t e r developed i n t o a parkway that connected w i t h the centre of the c i t y . ( I l l u s t r a t i o n 4) By 1872 by mutual consent Olmsted and Vaux separated a f t e r a suc-c e s s f u l career together. Olmsted continued w i t h h i s own f i r m and was r e s -ponsible f o r many parks i n "most of the important m u n i c i p a l i t i e s of the country."11 The l i s t of accomplishments a c c r e d i t e d to Olmsted and h i s f i r m i s lengthy. I t i n c l u d e s : In the East - Prospect Park, Brooklyn 1965 - 88 Fairmount Park, P h i l a d e l p h i a 1871 South Park, Albany 1868 B e l l e I s l a n d , D e t r o i t 1882 - 83 Mount Royal Park, Montreal 1875 - 1881 South Park, Chicago 1871 Rockwood Park, Saint John 1889 Other c i t i e s i n the East -Boston, H a r t f o r d and numerous others i n Mass. B u f f a l o , Pough Keepsie and Rochester i n New York Newark, Providence, Baltimore C a p i t a l Grounds i n Washington -79-Niagara State Park i n New York In the South -Montomery, A t l a n t a , L o u i s v i l l e Kansas C i t y , C i n c i n n a t i K n o x v i l l e , N a s h v i l l e , Richmond In the West -Golden Gate Park, San Francisco Oakland Cemetary U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , Berkeley 1866 Stanford U n i v e r s i t y Yosemite b i g t r e e r e s e r v a t i o n A l l these parks were done i n Olmsted's c h a r a c t e r i s t i c sweeping landscape s t y l e that incorporated the n a t u r a l features of the s i t e , a n d a l l of these r e f l e c t e d h i s " e s c a p i s t " theory about the f u n c t i o n of c i t y parks. His s t y l e became somewhat more formal i n h i s l a t e r years and i n 1892 he helped Daniel Burnham w i t h the s i t e s e l e c t i o n f o r the World's Columbian E x p o s i t i o n i n Chicago, which w i l l be discussed i n the next chapter. From 1863 to 1866 Olmsted went to C a l i f o r n i a to do a p r e l i m i n a r y design f o r Golden Gate Park. As was the case w i t h C e n t r a l Park,Olmsted triumphed over a s i t e that had d e f i c i e n c i e s i n s o i l and environment. His s e n s i t i v e c i r c u l a t i o n p a t t e r n prevented frequent b l a s t s of sand over the dunes and the barren environment. The design was completed a decade l a t e r by W i l l i a m Hammond H a l l , a former apprentice of Olmsted's, who worked i n the Olmsted t r a d i t i o n i n many western c i t i e s . While Olmsted was t h e r e , he em-barked on three other p r o j e c t s ; the Oakland cemetary, a plan f o r the Univer-s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a at Berkeley, and a survey of the Yosemite b i g t r e e r e s -e r v a t i o n . In the l a t e r stages of h i s career, he went back to C a l i f o r n i a ( i n a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h a Boston a r c h i t e c t u r a l firm) and prepared the design f o r Stanford U n i v e r s i t y i n Palo A l t o only 35 miles from Berkeley (1886). -80-The plan and a r c h i t e c t u r e i s more formal than that at Berkeley and r e f l e c t s the c u l t u r a l background of the r e g i o n , o r i g i n a l l y s e t t l e d by Spanish m i s s i o n -a r i e s . Olmsted was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the master p l a n , and t h i s plan respected the r e l a t i o n s h i p of the campus to the community, yet gave i t a d i g n i f i e d approach appropriate to a major u n i v e r s i t y . Another element of the American c i t y that F r e d r i c k Law Olmsted became i n v o l v e d i n was the design of the suburb. The suburb was a l o g i c a l extension of Olmsted's park philosophy of attempting to combine country l i f e and c i t y c u l t u r e . In 1869 Olmsted and Vaux designed R i v e r s i d e near the Des P l a i n e s River j u s t west of Chicago. This 10,000 person suburb was the f i r s t designed U.S. bedroom community. ( I l l u s t r a t i o n s 5 and 6). George Tobey saw that R i v e r s i d e , "represents the culmination of romantic i d e a l i s m begun i n 18th century England and tra n s p l a n t e d i n t o North American idiom w i t h 19th century t e c h n o l o g i c a l achievements superimposed."12 The suburb provided the urban worker w i t h a place i n the country remote enough that he .could r a i s e h i s f a m i l y i n s e m i r u r a l surroundings. Olmsted saw the suburb as a step beyond the p r o v i s i o n of parks, " the most a t t r a c t i v e , the most r e f i n e d and most soundly wholesome forms of domestic l i f e and the best a p p l i c a t i o n of the a r t s of c i v i l i z a t i o n to which mankind has yet a t t a i n e d . " ^ The Development of the Park System Perhaps the greatest c o n t r i b u t i o n of the United States towards the development of the 19th century park movement and the planning of towns i s the concept of a park system. T r a d i t i o n a l l y a park system i s a s e r i e s of urban parks and r e c r e a t i o n grounds that are l i n k e d i n the c i t y by a boulevard or a parkway. A boulevard i s u s u a l l y broad and s t r a i g h t , intended to be bordered by houses behind trees or hedges. A parkway i s u s u a l l y an i n f o r m a l -81-elongated park-type area v a r y i n g from 200 to 500 feet i n width, w i t h p l a n t i n g , and when p o s s i b l e f o l l o w i n g the n a t u r a l contours of the s i t e . The parkways, of course, were o r i g i n a l l y designed f o r pedestrians and c a r r i a g e s and one must imagine ourselves back a century i n time i n order to understand how the parkways were intended to f u n c t i o n . As C e n t r a l Park became the standard against which a l l other l a n d -scaped parks were to be judged, so the Boston green b e l t s , also designed by Olmsted and Charles E l i o t h i s a s s o c i a t e , became the standard f o r judging park systems. Olmsted and Vaux i n t h e i r reports f o r C e n t r a l Park and Prospect Park expressed the .point, "that the parks were only part of a mutually supple-mentary s e r i e s of parks and r e c r e a t i o n grounds widely dispersed throughout the m e t r o p o l i t a n area, and l i n k e d together by a system of connecting parkways of a widt h , c a p a c i t y , and scenic q u a l i t y of which there were then no examples i n t h i s c o u n t r y . " i ^ In the l a t e 1870's Boston d i d not have a major park except the Boston Common da t i n g to 1634. L a t e r , the P u b l i c Garden was acquired. In 1877 Olmsted suggested the c r e a t i o n of a park out of the lowland s a l t marshes of the Back Bay. The Boston Park Commission, which was s t a r t e d i n 1875, approved of Olmsted's suggestions and by 1881 had made the a p p l i c a b l e pur-chases. Olmsted used as h i s base, the Charles and Muddy Rivers.. The Muddy River was an i n s i g n i f i c a n t stream that went v i r t u a l l y unnoticed u n t i l Olmsted made i t the p r i n c i p l e feature of h i s Fens Park and the spine of h i s r e l a t e d parks and parkways ( I l l u s t r a t i o n 7). August Heckscher w r i t e s about Olmsted, -82-"Olmsted's genius can be seen i n the way he handled the Fen area. The C i t y had planned a f l o o d c o n t r o l and r e s e r v o i r system f o r the u n s i g h t l y and ordorous mouth of the Muddy R i v e r , which, seeping i n a wide d e l t a i n t o the Charles had bothered the r e s i d e n t s of the newly created Back Bay. Olmsted met the p r a c t i c a l requirements posed by floods and sewage, and at the same time created a d e l i g h t f u l park. Sewage was d i v e r t e d ; the mud f l a t s depressed by grading to a poi n t j u s t below low t i d e , w h i l e a high rim. of e n c i r c l i n g land provided a storage area f o r f l o o d waters. A t i d e gate permitted a normal ebb and flow."15 Other parts of the greenbelt such as Jamaica Pond, Olmsted Park, the Arboretum and F r a n k l i n Park were a l s o designed and developed w i t h s i m i l a r imagination. F r a n k l i n Park, the l a r g e s t park of the Boston green b e l t system was p r i m a r i l y , designed as a n a t u r a l landscape, park. Years l a t e r a g o l f course was introduced i l l u s t r a t i n g how e a s i l y the Olmsted n a t u r a l landscape could be adapted. There was one long formal promenade i n the northwest s e c t i o n of the park c a l l e d the "Greeting" which, l i k e the M a l l i n C e n t r a l Park, was intended as a meeting place and promenade f o r l o c a l c i t i z e n s . ( I l l u s t r a t i o n 8) I l l u s t r a t i o n 9 shows how the Boston park system was rooted i n the c e n t r a l c i t y at the Boston Common,and continued i n an arc anchored by F r a n k l i n Park i n the southwest. A decade a f t e r the Boston Parkway was begun by Olmsted, one of h i s apprentices and fu t u r e p a r t n e r s , Charles E l i o t c a r r i e d out many of the designs, adding h i s own c r e a t i v e ideas. E l i o t , another important eastern park pioneer was instrum e n t a l i n e s t a b l i s h i n g a Board of Trustees capable of a c q u i r i n g and h o l d i n g f o r the b e n e f i t of the p u b l i c , b e a u t i f u l and h i s t o r i c a l places i n Boston and Massachussetts. One of the f i r s t c i t i e s to f o l l o w the lead of Boston was Kansas -83-C i t y which, i n 1893 had the Texan George K e s s l e r begin work on a park system f o r the c i t y . K e s s l e r was a gardener f o r C e n t r a l Park so was w e l l acquainted w i t h the Olmsted landscape p r i n c i p l e s . While he appreciated the need to c o r r e c t and supplement the e v i l s of a crowded c i t y , K e s s l e r f e l t that the mid-west c i t y of Kansas had other needs. His people wanted p u b l i c squares, l o c a l parks and anything to p l a y up the urban p e r s p e c t i v e . K e s s l e r ' s suc-cess was i n combining the c i t y ' s n a t u r a l endowments w i t h an a r t i f i c i a l s t r u c t u r e to make the c i t y more urbane and b e a u t i f u l . A l a r g e r o u t l y i n g park was needed to anchor and complete the system, so i n 1895, Colonel Thomas Swope, a p h i l a n t h r o p i c c i t i z e n , donated 1,134 acres of pasture and woodland nine miles from the c i t y ' s centre. W i t h i n a decade the c i t y had grown to the edge of the park. I l l u s t r a t i o n s ten and eleven show how the system has had the c a p a c i t y to keep pace w i t h the growing c i t y , m a i n t a i n i n g i t s b a s i c o u t l i n e w h i l e s e r v i n g a broader area than was conceived by i t s o r i g i n a t o r s . Today Kansas C i t y has a very strong sense of c i v i c adornment. Another contemporary, and a person f o r whom Olmsted had a great deal of r e s p e c t , was H.W.S. Cleveland, the person r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the Minneapolis Park System. Cleveland had worked on Chicago's South Park before he moved to the West - "the reason f o r h i s move being the f a c t that he was upset at the way that Western c i t i e s were being s e t t l e d w i t h the r e p e t i t i o n of the grid."-'-^ He f e l t i t d i d not enhance the character of the land and s a c r i f i c e d chances f o r the c i t i e s to form t h e i r own character. In the e a r l y 1880's when Cleve-land was h i r e d he was to discover that Minneapolis not only had the M i s s i s s - . i p p i R i v e r , but a l s o a s e r i e s of lakes on the c i t y ' s o u t s k i r t s . Cleveland -84-used the n a t u r a l features to fashion a s e r i e s of parks, and although the park system has been added to over the years, i t has l o s t v i r t u a l l y none of i t s former c h a r a c t e r . ( I l l u s t r a t i o n 12). I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g that i n a 1971 study of the Minneapolis parkways, i t was confirmed that the parkway had met the four goals Cleveland had set out i n the e a r l y 1880's. I t was found t h a t : i t provides a v i s u a l r e l i e f from the man made c i t y ; i t defines the edges that give form to the c i t y and gives an i d e n t i t y to the neighbour-hoods; i t serves as a drainage system; and i t s u p p l i e s an important r e c -r e a t i o n a l function.17 Both Cleveland and K e s s l e r went on to design other p u b l i c parks i n the West and Mid West and were an important part of the p u b l i c park move-ment i n the United States. Yet another apprentice of Olmsted's W i l l i a m Hammond H a l l went to the west coast of the U.S. and c a r r i e d on the Olmsted t r a d i t i o n there. The West Coast Experience San Francisco i s a c i t y which has r e l i e d very h e a v i l y on the under-l y i n g topographic c o n d i t i o n s to help form i t s open space system. Telegraph H i l l i n the centre of the c i t y dominates the downtown area and the p o r t . I t s summit i s crowned by a small park. Today, through the i n g e n u i t y of a few dedicated people,the major open spaces of the area, P r e s i d o , Lake Merced and Golden Gate Park are l i n e d by boulevards to create a very f i n e open space system along the P a c i f i c Ocean. ( I l l u s t r a t i o n 13). In the c i t y of San F r a n c i s c o , the l a y of the land combined w i t h the g r i d s t r e e t pattern,has the e f f e c t of c r e a t i n g views which are independent of any formal open space. A person can look down many s t r e e t s and see the -85-land and sea, a s i t u a t i o n very s i m i l a r to areas i n the C i t y of Vancouver. These view p o i n t s have become extremely important to the people of San Francisco and i n t h e i r minds, form part of an open space or "park system". Except f o r a small area i n the c i t y c e ntre, b u i l d i n g has been kept to a t r a d i t i o n a l s m a l l s c a l e , so that one i s always confronted w i t h a view of the c i t y and i t s environs. The " s t r e e t ends" were threatened j u s t before the earthquake when Da n i e l Burnham d i d a. plan f o r San Francisco,proposing a m o d i f i c a t i o n of the g r i d , w i t h broad avenues and with roads f o l l o w i n g the con-tours of the h i l l s . A f t e r the earthquake, when the people were faced w i t h a r e b u i l d i n g process, they chose to keep the g r i d , l a r g e l y f o r p r a c t i c a l and sentimental reasons. In 1890, the San Franciscans f e l t that they wanted a l a r g e park. The s i t e that Olmsted had e a r l i e r done the p r e l i m i n a r y plans f o r and ad-vocated as the major park, was chosen. The C i t y h i r e d W i l l i a m Hammond H a l l to do the design f o r the long narrow s t r e t c h of dunes reaching from D i v i d a -dero Street westward to the sea. Olmsted's i n f l u e n c e continued as H a l l t e n -a c i o u s l y sought h i s advice and b l e s s i n g on the design. Because the sands were subject to constant s h i f t i n g w i t h the strong P a c i f i c winds, H a l l designed the park w i t h serpentine roads and planted grasses and p l a n t s that were brought down from the h i l l s and imported from abroad. F i n a l l y , H a l l had thousands of seedlings of cypress and pine planted to provide anchorage f o r f u r t h e r p l a n t i n g s . In 1890, Golden Gate Park came under the c o n t r o l of an ex t r a o r d i n a r y park superintendent named John McClaren. He presided over h i s domain f o r more than f i f t y years, f o r c e f u l l y guiding the park through many t h r e a t s of encroach--86-ment and t h r e a t s to h i s idea of an i d e a l park. For example, McClaren hated " s t o o k i e s " - statues of would be famous f i g u r e s donated to the park - and ordered h i s gardeners to screen them from view w i t h n a t u r a l growth. Heckscher says of McClaren, "(He) was g i f t e d w i t h l o n g e v i t y and n a t u r a l a u t h o r i t y , that great park empires seemed to r e q u i r e f o r t h e i r development."18 Although Golden Gate was the p r i n c i p l e park, McClaren d i d not neglect the other green areas he was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r . He was aware of the b e n e f i t of a c q u i r i n g a h i l l t o p or a b i t of coast. Today, although the C i t y of San Francisco does not have any l a r g e parks downtown, i t does have magni-f i c e n t views and v i s t a s , w i t h a very l a r g e and w e l l connected park system j u s t a short distance away. Los Angeles, another c i t y determined by geography, has not been as s u c c e s s f u l i n a c q u i r i n g a comprehensive park system. I t never experienced the i n f l u e n c e of an Olmsted, an E l i o t , . o r a McClaren to shape a downtown park system, and w h i l e those men were reshaping older c i t i e s , Los Angeles was absorbing thousands of s e t t l e r s from a l l over the country. Because of the favourable c l i m a t e , the c r e a t i o n of downtown urban parks never rec e i v e d the same p r i o r i t y as i n New York and Boston w i t h t h e i r crowded tenements and unpleasant l i v i n g c o n d i t i o n s . When the country-wide park movement was at i t s height during the l a s t h a l f of the 19th century, Los Angeles was s t i l l a settlement w i t h numerous uninhabited green spaces. I t was L.A. County r a t h e r than the C i t y that developed a park system i n l a t e r years. The parks were l o c a t e d i n o u t l y i n g canyons and mountains, and w h i l e the distance from the po p u l a t i o n was greater than i n the East, t r a v e l time was based on the automobile r a t h e r than the s t r e e t c a r . The mountains and canyons were th e r e f o r e r e l a t i v e l y a c c e s s i b l e provided that each c i t i z e n had an automobile. The C i t y of Los Angeles however, d i d not use the Eastern example of c r e a t i n g parks w i t h i n the C i t y area, and because there was no strong park t r a d i t i o n , freeways have r e c e n t l y encroached upon open spaces such as G r i f f i t h Park, E l y s i a n Park, H o l l e n b i c k Park, and V i c t o r y Park. A study done by Harland Bartholemew i n 1930, emphasized the C i t y ' s d e f i c i e n c y i n open and r e c r e a t i o n a l space,and recommended that 74,000 acres i n the Santa Monica Mountains be acquired. August Heckscher p o i n t s out that the advice has not been taken s e r i o u s l y and there has been no concern f o r the n a t u r a l appearance of the land i n developing i t , o r , t o the need f o r open space.19 ( I l l u s t r a t i o n 14) The C i t y of Los Angeles seems to have experienced the "pioneer s p i r i t gone rampant". The idea of the sacredness of p r i v a t e property and development has been very strong i n Southern C a l i f o r n i a due to the h i s t o r i c a l circumstance of i t being the l a s t American f r o n t i e r . The i n d i f f e r e n c e to the c r e a t i o n of downtown p u b l i c space i s very understandable when one looks at the development of the c i t y . Los Angeles, as mentioned e a r l i e r , lacked the f o r e s i g h t or i n f l u e n c e of people of the s t a t u r e of Olmsted and h i s followers,who d i d much towards the development of a park pholosophy i n c i t i e s a l l across the U.S. S e a t t l e , i n the P a c i f i c Northwest, a l s o has a n a t u r a l s i t e which has had a strong i n f l u e n c e on the development of the c i t y . I t l i e s between two bodies of water, Puget Sound and Lake Washington. Within the c i t y l i e s -88-Green Lake, Lake Union and the Duwanish R i v e r . There are ridges or elongated h i l l s , t h a t i n general, run p a r a l l e l to the shorelines,and which provide r e f e r -ence p o i n t s to people i n the c i t y as w e l l as v i s u a l r e l i e f . These features together, give the c i t y a tremendous sense of openness, and o f f e r n a t u r a l views of e i t h e r the h i l l s or the water. In 1903 the park commissioners requested a plan f o r a park system, from the landscape f i r m of the Olmsted Brothers of Boston. 2^ The Olmsteds found that there were a number of parks at t h i s time, but they were widely s c a t t e r e d i n a c i t y undergoing r a p i d growth. They prepared a p l a n that i n -volved the expansion of e x i s t i n g parks, which were l i n k e d by parkways i n t o an organized open space system t h a t r e f l e c t e d the e x i s t i n g contours and the views of water and mountains. In 1909 the park commissioners reported that the Olmsted plan had been adopted and that a "bond i s s u e of one m i l l i o n d o l l a r s had been passed almost unanimously" and that "wonderful progress" had been made toward the . development ( I l l u s t r a t i o n 15). The 1903 plan recommended a major new park and the extension of the system by means of lakeshore d r i v e s and connected parkways u n t i l i t touched many of the c i t y ' s n a t u r a l f e a t u r e s . Seward Park at B a i l e y ' s P eninsula formed the major park w i t h i n the system,and green space connected i t to the lake at the U n i v e r s i t y of Washington, the Arboretum,and Washington Park. I t continues along I n t e r l a k e n Drive,where at the h i l l t o p Volunteer Park, there i s a marvelous view of Puget Sound. Another branch f o l l o w s a proposed parkway to Ravenna Park. -89-Although S e a t t l e ' s park system i s broken by incompatible land uses and other gaps, i t does r e p r e s e n t ^ good example of how parks and the n a t u r a l t e r r a i n can compliment each other. L i k e other U.S. c i t i e s i n the l a t e 1880's, S e a t t l e i s an example of a c i t y which commissioned a plan to help d i r e c t and p r i o r i z e a park system w i t h i n the r a p i d l y growing c i t y . I t seems from the evidence, that park development i n the West was an extension of the p r i n c i p l e s of park development i n the E a s t , i f _ there was a design plan or person to help keep s i g h t of these p r i n c i p l e s . Because the c i t i e s i n the West were not experiencing the negative e f f e c t s of crowded l i v i n g c o n d i t i o n s , the existence of p u b l i c parks was not a p r i o r i t y i n c i t i e s l i k e Los Angeles. In the c i t i e s l i k e San Francisco and S e a t t l e that d i d bene-f i t from the f o r e s i g h t of some i n d i v i d u a l s , the important features of topo-graphy were handled i n a very complimentary way. A c t i v e Recreation The Olmsted s t y l e of landscape was w e l l s u i t e d to passive and semi-a c t i v e r e c r e a t i o n . . In C e n t r a l Park, playground areas were set aside at the time of i t s design, but these were minor features of the general plan and were designed i n such a way as not to i n t e r f e r e w i t h the o v e r a l l concept. The landscape a r c h i t e c t s of the l a t e 19th century and w e l l i n t o the 20th century, discouraged the design of r e c r e a t i o n areas f o r planned e x e r c i s e and competition, and, as a r e s u l t , many l a r g e parks d i d not conta i n much i n the way of a c t i v e r e c r e a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s such as b a l l grounds or ten n i s c o u r t s . " I t was i n t o t h i s environment of passive r e c r e a t i o n that the demand f o r a c t i v e play began to usurp c e r t a i n areas of these l a r g e r landscaped parks."^1 -90-In the 1880's, beginning w i t h sand courts f o r c h i l d r e n and outdoor gymnasiums i n the Charlesbank area of Boston, the "playground movement f o r c h i l d r e n " grew i n t o a " r e c r e a t i o n movement" which served a l l age groups and which had a profound e f f e c t on the e n t i r e pioneer conception of parks and t h e i r r e c r e a t i o n f u n c t i o n . I t changed the uses of parts or the whole of e x i s t i n g parks - a s i t u a t i o n that met w i t h some o p p o s i t i o n from people of the Olmstedian school and from some of the governing park a u t h o r i t i e s . Some of these people lacked the breadth of understanding to accept the new trend of r e c r e a t i o n and to inco r p o r a t e these demands i n t o s u i t a b l e designs. On t h e . other hand, the playground leaders that were of t e n h i r e d had no deep under-standing of landscape a r c h i t e c t u r e or of the a r t of park design. What occurred i n many c i t i e s , w a s that between 1890 and 1920, there was a d i s r u p t i o n of p r e v i o u s l y w e l l designed parks by the i n t r u s i o n of a c t i v e r e c r e a t i o n f a c i l i -t i e s improperly placed and improperly designed. There were a l s o some very barren playgrounds created i n some neighbourhoods. The end of the 19th century saw the development of " r e c r e a t i o n departments" which looked a f t e r " r e c r e a t i o n areas",as opposed to "park departments" which looked a f t e r parks defined as n a t u r a l i z e d passive r e t r e a t s . As a r e s u l t , the parks r e c e i v e d much more design a t t e n t i o n than the r e c r e a t i o n areas - a s i t u a t i o n that l a s t e d i n most p a r t s of the country u n t i l a f t e r World War I I . George Tobey quotes from Waugh's H i s t o r y of Garden A r t : "In order to complete the d i s c u s s i o n of American park design, a few observations on l a t e r work may be added. Two new conditons began to change the' park problem soon a f t e r Olmsted's death. The f i r s t of these was the f u r t h e r growth and i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n of American c i t i e s , r e q u i r i n g -91-1 neighbourhood playgrounds' of a new type. The second was the i n t r o d u c t i o n of a new means of passenger t r a n s i t at the out s e t , the e l e c t r i c tram.and l a t e r the much more i n f l u e n t i a l automobile."22 Because playgrounds were not seen as being compatible w i t h the scenic park i d e a , they developed t h e i r own form which became a new development on the American landscape. The trend began to d i c t a t e the c r e a t i o n of small playgrounds s c a t t e r e d throughout the r e s i d e n t i a l s e c t i o n s of the c i t y , w i t h the l a r g e r p e r i p h e r a l parks made p o s s i b l e by the improvement of t r a n s p o r t . The f i r s t f r u i t s of t h i s movement were seen i n the Boston Park system under Charles E l i o t , and w i t h i n a short p e r i o d , Minneapolis and Chicago a l s o created playgrounds. Some of the energy i n the park movement was d i v e r t e d i n t o the demand f o r s t a t e and n a t i o n a l parks. There developed a movement at the turn of the century to preserve considerable areas of n a t i v e landscape f o r purposes of h e a l t h , education and r e c r e a t i o n . These parks, then, l i k e the urban parks f i f t e e n years p r e v i o u s l y , were a statement of the nationwide acceptance of the importance of n a t u r a l scenery to the general pleasure and welfare of the people. The Development of P u b l i c Parks i n Canada E l s i e McFarland, i n her t h e s i s A H i s t o r i c a l A n a l y s i s of the Develop- ment of P u b l i c Recreation i n Canadian Communities, s t a t e s that l o c a l govern-ment evolved slowly i n Canada,partly due to s c a t t e r e d population,but p r i m a r i l y due to the f a c t that the war of independence i n the c o l o n i e s to the south had caused those i n a u t h o r i t y to view too much l o c a l autonomy w i t h suspicion.23 -92-As a r e s u l t , w i t h the simple exception of Saint John, New Brunswick, which received i t s charter i n 1785, the c e n t r a l government, through m a g i s t r a t e s , made a l l l o c a l d e c i s i o n s w e l l i n t o the 19th century. In 1867 therefore,when Ontario, Quebec, Nova S c o t i a and New Brunswick formed the Dominion of Canada, many c i t i e s had very l i t t l e experience i n the r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of l o c a l government. Despite t h i s f a c t , and probably because, of the beginnings of a park movement i n the U.S., there was nevertheless an e a r l y advocacy of open space f o r p u b l i c use. Canadians learned q u i c k l y that the best way of obt a i n i n g these parks was through the Dominion government or by s o l i c i t i n g a p r i v a t e g i f t . Examples of l o c a l p u b l i c park a c q u i s i t i o n p r i o r to 1867 are few. The H a l i f a x Common, Canada's counterpart to the Boston Common i n the U.S., was granted to p u b l i c o f f i c e r s i n the town of H a l i f a x i n 1763 by the Lieutenant Governor of Nova S c o t i a . I t was o r i g i n a l l y used as a pasturage f o r the l o c a l c i t i z e n s , and as an e x e r c i s e ground f o r the m i l i t i a . Today the Common has been reduced to l e s s than one h a l f i t s o r i g i n a l s i z e and has been developed i n t o a major r e c r e a t i o n area in. the heart of downtown H a l i f a x . From i t s beginnings, the Common, u n l i k e many other parks of i t s time, was used f o r a c t i v e r e c r e a t i o n . In Toronto, a committee on P u b l i c Walks and Gardens was e s t a b l i s h e d i n 1851. One of t h e i r e a r l i e s t r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s was the r e t e n t i o n and develop-ment of the 287 acre G a r r i s o n reserve which was leased to the c i t y by the m i l i t a r y authories i n 1848. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g that the lease was c o n d i t i o n a l upon the c i t y • having land "plowed, sowed w i t h grass, enclosed with a fence, planted w i t h t r e e s , and l a i d out i n pleasure grounds and an ornamental park f o r - 9 3 -the purposes of the pleasure and r e c r e a t i o n of the i n h a b i t a n t s of Toronto."^A Games could not be played without permission which was a very d i f f e r e n t case from the H a l i f a x Common. In 1860, a bylaw entrusted the care of a l l the c i t y ' s p u b l i c squares, parks and grounds to the Committee on P u b l i c Walks and Gardens. The C i t y of Montreal had a s i m i l a r a t t i t u d e when i n 1865, a C i t y by-law was passed designating the boundaries of t h i r t e e n open spaces i n the c i t y and " s e v e r e l y r e g u l a t i n g " t h e i r use to exclude a l l games, and any walking or l y i n g on the grass."^^ Montreal's i n t e r e s t i n p u b l i c open space o r i g i n a t e d i n 1821 when the Governor Lord Dalhousie donated a piece of land to the C i t y f o r a p u b l i c square. The Place d'Armes Square which was used as a p u b l i c open space s i n c e the French regime,was purchased by the C i t y i n 1840. F i n a l l y by Confederation i n 1867., the C i t y was c o n s i d e r i n g the pur-chase of Mount Royal f o r development i n t o a major park. I t i s probably safe to assume th a t i n the case of Montreal, the t r a d i t i o n of not p l a y i n g games and not walking on the grass i n a p u b l i c open space i s of French o r i g i n . The m a j o r i t y of Torontonians, on the other hand, came from a B r i t i s h background and were f a m i l i a r w i t h the p r a c t i c e of walking on grass. There i s evidence from the l e t t e r s of George L a i n g , a landscape gardener working i n the Hamilton region from 1856 to 1867, that there had been landscape gardening i n Ontario and that i t was of the " E n g l i s h landscape s t y l e " of Brown and Repton. Later, Laing was to use. the "Gardenesque" s t y l e of Pennethorne and Paxton, h i s contemporaries i n England.^6 Laing himself worked f o r wealthy B r i t i s h immigrants i n and around Hamilton and Ancaster, so i t was l i k e l y that the B r i t i s h landscape t r a d i t i o n was a l s o evident around Toronto. Since at t h i s time i n England, games were not encouraged i n parks -94-and i n the p r e - C e n t r a l Park America, games were unheard of i n parks, i t i s l o g i c a l that game p l a y i n g i n p u b l i c parks was not encouraged i n Toronto e i t h e r . There are numerous parks i n Canada that were acquired by grant or lease a f t e r 1867. In many cases, the s e n i o r government leased or granted the use of parks to the l o c a l governments. Much of the land had o r i g i n a l l y been re t a i n e d f o r defence purposes and i t i s l i k e l y that the l e s s e n i n g f r i c t i o n w i t h the U.S. was a major reason f o r i t s t r a n s f e r to peaceful purposes. The C i t y of H a l i f a x was founded i n 1749 as a defence outpost to guard the B r i t i s h Empire's northern c o l o n i a l i n t e r e s t s . 2 7 S h o r t l y a f t e r the s e t t l e r s a r r i v e d , they a p p l i e d to the Governor of Nova S c o t i a f o r 235 acres on the penninsula of H a l i f a x to serve as a common. Because t h i s p u b l i c open space was f i r s t conceived as a common or "land e s t a b l i s h e d f o r communal use by the peasants." and not as a p u b l i c park, i t has experienced many encroach-ments over the years - a l l i n the name of "worthy causes". In 1837, the Nova S c o t i a H o r t i c u l t u r a l S o c i e t y was granted acreage to "improve the c u l t u r e of the best kinds of f r u i t , the most u s e f u l vegetable, shrubs, t r e e s , and choice f l o w e r s . " 2 8 This s e c t i o n of the, Common was l a t e r c a l l e d the P u b l i c Garden. The Common's f i r s t superintendent, Richard Power, had experience i n e s t a t e gardening i n England and i n the U.S. He designed gardens that today bear the i n f l u e n c e of B r i t i s h landscape design i n that they represent the idea of passive r e c r e a t i o n . A c t i v e r e c r e a t i o n p u r s u i t s appeared i n 1863 when Canada's f i r s t covered i c e r i n k opened i n the Common and again i n 1876 when the f i r s t p u b l i c tennis courts were e s t a b l i s h e d i n the P u b l i c Garden. In 1879 the E x h i b i t i o n B u i l d i n g was b u i l t which not only served as a place to hold e x h i b i t i o n s , but al s o as a f a c i l i t y f o r i c e s k a t i n g i n the wi n t e r and as a sm a l l a r t g a l l e r y . In 1886 the Wanderers' Amateur A t h l e t i c A s s o c i a t i o n became e s t a b l i s h e d on what i s now the Wanderer's Ground on the Common., The-members p a r t i c i p a t e d i n a c t i v i t i e s l i k e f o o t b a l l , hockey, c r i c k e t , b a s e b a l l , t r a c k and f i e l d , c u r l i n g , snowshoeing and b i c y c l i n g . 2 9 Horse r a c i n g appeared i n the North Common i n the mid 1850's. Despite the a c t i v i t i e s of groups such as the Soci e t y f o r the Pre-s e r v a t i o n of the Common, encroachments have reduced the area of the Common from the o r i g i n a l 235 acres to l e s s than 63 acres. These encroachments have been i n the form of: a cemetery e s t a b l i s h e d i n 1833; the C i t y H o s p i t a l i n 1859; the Poor Asylum f o r the B l i n d i n 1868; the Convent of the Sacred Heart i n 1886; Dalhousie College i n 1887; and an assortment of schools, a broadcasting studio, and other h o s p i t a l s . Today the Common i s sectioned i n t o f i v e parts;, the North Common, the C e n t r a l Common and the Wanderer's ground which .provide space f o r the major s p o r t i n g f a c i l i t i e s and which promote a c t i v e r e c r e a t i o n ; and the P u b l i c Gardens and V i c t o r i a Park, which remain as passive park areas c a t e r i n g to l e i s u r e p u r s u i t s of. s t r o l l i n g , l i s t e n i n g to concerts and viewing f l o r a l d i s p l a y s . The h i s t o r i c a l development of the Common a l s o i l l u s t r a t e s s e v e r a l d i s t i n c t l y d i f f e r e n t park designs. The Common experienced a blending of uses and ideas over the years and t h i s i s probably due to the f a c t that i t was not termed a " p u b l i c park" from the beginning. I t was not designed at one time by a landscape a r c h i t e c t , -96-but evolved n a t u r a l l y , c r e a t i n g a m u l t i - f u n c t i o n a l landscape. The easy i n -t r o d u c t i o n of a c t i v e r e c r e a t i o n i n t o the Common i s a l s o probably due to the f a c t that a Common was o r i g i n a l l y perceived as an acreage f o r the "general needs" of the i n h a b i t a n t s of H a l i f a x . In the c i t y of London, Ontario, V i c t o r i a Park was formerly a d r i l l ground f o r a B r i t i s h g a r r i s o n . The 1,429 acre area was deeded to the c i t y by the Federal Government i n 1869 f o r the purpose of a p u b l i c park. Stanley Park i n Vancouver was a l s o a m i l i t a r y reserve p r i o r to 1886, when the Dominion Government leased the "Coal Penninsula" to the Cit y , which had j u s t i ncorporated. The f a c t that the c i t y founders i n a c i t y of 10,000>gave the matter of a c q u i r i n g a p u b l i c park p r i o r i t y at t h e i r f i r s t c o u n c i l meeting, was q u i t e i n c r e d i b l e . Although the c i t y of Saint John which was the f i r s t c i t y i n Canada to r e c e i v e i t s c h a r t e r (1785), i t was not given r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r i t s f i r s t p u b l i c park. Rockwood Park, a 1,700 acre s i t e i n downtown Saint John,had i t s beginnings when the Canadian Government authorized the Saint John H o r t i -c u l t u r a l Society to e s t a b l i s h gardens, a park and a pleasure r e s o r t , and to acquire the necessary land by g i f t , purchase or leas e . The Society was.even given the r i g h t to expr o p r i a t e lands not acquired by agreement.30 C a l v e r t Vaux had e a r l i e r prepared the o r i g i n a l plans f o r the development of Rockwood Park and submitted them i n 1889. The o r i g i n a l Vaux plan was l a i d out f o r 320 a c r e s , but by 1914 the park had become 500 acres .and i n 1936 a l a r g e grant increased i t to i t s present s i z e . The plan i n c l u d e d walks and d r i v e s , h o r t i -c u l t u r e gardens, z o o l o g i c a l gardens, and a c h i l d r e n ' s playground. Much of the plan was developed and the Olmsted s t y l e landscape i s evident i n part of -97-Rockwood Park today. S t . Helen's I s l a n d at the entrance of Montreal was w e l l s i t u a t e d f o r f o r t i f i c a t i o n against attack,and was the s i t e of m i l i t a r y i n s t a l l a t i o n s during the French regime and l a t e r a f t e r the B r i t i s h Conquest. I t was s o l d to the B r i t i s h Government i n 1818 from the Longeuil family,and was then i n -tense l y f o r t i f i e d as a m i l i t a r y base. F o l l o w i n g Confederation, St. Helen's I s l a n d was ceded to the Dominion and taken over by the m i l i t i a . The govern-ment granted the c i t y use of the s i t e as a p u b l i c park from 1874 and i n 1905 the c i t y purchased the i s l a n d f o r $200,000. St. Helen's was e v e n t u a l l y to become the s i t e f o r Expo 67. Mount Royal Park i n Montreal was the f i r s t Canadian park to be designed by a landscape a r c h i t e c t - and i t rec e i v e d the be s t , F r e d r i c k Law Olmsted. In the 1860's the mountain top was removed from what was then the c i t y and t h e r e f o r e some doubted the value of the mountain as a park. In 1860, Mr. John Redpath had o f f e r e d to donate twelve acres of h i s land on top of the mountain to the c i t y f o r a p u b l i c park, but the o f f e r was not accepted by the C o u n c i l . When Captain A.A. Stevenson became an alderman i n 1861, he managed to change the a t t i t u d e of the other c o u n c i l members. John Redpath's property was f i n a l l y purchased i n 1875 at a cost to the c i t y of more than $83,000; Redpath's i n i t i a l o f f e r was withdrawn a f t e r being hurt by the Council's o r i g i n a l "snub".-*! In 1874 a board of Commissioners who were appointed from w i t h i n the C o u n c i l , took r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the management and s u p e r v i s i o n of the park and approached Olmsted to prepare a p l a n . Olmsted was r e l u c t a n t to do the design because he was not sure he could do j u s t i c e to the s i t e without having -98-l i v e d i n the area.32 He was c o n s t a n t l y f r u s t r a t e d by the l a c k of s t a b l e p o l i c y on the part of the C o u n c i l and the Commission, and when h i s plans were f i n a l l y submitted i n 1877 he f e l t that h i s work had been f u t i l e . He was very concerned about f u t u r e encroachments i n the park. Olmsted urged the Council to r e t a i n the wilderness and s e c l u s i o n of the park that had f i r s t made i t a t t r a c t i v e , and urged i t s development and management as a work of a r t . This v i s i o n would preclude l o c a t i n g roads, walks, b u i l d i n g s and other man-made s t r u c t u r e s s o l e l y on economic .considera-t i o n s and would r e q u i r e a p o l i c y of development that would b e n e f i t the pro-perty as a whole. He begged the C i t y to r e s i s t the temptation of p u t t i n g i n flower beds, f l o w e r i n g shrubs and " f l o r a l embroidery" that would r u i n the t o t a l l y n a t u r a l environment. Some people i n Montreal d i d l i s t e n to Olmsted's message. A group of women l e d by Lady Hingston, w i f e o f . a former mayor, formed the Parks P r o t e c t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n i n 1896 to prevent the Montreal Street Railway from l a y i n g two miles of double t r a c k across Mount Royal Park. The l a d i e s ob-tained the signatures of 20,000 women on a p e t i t i o n to C i t y C ouncil and on the day the p e t i t i o n was presented, the company g r a c e f u l l y withdrew i t s r e -quest. This was the f i r s t c i t i z e n ' s group i n Canada to become i n v o l v e d i n the p r e s e r v a t i o n of parkland. The A s s o c i a t i o n i n years to come was to act many times f o r the park and was i n s t r u m e n t a l i n preventing encroachments such as the e r e c t i o n of a lookout restaurant. In 1902 the a s s o c i a t i o n be-came the Parks and Playground A s s o c i a t i o n of Montreal. Despite eventual encroachments l i k e the u n s i g h t l y t e l e v i s i o n towers, the "present Mount Royal Park i s a t r i b u t e to more than seventy years of e f f o r t s by a c i t i z e n s ' group -99-that i n s i s t e d on a stake i n the future of Montreal. The Park stands as evidence, too, of those C i t y Councils that sought, but seldom heeded, expert advice."^3 Apart from the Dominion Government gra n t i n g leases on land f o r pub-l i c parks there was a .nee'd f o r l e g i s l a t i o n enabling the general development of m u n i c i p a l parks. In 1883 the Province of Ontario passed the f i r s t Can-adian l e g i s l a t i o n which empowered l o c a l governments to appoint boards of park management to be composed of the mayor and s i x other non-members of C o u n c i l . These parks Boards were permitted to purchase land f o r park purposes not to exceed 1,000 acres i n the case of c i t i e s , and 500 acres i n the case of towns. The C i t y of Toronto d i d not adopt the Parks Act when i t became law i n 1883 because the Council d i d not want to share i t s power w i t h another a u t h o r i t y . Some of the f i r s t c i t i e s to adopt the P u b l i c Parks Act and es-t a b l i s h a Board of Parks Management were; Port Arthur i n 1888, Ottawa i n 1893, Kitchener i n 1894, Hamilton i n 1900 and B r a n t f o r d i n 1901. Manitoba passed s i m i l a r l e g i s l a t i o n i n 1892. Calgary obtained an amendment to i t s c h a r t e r i n 1910, which provided f o r the establishment of a Parks Board " c o n s i s t i n g of a mayor, the c i t y commissioners and s i x other members to be appointed by C o u n c i l . " ^ ^ The Parks Board i n Calgary was short l i v e d how-ever! In 1913 a f u r t h e r amendment to the Calgary C i t y Charter repealed the power of the Parks Board and r e i n s t a t e d i t w i t h the C o u n c i l and C i t y Commis-si o n e r s . The C i t y of Vancouver operated i t s parks w i t h a Park Committee made up of three members of C o u n c i l w i t h three c i t i z e n s , from 1888 u n t i l 1890, when a change i n the C i t y Charter permitted an e l e c t e d Board of Park Commissioners. Vancouver was the f i r s t c i t y i n Canada to have an e l e c t e d board. -100-At the end of the 19th Century s e v e r a l c i t i e s i n Canada had es-t a b l i s h e d Parks Boards while many others continued w i t h committees of c o u n c i l . These two p r i n c i p l e s of operation demonstrate the e s s e n t i a l d i f -ference between the B r i t i s h p r i n c i p l e of municipal government which ve s t s a l l power w i t h i n an e l e c t e d c o u n c i l , and the U.S. p r i n c i p l e of the separation of power, which permits removal from the j u r i s d i c t i o n of c o u n c i l c e r t a i n func-t i o n s of government.35 i n the case of Toronto, the C i t y C o u n c i l j e a l o u s l y guarded i t s power against the e f f o r t s of va r i o u s groups to o b t a i n a separate parks commission. Vancouver, on the other hand,went a step f u r t h e r than p l a c i n g parks i n the hands of an appointed board, by p l a c i n g i t i n the hands of an e l e c t e d one. This was one of numerous U.S. i n f l u e n c e s that Vancouver was experiencing at the time because of i t s geographical l o c a t i o n and t i e s to the West Coast. Summary At the end of the 19th century one could look back and see that out of C e n t r a l Park and the beginnings of Park Systems came four r e l a t e d pheno-mena: 1) the precedent design s t y l e f o r the U.S. was based on nature-o r i e n t e d parks; 2) the landscape a r c h i t e c t u r e school provided many park a u t h o r i t y l e a d e r s ; 3) there occurred a s p l i t i n r e c r e a t i o n a u t h o r i t i e s i n t o passive r e c r e a t i o n e n t h u s i a s t s and a c t i v e r e c r e a t i o n advocates; and f i n a l l y , 4) the development of park systems c o n s t i t u t e d the f i r s t comprehensive de-s i g n plans i n c i t y planning and caused c i v i c leaders to begin t h i n k i n g about t h e i r c i t y comprehensively. From the preceeding chapter, i t i s evident that an argument can be made that these t r a d i t i o n s are a c t u a l l y rooted i n a r e v o l u -t i o n that occurred i n B r i t a i n before the development of C e n t r a l Park. The park designs and ideas that were being p r a c t i c e d i n the l a s t h a l f of the 19th Century i n the U.S. were unquestionably i n f l u e n c e d by the chain of events that -101-occurred i n B r i t a i n during the f i r s t h a l f of the 19th century. F o r t u n a t e l y , there were Americans such as Downing and Olmsted, who accepted these t r a d i -t i o n s , but who modified some of the p r i n c i p l e s to accommodate the American c u l t u r e , c l i m a t e , and needs of the people. In the West, because there wasn't the urgent need to designate park area to a l l e v i a t e the e v i l s of the l a r g e c i t y , the c r e a t i o n of park space was not a top p r i o r i t y w i t h some c i t i e s . Those which experienced the e a r l y presence of a landscape a r c h i t e c t and a committed park superintendent seemed to have acquired b e t t e r preserved, and b e t t e r i n t e g r a t e d park systems. The incremental park a c q u i s i t i o n approach that Los Angeles took f o r example, has r e s u l t e d i n a po o r l y defined park system that i s sadly d e f i c i e n t i n open space. In Canada, there were very few landscape a r c h i t e c t - d e s i g n e d parks. Most e a r l y parks were a grant or lease from the Dominion government, and i n l o c a l c o u n c i l s , i n a few cases, a parks board would determine the r e q u i r e -ments f o r the park. Design i n f l u e n c e s were l a r g e l y American, and i n the case of Vancouver the i n f l u e n c e tended to be West Coast American. The f a c t that Canada lagged behind the U.S. i n park design produced an i n t e r e s t i n g s i t u a t i o n when the C i t y B e a u t i f u l and C i v i c A r t movements developed i n the U.S. and B r i t a i n . Canada's tardy involvement r e s u l t e d i n the s h e l v i n g of numerous "grandiose" c i v i c and park plans because of the commencement of World War I and the s h i f t i n g of -energies elsewhere. The r e -s u l t was the absence of very formal park landscapes, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n Western Canada and s p e c i f i c a l l y , i n Vancouver. -102-FOOTNOTES 1 George Tobey, A H i s t o r y of Landscape A r c h i t e c t u r e : the  R e l a t i o n s h i p of People to Environment (New York: American E l s e v i e r Pub., Co., Inc. , 1973) , p. 154. 2 I b i d . , p. 158. 3 I b i d . , p. 156. ^ F r e d r i c k Law Olmsted, Landscape i n t o Cityscape: F r e d r i c k Law  Olmsted's Plans f o r a Greater New York C i t y (New York: C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1968), p. 30. 5 F r e d r i c k Law Olmsted, Forty Years of Landscape A r c h i t e c t u r e : C e n t r a l Park (Cambridge Mass: The MIT Press, 1973), p. 14. 6 Charles E. D o e l l and Gerald B. F i t z g e r a l d , A B r i e f H i s t o r y of  Parks and Recreation i n the United States (Chicago: A t h l e t i c I n s t i t u t e , 1954) , p. 26. 7 Olmsted, Landscape i n t o Cityscape, p. 28. ^ George F. Chadwick, The Park and the Town (New York: F r e d r i c k A. Praeger Pub., 1966), p. 184. 9 In a c t u a l i t y , the conservatory was not b u i l t and the flower garden was replaced by a b a s i n f o r a f o u n t a i n , l a t e r used f o r model boats. 1 0 Olmsted, Forty Years, p. 172. 1 1 D o e l l and F i t z g e r a l d , p. 32. 1 2 Tobey, p. 165. 1 3 r Olmsted, Landscape i n t o Cityscape, p. 42. 1 4 - Chadwick, p. 191. -103-15 August Heckscher, Open Space: The L i f e of American C i t i e s (New York: Harper and Row Pub., 1977), pp. 196 - 197. 1 6 I b i d . , p. 126. 1 7 I b i d . , p. 208. 1 8 I b i d . , p. 83. 19- Heckscher, p. 87. 2 0 The Olmsted brothers of Boston were F r e d r i c k Law's sons John and F r e d r i c k J r . The Olmsted brothers report, i s p r i n t e d i n "Parks, P l a y -grounds, and Boulevards of S e a t t l e , Washington" issued by the Board of Park Commissioners i n 1902. Heckscher, Open Space, p. 76. 2 1• D o e l l and F i t z g e r a l d , p. 36. . 2 2 I b i d . , p. 38. 2 ^ E l s i e Marie McFarland, "A H i s t o r i c a l A n a l y s i s of the Development of P u b l i c Recreation i n Canadian Communities" (Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s , 1969), p. 16. 24 I b i d . , p. 18. 2 ^ I b i d . , p. 18, c i t i n g Montreal, Bylaws of the C i t y of Montreal Compiled to date February, 1902 (Montreal: Eusebe Sencal and Co., 1902), pp. 23 - 24, Chapter XXIV. 2 6 Paul Grimwood, Owen S c o t t , and M a r i l y n Warson, "Roots 5, George Laing — Landscape Gardener, Hamilton, Canada West", Landscape  A r c h i t e c t u r e i n Canada 4 No. 1 ( A p r i l 1978), 78): 3. 2 7 S. Markam and C. Edginton, "The Common of H a l i f a x : Canada's f i r s t Park" Recreation Canada (February 1979), 79).: 12. , 2 8 I b i d . , p. 13. -104-29 I b i d . , p. 14. 3 0 . McFarland, p. 22. 3 1 I b i d . , p. 24. 32<• I b i d . , p. 25, c i t i n g F r e d r i c k Law Olmsted, Mount Royal (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1881), p. 8. 33 I b i d . , p. 28. 3 4 I b i d . , p. 31. 3 5 I b i d . , p. 37, -\Oio--i| f if O SO IQO iso yoo ft. 50UJHEAST PORTION, <€ Nf R A L P A RK, NC W YOBK - l«70, AD. \ULU£>TPAT\OM 2 C E N T A L B M ^ - , S O U T H E A S T t^t^TIOAM - l o 8 -FAIRIAIOOTPARK P H I L A D E L P H I A lU_U«2>TRA-ri ON 4 C H A o v M t C t C P. 2 0 3 . I L L U 3 1 I ? A T , O M tS G e s t e ^ A U P L A N O F T S V U C P S U X S , C H I C A G O B N O M S T C O / W D V A u y 1 g ^ 9 . X C L U C O G P - 2 6 1 -Ho— \ L 4 _ U S T K A T l O f s l k D E T A V U Or P L A N Oe U v v > e R S l ^ & y OLM^TEO A N D VALLX, i66^ . ToBey P- IG7 - I I'Z-— -113-I L L x i S T R A T i o A J 9 F A R 4 C S Y S T E M - I t * -ACMOUC BLV > KAR$A$ CITY -1893 \ U - U S T R A T i o M lO K A m S A S . C l T ^ P A R K . S Y S T E M - I I S -- I I G --117-I L L U S T ^ T l O N 13 S A N F R A M O S C o B \ R < s v / S T E H , —ne— I L L U S T R A T I O N 14 L o s A M G f e L H - S F ^ R K S V ^ T ^ M - i n --120-CHAPTER IV THE CITY BEAUTIFUL MOVEMENT  In t r o d u c t i o n The C i t y B e a u t i f u l Movement which occurred i n the U.S. between about 1893 and 1910 sprang from the World's Columbia E x p o s i t i o n i n Chicago i n 1893. The E x p o s i t i o n , was i t s e l f l a r g e l y i n f l u e n c e d by the park and park system movement that was at that time, sweeping the country. The idea of "complete schemes of b e a u t i f i c a t i o n " was being implemented i n the form of park systems, that were i n some way an extension of the p a r t i c u l a r c i t y . Parks and park systems were ther e f o r e to assume an important r o l e i n the C i t y B e a u t i f u l movement, and i t i s of importance here, to see what form those parks took, and how they were developed during the " C i t y B e a u t i f u l " years. The C i t y B e a u t i f u l Movement i n the United States As noted e a r l i e r , parks i n the l a t e 18th Century were seen as the "lungs" of the c i t y , and many people b e l i e v e that the success of the park movement i n the U.S. re s t e d on an enthusiasm f o r a r u r a l way of l i f e . " l The urban park o f f e r e d the c i t y dweller a b i t of the country. U n t i l the Chicago World's Columbia E x p o s i t i o n , there were few formal elements i n parks. Olmsted's promenade i n C e n t r a l Park was the c l o s e s t t h i n g to f o r m a l i t y . Margaret Meek, i n her t h e s i s " C i t y B e a u t i f u l i n Canada" very a c c u r a t e l y ob-serves, "support f o r :the establishment of parks was not based so much on a d e s i r e f o r c i v i c b e a u t i f i c a t i o n as on the b e l i e f that they would c o n t r i b u t e to p u b l i c h e a l t h . " 2 This a t t i t u d e was to change f o l l o w i n g the E x p o s i t i o n . The World's Columbia E x p o s i t i o n was a c e l e b r a t i o n of the 400th anniversary of Columbus' di s c o v e r of North America. I t was a t u r n i n g p o i n t -121-i n American h i s t o r y i n that i t l e d to a greater i n t e r e s t i n the planning of c i t i e s . A consultant s t e e r i n g committee was e s t a b l i s h e d which c o n s i s t e d of Daniel Burnham, John Root, Henry Codman, F r e d r i c k Law Olmsted and others. The Committee decided on a n e o c l a s s i c a l theme and complimentary ground p l a n . Olmsted was i n v o l v e d i n the s i t e s e l e c t i o n which was e v e n t u a l l y a waterway s i t e c a l l e d Jackson Park. The only n a t u r a l element i n a l l of the F a i r was the Wooded I s l a n d which was created at Olmsted's i n s i s t e n c e . Everything e l s e was extremely formal - a completely new concept i n America which had undoubtably been borrowed from Renaissance France. The pseudo-classic b u i l d i n g s f o r the F a i r i n c l u d i n g the Court of Honour, were coloured white presenting a contract to the greyness of the i n -d u s t r i a l c i t y . The b u i l d i n g s were set o f f by f o u n t a i n s , s c u l p t u r e , f l a g s , and water bodies. The F a i r was held from May to October 1893 and was a com-p l e t e success. I t had twenty m i l l i o n v i s i t o r s and recei v e d e x c e l l e n t press. Afterwards every l a r g e c i t y w i t h any a s p i r a t i o n s began to plan i t s own C i t y B e a u t i f u l . Because of the improvements i n t r a v e l i n V i c t o r i a n times many Americans v i s i t e d P a r i s , a c i t y they looked on w i t h much admiration, and ^ —• even attended the Ecole des Beaux A r t s . The Ecole commanded a very important i n f l u e n c e on the American mind when the E x p o s i t i o n opened because many of the elements of design that i t emphasized could be seen there. "The Ecole s t r e s s e d u n i t y of composition and taught i t s students to view a b u i l d i n g i n terms of a s e r i e s of r e l a t i o n s h i p s . B u i l d i n g s were g e n e r a l l y c h a r a c t e r i z e d by two axes suggesting movement and a symmetrical layout of c l e a r l y defined -122-geometric spaces."- 5 The term C i t y B e a u t i f u l has never been w e l l defined and a r c h i -t e c t u r a l and planning h i s t o r i a n s have never agreed p r e c i s e l y on i t s p r i n -c i p l e s . I t was a movement that was p r i m a r i l y concerned with formalized b e a u t i f i c a t i o n schemes that were to r e f l e c t a new n a t i o n a l p r i d e of wealth, power and c u l t u r e . The C i t y B e a u t i f u l t h i n k e r s seemed to be most concerned w i t h three elements; s t r e e t s , c i v i c centres and parks and boulevards. They claimed to be concerned w i t h the u t i l i t y of t h e i r p l a n s , but i s was the a e s t h e t i c aspect that they were c l e a r l y i n t e r e s t e d i n , and wrote about. Parks and greenery were to play an important part i n c i t y b e a u t i f i c a t i o n . The e f f e c t s of the World's E x p o s i t i o n were immediate and f a r reaching. I t assured that the idea of C i t y B e a u t i f u l was accepted and many Americans began to t h i n k about t h e i r c i t i e s according to p r e - e s t a b l i s h e d plans. I t provided a concrete model which many c i t i e s f o llowed. F i n a l l y , i t brought D a n i e l Burnham, a fu t u r e i n f l u e n t i a l a r c h i t e c t and planner, to the f o r e . One of Burnham's c o l l e g u e s , Charles M. Robinson, a w r i t e r and educator, was a l s o very i n f l u e n t i a l i n the C i t y B e a u t i f u l movement. People of t e n looked to Robinson's w r i t i n g s , (Modern C i v i c A r t ) , and Burnham's plans to uncover the movement's design p r i n c i p l e s . 4 Between 1902 - 1917 they acted as planning a d v i s o r s to 30 c i t i e s producing improvement r e p o r t s , f o r B u f f a l o , D e t r o i t , Denver, Oakland, Los Angeles and Honolulu. Robinson, l i k e most designers of the p e r i o d , b e l i e v e d that the s t r e e t system and c i r c u l a t i o n p a t t e r n was the most important element. His reasons: they f a c i l i t a t e communication; they open v i s t a s ; and they present o p p o r t u n i t i e s -123-to create s t r e e t s and p u b l i c open spaces. He a l s o p r e f e r r e d s t r e e t s to converge on a f o c a l p o i n t such as p u b l i c b u i l d i n g s , a church, a r a i l w a y s t a t i o n , or a monument. Robinson was a l s o one of the f i r s t people to ad-vocate design standards f o r pavement, c o n t r o l of advertisements, l i g h t i n g , l e t t e r i n g and underground w i r i n g . The c i v i c c e n tre, was seen as an important centre of c i v i c power, p u b l i c l i f e , and cooperation between l e v e l s of government. As at the E x p o s i t i o n , white was the colour advocated because i t s pureness stood i n contract to the grundginess of the b i g American c i t i e s . F i n a l l y , Robinson maintained that the l o c a t i o n of a c i v i c centre was important, p r e f e r a b l y on a h i l l , near water, a park or square, and i f at a l l p o s s i b l e next to a rai l w a y s t a t i o n - the gateway to the c i t y ! With regard to parks, Robinson p r e f e r r e d the n a t u r a l landscape park w i t h connecting parkways; a n a t u r a l treatment f o r an entrance to a n a t u r a l park, and a formal treatment i n the case of a formal park. He emphasized the importance of small parks i n the c i t y e i t h e r i n the form of a p u b l i c square, a garden, or a playground. He saw the playground as a very important element of the c i t y f o r p u b l i c h e a l t h and i n t h i s case, beauty was to take a secondary r o l e to u t i l i t y . The World's E x p o s i t i o n was a t u r n i n g point i n D a n i e l Burnham's career and changed the d i r e c t i o n of American a r c h i t e c t u r e . He went on to develop plans f o r Washington, San F r a n c i s c o , Chicago and M a n i l l a , ( I l l u s -t r a t i o n 1) P i e r r e Charles L'Enfant's 1791 Baroque plan f o r Washington, D.C. was to be reviewed and updated by the McMillan Commission i n 1902 of which Burnham was a member. The Commission looked to Europe f o r a r c h i t e c t u r a l models, -124-p a r t i c u l a r l y Rome and P a r i s . C o n t i n e n t a l precedents were again to be r e f l e c t e d on the American a r c h i t e c t u r a l landscape. Burnham a l s o gave s t r e e t patterns p r i o r i t y i n h i s plans. He used diagonal s t r e e t s , c i r c u m f e r a l s t r e e t s to avoid the business d i s t r i c t , as w e l l as boulevarded pleasure d r i v e s . His f i r s t plans f o r c i v i c centres were con-c e p t u a l i z e d l i k e the Court of Honour f o r the F a i r , and l a t e r he adapted these to the needs of t r a f f i c . His centres u s u a l l y included an a x i s and cross a x i s , as i n Washington. Burnham's b u i l d i n g s were monumental i n s c a l e , c l a s s i c a l i n design and of s i m i l a r h e i g h t , mass and treatment. He f e l t that gateways were p a r t i c u l a r l y important i n the c i t y . Burnham thought that p a r k ' systems were second only to s t r e e t s , and inc l u d e d them i n a l l of h i s plans. He t a l k e d about a range of parks; the f o r e s t park, the l a r g e urban park, and s m a l l parks and playgrounds. Forest parks he saw as reserves conserving n a t u r a l resources, p r o v i d i n g r e l i e f from the c i t y , a t t r a c t i n g t o u r i s t s and i n c r e a s i n g land values. These parks were to be n a t u r a l w i t h only country roads. The l a r g e urban parks were to be the c i t y ' s lungs: to open up space and a i r and provide healthy r e c r e a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r urban r e s i d e n t s . F i n a l l y , s m a ll parks and playgrounds were to be d i s t r i b u t e d according to population d e n s i t y and were to conta i n r e c -r e a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s f o r the l o c a l community. Burnham a l s o had a very i n n o v a t i v e i d e a to replace backyards w i t h a l i n e a r park system. A park such as t h i s would be safe f o r c h i l d r e n and would encourage walking.5 He wanted h i s boulevards to be l i n e d w i t h f i n e houses^with a p a r k - l i k e q u a l i t y i n c l u d i n g grass, t r e e s , shrubs, statues and fount a i n s . -125-Both contemporary and modern w r i t e r s have charged that C i t y B e a u t i f u l plans were d e f i c i e n t i n s e v e r a l areas, s p e c i f i c a l l y i n housing and s o c i a l concerns. Evidence shows that the C i t y B e a u t i f u l planners were concerned w i t h the c i t y ' s p r a c t i c a l needs, but they d i d not tend to develop these concepts i n t h e i r plans as they d i d the a e s t h e t i c concepts. I t may have been assumed that the engineers possessed the e x p e r t i s e to c a r r y out these requirements.^ A f t e r 1910 i n the U.S. an i n t e r e s t developed i n what was then c a l l e d the C i t y E f f i c i e n t . The new keywords were " e f f i c i e n c y " and "economy". In C i t y E f f i c i e n t thought, the core elements of the C i t y B e a u t i f u l Movement, s t r e e t s , c i v i c centres and parks, remained,but the p r a c t i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s took on a much greater importance. Parks f o r example,began to be j u s t i f i e d s o l e l y on the grounds of r e c r e a t i o n , refreshment and increase i n property values. I t was s t i l l d e s i r a b l e to have a monumental c i v i c c e n t r e , but i t s l o c a t i o n was to depend on a c c e s s i b i l i t y , the p o s s i b l e need f o r future ex-pansion, and the assurance that business would not be hindered. The i d e a l s of the C i t y B e a u t i f u l Movement were s t i l l expressed a f t e r 1910, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n j o u r n a l s , but the c r e a t i o n of beauty aft e r , that time was o f t e n a matter of s e i z i n g an opportunity. While the ideas of park systems, parkways and boulevards were ad-vocated during the C i t y B e a u t i f u l movement, the form of the American l a n d -scape park was not changed to any great degree. People became more con-cerned about where the parks were l o c a t e d and how they blended i n t o the r e s t of the c i t y r a t h e r than t h e i r s p e c i f i c design. The renewal of very formal a r c h i t e c t u r e d i d not cause a r e t u r n to V e r s a i l l e - t y p e landscapes, but concentrated on l i n k i n g the n a t u r a l i s t i c parks by formal parkways and boulevards. -126-C l v l c A r t i n B r i t a i n In B r i t a i n during the 1890's, .the trend i n garden design began to swing more towards an a r c h i t e c t u r a l emphasis r a t h e r than a h o r t i c u l t u r a l emphasis. Elements such as a t e r r a c e or a geometrical garden i n a p u b l i c park,gradually,were r e i n f o r c e d by garden o r g a n i z a t i o n on formal l i n e s . This trend was undoubtably i n f l u e n c e d by the Chicago World's F a i r and Burnham's work i n America, the ideas of Camillo S i t t e i n Germany, and Haussmann's sweeping s c a l e i n P a r i s . , The E n g l i s h Park never became com-p l e t e l y f o r m a l , but at the turn of the century there d i d develop a tendency towards a more a x i a l and geometric o r g a n i z a t i o n . Abbey Park i n L e i c e s t e r which was designed by the f i r m of Barron and Son, i s an e x c e l l e n t example of the combination of a strong formal element with the n a t u r a l i s t i c s t y l e de-r i v i n g from Repton. ( I l l u s t r a t i o n 2) This f o r m a l i s t tendency i s very evident i n the work of Thomas H. Mawson, a B r i t i s h landscape a r c h i t e c t working i n England at the t u r n of the century. Mawson accepted the formal and i n f o r m a l i n the same design^and had no qualms about i n s t a l l i n g some very formal elements i n t o a n a t u r a l i s t i c environment. He was part of a group that began to work i n the B r i t i s h " C i v i c A r t " s t y l e that f l o u r i s h e d during the f i r s t two decades of the 20th century. Mawson defines C i v i c A r t as a r e v i v a l of the Greek i n t e r e s t i n the " c i t y - s t a t e " and an i n t e r e s t i n the c o l l e c t i v e view of c i v i c design r a t h e r than an i n d i v i d u a l one. He condemns the " l e v e l l e d formalism of the Ecole des Beaux A r t s of France which w i l l never f i n d a welcome on t h i s s i d e of the channel" s t a t i n g the importance of the " e l a s t i c i t y and s p e c i a l p r o v i s i o n s f o r each i n s t a n c e " i n a c i t y . 7 The most important element i n c i v i c design -127-to him, was the c e n t r a l i z a t i o n and convenient grouping of the town's muni-c i p a l and commercial a c t i v i t i e s . In other words, Mawson d i d not b e l i e v e i n superimposing an i n f l e x i b l e formal design on a c i t y , but i n c r e a t i n g a cen-t r a l i z e d core i n a c i t y where the design elements "complimented" the es-t a b l i s h e d character of the c i t y . Parks were to play a supporting r o l e i n the c i v i c centre and were not an end i n themselves. The f o r t e of Mawson's f i r m was park design. They began designing i n d i v i d u a l parks and l a t e r branched out to the replanning of whole towns and doing d e t a i l e d proposals f o r the redevelopment of c i t y centres — a l l i n the C i v i c A r t s t y l e . East Park at Wolverhampton was one of h i s e a r l y successes. In 1896 Mawson created a geometrical s t y l e park out of very d e r e l i c t l a n d , l a r g e l y cinder heaps and a flooded depression. He r e -introduced the p a v i l i o n , fountains and the t e r r a c e i n h i s parks which Paxton had p r e v i o u s l y used as a s o c i a l centre at the C r y s t a l Palace. One of the most r e p r e s e n t a t i v e works of Mawson's firm's mature s t y l e i s Stanley Park i n Blackpool. I t i s a good example of the "composite or informal-formal s t y l e . " ( I l l u s t r a t i o n 3). The 288 acre s i t e was chosen " f o r the purposes of a park and r e c r e a t i o n a l centre as an a d d i t i o n a l a t t r a c -t i o n f o r the r e s o r t and also as a shrewd piece of planning f o r the p e r i p h e r a l extension of the town." 8 The e a r l i e r p r i n c i p l e of recouping the out l a y on the park from the b u i l d i n g land on the perimeter was used,and the outcome was that the e n t i r e cost of the land and the l a y i n g out of the park was recovered from the s a l e of the b u i l d i n g p l o t s . Mawson's o b j e c t i v e was to create a design that was "the convenient and economic development of a la r g e number of r e c r e a t i o n spaces that provided a t t r a c t i v e p l a y i n g f i e l d s set i n a great n a t u r a l reserve."9 -128-Blackpool's Stanley Park,:designed i n 1922, showed a new f u n c t i o n f o r a park. The park as a promenade had become a space almost e n t i r e l y c a t e r i n g f o r a c t i v e games and organized l e i s u r e . Passive r e c r e a t i o n was s t i l l accommodated but the park had ceased to be thought of f i r s t as an expressive landscape according to one designer's s t y l e . I t became a park whose landscape was created f o r p a r t i c u l a r uses to which any " s t y l e " was ap p l i e d afterwards. Mawson was extremely i n f l u e n t i a l i n England during t h i s time j u s t before the f i r s t World War, arousing i n t e r e s t i n the neglected spheres of landscape and c i v i c design. Chadwick s t a t e s that the establishment of the " f i r s t Chair of C i v i c Design at L i v e r p o o l U n i v e r s i t y by Lord Leverhulme was no doubt l a r g e l y due to the i n t e r e s t aroused i n him by Mawson's work and a l s o by Mawson's d i r e c t i n f l u e n c e . " - ^ Mawson r e g u l a r l y wrote a r t i c l e s i n The Town Planning Review published i n L i v e r p o o l , when P a t t r i c k Abercrombie was e d i t o r . In h i s book, C i v i c A r t : Studies i n Town Pla n n i n g , Parks, Boule- vards and Open Space published i n 1911, Mawson o u t l i n e d h i s theory of C i v i c A r t , and h i s p r a c t i c e of C i v i c A r t w i t h examples of p u b l i c parks and town gardens. As Burnham was the most sought a f t e r C i t y B e a u t i f u l p l a n n e r , i n the U.S. between 1893 - 1910, Mawson represented the E n g l i s h equivalent i n C i v i c A r t , although h i s i n f l u e n c e l a s t e d a good deal longer - w e l l i n t o the 1920's. In 1910 Mawson made a t r i p to the " c o l o n i e s " p i c k i n g up numerous jobs across Canada, and r e t u r n i n g to England to work on these c i v i c a r t schemes. He was engaged by the Vancouver Park. Board i n 1910 and produced a plan f o r Coal Harbour i n Stanley Park. His s o l u t i o n was unacceptable to many people i n the c i t y at that time, and that chain of events w i l l be discussed i n the next chapter. -129-Although Mawson was one of the most s u c c e s s f u l park and c i v i c designers i n England during the f i r s t quarter of the 20th century he was by no means the only "planning t h i n k e r " . The Carnegie Dunfermline Trust was founded i n 1903 by Andrew Carnegie who put up h a l f a m i l l i o n pounds and the g i f t of P i t t e n c r i e f f Park and Glen i n h i s n a t i v e town of Dunfermline, to b r i n g "the monotonous l i v e s of the t o i l i n g masses of Dunfermline more 11 sweetness and l i g h t . " The Trust requested Mawson and P a t r i c k Geddes, the pioneer b o t a n i s t , e c o l o g i s t , s o c i o l o g i s t and planner, to prepare plans f o r P i t t e n c r i e f f Park. The two plans prepared by these two men were s t r i k i n g l y d i f f e r e n t . Mawson's plan was very formal and a r c h i t e c t u r a l , r e s u l t i n g i n the s c a l e and monumentality of the b u i l d i n g s being too grandiose f o r a p r o v i n c i a l i n d u s t r i a l town and even l a r g e f o r a c a p i t a l c i t y . ( I l l u s t r a t i o n 4) In many ways h i s plan had a f f i n i t i e s to the C i t y B e a u t i f u l Movement and the Chicago F a i r . Geddes spent months wandering through Dunfermline t r y i n g to get a f e e l f o r the town. He published h i s proposals i n a report c a l l e d " C i t y Development: a study of Parks, Gardens and Culture - I n s t i t u t e s . " The t i t l e s r e f l e c t Geddes b e l i e f that parks and gardens are an e s s e n t i a l f a c -t o r i n the regeneration of the c i t y . His i n n o v a t i v e ideas on the f u n c t i o n of a park i n a town i s what makes Geddes' c o n t r i b u t i o n remarkable. He proposed to l i n k P i t t e n c r i e f f Park to a system of gardens and enclosed spaces, and c u l t u r a l b u i l d i n g S j t o the centre of town i t s e l f ^ a n d then beyond, v i a parkways to other p a r t s of the c i t y . His park design was f u l l of ideas that i n c l u d e d a z o o l o g i c a l garden, botanic garden, r e c r e a t i o n ground, and an open a i r museum. ( I l l u s t r a t i o n 5) One of the most i n t e r e s t i n g d e t a i l s was'the complex of r e c r e a t i o n grounds arranged g e o m e t r i c a l l y w i t h formal gardens and a long -130-formal f o u n t a i n b a s i n to the south of the park. This was juxtaposed w i t h a l a r g e i r r e g u l a r rockery. Geddes' ideas were not expressed w e l l i n terms of a s l i c k set of plans, and he himself saw them as a general statement of ideas rather than a p r e c i s e set of proposals to be c a r r i e d out i n a p a r t i -c u l a r way. Geddes' c o n t r i b u t i o n to the park as an element of the c i t y was i n h i s ideas on the part that a park can play i n a town,and how.it can make i t a b e t t e r p h y s i c a l and s o c i a l environment. Un f o r t u n a t e l y , Mawson's rat h e r than Geddes' ideas were tra n s m i t t e d to Canada i n the e a r l y part of the 20th century, r e s u l t i n g i n some C i t y Councils expressing the d e s i r e to i n v o l v e t h e i r c i t y i n the p r i n c i p l e s of C i v i c A r t . C i t y B e a u t i f u l Movement i n Canada While the time between 1893 and 1910, i s the t r a d i t i o n a l C i t y B e a u t i f u l p e r i o d i n the United S t a t e s , the movement was somewhat slower coming to Canada. I t occurred between 1910 and 1913 when a e s t h e t i c s f i r s t played a major r o l e i n Canadian planning. These dates were c r u c i a l because by the time many of these C i t y B e a u t i f u l plans were implementable, the f i r s t World War was upon the n a t i o n , and many plans were not c a r r i e d out. The p u b l i c park movement was already w e l l grounded i n Canada between 1893 and 1910 - p r o v i d i n g a b a s i s upon which C i t y B e a u t i f u l t h i n k e r s were able to b u i l d i n l a t e r years. The preference i n the way of park design during t h i s p e r i o d was toward the t r a d i t i o n a l " r e s t f u l , p a s s i v e " park, w i t h the u l t i m a t e f u n c t i o n a l concern being that of p u b l i c h e a l t h . Several Canadian j o u r n a l s express thoughts about the f u t u r e . Before 1900, the Canadian A r c h i t e c t and  B u i l d e r emphasized smaller parks, c e n t r a l squares and playgrounds. Between 1888 and 1901 there were s e v e r a l a r t i c l e s on parks i n the Canadian A r c h i t e c t -131-and B u i l d e r , and from the v a r i e t y of parks described, i t i s evident that l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s were aware of the concept of a park system and i t s range of open space. This j o u r n a l advocated an even d i s t r i b u t i o n of parks and playgrounds which were to have "lawn areas,, flower beds and l a r g e shade trees."12 Most Canadian c i t i e s had not yet h i r e d landscape a r c h i t e c t s or designers to l a y out t h e i r park systems, so the development of the l o c a l park and a park system was incremental - r e l y i n g on American, and a few Canadian precedents. Although c i v i c centres d i d not r e c e i v e much a t t e n t i o n during t h i s p e r i o d , there were "White C i t y " type designs being done f o r e x h i b i t i o n s and u n i v e r s i t i e s i n Canada.13 These designs r e l i e d very h e a v i l y on. the p r i n -c i p l e s of formal park design and p a r t i c u l a r l y , boulevard systems. In 1899, W i l f r e d L a u r i e r wanted to see Ottawa transformed i n t o a Washington of the North. The C i t y r e c e i v e d an annual grant of $60,000 to be used i n the development of a park and boulevard system. In 1903 F r e d r i c k Todd was commissioned to prepare a plan f o r Ottawa and he recommended: a park system comprised of f o r e s t reserves, suburban parks, connecting boule-vards, waterway parks, and playgrounds; "picturesque" f o r e s t reserves w i t h a d i v e r s i f i e d scenery" to enjoy nature; and he encouraged the development of R o c k c l i f f e Park i n the east w i t h i t s rugged animated scenes; and, Chaudiere Park i n the west w i t h - i t s r e s t f u l views.1^ Ottawa was recognized as a prece-dent i n Canada, f o r other c i t i e s to emulate. Some Torontonians were sharply aware of i t s s p e c i a l n a t u r a l f e a t u r e s , and these were the focus of an improvement plan done i n 1906. A group that was to play a major r o l e i n advocating c i v i c i ssues i n Toronto, c a l l e d the Toronto G u i l d of C i v i c A r t , financed the p l a n , which proposed a l a r g e a d d i t i o n -132-to the parkland i n the c i t y . Besides the 1600 acres already i n parkland, i t proposed an a d d i t i o n a l 13 major parks and 250 acres i n sm a l l parks and p l a y -grounds. The s t r e s s was on major parks to preserve Toronto's n a t u r a l . features — r i v e r s , r a v i n e s , the w a t e r f r o n t , the escarpement, and v i s t a s . F i n a l l y , the plan suggested that the e n t i r e system, i n c l u d i n g the cemeteries be connected w i t h pleasure d r i v e s . Although the t r a d i t i o n a l G i t y B e a u t i f u l elements were not present i n these e a r l y designs, the awareness of the v i s u a l q u a l i t y of the c i t y be-gan to be evident. The p e r i o d between 1910 and 1913 saw the beginning of a r e a l i n -t e r e s t i n planning i n Canada. Several Canadian j o u r n a l s began p u b l i s h i n g a r t i c l e s on planning as w e l l as on parks. The i n t e r e s t was undoubtably i n -fluenced by events that were happening elsewhere i n the U.S., B r i t a i n and Europe; s p e c i f i c a l l y , the p u b l i s h i n g of Burnham's Chicago Plan i n 1909, the f i r s t N a t i o n a l Conference on C i t y Planning i n Canada, and the passing of the Housing and Town Planning Act i n Great B r i t a i n . For the f i r s t time, v a r i o u s bodies t r i e d to discus s the r o l e of beauty i n planning and the " t r u e " meaning of C i t y B e a u t i f u l . Margaret Meek, i n her t h e s i s maintains that the a r t i c l e s w r i t t e n i n t h i s p e r i o d seemed to have three repeated c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : 1. u t i l i t y was s p e c i f i e d as a planner's f i r s t c o n s i d e r a t i o n . 2. planners had a v i s i o n of the i d e a l c i t y c h a r a c t e r i z e d by h e a l t h , convenience and beauty. 3. f i n a n c i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s were r a r e l y mentioned. Thomas Mawson, speaking at the U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto i n 1912 on the "main p r i n c i p l e s of s t r e e t planning" argued that a g r i d i r o n p a t t e r n forced people -133-to take a z i g - z a g route which was monotonous. In the name of convenience and a e s t h e t i c preference,he advocated the C i t y B e a u t i f u l concept of diagonal roads,where the diagonals would converge on the c i t y at a v i s u a l focus, such as a p l a z a . In a speaking engagement i n Saskatoon, Christopher J . Yorath, the C i t y Commissioner i n Regina presented h i s view that parks should f o l l o w the t r a d i t i o n a l " p r e s e r v a t i o n of n a t u r a l beauty" w i t h i n easy reach of everyone. Having had planning experience i n B r i t a i n , he was l i k e l y i n f l u e n c e d by the garden c i t y philosophy which wanted to introduce to the home l i f e of the worker, the c o n d i t i o n s common i n the country.15 Even though the a r t i c l e s and speaking engagements of the time s t r e s s e d the u t i l i t a r i a n i d e a l s , t h e r e was s t i l l ^ . a c o n t i n u a l focus on the a e s t h e t i c p e r s p e c t i v e . Although a man l i k e Mawson st a t e d h i s concern f o r u t i l i t y and p r a c t i c a l i t y , h i s t o r y has shown that he was t o t a l l y unable to approach these problems or deal w i t h a . c i t y ' s p r a c t i c a l needs.16 Between 1910 and 1914 the C i t i e s of Ottawa, Winnipeg, Regina and Calgary had undertaken c i t y p l a n s , but the Canadian a r c h i t e c t u r e and en-gine e r i n g j o u r n a l s published i n Ontario, paid l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n to them. The communication between C e n t r a l and Western Canada was poor, so the western c i t i e s looked to the United States and B r i t a i n > f o r ideas. Edmonton, Calgary and Regina a l l had plans done i n the Da n i e l Burnham,or formal s t y l e . Edmonton h i r e d an American, A.U. M o r e l l i n 1912 to do i t s c i v i c p l a n ; and both Calgary and Regina h i r e d Thomas Mawson i n October 1912 and June 1913 r e s p e c t i v e l y . Only the Winnipeg plan lacked C i t y B e a u t i f u l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , as i t was pre-pared i n 1911 by members of the Winnipeg C i t y P lanning Commission and other -134-people i n the c i t y . The p r e l i m i n a r y plan was aimed at s p e c i f i c problems such as implementing zoning, r a p i d t r a n s i t and housing,and these aims were dealt wit h w i t h i n the scope of e x i s t i n g l e g i s l a t i o n . However, the Commission hoped to turn i t s f i n d i n g s and ideas over to a landscape a r c h i t e c t i n order that a f i n a l design be prepared. I f t h i s had happened, the plans f o r Winnipeg would have been very much l i k e those of the other c i t i e s . During t h i s p e r i o d the Toronto water f r o n t p lan r e c e i v e d a l o t of a t t e n t i o n i n Canadian Journals. The plan was presented i n the grand manner of Burnham's p l a n i n that 900 acres of parkland was recommended,including a lakeshore d r i v e . Other elements that were featured were a park and lagoon system, b r i d l e p a t h s , foot paths, a protected waterway f o r small c r a f t as w e l l as future ideas f o r a t e r r a c e promenade, playground and a.bathing beach. Vancouver was also introduced to C i t y B e a u t i f u l ideas. Mawson's "colo n i e s p i l g r i m a g e " included Vancouver where he was h i r e d to do a scheme f o r Coal Harbour at the entrance to Vancouver's Stanley Park. Mawson d i d three schemes, the most formal of the three being chosen by the Park Board. The scheme featured a c i r c u l a r pond w i t h a 180 foot high o b l i s k , a f o o t b a l l stadium, a Baroque museum and an adjacent r e s t a u r a n t . He a l s o intended to l i n k t h i s formal " c u l t u r a l c e n t r e " to the downtown area by a formal boulevard system up Georgia S t r e e t . These plans w i l l be looked at i n greater d e t a i l i n the next chapter. The C i t y B e a u t i f u l plans that were done f o r c i t i e s across Canada had s e v e r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n common. Although v e r b a l l y s t r e s s i n g economy and u t i l i t y , the p l a n s , i n f a c t d i d not do so; most of the plans expressed the t r a d i t i o n a l C i t y B e a u t i f u l elements. They were presented i n t h i s formal -135-s t y l e , and l i t t l e or no a t t e n t i o n was paid to problem s o l v i n g , the imple-mentation, or f i n a n c i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . The years 1910 to 1914 saw the emergence of c i t y planning i n Canada and many c o u n c i l s saw the c i v i c improvements as a form of p u b l i c i t y f o r the c i t y . The usu a l r e s u l t was that expenditures were authorized without too much thought and that many of the problems a r i s i n g w i t h r a p i d growth, were not d e a l t w i t h . Even i n those days however, the C i t y B e a u t i f u l m e n t a l i t y d i d have i t s c r i t i c s . Harry Bragg, the e d i t o r of the Canadian M u n i c i p a l  J o u r n a l was i n t e r e s t e d i n housing and he argued t h a t , Washington, D.C. "had one of the f i n e s t p l a n s , and some of the worst slums on the cont i n e n t . " - ^ On the whole, Bragg and other s i m i l a r voices were not heard. The idea of h i r i n g an "expert" became exceedingly popular and i n the case of most western c i t i e s , i t was the f i r s t time they had h i r e d a land-scape a r c h i t e c t . Because landscape a r c h i t e c t s had o r i g i n a l l y been i n v o l v e d i n the planning of park systems i n the U.S., B r i t a i n and Easterns-Canada, when new forms to b e a u t i f y the c i t y came along, such as c i v i c c e n t r e s , the landscape a r c h i t e c t s simply d i d these jobs as w e l l . As i n the U.S. the r o l e that the park was to play i n the era of the C i t y B e a u t i f u l was u s u a l l y that of pr e s e r v i n g the n a t u r a l features of the c i t y , and as part of the development of a park and boulevard system. The t r a d i t i o n a l " n a t u r a l designs" continued to be used i n Canadian parks w i t h the emphasis on connecting these w i t h other c i t y f o c a l p o i n t s . There were a few exceptions however, and the Mawson plan f o r Stanley Park was one of them. His p r e s t i g e somehow i n f l u e n c e d the Park. Board i n Vancouver at that time to accept a complete change i n d i r e c t i o n and f u n c t i o n f o r Stanley -136-Park. Had t h i s C i t y B e a u t i f u l p lan been c a r r i e d out, the park would be very d i f f e r e n t today. None of the plans f o r the Western c i t i e s were c a r r i e d out. They were a l l commissioned when times were good,but were submitted to the l o c a l governments a f t e r the boom had peaked and when there was a war being fought. In l a t e r years when times were once again more prosperous, some of the schemes were r e v i v e d . Edmonton, f o r e x a m p l e , f i n a l l y b u i l t a c i v i c centre scheme i n the 1960's on the same l o c a t i o n as the 1913 scheme had s p e c i f i e d . A f t e r 1914 Canadian planning entered a new e r a , and most planning thought was dominated by the Commission of Conservation, an o r g a n i z a t i o n that was appointed by the f e d e r a l government i n 1909. The h i r i n g of E n g l i s h -man, Thomas Adams, gave planning thought i n Canada a new focus. Although the i d e a l s i n v o l v e d w i t h c i v i c beauty were not e n t i r e l y absent, they played a minor r o l e from then on. Adams was c r i t i c a l of the C i t y B e a u t i f u l p r i n c i p l e s , but s t a t e d that n a t u r a l beauty d i d have a r i g h t f u l place i n c i t y planning. He simply f e l t that i n a time of economic r e s t r a i n t , that other needs i n the c i t y were more important. The idea of n a t u r a l touches continued to be sup-ported i n j o u r n a l s and by planners, but there was no more t a l k of park and boulevard systems. Tree p l a n t i n g and smaller s c a l e urban design was advocated. The parks that were advocated were u s u a l l y neighbourhood playground areas f o r c h i l d r e n . In 1921 the Commission of Conservation was abolished and planning thought became dominated by the Town Planning I n s t i t u t e of Canada, which had been founded i n 1919 by Adams and other planning p r o f e s s i o n a l s . By 1919 Canadian planning had entered, what many c a l l e d the C i t y E f f i c i e n t . This was -137-an era when economic e f f i c i e n c y and an o r d e r i n g of the environment was st r e s s e d and popular t o p i c s such as zoning, t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , housing, r e g i o n a l planning, d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n of i n d u s t r y , suburban development, and garden c i t i e s , were discussed. This A s s o c i a t i o n made i t very c l e a r that the modern Canadian view of planning had nothing to do w i t h the c o s t l y b e a u t i f i c a t i o n schemes of the e a r l y part of the century. A f t e r 1925 there was a s l i g h t renewal of i n t e r e s t i n c i v i c beauty although the primary concerns were s t i l l f o r economic e f f i c i e n c y . For the f i r s t time there was a new l i g h t shed on the r e l a t i o n s h i p of c i v i c beauty and cost. Planners suddenly began w r i t i n g about the " s o c i a l c o s t s " of ug l i n e s s and the i n d i r e c t m a t e r i a l value of beauty. At a meeting of the Town Planning I n s t i t u t e of Canada, G. Gordon W h i t n a l l , the D i r e c t o r of Planning for Los Angeles put i t w e l l , "(beauty) means more to the average community than probably any other s i n g l e thing."17 Summary The C i t y B e a u t i f u l Movement i n the United States d i d not s u b s t a n t i a l l y change the design of the p u b l i c park. The new and ol d e r park landscapes s t i l l bore the design i n f l u e n c e of men l i k e Olmsted, Loudon, Repton, and even C a p a b i l i t y Brown. What did.change was the way i n which some of these parks were presented. They were designed to become an i n t e g r a l part of the c i t y r a t h e r than j u s t a l i n k i n a park system or as a landscape on i t s own. The increased concern f o r the p h y s i c a l and a e s t h e t i c f u n c t i o n of parks s i g n a l l e d the end of an era when the park was simply a pleasant place to "escape" t o . In the B r i t i s h C i v i c A r t s c h o o l , and p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the work of Thomas Mawson, who was re s p o n s i b l e f o r many design schemes i n Canada, the - 1 3 8 -park began to d i s p l a y more of an a r c h i t e c t u r a l emphasis than i t had i n the past. As i n the American C i t y B e a u t i f u l case, a park was to compliment the whole c i t y , but t h i s was sometimes done at the expense of n a t u r a l i s t i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . I f a l l of Mawson's designs had been completely implemented, the design of many parks i n Western Canada would be considerably more formal today. The development of p u b l i c park design came a long way between Paxton's Birkenhead Park and the parks of the 1920's. Gone were the days when one or two famous landscape a r c h i t e c t s d i d a complete design f o r a park and t h e i r ideas were then unmistakably evident on that landscape. There are very few parks l i k e that today. Park design g r a d u a l l y became a conglomeration of many peoples i d e a s , of a community's p a r t i c u l a r requirements, and a r e -f l e c t i o n of the l o c a l a u t h o r i t y ' s budget. There i s one element however, that survived the d i f f e r e n t emphasis of design through the years - that i s the " n a t u r a l landscape" element. This d e s i r e f o r a park to somehow d i s p l a y the n a t u r a l environment of the c i t y ' s ^environs, i s an id e a that can be traced d i r e c t l y to B r i t a i n and the e a r l y works of Brown and Repton. The f a c t that the B r i t i s h precedent was used by American,and l a t e r Canadian park designers r a t h e r than the more formal park designs of Renaissance France and the Con-t i n e n t , has produced the park t r a d i t i o n s that we l i v e w i t h today, and w i l l very l i k e l y l i v e w i t h tomorrow. -139-FOOTNOTES 1 There are many references i n the l i t e r a t u r e to a park being the "lungs" of the c i t y . Brenda C o l v i n , i n her book Land and Landscape makes a good stab at the d e f i n i t i o n . She r e f e r r e d to parks as a way of b r i n g i n g f r e s h a i r and beauty w i t h i n reach of the whole p o p u l a t i o n — se r v i n g l i t e r a l l y , as the lungs of an organism. Margaret Meek, " C i t y B e a u t i f u l i n Canada" ( D r a f t , Master's Thesis, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1979) I b i d . 4 5 6 7 I b i d . I b i d . I b i d . Thomas Mawson, C i v i c A r t : Studies i n Town Pla n n i n g , Parks, Boulevards and Open Space (London: B.T. B a t s f o r d , 1911), pp. 9 - 13. 8 George Chadwick, The Park and the Town;.Public Landscape i n  the 19th and 20th Centuries (New York: F r e d r i c k A. Praeger, Pub., 1966) p. 223. 9 I b i d . , p. 223. 10 I b i d . , p. 224. 1 1 I b i d . , p. 224. 1 2 Meek, " C i t y B e a u t i f u l i n Canada". 1 3 I b i d . 1 4 I b i d . 1 5 I b i d . -140-16 I b i d . 17 I b i d . - 1 4 1 -lLLLtS»THATiOM 4 M A W S o r o ' s P L A M FOR PlTTeAlCRie F F PARJC , DUMFeRKL/Me 1^03. CHACDWIC^ - H 5 -iLLU -STRATl ON S pLAM FOR. P l T T f e M CRIEFF R\RK, DuNFfeRKLiKe l l 0 3 . C M A r O W U C f c l P 233. -146-CHAPTER V THE VANCOUVER PARK SYSTEM: 1886 - 1914 Now that the id e a s , design and development of p u b l i c parks have been traced through the 18th and 19th c e n t u r i e s , i t i s of i n t e r e s t to look at the l o c a l landscape and attempt to determine the o r i g i n s sof the Vancouver park system. Were there d i r e c t design i n f l u e n c e s from B r i t a i n , Europe, the U.S.? As a young c i t y , was Vancouver concerned.about a " p u b l i c park" open-space f o r i t s c i t i z e n s ? Did the o r i g i n s of the people l i v i n g i n Vancouver during that time i n f l u e n c e the design and f u n c t i o n of the e a r l y parks? Did the p r o x i m i t y to S e a t t l e and the American West Coast produce d i f f e r e n c e con-cerns than those of Eastern Canadian c i t i e s ? A l l the questions are important when l o o k i n g at the development of a landscape i n the l a t e 19th and e a r l y 20th c e n t u r i e s . There were no j o u r n a l s d i s c u s s i n g the " l a t e s t t h i n g i n p u b l i c parks". The ideas were brought, very s u b t l y , from elsewhere, and i t i s the subject of t h i s chapter to explore these l i n k s i n an attempt to account f o r the i n i t i a l design and f u n c t i o n of Vancouver's e a r l y parks. For the purpose of p r o v i d i n g a manageable scope, the time p e r i o d considered w i l l i n c l u d e the year of Vancouver's i n c o r p o r a t i o n , 1886, u n t i l the F i r s t World War. These were the i n i t i a l years of Vancouver's park develop-ment, and the ideas and preferences expressed during t h i s time, probably formed the d i r e c t i o n that the Park Board would take f o r years to come. Stanley' Park Stanley Park i s o f t e n touted as being one of the greatest p u b l i c parks i n the world. I t i s most c e r t a i n l y the jewel i n Vancouver's park system. I t was Vancouver's f i r s t park,and u n t i l the 1920's, was the Park Board's -147-primary concern. Understandably, i t i s the f i r s t landscape which one would look t o , to determine the design ideas that were prevelent at that time. The Beginnings of Stanley Park Before the f i r s t t r a i n of the Canadian P a c i f i c Railway a r r i v e d i n 1887, Vancouver was a very small town c a t e r i n g to the needs of lumber m i l l s and l o g g i n g camps. In 1885, the white p o p u l a t i o n i n the Burrard I n l e t area was only 900. By 1891, w i t h growth spurred by the CPR, Vancouver had a popul a t i o n of 13,709 persons. These migrants were l a r g e l y from Ontario and the Maritimes, w h i l e people from the B r i t i s h I s l e s c o n s t i t u t e d only a p p r o x i -mately 18%. I t was men of t h i s stock that formed the f i r s t C i t y C o u n c i l when Vancouver incor p o r a t e d i n 1886. ^ The f i r s t r e s o l u t i o n of the f i r s t meeting of C i t y C o u n c i l on May 12, 1886»was to p e t i t i o n the Dominion . government to grant a whole or part of the then m i l i t a r y reserve,as a p u b l i c park. In 1887 the Dominion government issued a grant f o r the reserve, w i t h the s t i p u l a t i o n that i t could take i t back f o r m i l i t a r y purposes at any time,and that i t s n a t u r a l i n t e g r i t y should be d i s t u r b e d as l i t t l e as p o s s i b l e . " 2 The C i t y C o u n c i l administered the park u n t i l a Park Commission was e l e c t e d and e s t a b l i s h e d i n 1888. The opening of the park took place on September 27, 1888 w i t h Mayor Oppenheimer, Mayor Grant of V i c t o r i a , and the Honourable John Robson, P r o v i n c i a l Secretary, t a k i n g part i n the ceremonies. The c i t y c e lebrated by h o l d i n g a gala dance at the Opera House on C a r r e l l S t r e e t . In October of 1889, Lord Stanley, the Governor General of Canada, came t o Vancouver to dedicate the park which was named i n h i s honour. I t was declared a p u b l i c -148-h o l i d a y , so that Lord Stanley could be met by the school c h i l d r e n . A causeway w i t h an arched bridge was b u i l t f o r h i s v i s i t — one of the f i r s t designed features f o r Stanley Park. Vancouver prospered during the years 1886 to 1892 }but then ex-perienced a depression f o r the remainder of the 1890's. Many of the ideas f o r the development of Stanley Park had to be shelved u n t i l 1900 when the gold and mining f i n d s caused the economy to boom i n Vancouver u n t i l the beginning of the F i r s t World War. -'These-, i n i t i a l years however, (1886-1900) saw the establishment of the b a s i c design and p r i o r i t i e s f o r Stanley Park, which have, f o r the most p a r t , s urvived to t h i s day. I would now l i k e to address the development of Stanley Park between 1886 and 1900 — both i t s p h y s i c a l development and the ideas and circumstances that l e d to i t s develop-ment, a f t e r which the boom pe r i o d i n Vancouver of 1900 to 1914 w i l l be ex-amined i n a s i m i l a r way. The I n i t i a l Years, 1886 - 1900 The f i r s t c l e a r i n g i n Stanley Park was the path that went around the park. I t was surveyed by L.A. Hamilton, a GPR land, commissioner and a l d e r -man, and was graded by A.G. Ferguson, an American who was appointed a Park Commissioner and who " f a t h e r e d " the park f o r 10 years. This path was f o l -lowed almost e x a c t l y , when i t was hard surfaced i n 1911. I t was surfaced with shimmering white s h e l l s that came from s h e l l f i s h deposits i n the waters opposite the s i t e of the o l d Whoi-Whoi Indian V i l l a g e where Lumberman's Arch stands t o d a y . ( I l l u s t r a t i o n 1) . From the beginning t h i s " p e r i p h e r a l " path was designed to encorporate a l t e r n a t i n g v i s t a s of huge trees and meadows, and the magnificent view of the mountains and the narrows. Today, the park d r i v e i s s t i l l the most h e a v i l y used part of Stanley Park. -149-Mr. Ferguson continued to give almost a l l h i s spare time to the park and the other commissioners were agreeable to l e a v i n g i t to him.^ In the e a r l y years, when the annual sum appropriated by the Cou n c i l f o r i t s up keep was depleated, Ferguson himself i n v a r i a b l y paid the b i l l s to the end of the year. Ex-alderman C o s t e l l o s a i d that one year Mr. Ferguson spent $5,000 on Stanley Park. Mr. Ferguson and h i s w i f e d i d not have any c h i l d r e n , so when he died he l e f t p art of h i s estate to h i s s i s t e r - i n - l a w , Mrs. Ceperley, w i t h the request that when she had no f u r t h e r use f o r i t , that i t should be l e f t to the C i t y of Vancouver f o r the purpose of enhancing Stanley Park. Mrs. Ceperley s t a t e d , " I b e l i e v e that Mr. Ferguson s t i p u l a t e d i n h i s bequest that the money should be used f o r a park f o r c h i l d r e n . " 4 This r e -quest e v e n t u a l l y r e s u l t e d i n Vancouver's f i r s t supervised c h i l d r e n ' s p l a y -grounds, the Ceperley Children's Playgrounds at Second Beach. Mr. Ferguson t h e r e f o r e , was a very important f i g u r e i n the e a r l y development of the park. As e a r l y as 1889, Brockton Point was used as an a t h l e t i c ground. I t was the f i r s t area to be c l e a r e d and was used f o r c r i c k e t , soccer and f o o t b a l l . Besides u s i n g the p e r i p h e r a l road to get to the grounds, Van-couverites would land at Brockton P o i n t by way of a f e r r y which o r i g i n a t e d from the foot of C a r r a l l S t r e e t . U n t i l 1892, Brockton P o i n t was one of the most w e l l used and w e l l cared f o r p a r t s of Stanley Park. The Park Board minutes r e v e a l that i n 1892, they permitted the f e r r y to go to Brockton Po i n t provided that the rates were only 10c s i n g l e , one way and 15c r e t u r n , showing a concern f o r p u b l i c access and an attempt to curb c a p i t a l i s t p r o f i t . The entrance to the park was gr a d u a l l y groomed before 1890. A bridge was erected over the Coal Harbour mud f l a t s (where Lost Lagoon and the Causeway are today) and i n 1889, at the time of Lord Stanley's v i s i t , an -150-arch was added to the south end, c r e a t i n g a gateway to the park. Henry Avison was Stanley Park's f i r s t "keeper" and i n January.of 1889, a cottage was b u i l t f o r him and h i s f a m i l y near the Georgia S t r e e t entrance to the park. ( I l l u s t r a t i o n 2) By 1892, Avison had.put up a fence, had s t a r t e d an E n g l i s h flower garden, and had s t a r t e d a zoo c o n s i s t i n g of a bear p i t . ( I l l u s t r a t i o n 3) The few formal elements were set against a very n a t u r a l backdrop and v a r i o u s t r a i l s l e d o f f from the f r o n t of the cottage, t a k i n g one's eye i n t o the depths of the f o r e s t . By 1900 numerous t r a i l s had been c l e a r e d , many from the o l d l o g -ging s k i d s and Indian t r a i l s i n the park. A system of walking paths was cut connecting p o i n t s of i n t e r e s t such as Beaver Lake, Prospect P o i n t , Siwash Rock, the Zoo, and the Seven S i s t e r s , (huge Douglas F i r t r e e s northwest of Lost Lagoon). From the beginning, the park d r i v e was an i n t e g r a l part of the park. Buggy d r i v i n g was a frequent l e i s u r e l y pastime f o r the V i c t o r i a n s , and Vancouverites were no exception. As e a r l y as 1890, the c i t y ' s most im-portant c a r r i a g e s brought v i s i t i n g c e l e b r i t i e s to Prospect P o i n t to view the north shore from high above the f i r s t narrows. The point was c l e a r e d , and a small s h e l t e r was erected near the edge of the c l i f f . ( I l l u s t r a t i o n 4) Propsect P o i n t was one of Stanley Park's f i r s t t o u r i s t spots as w e l l as the f a v o u r i t e viewpoint of the l o c a l c i t i z e n s . I t , and other view spots along the d r i v e helped to e s t a b l i s h the park d r i v e as an important p e r i p h e r a l f u n c t i o n of the park. This has been f u r t h e r developed over the years u n t i l today, w i t h the d r i v e and sea w a l l , there i s a very s o p h i s t i c a t e d c i r c u l a t i o n system that enables everyone to enjoy the magnificent views. -151-F i n a l l y , the i n i t i a l years a l s o e s t a b l i s h e d Stanley Park as the c i t y ' s most important t o u r i s t a t t r a c t i o n . Vancouver's e a r l y c o u n c i l s and park boards were dominated by businessmen who knew the value of the t o u r i s t d o l l a r . In June of 1891, the Park Board appealed to C o u n c i l f o r a l a r g e r park budget, "That the Board d e s i r e s to c a l l the a t t e n t i o n of the Council to the n e c e s s i t y f o r conti n u i n g the improvements i n Stanley Park. The Board r e s p e c t f u l l y p o i n t s out that the value of Stanley Park cannot be overestimated not only from i t s being a u s e f u l and pleasant r e s o r t f o r the c i t i z e n s but that as an a t t r a c t i o n f o r t o u r i s t s and v i s i t o r s to the c i t y i t has what might be termed a commercial value and the small amount spent upon opening up and improving the park ought to be looked upon as a good investment r a t h e r than as money spent. In the e a r l y 1890's, Vancouver began to experience a depression and i t grew at a more moderate.-rate. Parks were not a top p r i o r i t y and con-sequently the Park Board faced a severe cut i n i t s budget. An entry i n the Boards minutes f o r May 26, 1893 r e f l e c t e d the s i t u a t i o n , "Resolved that a f t e r a c a r e f u l examination of the f i n a n c i a l p o s i t i o n a l l work at Stanley Park should be stopped excepting the con t r a c t s already l e t , and a couple or three men to complete the underbrushing at Brockton P o i n t . Thus, the development of Stanley Park was slowed during the 1890's, and d i d not p i c k up u n t i l 1900, at the beginning of what Norbert McDonald terms, "a c r i t i c a l growth c y c l e f o r Vancouver." 7 At the turn of the century the p h y s i c a l developments that had occurred i n Stanley Park were important i n that they were a strong i n f l u e n c e on, the shape that Stanley Park was to take i n the f u t u r e . The p e r i p h e r a l d r i v e d e l i n i a t e d the f u n c t i o n of the p e r i -meter of the park; the Brockton P o i n t a t h l e t i c grounds e s t a b l i s h e d a c t i v e r e c r e a t i o n i n the park; the t r a i l s enabled the heart of the park to be used by i t s c i t i z e n s ; the park entrance w i t h i t s arched gate, and w i t h Mr. Avison's -152-E n g l i s h flower garden designated the park's only formal area which i n years to come, was expanded to i n c l u d e a rose garden (modelled on.the P o r t l a n d Rose Garden); and f i n a l l y , the Park Board's concern f o r the naturalness of the park set a precedent that was to be followed u n t i l 1910. R e f l e c t i o n s on the I n i t i a l Years In the p u b l i c records and s o c i a l h i s t o r i e s of Vancouver, there are no convincing reasons to e x p l a i n j u s t what the c i t y f a t h e r s had i n mind when they a p p l i e d to the Dominion Government f o r Stanley Park, or what they intended to do i n terms of the park's design. I t may be s a f e l y assumed that they d i d not intend to h i r e a landscape a r c h i t e c t or "expert" such as F r e d r i c k Law Olmsted to prepare a design, as many American c i t i e s had done. They d i d , however, want to acquire parkland, a d e s i r e that was a l s o pre-ve l e n t i n many North American c i t i e s . There i s no evidence i n the C i t y archives to suggest that there had been a p u b l i c cry i n the community f o r a park, apart from a l e t t e r from A.W. Ross suggesting that C o u n c i l p e t i t i o n the government f o r the reserve on the f i r s t narrows. U n l i k e the i n d u s t r i a l c i t i e s i n B r i t a i n , and even New York, there was no urgent need to create a r u r a l s e t t i n g w i t h i n the sm a l l c i t y of Vancouver because i t was v i r t u a l l y surrounded by wild e r n e s s . To o b t a i n a cl u e to the underlying reasons, i t i s u s e f u l to look at the speeches made at the opening of the park i n 1886 by the d i g n i t a r i e s present. Mayor Oppenheimer of Vancouver, Mayor Grant of V i c t o r i a , and the Honourable John Robson, P r o v i n c i a l S e cretary, addressed the l a r g e Vancouver crowd. Mayor Oppenheimer s t a t e d , that Stanley Park was unsurpassed i n beauty, and i t s grandeur of scenery; i t could not be e x c e l l e d i n i t s f i t n e s s -153-f o r the purpose of p u b l i c r e c r e a t i o n ; and that there was a need f o r a c i t y park to enable c i t i z e n s to get away from the "busy haunts of men." He went on to say however, that a l l great c i t i e s endeavour to provide parks and even s i n g l e d out Richmond Park i n London and Phoenix Park i n Dublin as parks that temporarily outshone Stanley Park. He c l e a r l y saw a need f o r " a r t " i n the park and p r e d i c t e d ' that when a r t unite d w i t h nature i n Stanley Park, that i t would be the f i n e s t park on the continent. Both Mayor Grant and John Robson al s o mentioned the need f o r " a r t " although no one elaborated on what they perceived as "art".8 I would seem that the people of Vancouver i n 1888 expected Van-couver to become a great c i t y , and a p u b l i c park was a r e f l e c t i o n of i t s growing importance. Mayor Oppenheimer was undoubtably not concerned about g e t t i n g away from the c i t y and "busy haunts of men" at that time, because there were numerous places people could go to get out of the small c i t y . He envisioned that Vancouver would e v e n t u a l l y become a great c i t y at the end of the CPRjand would then need p u b l i c park space to "escape" to. A r t , to him, d i d not have a c l e a r meaning but was another, element to be added to make the park more grand — a healthy r e f l e c t i o n on the c i t y . In many c i t i e s across North America i n the l a t e 1800's }there was a d e s i r e to acquire a great park that would b o l s t e r the c i t y ' s image n a t i o n -a l l y and i n t e r n a t i o n a l l y . The c i t i e s i n the West, which d i d not as yet have any urban i l l s to "escape from" 5 were of t e n experiencing ra p i d , growth, and saw parkland as a symbol of i t s current h e a l t h and a s p i r a t i o n s f o r the f u t u r e . In 1886, Vancouver c a r r i e d newspapers from San F r a n c i s c o , Los Angeles, P o r t l a n d , and S e a t t l e , so Vancouverites were w e l l aware of the events t a k i n g place i n those American c i t i e s . Vancouver was i n c r e a s i n g l y being worked i n t o a West -154-Coast urban network. While Hammond H a l l d i d not begin h i s work on Golden Gate Park u n t i l 1890, Olmsted had done a plan e a r l i e r , and the d e s i r e f o r a large p u b l i c park had been expressed i n San Francisco f o r years. S e a t t l e had a l s o acquired parkland by 1886. The people from Eastern Canada were l i k e l y aware of the numerous grants of land that the Dominion Government was making to many Eastern c i t i e s to be used as parkland. They saw Vancouver's opportunity i n the m i l i t a r y reserve i n Coal Harbour. The people that l i v e d i n Vancouver i n the i n i t i a l years undoubtably had a profound-affect on the e a r l y development of Stanley Park. The vast m a j o r i t y of the population was from Eastern Canada and the few Americans were i n r e l a t i v e l y i n f l u e n c i a l p o s i t i o n s . Because both these groups were f a m i l i a r w i t h the n a t u r a l i s t i c type of urban, park that Olmsted had been de-s i g n i n g and that the E n g l i s h gardeners had been designing p r e v i o u s l y , i t was n a t u r a l that very formal parks were not advocated. The more formal French i n f l u e n c e was not evident on the Vancouver landscape u n t i l the C i t y B e a u t i f u l method of park and boulevard design was somewhat i n f l u e n c i a l around 1910. In l a t e r years there were other French i n f l u e n c e s such as the "pattern making" f l o r a l design gardens such as the one at Prospect P o i n t today that o f t e n reads, "Stanleys Park, . B r i t i s h Columbia." The Eastern Canadians who came to Vancouver very early, brought a p a r t i c u l a r brand of V i c t o r i a n middle c l a s s s t r u c t u r e . They, l i k e the B r i t i s h , a l s o enjoyed promenading and c a r r i a g e r i d i n g . The park d r i v e , t h e r e f o r e , was a l o g i c a l f i r s t development i n the park. By 1892, there was an extension to the s t r e e t r a i l w a y system to Stanley Park which enabled people to r i d e to the -155-entrance and walk through the park. Ed Gibson, i n h i s t h e s i s , "The Impact of S o c i a l B e l i e f on Land-scape Change: A Geographical Study of Vancouver," s t a t e s , t h a t , "the doc-t r i n e that human w i l l and r a t i o n a l i t y can dominate nature does not appear to have been accepted by anyone." 9 E. Wilson, a woman of the Vancouver middle c l a s s during that p e r i o d wrote a book e n t i t l e d The Innocent T r a v e l l e r i n which she explained her b e l i e f s on man and nature. She advocated that nature i n f l u e n c e d the w e l l being of man.10 This respect and reverence f o r the n a t u r a l landscape or the . " r u r a l c o u n t r y s i d e " as the B r i t i s h termed i t , was evident i n the i n i t i a l years, and l i k e l y saved Stanley Park from threa t s that were to come i n the f o l l o w i n g years. Several commercial ven-tures were planned f o r parts of Stanley Park, but the Park Board speaking f o r the m a j o r i t y of c i t i z e n s , kept these to a minimum. The i n f l u e n c e of A.G. Ferguson was a l s o of some consequence. As an Americanjhe was perhaps f a m i l i a r w i t h Olmsted's work, and was anxious to guide Stanley Park i n that d i r e c t i o n . His constant a t t e n t i o n towards the Park, and h i s f i n a n c i a l generosity i n d i c a t e d - t h a t he may have had some k i n d of "comprehensive p l a n " i n h i s mind. Ferguson may have been aware of what McLaren was accomplishing w i t h the San Francisco park system, and that Van-couver a l s o needed a "watchdog" and defender of the park landscape. Fer-guson's name was l a t e r given to the poi n t on the West Side of Stanley Park overloo k i n g E n g l i s h Bay. Another American i n f l u e n c e was the c r e a t i o n of an e l e c t e d park board. Vancouver was the f i r s t c i t y i n Canada to e l e c t a park committee, and t h i s was at a time when the C i t y Councils across the country were j e a l o u s l y -156-guarding t h e i r power when i t came to p u b l i c parks. Most c i t i e s d i d not have park committees l e t alone e l e c t e d ones. Even though Vancouver's f i r s t Park Boards were dominated by businessmen, they were nevertheless bodies that were able to concentrate on the narrower is s u e of parks r a t h e r than the pro-blems of the c i t y as a whole. I t enabled a man such as Mr. Ferguson to go ahead w i t h h i s l i t t l e p r o j e c t s without having to answer to C i t y Council and the p u b l i c as a whole. The B r i t i s h people i n Vancouver, few as they were i n 1887, als o had an i n f l u e n c e i n the e a r l y development of Stanley Park. The c r i c k e t p i t c h at Brockton Oval a t t e s t e d to that f a c t . The c r i c k e t club was one of the f i r s t clubs i n Vancouver and was a major force behind the c l e a r i n g of the a t h l e t i c grounds. The B r i t i s h labour c l a s s that began to a r r i v e w i t h the completion of the CPR, was als o v o c a l about i t s d e s i r e f o r r e c r e a t i o n space. The people that l i v e d i n Vancouver i n the i n i t i a l y ears, t h e r e f o r e , and the perceptions and a s p i r a t i o n s that these people had f o r Vancouver as a c i t y , i n f l u e n c e d the e a r l y development of Stanley Park. They c l e a r l y saw Vancouver as a c i t y w i t h a tremendous f u t u r e , but f u n n i l y enough,, a f t e r a l l the opening day t a l k of " a r t " there seemed to be no c o n s i d e r a t i o n given to h i r i n g a landscape a r c h i t e c t or designer to prepare a plan f o r t h e i r "jewel park". Their incremental approach to the development of the park may have been the r e s u l t of a l a c k of funds, or the d e s i r e to p r o t e c t the n a t u r a l features of the park by gra d u a l l y adding features that would complement the landscape. In a l l l i k e l i h o o d , n e i t h e r explanation i s t o t a l l y c o r r e c t , and the r e a l reason f o r the incremental approach i s the t o t a l l a c k of any s o r t of development p o l i c y or idea of what they wanted Stanley Park to be. While -157-there are numerous reasons why some features are here or there i n the park, the overwhelming d e s i r e to acquire land f o r park purposes, which i n turn enhanced the city,was the primary reason f o r Stanley Park's i n i t i a l e x i s t -ance as a park. The Park .Commissioners d i d not s t a r t t h i n k i n g s e r i o u s l y about the f u n c t i o n and design of the Park u n t i l the e a r l y 1900's, when the economy was once again booming, and there was an i n f l u x of more s o p h i s t i c a t e d people i n Vancouver. The Boom Years 1900 - 1914 The depression ended around 1900 when I n t e r i o r mining and gold prospects improved,and Vancouver's pop u l a t i o n began to grow very r a p i d l y . I t was, as Norbert McDonald c a l l e d i t , the "golden age of the r e a l e s t a t e operator" as people bought and s o l d land i n the West End and i n Vancouver's new suburbs.11 Between 1901 and 1911 the population of Vancouver grew from 27,000 to 100,000 people. I t ceased to be a small town. In 1892 the e l e c t r i c s t r e e t r a i l w a y had been brought to Stanley Park, but during the 1 8 9 0 ' s , l i t t l e t r a c k was added to the system. In the e a r l y 1900's a 103 mile r a i l w a y system was established,which enabled the expanding po p u l a t i o n to be a c c e s s i b l e to Stanley Park. The Park Board had a more s u b s t a n t i a l budget once again, and more a t t e n t i o n was turned t o -ward the improvement of Stanley Park. Generally,the new improvements b u i l t upon the e x i s t i n g design f e a -t u r e s . The sports grounds were f u r t h e r enhanced, p i c n i c grounds were c l e a r e d , new t r a i l s were cut i n the f o r e s t w h i l e the older ones were improved, and the zoo was slowly expanded. The p e r i p h e r a l park t r a i l was hard surfaced i n 1911, and a motorized bus s e r v i c e was s t a r t e d to d r i v e v i s i t o r s through -158-the park and stop at places l i k e the zoo, Prospect P o i n t , and the B i g Hollow Tree. Playgrounds f o r c h i l d r e n got t h e i r beginning at Ceperley's Children's Playground at Second Beach i n 1907. In 1911 a greenhouse was b u i l t to c u l -t i v a t e shrubs f o r the park. The park entrance was s t i l l the most formal area of the park w i t h various flower beds and p i c k e t fences. In 1912 the Board acquired a f i r e engine f o r the park's p r o t e c t i o n . The c i t i z e n s o f Vancouver became more i n v o l v e d i n the d e c i s i o n s made about Stanley Park, and r a i s e d a p u b l i c outcry over two i n c i d e n t s during the boom p e r i o d . These were t h r e a t s to Deadman's I s l a n d and then to Lost Lagoon, events that saw the beginning of c i t i z e n s ' p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the C i t y of Vancouver, a phenomenon that had an impact on the des t i n y of the Vancouver park system. Deadman's I s l a n d Issue The f i r s t major threat to Stanley Park began i n 1899 when the Federal Government claimed that the lease that t r a n s f e r r e d Stanley Park to the C i t y of Vancouver d i d not i n c l u d e Deadman's Island,and i t t h e r e f o r e i n -tended to a s s e r t i t s c l a i m i n order to use i t as an i n d u s t r i a l s i t e . The Park Board d i d not accept t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the lease and declared i t s c l a i m to the i s l a n d . In February the Federal Government signed a 25 year lease to an American i n d u s t r i a l i s t , Theodore Ludgate, who wanted to b u i l d a sawmill on Deadman's I s l a n d . Reaction i n the Community was immediate and very v o c a l . A l o c a l p e t i t i o n was c i r c u l a t e d w i t h over 200 signatures opposing the lease and supporting the Park Committee's c l a i m to the i s l a n d . On the Vancouver C o u n c i l , opinion was d i v i d e d between conservation-i s t s and i n d u s t r i a l i s t s . Alderman McGuigan summarized the viewpoint of h i s -15.9T colleagues opposed to the l e a s e , "the I n t e g r i t y of the park should be main-ta i n e d by ensuring that Deadman's I s l a n d was not a l i e n a t e d f o r i n d u s t r i a l purposes, but maintained as an i n t e g r a l part of the park. I t i s a unique possession throughout the continent and r i g h t s over i t should not be l i g h t l y waved."-'-2 Expressing the opposite view, Alderman McPhaiden admitted that Stanley Park was important to Vancouver, but l i k e some ot h e r s , f e l t that the economic b e n e f i t s outweighed the need to conserve the n a t u r a l environment. He s t a t e d that those opposed to the m i l l were "not f r i e n d s of Vancouver". At a c o u n c i l meeting, a spectator shouted, "a man never got a square meal o f f scenery!"13 Outside C o u n c i l the l i n e s s eparating the two viewpoints were drawn very q u i c k l y i n the community. The l i b e r a l MP f o r Vancouver, G.R. Maxwell s t r o n g l y upheld Ludgate i n t e r e s t s and. argued that the m i l l would a l l e v i a t e some of Vancouver's unemployment. The Vancouver and D i s t r i c t Trades and Labour Co u n c i l ran numerous a r t i c l e s i n t h e i r newspaper The F e d e r a t i o n i s t s t a t i n g that i f saw t h i s s i t u a t i o n as another example of government fa v o u r i n g b i g business i n surrendering the people to p r i v a t e i n t e r e s t s . The Vancouver  D a i l y News A d v e r t i s e r was al s o s t r o n g l y opposed to the lease and contended that C i t y C o u n c i l , the Park Board, the Board of Trade, and the Labour C o u n c i l spoke f o r the m a j o r i t y of Vancouver's c i t i z e n s . To compound the matter even more, many people i n the community resented the f a c t that Ludgate was American, and saw him as a s p e c t a t o r , removing wealth from Canada. The people of Vancouver were c l e a r l y d i v i d e d as l e g a l custody of Deadman's I s l a n d was passed to Ludgate on March 1, 1899. The b a t t l e raged f o r eleven years, w i t h the P r o v i n c i a l Government becoming i n v o l v e d and going to court to r e s t r a i n Ludgate from t r e s p a s s i n g . -160-The court cases dragged on u n t i l l a t e 1911, when Ludgate's c l a i m was upheld and he re-occupied the i s l a n d , e v i c t i n g a l l squatters. The s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h i s long and emotional s t r u g g l e over Deadman's I s l a n d was not only the chain of events, but the p e r s i s t e n c e and d e d i c a t i o n of both sides i n v o l v e d . " I t was a b a t t l e , a l b e i t m i c r o s c o p i c , i n a war that had been going on between i n d u s t r i a l i s t s and c o n v e r s a t i o n i s t s across North America over the n a t u r a l h e r i t a g e of t h i s c o n t i n e n t . " I 4 Many c i t i z e n s of Vancouver who could be c a l l e d c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s or n a t u r a l i s t s , b e l i e v e d i n pre s e r v i n g the f o r e s t wilderness of a l l parts of Stanley Park and saw i t as a part of t h e i r l o c a l h e r i t a g e . Although the Indian community was not v o c a l at that time i t i s c l e a r that Deadman's I s l a n d was an extremely important part of t h e i r h e r i t a g e . I t was the s i t e of the great war w i t h the Haida and southern t r i b e s and i s the subject of many Indian legends.15 x t l a t e r became the l o c a l band's b u r i a l ground. The Vancouver Province newspaper summarized the unrest which pre-v a i l e d i n the c i t y a f t e r Ludgate c l e a r e d the i s l a n d i f i t s magnificent t r e e s . "The l a s t t r e e has been cut down on the i s l e of dreams, or Deadman's I s l a n d , and desolate and p a t h e t i c , i t l i e s , across the entrance to Coal Harbour, s h i v e r i n g i n i t s nakedness, a monument to m a t e r i a l i s m , vandalism, and s t u p i d i t y , cleverness and i l l e g a l i t y . " 1 6 A sawmill was never constructed on Deadman's I s l a n d because Ludgate died s i x years a f t e r he won h i s case. His es t a t e could not pay the r e n t , so Deadman's I s l a n d was returned to the Dominion government. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , the magnificent view of Deadman's I s l a n d from the West End r i d g e was l o s t forever. ( I l l u s t r a t i o n 5) -161-Mawson's Plan f o r the Head of Coal Harbour The second t h r e a t to Stanley Park was a c t u a l l y a design scheme that promised to change the appearance and f u n c t i o n of the park. By 1910 Vancouver began to be aware of the C i t y B e a u t i f u l Movement and the Chicago World's F a i r of 1893. Factions w i t h i n the community began to v o c a l i z e the need f o r a more b e a u t i f u l c i t y . L i k e others across North America i n v o l v e d i n C i t y B e a u t i f u l thought at that time, they saw p u b l i c parks and green space as an e s s e n t i a l element. The Park Board g r a d u a l l y became atuned to what the community was t h i n k i n g . The Vancouver Council of Women asked the Park Board to meet them to discuss C i t y B e a u t i f u l , and the Vancouver C i t y B e a u t i f u l A s s o c i a t i o n w i t h i t s l a r g e membership from the business community and the Board of Trade, per-suaded the Board that a more b e a u t i f u l c i t y would a t t r a c t more t o u r i s t d o l l a r s . 1 7 A c c o r d i n g l y , the Park Board endeavoured to inc o r p o r a t e such ideas w i t h i n i t s own operations. The Board saw that a landscape design f o r the Head of Coal Harbour and entrance to the park (at low t i d e t h i s area was s m e l l i n g mud f l a t s ) would enhance some of the piecemeal development that had progressed there and would be an opportunity to create a magnificent landscape r e f l e c t i n g Stanley Park's r o l e as the c i t y ' s major park and primary t o u r i s t a t t r a c t i o n . In 1912, Thomas Mawson toured Canada and expressed a wish to a i d i n the design of Stanley Park. The Park Board h i r e d Mawson to prepare a plan f o r the Head of Coal Harbour, (which today i s Lost Lagoon, the Causeway, and Brockton P o i n t ) . Stanley Park was a landscape a r c h i t e c t ' s dream, and Mawson -162-wanted to design the whole park, but the Board would not comply. By June of 1912 he produced three very d e t a i l e d plans f o r the southern p o r t i o n of the park,and by October,the Board had chosen the t h i r d p l a n which was the most elaborate and Mawson's f a v o u r i t e . This plan was a very formal design using a great c i r c u l a r pond as the c e n t r a l element, surroundea-by a f o o t b a l l stadium, two n e o - c l a s s i c a l b u i l d i n g s housing a n a t u r a l museum and a restaurant,and c h i l d r e n ' s playgrounds. ( I l l u s t r a t i o n s 6 and 7) The f r e s h water pond was to have a 180 foot ornamental o b l i s k i n i t s centre. ( I l l u s t r a t i o n 8) Again, there was a r e a c t i o n from segments of the community who d i d not want a formal design such as t h i s i n Stanley Park. The trade unions organized over the i s s u e because they wanted the park to remain i n a n a t u r a l s t a t e w i t h minimal c l e a r i n g , f o r . . c h i l d r e n ' s playgrounds. The unions were j u s t as concerned about the f u n c t i o n of the park as w i t h the n a t u r a l a e s t h e t i c s . The C i t y B e a u t i f u l A s s o c i a t i o n , a group formed to advocate the b e a u t i f i c a t i o n of the c i t y , d i d not apparently want to see the demise of the naturalness of Stanley Park and were v i o l e n t l y opposed to the Mawson pl a n . They he l d a p u b l i c meeting i n December, of 1912 to p u b l i c l y t e l l the Park Board "Hands Off Stanley Park!"! 8 The A s s o c i a t i o n pointed to the clause i n the lease from the Dominion Government preventing the f a l l i n g . o f t r e e s or otherwise a l t e r i n g the park, except f o r the purpose of making roads, without the consent of the M i n i s t e r of the M i l i t i a . They claimed that i t would be i l l e g a l to b u i l d the stadium, museum and r e s t a u r a n t . Mawson's design f o r Stanley Park was never a c t u a l i z e d , p a r t l y -163-because of the negative r e a c t i o n from the community and p a r t l y because the war caused energies to be channelled elsewhere. The i n c i d e n t i l l u s t r a t e d however, that the c i t i z e n s of Vancouver responded to t h r e a t s to the n a t u r a l -ness of Stanley Park and that they wanted to p a r t i c i p a t e i n . d e c i s i o n s made about t h e i r park. By 1914, the Park Board s t i l l d i d not have a development p o l i c y f o r Stanley Park. What they d i d have was a b e t t e r i d e a of how the p u b l i c viewed the park. They r e a l i z e d that besides the expansion of features already i n the park, they needed c h i l d r e n ' s playgrounds and more p u b l i c beaches. R e f l e c t i o n s on the Boom P e r i o d 1900 - 1914 The B r i t i s h Columbian gold rush brought Canadians, Europeans and Americans to Vancouver i n l a r g e numbers and t r i g g e r e d an enormous b u i l d i n g boom i n the c i t y . The numbers of B r i t o n s increased tremendously and by 1911, they accounted f o r 34% of the p o p u l a t i o n . A great number of the E n g l i s h were i n managerial and land owner r o l e s , w h i l e many of the others were of the labour c l a s s and c o n t r i b u t e d h e a v i l y to the labour movement and s o c i a l i s t p o l i t i c s i n Vancouver. Ed Gibson remarked i n h i s t h e s i s t h a t "these B r i t i s h elements demonstrated d e f i n i t e sets of s o c i a l b e l i e f s u s u a l l y expressed i n the landscape, through s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s and p o l i c i t a l action."19 The B r i t i s h were u s u a l l y more s o p h i s t i c a t e d about the need f o r urban parks, and brought w i t h them, the l a t e s t ideas f o r park design from B r i t a i n . The Gardenesque trend was s t i l l popular there at the t u r n of the century and showed i n t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l flower gardens. Flowers were grown i n beds and were grouped by p a r t i c u l a r s p e c i e s . They were of t e n o f f s e t by shrubbery behind the beds, modifying the contrast of d e l i c a t e flowers and l a r g e -164-t r e e s . The entrance to Stanley Park g r a d u a l l y gained more and. more f l o r a l beds, and through the years, t h i s s e c t i o n of the park has become the formal flower garden area. This concern and care f o r flower arrangements i n Stanley Park, Queen E l i z a b e t h Park and numerous other parks i n Vancouver i s a very B r i t i s h t r a i t and i s not seen n e a r l y to the same extent i n American parks today. The B r i t i s h community was however, not s u c c e s s f u l i n i n f l u e n c i n g the c r e a t i o n of very l a r g e expanses of lawn that i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c to Hyde Park, Kensington Garden, and v i r t u a l l y a l l B r i t i s h parks. Even town com-mons were u s u a l l y a very l a r g e expanse of lawn that could be used f o r games and walking. Loudon's Gardenesque s t y l e park had modified the vast s t r e t c h e s of lawn that were c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of C a p a b i l i t y Brown's landscapes, and both the American and Canadian park designers or a d m i n i s t r a t o r s chose to encor-porate the smaller s c a l e more p r i v a t e landscapes of the Gardenesque s t y l e . In the case of Stanley Park, there were no l a r g e expanses c l e a r e d f o r lawn except f o r the a t h l e t i c grounds at Brockton Point which the B r i t i s h were o r i g i n a l l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r , and the v a r i o u s playgrounds and p i c n i c areas. The f a c t that Vancouver was such a young c i t y and was not c r e a t i n g a park out of an already c l e a r e d area was an obvious i n f l u e n c e , but i t i s s u r p r i s i n g that there wasn't more c l e a r i n g done on the B r i t i s h model. The B r i t i s h a l s o pushed f o r p u b l i c t e n n i s c o u r t s , playgrounds, and p u b l i c beaches. The south corner of Stanley Park i n particular,shows a strong B r i t i s h design i n f l u e n c e . I t i s an a c t i v e r e c r e a t i o n area t h a t , by the e a r l y 1920's had p i c n i c grounds, p l a y i n g f i e l d s , bowling greens, and tennis c o u r t s . To t h i s day t h i s s e c t i o n of the park i s an a c t i v e r e c r e a t i o n area w i t h p i t c h and put g o l f , s h u f f l e b o a r d , and other a c t i v i t i e s . -165-There was an i n c r e a s i n g American i n f l u e n c e i n Vancouver from 1900 to 1914. L i k e the Americans, Vancouverites adhered to the p r i n c i p l e s of i n d i v i d u a l i s m , p r i v a t e e n t e r p r i s e , and the d e s i r e f o r r a p i d growth. Many thought that the c i t y should r e l y on the p r i v a t e s e c t o r to provide the b a s i c m u n i c i p a l s e r v i c e s and u t i l i t i e s . With t h i s atmosphere p r e v a i l i n g , i t i s amazing that the Park Board was able to prevent commercialism i n the park. By 1904 the Board i n s i s t e d on c o n t r o l l i n g a l l b u i l d i n g standards i n the park. In 1906 the use of the roads w i t h i n the park f o r commercial purposes was p r o h i b i t e d and i n 1905 the Board r e j e c t e d a proposal to b u i l d a speedway. Wi t h i n the e a r l y years the Board turned down proposals f o r : a r i f l e range; motor boat races; a navy torpedo; a g r a i n e l e v a t o r ; a howitzer; and E n g l i s h cabs.^O Unfo r t u n a t e l y , the Park Board was not as s u c c e s s f u l i n preventing the demise of Deadman's I s l a n d f o r a proposed saw m i l l . These r e j e c t i o n s again point to the f a c t that although the Park Board d i d not have a design plan f o r the park, i t d i d have p o l i c y of keeping the park i n i t s n a t u r a l s t a t e as much as p o s s i b l e . This p o l i c y waivered, how-ever, i n 1912, when the American C i t y BeautifulMovement had i n f l u e n c e d many Vancouverites i n t o t h i n k i n g that a very formal entrance to the park would be a great asset to t h e i r c i t y which, at that time,had very great a s p i r a t i o n s . Because the American i n f l u e n c e was so strong i n Vancouver during those years and because i t became evident that most American c i t i e s were not developing t h e i r parks imcrementally but w i t h an o v e r a l l design p l a n , many people i n Vancouver wanted Stanley Park to have a formal face l i f t . As i n the cases of most American c i t y parks redesigned during the C i t y B e a u t i f u l P e r i o d , the whole park was not redesigned, but the eritranceway became the most important -166-feature i n d e f i n i n g the park i n r e l a t i o n to the c i t y . Mawson was com-missioned to do a showpiece entrance to a wilderness park. The f a c t that Mawson was E n g l i s h and worked i n the C i v i c A r t s t y l e was i r r e l e v a n t . The pl a n was so i n f l u e n c e d by the American C i t y B e a u t i f u l Movement .and the landscape at the Chicago Columbia E x p o s i t i o n , that there i s no question that t h i s i n f l u e n c e was American. The n e o - c l a s s i c a l b u i l d i n g s of s i m i l a r s c a l e and colour, and the c i r c u l a r pond could have been r i g h t out of the Jackson Park landscape i n Chicago of 1893. The grandness that these c i t i e s was s t r i v i n g f o r was r e f l e c t e d i n Mawson's d e s i r e to d i s p l a y n a t u r a l h i s t o r y i n the museum i n s t e a d of i n nature. Even more s u r p r i s i n g , the c i t y was w i l l i n g to l e t a S e a t t l e c o n s t r u c t i o n f i r m b u i l d the stadium, which r e -a f f i r m s the Council's f a i t h i n American knowledge and t e c h n i c a l s u p e r i o r i t y . The f a c t that the Park Board's f i r s t non-incremental design scheme had f a i l e d , strengthened even more, the idea that Stanley Park should remain i n i t s n a t u r a l s t a t e as much as p o s s i b l e . There were many tree worshipping n a t i v e s i n Vancouver who saw r e f l e c t e d i n Stanley Park,. B.C.'s primary i n d u s t r y and o r i g i n a l resource — the f o r e s t . In 1918, the Board o f f i c i a l l y adopted the p o l i c y that a l l development i n Stnaley Park was to enhance the n a t u r a l d i g n i t y of the park. Although Mawson's plan was not adopted, i t i s p o s s i b l e to poi n t out some C i t y B e a u t i f u l i n f l u e n c e s on the landscape. The boulevard system idea was adopted during that time and from then on, the Park Board had a very formal p l a n t i n g p o l i c y f o r boulevards throughout the c i t y . By 1916, the bandstand, al s o an American i n f l u e n c e , was b u i l t behind the formal gardens near M a l k i n Bowl. I l l u s t r a t i o n 9 shows the f o r m a l i t y of the area w i t h very angular flower -167-beds and diagonal walkways, both C i t y B e a u t i f u l f e a t u r e s . Summary Looking at the years 1900 - 1914 i n Vancouver's park h i s t o r y , i t seems t h a t , the o r i g i n a l design features developed i n Stanley Park i n the i n i t i a l years (1886 - 1900) were strengthened and elaborated, i n the more prosperous years. The o r i g i n a l p e r i p h e r a l path was hard surfaced i n 1911; the a t h l e t i c grounds at Brockton P o i n t were improved; the zoo was expanded to many v a r i e t i e s of indigenous animals; the southern s e c t i o n was expanded from a p i c n i c area to i n c l u d e playgrounds, t e n n i s c o u r t s , and bowling greens; and the entrance of the park near Avison's cottage acquired more flower gardens. The park's c i r c u l a t i o n system separating p e d e s t r i a n s , m o t o r i s t s , and r i d e r s was a l s o developed by t h i s time. I t was very l i k e l y i n f l u e n c e d by Olmsted's work i n C e n t r a l Park. I l l u s t r a t i o n 10, a map of Stanley Park i n 1911, shows these features and t h e i r o v e r a l l r e l a t i o n s h i p to the park. The great population expansion brought B r i t i s h , Americans, and other Canadians to the city,who had a somewhat more s o p h i s t i c a t e d a t t i t u d e towards urban parks. The people who came to s e t t l e on the P a c i f i c Coast apparently intended to be urban dwellers r a t h e r than farmers or miners,and therefore had a greater i n t e r e s t i n amenities such as parks.21 These new s e t t l e r s met head on w i t h the b a s i c value that seemed to run the whole length of the " l a s t f r o n t i e r " on the West Coast — that parks were not a top p r i o r -i t y because there was p l e n t y of n a t u r a l scenery. While the pioneers f e l t that r a p i d expansion was the most important c r i t e r i a , the newcomers tended to f e e l that s o c i a l amenities and p u b l i c parks were also important assets to a c i t y . -168-I t i s p o s s i b l e to see both B r i t i s h and American i n f l u e n c e s on the Stanley Park landscape. The i n t e r e s t i n the American C i t y B e a u t i f u l features w i t h t h e i r b a s i c French/Beaux A r t s o r i g i n was f a i r l y short l i v e d . The Canadians as w e l l as the Americans were unconsciously steeped i n the B r i t i s h t r a d i t i o n of. n a t u r a l landscapes that go back to C a p a b i l i t y Brown's work i n the l a t e 18th century. The obvious respect that Vancouver's c i t i -zens and v i s i t o r s had f o r the n a t u r a l d i g n i t y of Stanley Park, seemed to undermine any thoughts of a l t e r n a t i v e landscapes. I t was f o r that reason that people were so adamant and w i l l i n g to m o b i l i z e against the threat that they saw to Deadman's I s l a n d . The t h r e a t s to the Park i n the form of the Deadman's I s l a n d i s s u e and the Mawson Pl a n , l e a d to some of the e a r l i e s t c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Vancouver's h i s t o r y . E s t a b l i s h e d o r g a n i z a t i o n s as w e l l as newly formed ones organized to lobby f o r a p a r t i c u l a r i s s u e , came together f o r the f i r s t time to p u b l i c l y s t a t e t h e i r o p p o s i t i o n or approval of a proposal that would a f f e c t them as c i t i z e n s of Vancouver. Open c o u n c i l meetings and p u b l i c meet-ings were h e l d i n order to gain a concensus among the d i f f e r e n t f a c t i o n s i n the c i t y . In the case of Deadman's I s l a n d , the d e c i s i o n was out of the p u b l i c ' s hands, but i n the case of the Mawson design scheme f o r Coal Harbour, the v o c a l c i t i z e n s ' delegations were i n f l u e n t i a l i n preventing the plan from be-coming a r e a l i t y . Hastings Park The events surrounding the development of Hastings Park showed that the r e s i d e n t s of Vancouver d i d not want every r e c r e a t i o n space i n the c i t y to be a wilderness park. -169-A few months a f t e r a c q u i r i n g Stanley Park, the C i t y looked at V i c t o r i a w i t h i t s recent grant of Beacon H i l l from the P r o v i n c i a l Government, and decided to lobby the P r o v i n c i a l Government f o r 64 acres i n Hastings Townsite. In 1888 the P r o v i n c i a l Commissioner of Lands and Works granted 160 acres i n the townsite provided the c i t y would extend i t s boundaries to includ e the park s i t e and b u i l d an access road i n t o the c i t y . 2 2 From the beginning, C i t y C o u n c i l wanted the Vancouver e x h i b i t i o n , which had formerly been held i n New Westminster, to be moved to the Hastings Townsite. An e x h i b i t i o n would r e f l e c t the vibrance and ambition of a young c i t y . 2 3 C o u n c i l decided not to assign the park to the Park Committee to ad-m i n i s t e r , but i n s t e a d c a l l e d f o r tenders f o r a p r i v a t e group to c u t , burn, and c l e a r 23 acres of the parkland. The e x h i b i t i o n remained i n New West-minster u n t i l a f t e r the depression of the 1890's however, so the Council d i d not go ahead w i t h i t s plans u n t i l the e a r l y 1900's. L i t t l e was done to the park during the 1890's except f o r the c l e a r i n g of s e v e r a l t r a i l s through the f o r e s t . Few people l i v e d i n Hastings Townsite i n comparison to the C i t y , so i t d i d not merit development as a neighbourhood park at that time. Council leased acreage w i t h i n the park to the B r i t i s h Columbia Jockey Club as a s i t e f o r i t s racecourse. I t was not unusual f o r e a r l y Councils to a l l o w p r i v a t e o r g a n i z a t i o n s to provide f a c i l i -t i e s because i t r e f l e c t e d the contemporary view that the r o l e of l o c a l gov-ernments should be l i m i t e d . 2 4 V i c t o r i a had allowed a race t r a c k i n Beacon H i l l park, and part of Brockton P o i n t was leased to the Brockton P o i n t A t h l e t i c A s s o c i a t i o n . In the e a r l y 1900's w i t h r a p i d p o p u l a t i o n growth and i n c r e a s i n g -170-p r o s p e r i t y , a core of i n t e r e s t e d businessmen (some of whom were aldermen and future mayors), farmers, and breeders who could a f f o r d to e s t a b l i s h an ex-h i b i t i o n , founded the Vancouver E x h i b i t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n . In March of 1909 a p l e b i s c i t e was held on whether a grant of acreage and money ($50,000) should be given to the E x h i b i t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n . Despite the o b j e c t i o n s of the Park Board 2^ and numerous ratepayers 2*^, the p l e b i s c i t e passed. Ten acres were clear e d and graded, and a f t e r another p l e b i s c i t e was h e l d to r a i s e an a d d i -t i o n a l $85,000, the f i r s t e x h i b i t i o n was h e l d i n 1910. I t was an immediate success. The attendance was 68,000 and the t o t a l r e c e i p t s gathered from the e x h i b i t i o n were almost $42,000. 2 7 The f a i r a l s o became a major convention centre as s i x o r g a n i z a t i o n s held t h e i r con-ventions on the grounds. When the E x h i b i t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n requested a d d i t i o n a l acreage i n October of 1910, the C o u n c i l , being impressed w i t h the r e s u l t s of Vancouver's f i r s t f a i r , agreed to s i g n a lease f o r a d d i t i o n a l l a n d . 2 8 At t h i s p o i n t the Park Board expressed i t s objections,and a f t e r a j o i n t meeting i n November w i t h the Board of Parks, i t was agreed that the park should be d i v i d e d i n h a l f — the southern s e c t i o n being administered by the Park Board and the northern s e c t i o n going to the E x h i b i t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n . The Park Board was r e p o r t e d l y happy w i t h f i n a l l y o f f i c i a l l y o b t a i n i n g h a l f the park. 29 The E x h i b i t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n immediately pressed f o r another p l e b i s c i t e to r a i s e $115,000 f o r the e r e c t i o n of major b u i l d i n g s and the development of landscaping. The p l e b i s c i t e was s u c c e s s f u l , enabling the E x h i b i t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n to gain an even stronger p o s i t i o n i n the tug of war over Hastings Park. -171-The Park Board,after having to s i t back f o r 23 years, decided to develop i t s p o r t i o n s of the park, e s p e c i a l l y i n the l i g h t of the f a c t that the r e s i d e n t s of Hastings Townsite had been lobbying f o r a neighbourhood park.30 They began by using s i m i l a r design ideas as f o r Stanley Park. Roads were l a i d out, two r u s t i c bridges were b u i l t and t r a i l s were cut through the woods. In the F i r s t Annual Report published by the Park Board i n 1912, they boasted of the d e l i g h t f u l park at Hastings Townsite, and promised the a d d i -t i o n of an ornamental garden and a playground. Their smuggness was not to l a s t long. The f a i r s of 1911 and 1912 were even more s u c c e s s f u l , and the E x h i b i t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n asked C o u n c i l f o r a lease on a d d i t i o n a l property i n 1913. The Park Board argued s t r o n g l y against t h i s , saying that the f u n c t i o n of the E x h i b i t i o n was not i n compliance w i t h the terms of the 1911 p r o v i n c i a l grant to the c i t y , of parkland f o r r e c r e a t i o n a l purposes. Park Superintendent W.S. Rawlings contended that $30,000 had already been spent and the ratepayers had approved another $10,000. He s t r e s s e d the need to preserve some woodland and observed that Ward 2 ratepayers had gone on record as being opposed to any f u r t h e r p o r t i o n or t h i s park being taken from the p u b l i c f o r e x h i b i t i o n pur-poses. "31 Despite the Park Board's o p p o s i t i o n , the C o u n c i l permitted the A s s o c i a t i o n to extend i t s grounds south to Hastings Street i n February of 1913. The Park Board, f e e l i n g defeated, abandoned the l a s t remnant of the park under i t s c o n t r o l and ceased to have t i e s . w i t h Hastings Park.32 I t i s rare that someone would lament the l o s s of Hastings Park as a f o r e s t . Vancouver i s a "PNE c i t y " today,and t h i s enthusiasm f o r e x h i b i -t i o n s which began i n the e a r l y part of the century i n Hastings Park, has f l o u r i s h e d through the years. Today, i t i s one of Vancouver's most d i v e r s i f i e d -172-parks although i t i s not under the auspices of the Park Board. The evidence suggests that the c i t i z e n s of Vancouver, between 1910 and 1913,approved of the e x h i b i t i o n , otherwise the numerous p l e b i s c i t e s would not have been supported. I l l u s t r a t i o n 11 taken at Hastings Park i n the 1890's, shows a stock s a l e or show which was a tremendously popular use of the s i t e long before the f i r s t e x h i b i t i o n i n 1910. I l l u s t r a t i o n 12, taken i n 1910, i l l u s t r a t e s the new e x h i b i t i o n b u i l d i n g and the splendor of the a g r i c u l t u r a l e x h i b i t i o n . People d i d not want another f o r e s t e d park — they wanted a place to go to see horse r a c i n g , to p i c n i c , and to walk around. The e v o l u t i o n of Hastings Park from a n a t u r a l landscape to a bust-l i n g e x h i b i t i o n ground i n 1914, was a d i r e c t i n f l u e n c e of the West Coast American example to the south. The whole idea of an a g r i c u l t u r a l f a i r was very strong i n America at that time, and the Vancouver E x h i b i t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n promptly j o i n t e d s e v e r a l American as w e l l as Canadian F a i r A s s o c i a t i o n s . Having cl o s e r a i l and other s o r t s of l i n k s w i t h C a l i f o r n i a , the Vancouver f a i r was q u i c k l y i n t e g r a t e d i n t o the Western American f a i r system rather than the dispersed Canadian f a i r system. The Vancouver A s s o c i a t i o n became an a c t i v e member of four American c o n t r o l l e d organizations, the P a c i f i c Grand F a i r and Racing C i r c u i t , the Congress of F e s t i v a l s , the North P a c i f i c F a i r s A s s o c i a t i o n and the I n t e r n a t i o n a l C i r c u i t s Association.33 xhe manager of the Vancouver E x h i b i t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n was president of two of those organiza-t i o n s i n 1912. I t was n a t u r a l that the Vancouver E x h i b i t i o n was modelled on the American counterpart. The design features were s i m i l a r , such as s p e c i a l i z e d stock d i s p l a y s , c i r c u s e s and midways.34 xhe plan of the Vancouver E x h i b i t i o n -173-grounds i n 1915 ( I l l u s t r a t i o n 13) shows an area j u s t west of the a t h l e t i c f i e l d -as some s o r t of formal d i s p l a y area. The c i r c u l a r walkway w i t h i n a t r i a n g l e of bordered t r e e s suggests the i n f l u e n c e of the fo r m a l i z e d shapes of the C i t y B e a u t i f u l school. F i n a l l y , the southern p o r t i o n that the Park Board began to c l e a r was a s e r i e s of lawns, playgrounds, and.picnic areas i n 1915. C i t y Park System to 1913 The development of a c i t y park system was slow i n Vancouver, and i n v a r i a b l y , an incremental process. A Toronto r e a l t o r , E.J. C l a r k , o f f e r e d a g i f t of la n d i n 1888, which was on the southern periphery of Vancouver. The Park Board accepted t h i s g i f t a few years l a t e r , but t h i s was the l a s t g i f t i t accepted u n t i l the economy picked up once again a f t e r the depressed 1890's. In 1894, the r e s i d e n t s from the East End d i d ask f o r a "block of land " between Dunlevy and Jackson Avenue (Cambie Street S i t e ) f o r park purposes, but the Park Board was unable to make any a c q u i s i t i o n s . 3 5 i n 1889 t h e r e f o r e , Vancouver had three parks; Stanley Park, Hastings Park, and C l a r k ' s Park. At the tu r n of the century, the Park Board was able to consider a c i t y park system and i t was i n the next t h i r t e e n years that the f i r s t major expansion occurred. ( I l l u s t r a t i o n 14) The po p u l a t i o n of Vancouver had doubled between 1891 and 1901, and the l o c a l r e s i d e n t s began to push f o r neighbourhood parks. In January 1902,the v o t e r s approved by a vote of 892 to 419, a $25,000 debenture to purchase the Cambie St r e e t s i t e . 3 6 Both the Board and the r e s i d e n t s wanted t h i s s i t e to be used as a sports ground because the only -174-other s i t e was the i s o l a t e d Brockton P o i n t grounds which was used by a p r i v a t e club most of the time,and was not e a s i l y a c c e s s i b l e . The purchase of the Cambie Street grounds was the f i r s t time that the Board had paid f o r park-land and i t was l o c a t e d on the edge of the "Eastern Canadian" r e s i d e n t i a l s e c t o r near the G r a n v i l l e Townsite. ( I l l u s t r a t i o n 15) To the east was the working c l a s s r e s i d e n t i a l area, and to the west was the middle to upper c l a s s r e s i d e n t i a l area of the West End. As other neighbourhoods such as K i t s i l a n o and Grandview began to clamour f o r neighbourhood parks,the Park Board began to pay a t t e n t i o n . In September of 1902 the Council gained the p u b l i c ' s permission to r a i s e $125,000 to purchase f u r t h e r park properties.37 One of the f i r s t s i t e s acquired a f t e r the p l e b i s c i t e was Tatlow Park i n K i t s i l a n o i n 1907 and Greer's Beach near K i t s i l a n o P o i n t . The Board had to lease the beach park from the CPR (5 year lease o r i g i n a l l y ) w i t h the understanding that the c i t y was to pay $50 a month "based on the present assessment of the K i t s i l a n o property and i f that value went up at at any time, the rent would be increased by r a t i o . " 3 8 The Greer's Beach P a r k , l a t e r c a l l e d K i t s Beach, was immediately s u c c e s s f u l and the c i t y improved the s i t e by p l a n t i n g a lawn and shade t r e e s , and by p u t t i n g up a bath house. Some of the l o c a l r e s i d e n t s wanted to expand the beach and r a i s e d $1,500 to purchase acreage behind the beach,to be used as a p u b l i c park.39 A c i t i z e n s ' group c a l l e d the K i t s i l a n o Improvement A s s o c i a t i o n began to be v o c a l w i t h i n the area, and pressed f o r f u r t h e r park space. The C i t y responded by a c q u i r i n g the land bought by the l o c a l r e s i d e n t s and r e t u r n i n g t h e i r $1,500, plus a c q u i r i n g a d d i t i o n a l property f o r $63,000. K i t s i l a n o Beach area soon became a major p u b l i c park and the Park Board began to consider a long term improvement -175-program f o r the p a r k . 4 U The K i t s i l a n o Improvement A s s o c i a t i o n began to have a great deal of i n f l u e n c e i n the d e c i s i o n s made about the design and f u n c t i o n of K i t s Beach. Their p o s i t i o n was i n f l u e n t i a l i n s e v e r a l r e s p e c t s : adopting a by-law p r o h i b i t i n g r e l i g i o u s s e r v i c e s on the beach; opposing a b i d by an amuse-ment company to operate at K i t s Beach; opposing a renaming of the beach to Ocean Park; the adoption of a by-law to purchase more CPR lands to the south-west of the beach; and f i n a l l y , the a c q u i s i t i o n of f l o o d l i g h t s to l i g h t the boardwalk at the beach. The A s s o c i a t i o n obviously had an i d e a of what they wanted i n terms of a park design. The i n f l u e n c e was l a r g e l y B r i t i s h , i n -d i c a t e d by the importance of sea bathing, the d e s i r e to improve the boardwalk f o r promenading, and the d e s i r e to exclude any a c t i v e or r e c r e a t i o n a l uses other than walking through the shade trees and expanse of lawns. Besides K i t s Beach and Tatlow Park acquired i n K i t s i l a n o between 1902 and 1911, the Park Board a l s o managed to acquire another park s i t e i n K i t s i l a n o . In 1911, i t a p p l i e d to V i c t o r i a f o r a grant of a s i t e on the sparcel y s e t t l e d western periphery of K i t s i l a n o . Thus by 1911, the Park Board was developing three park s i t e s i n the new d i s t r i c t of K i t s i l a n o — Tatlow Park, K i t s i l a n o or Greer's Beach, and McBride Park. In the d i s t r i c t of Grandview, there was a l s o c i t i z e n input i n t o the form of the new parks. In 1908 the Mount Pleasant and Grandview r a t e -payers p e t i t i o n e d the Board to improve Clark's Park which had not been developed s i n c e i t was acquired nineteen years p r e v i o u s l y . The ratepayers and Edward Odium, spokesman f o r the Grandview Progress A s s o c i a t i o n , t o l d C i t y C o uncil that they were i n d i r e need of r e c r e a t i o n space.41 -176-In January of 1909, the Park Board asked the c i t y ' s r e s i d e n t s f o r permission to borrow $300,000 f o r parks throughout the c i t y . McKee speculates t h a t , "because the Board proposed to purchase park lands i n every ward except Ward 2 (West End) and presented a comprehensive plan r a t h e r than l o c a l o p t i o n s , the measure passed by a wide m a r g i n . " 4 2 with part of t h i s money, the Board acquired V i c t o r i a Park i n Grandview and was able to consider improvements to C l a r k ' s Park. Immediately a f t e r the a c q u i s i t i o n of V i c t o r i a Park, there was a con-f r o n t a t i o n between members of the Grandview community, over the design of the park. The Grandview Ratepayers A s s o c i a t i o n , many w i t h a B r i t i s h background, began to lobby f o r a f l o r a l park, to upgrade the "image of the neighbourhood". Others i n the community, i n c l u d i n g Mr. Odium advocated an a t h l e t i c ground. The Park Board, which i n l a t e r years was to be impressed w i t h C i v i c Beauty i d e a s , probably h e l d values, s i m i l a r to the f a i r l y a f f l u e n t r e s i -dents of Grandview,and because organized ratepayers wielded some p o l i t i c a l power, i t i s not s u r p r i s i n g that the Board requested the Ratepayers Assoc-i a t i o n to canvas t h e i r d i s t r i c t f o r a consensus on the design f o r V i c t o r i a Park. I n e v i t a b l y , i n 1911, Grandview Park was designed as a very ornamental park. These ideas of increased c i v i c p r i d e o r i g i n a t e d w i t h the C i t y B e a u t i f u l i n the U.S. and perhaps to a l a r g e r e x t e n t , the C i v i c Art movement i n B r i t a i n , which was more concerned w i t h ornamental flower gardens as a part of s t r u c -tured c i v i c improvements. The Park Board was concerned about other parts of the c i t y as w e l l . Between 1909 and 1913, the Board asked the c i t y ratepayers on a few occasions f o r permission to r a i s e funds f o r the purchase of land f o r parks. Each time, - 1 7 7 -the ratepayers enthusiastically supported-the Park Board's desire to acquire land. Although this expansion was impressive to many citizens, there was not much thought put into the design and function of these parks and in most cases, they were not touched unt i l the 1920's. The overall desire in that era, was to acquire land. In 1910 the Park Board did start negotiations with the munici-palities of South Vancouver and Point Grey to.purchase L i t t l e Mountain from the CPR, but that was not to come about unt i l 1928. The Park Board acquired land in 1908 on the north arm of Burrard Inlet, directly across from Barnet, and close to where Belcarra Park i s today. The Board acquired i t as a pic-nic and camping ground. Although Admiralty Park was developed very slowly, i t did.indicate that the Park Board was thinking toward the future when Van-couver would be a large city. Playgrounds and Public Beaches In comparison to other West Coast c i t i e s , Vancouver was slow to provide playgrounds. The idea of play areas for children was relatively new, because,while Paxton in Birkenhead Park, and Olmsted in the design for Central Park, set aside "playground' areas" these were for organized adult games rather than children's activities. B i l l McKee suggests that the idea for super-vised children's playgrounds arose from the Chicago World's Fair and then diffused across the continent.43 In Vancouver's early days the school playgrounds were used for children's play. In 1907 the Park Board added six swings at the Lord Roberts school grounds, their f i r s t involvement specifically with children's activities. -178-Concerned c i t i z e n s formed the J u v e n i l e P r o t e c t i o n Agency to attempt to abate the j u v e n i l e delinquency problem i n Vancouver i n the e a r l y 1900's. This group was outspoken about the f a c t that they d i d not see parks s o l e l y f o r the sake of r e c r e a t i o n , but a l s o as a " t o o l f o r s o c i a l i z i n g youth through supervised r e c r e a t i o n . " 4 4 In a l e t t e r to the Park Board, George Healy, the Chairman of the Playground Committee of the J u v e n i l e P r o t e c t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n requested that the c i t y i n v e s t i g a t e the l a c k of playgrounds i n Vancouver, and he r e f e r r e d the Board to the e x c e l l e n t ex-amples of supervised playgrounds i n San Francisco and Los Angeles. 4^ The J u v e n i l e P r o t e c t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n approached the Board i n March of 1910, requesting playground p r o v i s i o n s at the H a r r i s Street Grounds, l a t e r to be c a l l e d McLean Park. The Park Board agreed, but because the C o u n c i l had not provided any funds f o r t h i s conversion,,it was July, 1912 before the f a c i l i t i e s were i n s t a l l e d . Despite the C o u n c i l and Park Board being domin-ated by the wealthy business community who l i v e d i n the West End, the f i r s t park to have c h i l d r e n ' s playground f a c i l i t i e s was i n the East End of Van-couver. Although i t was not supervised, i t was a p o s i t i v e step forward. Although a second playground was planned f o r Robson Park i n Mount Pleasant, the coming war p r o h i b i t e d the expansion at that time. Immediately a f t e r the war the Vancouver Gyro Club, a men's s e r v i c e c l u b , l i k e t h e i r American counterparts, began to become in v o l v e d i n the p r o v i s i o n of p l a y -grounds. 4^ They a p p l i e d enough pressure to cause a growing c i t y - w i d e demand f o r supervised c h i l d r e n ' s playgrounds. In 1922 the widow Ceperley, remembering the wish of Mr. Ferguson, her b r o t h e r - i n - l a w , l e f t money to the c i t y to construct playgrounds s i m i l a r to those she had seen i n Portland.. The Ceperley Playgrounds -179-became a key element i n Vancouver's Park system. The o r i g i n s of the i d e a f o r supervised c h i l d r e n ' s playgrounds were d e f i n i t e l y from the United States. I f i t has o r i g i n a t e d at the f a i r i n Chicago, i t had q u i c k l y spread to a l l parts of the country i n c l u d i n g the West Coast. The J u v e n i l e P r o t e c t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n s and Mrs. Ceperley both looked to c i t i e s along America's West Coast f o r models to emulate. Long before the f i r s t Park Board was e l e c t e d , the r e s i d e n t s of Vancouver, e s p e c i a l l y those of B r i t i s h background, were swimming at Second Beach i n Stanley Park and at K i t s Beach. As e a r l y as 1891, the Vancouver Trade and Labour Council (dominated by people of E n g l i s h background) com-pl a i n e d to c o u n c i l about the l a c k of c l e a r e d beaches. 4 7 In 1895, the C i t y , backed by the Trades and Labour Co u n c i l and the wealthy r e s i d e n t s of the West End,(who would n a t u r a l l y p r e f e r a p u b l i c beach to i n d u s t r y on the E n g l i s h Bay s h o r e l i n e ) approached the Federal Government f o r the t i t l e to the foreshore. The C i t y was advised that i t would need a u t h o r i z a t i o n from s h o r e l i n e property owners, and because the economy was depressed and i t was u n l i k e l y that the C i t y could purchase the necessary permission, the proposal was temporarily abandoned. As the economy picked up at the t u r n of the cen-t u r y , the C i t y i n i t i a t e d the long term p r o j e c t of purchasing l o t s along Beach Avenue as they became a v a i l a b l e . By 1904 when the Park Board "a s c e r t a i n e d that the E n g l i s h Bay beach was i n c i t y hands" and when i t looked l i k e an important t o u r i s t a t t r a c -t i o n , i t i n v i t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s from C i t y C o u n c i l , the Board of Trade, the Trades and Labour C o u n c i l and the T o u r i s t A s s o c i a t i o n to o f f e r suggestions f o r improvements to the beach. A p l e b i s c i t e was h e l d due to the o p p o s i t i o n -180-of the wards f a r t h e s t from the sea. In 1907 however, a by-law was passed by the c i t y v o t e r s to make these improvements because; there was a bigger tax base due to growing p r o s p e r i t y ; the s t r e e t car system was s u b s t a n t i a l l y im-proved; and the Park Board, i n c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h other groups,was able to present a s p e c i f i c p l an i n c l u d i n g a p i e r and bathing house. K i t s Beach, as mentioned p r e v i o u s l y , was a l s o very popular w i t h r e s i d e n t s of P o i n t Grey. In 1914 i t a c t u a l l y surpassed E n g l i s h Bay as the most used p u b l i c beach. Elaborate plans f o r a p i e r and a formal garden were never a c t u a l i z e d due to the wartime economy i n 1914. Apart from the idea f o r a formal garden at K i t s Beach i n 1914, which was obviously i n f l u e n c e d by the C i t y B e a u t i f u l schemes of that time, the whole development and push f o r p u b l i c beaches l i k e l y came from the B r i t i s h p o p u l a t i o n i n Vancouver. Swimming i n the sea i s something that the B r i t i s h have done f o r c e n t u r i e s , and was.not something that was r e a d i l y t r a n s f e r r e d to America. In the f i r s t decade of the 20th century when Van-couver was s o l i c i t i n g ideas f o r the development of i t s beaches, c i t y o f f i c i a l s contacted t h e i r counterparts i n S e a t t l e f o r i n f o r m a t i o n . They were s u r p r i s e d to l e a r n that S e a t t l e had not developed i t s beaches at a l l 1 4 8 In Norbert McDonald's a r t i c l e , "Population Growth and Change i n S e a t t l e and Vancouver", he notes that there were more f o r e i g n born people i n Vancouver than i n S e a t t l e at the t u r n of the century. (The l a r g e s t group was from the B r i t i s h I s l e s ) . The l a r g e s t group of f o r e i g n born people that came to S e a t t l e during 1900 - 1910 were Scandinavians. This group however, d i d not tend to have a profound a f f e c t on the p o l i t i c a l and s o c i a l development of the c i t y . From t h i s evidence, i t could be argued that S e a t t l e experienced - 1 8 1 -"the m e l t i n g pot" phenomenon w h i l e Vancouver experienced more of a " c u l t u r a l m o s a i c , " 4 9 The B r i t i s h were an outspoken group and, through t h e i r t r a d i t i o n of sea ba t h i n g , i n f l u e n c e d the development of Vancouver's p u b l i c beaches. -182-FOOTNOTES 1 Norbert McDonald, "A C r i t i c a l Growth Cycle f o r Vancouver 1900 -1914," B.C. Studies 17, (Spring 1973); 26 2 A d d i t i o n a l Manuscript, 54 V o l . 13, Stanley Park F i l e s . 3 Major J.S. Matthews, Vancouver H i s t o r i c a l J o u r n a l ( C i t y of Vancouver: Archives Society of Vancouver, January 1958), p. 66. ^ I b i d . , p. 66. 5 C i t y of Vancouver, Park Committee Minutes, Volume 1, June 1891. (Hereafter papers i n the Vancouver Park Committee or Parks Board p u b l i c record u n i t w i l l be c i t e d as R.G. 7 [Record Group 7 3 ) . 6 I b i d . , May 26, 1893. 7 McDonald, p. 26. 8 Matthews, pp. 18 - 21. ^ Edward Gibson, "The Impact of S o c i a l B e l i e f on Landscape Change: A Geographical Study of Vancouver" (Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1971), p. 109. 1 0 I b i d . , p. 110. 1 1 McDonald, p. 27. 1 2 W i l l i a m McKee, "The H i s t o r y of the Vancouver Park System 1886 -1929" (Masters T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1976), p. 46. 1 3 McKee, p. 46. 1 4 I b i d . , p. 51. -183-15 Deadman's I s l a n d was the s i t e of the great b a t t l e between northern and southern t r i b e s , which culminated i n two hundred w a r r i o r s v o l u n t e e r i n g to be exchanged f o r captured women and c h i l d r e n . A l l the w a r r i o r s were put to death. F i r e flowers sprang up where they f e l l , f r i g h t e n i n g the foe i n t o r e t r e a t . They were l i v i n g tombstones of the Indian w a r r i e r s . Hence i t s name, Deadman's I s l a n d . E r i c N i c o l , E r i c N i c o l ' s Vancouver (Vancouver Doubleday Canada L t d : 1970), p. 22. 16 "Deadman's I s l a n d " Vancouver D a i l y P r o v i n c e, 28 November 1911. 17 18 McKee, pp. 107 - 108. "Hands Off Stanley Park, Their Slogan", Vancouver D a i l y P r o v i n c e , -20 December 1912. 1 9 Gibson, P. 118. ^ I b i d . , p. 111. Norbert McDonald, "Population Growth and Change i n S e a t t l e and Vancouver", P a c i f i c H i s t o r i c a l Review 39 No. 3 (August 1970): 309. 22 C i t y of Vancouver, O f f i c e of the C i t y C l e r k , Inward Correspondence, Volume 1, P r o v i n c i a l Government 1888 f i l e , F.G. Vernon to David Oppenheimer, Mayor, November 20, 1888. (Hereafter C i t y C l e r k ' s Inward Correspondence w i l l be c i t e d as R.G. 2 A l fRecord Group 2, S e r i e s A l } ) . 2 3 McKee, p. 63. I b i d . , p. 64. 2 5 R.G. 2, B l , Volume 15, June 15, 1908, p. 401. I b i d . , September 21, 1908, p. 526. McKee, p. 66. R.G. 2 B l , Volume 17, October 10, 1910, p. 375. 24 26 27 28 -184-2 9 McKee, p. 67. Hastings Townsite amalgamated w i t h the C i t y i n January, 1911. 3 1 McKee, p. 68. 3 2 R.G. 2 A l , Volume 52, Park Board 1914 f i l e , W.H. Boggs, Secretary Park Board to Mayor, May 14, 1914. 3 3 McKee, p. 70. I b i d . , p. 70. R.G. 2 B l Volume 6, May 28, 1894, p. 95. R.G. 2 D2, Volume 1, January 9, 1902, p. 162. 37 I b i d . , September 20, 1902, p. 165. McKee, p. 81. I b i d . , p. 82. I b i d . , p. 82. I b i d . , p. 83. I b i d . , p. 83. I b i d . , p. 91. I b i d . , p. 89 34 35 36 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 ^ 5 R.G. 7 Correspondence, 1908-10 f i l e George H. Healey to Chairman Park Board, J u l y 31, 1908. -185-4 6 The Gyro Club was o r i g i n a l l y an American men's o r g a n i z a t i o n that was i n t e r e s t e d i n American c u l t u r a l development. ' 4 7 R.G. 2 B l , Volume 4, November 23, 1891, p. 577. 48 Norbert McDonald, Profess o r of H i s t o r y , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, telephone i n t e r v i e w , August 1979. 4 9 McDonald, "Population Growth", p. 309. - 1 8 8 -- R l -P U N of COAL HAMOL», VANCOUVO. I L L U S T K A T l O M lo MA VM<E>OM *S PLAN FOR COAL. H A R B O U R i q i e . VA^J Couv E R C V TV ARCtV i vl E£> M O W M R . M A W S O N W O U L D I M R R O V L G O A L H A R B O R ! m. -f^. VT- m 2 ^ i f k e , n t " e o t ^ n c e . b , a.'-proposed huge s tad ium p lanned fo seat 40 000 p e o&i tons-to. convert. ' ; the 'upper.:;end/of; C o a l H a r b o r j a t a a ^ w a t o l a k ^ T Q i S b t S -.a stadium., somewhat .on-.tne-.H-np, U „ „ , „ = t 0 j • w . , c „ -.-i--- , .;,. cu.uv iVv5'?S T h i s represeri Mr.;MawTOtpfpIL_. . , . . . . ^ < , - , . u p ^ c ^ ; ^ he.would;build.'.a.sradium,...s.o e hat on '.the'.lines here, ' suggested. ' Re fe rence t o 7 ' t h e . last vpage of 1 tKrs 1 piper wiU\'sc'ow<;an out l ine- plan''.'of -the layout-for th i s - sec t ion ; of; t h e p a r k a s ;Mr . M a w s o n .wou ld 'make i i i over on •• a ^ c ^ g r e h e n s i v e . scheme.', ex tend ing ove r m a n y years;} T h e s t ad i um is-shown:.as t he ' s enu - c i r cu l an enclosure; near;, the centre of ' the l o w e r ' p a r t .of the- p l an •on-gager-26.' ' .^-Ma^ son/pro^ sestohave'this bu i la -ng placed on a.line with Georeia'street acroIs:the pr&cVed - W a t e r ^ : ^ W O u l d ^ f ^ a n a t u r a ^ l ^ i o r y . museurn. f o r B r i t i s h Co l umb ia for a l i l i m t ^ e ^ ' , I L L U S T R A T I O N 7 M A V M S O M ' S -PLA/V! F O R S T A X > 1 U H A N P M U S g U M \ N C O A L H A R B O U R . V A N C O U V E R C I T V ARCt+ l V 7 e S . -133-^ O r n a m e n t a l statue, 180 feet high, .to:rise from the'cencre cf the pre pose'difresh. water-lake.- in ..Goal Harbor. , .This statue would be placed h a line..with the centre of Georgia, street. -iPlwBBiBfe.V>V:.V ; I LL.USTRATVOM 8 MAVM-BOi^S. pLAM TOR. O B U S K A T ENTRANC& TO STAN UG^f T^AfUd. VAMCocjLMGR C l T ^ ARCtAiV6S - m -- 1 9 7 -- / < ?8 -HA 5 r / j V G S S 7 " P £ £ T C I T Y ARCHIVES " 1 1 1 | . 1 —, _ CITY HilL IU-USTRATIOM 13 V A M C O^ve - R Ev+UBrflOM ^ U N P S R l S \ V A M C O U V / G R Cljvy A R C H I E S - 2 0 0 -MAP 5 VANCOUVER PENINSULA 1890: Residential Spaces of Founding Groups Sources: Kerr 1943 and Holiday Supplement to Vancouver Daily and Weekly World 1890 Boie map from Nalional Topographic Serres 1:25000 fheeh 92G/6o ond /6b. A.S.I.. (C f 1961 Note: The flow lines indicate the direction of founding group expansion. A comparison of Vancouver City Directories for the 1890's and 1920's w i l l document specific cases of families migrating from the Eastern Canadian and Organized Labour areas to Point Grey and South Vancouver respectively. V A M C o u L v j e R P E H I M S U L A 18^0. -201-CHAPTER VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The Development of the P u b l i c Park The h e r i t a g e of the North American p u b l i c park i s deeply rooted i n the Englishman's t r a d i t i o n a l love of the r u r a l countryside. The B r i t i s h never completely accepted the very formal garden designs modelled on Ren-aissance garden a r t , and when the l i t e r a r y and a r t i s t i c leaders began to advocate the v i r t u e s . i 6 f man and nature i n the 18th century, the landscape designers began to create extremely n a t u r a l i s t i c landscapes f o r t h e i r c l i e n t s . C a p a b i l i t y Brown and h i s development of the "Picturesque Landscape" was the extreme example of t h i s love of nature. His landscapes were s o f t w i t h rounded shapes i n a sweeping s e t t i n g which were almost completely devoid of colour except f o r v a r i a t i o n s of green. Modern g o l f courses are r a t h e r l i k e P i c -turesque Landscapes. Claudius Loudon, i n the e a r l y 19th century developed the B r i t i s h landscape one step f u r t h e r . He recognized the B r i t i s h d e s i r e f o r p r i v a c y , and thus created gardens w i t h . s m a l l e r s c a l e d s e c t i o n s d i s p l a y i n g s p e c i f i c e x o t i c p l a n t specimens a v a i l a b l e because of the recent increase i n world t r a v e l . I t was l a r g e l y the Gardenesque design s t y l e , w i t h some n o t i c e a b l e Picturesque c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , that was used f o r the V i c t o r i a n parks i n B r i t a i n during the 19th century. The f i r s t p u b l i c parks i n England r e s u l t e d from the negative e f f e c t s of the i n d u s t r i a l r e v o l u t i o n . The d e s i r e to a l l e v i a t e bad l i v i n g c o n d i t i o n s together w i t h the e s t a b l i s h e d n a t u r a l landscape design t r a d i t i o n produced a n a t u r a l i s t i c p u b l i c park i n which one would " r e t r e a t " to nature. This " e s c a p i s t " theme was passed across the A t l a n t i c to the Americans, where i t was a l s o used to j u s t i f y the existence of urban p u b l i c parks. The e a r l y American urban park -202-l i k e the E n g l i s h park, "seemed to be a r e s u l t of and not a s o l u t i o n to c i v i c i l l s " . 1 In P a r i s , the f i r s t parks designed f o r the p u b l i c were created when Napoleon I I I and Georges Haussmann completely redesigned the c e n t r a l urban s t r u c t u r e of P a r i s i n the e a r l y 19th century. They were not created as a r e a c t i o n to i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n (which had not, as y e t , occurred i n P a r i s ) , but as an attempt to rejuvenate•the c i t y and were used to l i n k green c o r -r i d o r s and important f o c a l p o i n t s i n the c i t y . The P a r i s i a n s have always been very urbane people, and t h e i r love of P a r i s and t h e i r support of p u b l i c open spaces has r e s u l t e d i n a park system that i s a very p o s i t i v e and essen-t i a l p art of the urban s t r u c t u r e . Although the Bois de Boulogne, the Bois de Vincennes, and the other former parks of the n o b i l i t y were redesigned at t h i s time along the E n g l i s h model at the s p e c i f i c request of the Emperor, the o v e r a l l park system has obvious formal elements that make i t very d i s t i n c t i v e from the B r i t i s h open space system. The French sence of c i v i c p r i d e and f l a i r f o r f o r m a l i t y surfaced i n the United States at the end of the 19th century i n the Beaux A r t s i n s p i r e d C i t y B e a u t i f u l Movement. Although the movement d i d not change the o v e r a l l design of p u b l i c parks i n the U.S., i t i n f l u e n c e d the design of the entrance to many parks and the manner i n which parks were pre-sented as an important component of the urban f a b r i c . Andrew Jackson Downing and F r e d r i c k Law Olmsted were tremendously important i n the development of urban parks i n the U.S. because they chose to develop t h e i r parks on the B r i t i s h n a t u r a l landscape model. Olmsted was s u c c e s s f u l i n adapting these p r i n c i p l e s to the American landscape, but h i s w r i t i n g s on h i s s o c i a l theory expressed the i n t e n t to create a park where the population could "escape t o " . Perhaps the most s i g n i f i c a n t American —203 - r c o n t r i b u t i o n to the p u b l i c park movement was the establishment of park systems i n the l a s t part of the 19th century. Olmsted and h i s f o l l o w e r s began to de-s i g n park systems i n c i t i e s from the east to west coast which attempted to i n t e g r a t e green space i n t o the c i t y s t r u c t u r e w h i l e t a k i n g advantage of the n a t u r a l topographic f e a t u r e s . The Canadian case i s somewhat d i f f e r e n t . While Canadian urban parks l a r g e l y r e f l e c t the B r i t i s h n a t u r a l landscape h e r i t a g e , they were not created as a response to u n s a t i s f a c t o r y l i v i n g c o n d i t i o n s i n the c i t i e s . They were u s u a l l y p a r c e l s of land granted from the f e d e r a l government which were formerly defence posts or t r a i n i n g grounds f o r the m i l i t a r y . Canadians d i d not seem to h i r e "experts" to design parks and c e r t a i n l y d i d not have a " F r e d r i c k Law Olmsted" who a f f e c t e d the design of p u b l i c parks across the country. Vancouver's Park Landscape to 1913 In 1914, Vancouver had a growing park system that c o n s i s t e d of the j e w e l , Stanley Park, v a r i o u s neighbourhood parks and r e c r e a t i o n grounds, and the p u b l i c bathing beaches. By t h i s time the Park Board was no longer i n v o l v e d i n the management of Hastings Park, because i t s use as a p i c n i c ground and pro-menade was pre-empted by the e x h i b i t i o n and r a c i n g a c t i v i t i e s of the E x h i b i -t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n . The b a s i c design features of Stanley Park were developed i n the i n i t i a l years between 1886 and 1900. These c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n c l u d e d the park d r i v e running around the periphery of the park; the walking t r a i l s through the heart of the park; the Brockton P o i n t A t h l e t i c F i e l d s ; the r e l a t i v e l y formal entrance to the park w i t h the nearby zoo; and the Second Beach bathing area. -204-During the boom years of 1900 to 1913, these features were f u r t h e r developed i n the s t y l e that was r e f l e c t i v e of the current a t t i t u d e s h e l d by the i n -f l u e n t i a l c i t i z e n s of Vancouver at that time. Because both the Park Board and C i t y C o u n c i l were dominated by businessmen, the development of the park system was not only a concern f o r the needs of the community, but was a prac-t i c a l , economic and p o l i t i c a l s o l u t i o n as w e l l . The a c q u i s i t i o n and development of the neighbourhood parks was u s u a l l y the r e s u l t of lobbying by the ward ratepayers. S i m i l a r l y , the c r e a t i o n of supervised c h i l d r e n ' s playgrounds i n the 1920's and the develop-ment of Second, E n g l i s h Bay and K i t s i l a n o Beaches i n the e a r l y 1900's hap-pened only a f t e r p a r t i c u l a r groups provided the impetus f o r these f a c i l i t i e s . I t appears that although Vancouver had a growing park system that was blessed w i t h the possession of magnificent n a t u r a l f e a t u r e s , t h i s sytem was not the r e s u l t of an e x t r a o r d i n a r y a p p r e c i a t i o n of the value of parkland or the r e s u l t of a w e l l formulated p o l i c y or design scheme. However, the Vancouver park system, by and l a r g e , experienced very favourable incremental development that was based on the idea that the n a t u r a l design s t y l e was best s u i t e d to p u b l i c parks. These n a t u r a l landscapes were l a t e r adaptable to more a c t i v e r e c r e a t i o n a l p u r s u i t s such as c h i l d r e n ' s playground f a c i l i t i e s , t e n n i s c o u r t s , and b a l l f i e l d s . A t t i t u d e s The e a r l y development of Vancouver's p u b l i c park system was i n -fluenced by the a t t i t u d e s held by the people l i v i n g i n the c i t y at that time. As i n America, the pioneer i n s t i n c t had.encouraged the "mania f o r p r i v a t e property" and the p r i n c i p l e of i n d i v i d u a l i s m and c a p i t a l i s m . Because the - 2 0 5 -C i t y f a t h e r s saw parks as a means and opportunity f o r promoting t h e i r "great c i t y " , they were eager to "acq u i r e " l a n d . The simple a c q u i s i t i o n of land was a fundamental goal of the Park Board that plagued i t s operation f o r many years. In the c i t y records there i s no evidence that there was any thought given to the design of the parkland that was acquired, or to the s p e c i f i c f u n c t i o n that the parkland was to serve. At the opening speeches f o r Stanley Park, Mayor Oppenheimer expressed the d e s i r e to u n i t e a r t w i t h nature i n Stanley Park, but i t i s do u b t f u l that the Mayor had a c l e a r conception of what he con-sid e r e d a r t , or what he wanted i n the way of design f o r the park. The c i t i -zens of Vancouver a l s o supported t h i s d e s i r e f o r the a c q u i s i t i o n of land f o r park purposes,by passing almost a l l p l e b i s c i t e s put before them. The a c q u i s i t i o n of Stanley Park d i d not come out of a need or r e a c t i o n to unfavourable l i v i n g c o n d i t i o n s , as i n some B r i t i s h and American c i t i e s . I t d i d not b e n e f i t from an e s t a b l i s h e d landscape design s t y l e . I t was a former m i l i t a r y reserve t h a t , l i k e other Canadian c i t y : p a r k s , was leased to the c i t y to be used as a p u b l i c park. The f i r s t C i t y C o u n c i l d i d not acquire the s i t e because of a determined p o l i c y to acquire land of n a t u r a l magnificence. I t acquired Stanley Park, because i t happened to be a s i t e which belonged to the Dominion Government, and was a s i t e that could not be used f o r commercial or development purposes. Hastings Park, Clark's Park and many of the other parks i n Van-couver's e a r l y park system were al s o a r b i t r a r i l y acquired. With the exception of the beach parks, these s i t e s were conveniently a v a i l a b l e , and the character and f u n c t i o n of the parks were developed long a f t e r t h e i r a c q u i s i t i o n . -206-Influences Many of the design ideas and concepts for the development of Van-couver's parks were a result of the experience and values held by people liv i n g in Vancouver who had varying national backgrounds. In the i n i t i a l years of the Vancouver park system (1886 - 1900) the local pioneers and the people from Eastern Canada made up the majority of the population, thus perhaps explaining the absence of a well formulated parks policy and the absence of a landscape design for Stanley Park. These people obviously did not feel the need for an elaborately designed park on the English natural landscape style, when the small city was completely surrounded by wilderness. The people fron Eastern Canada had Victorian middle class attitudes and enjoyed promenading and carriage riding. .The peripheral park drive there-fore, was a logical f i r s t development in the park. The British population, although small in the 1880's, also had an influence because the cricket pitch at Brockton Point was one of the f i r s t cleared areas in the park. Had people from Quebec migrated to Vancouver in the i n i t i a l years, there may have been some French influences on the Vancouver park landscape. After the depressed 1890's, the economy once again boomed in Van-couver. There was an influx of people from many countries, but the majority were those from the .British Isles and the United States. In Vancouver's early history the city developed a residential sector pattern much like other British Victorian c i t i e s . The British population in Vancouver was divided into the working class British and the middle class "British Canada", and each sector made a contribution toward Vancouver's p u b l i c parks. The working c l a s s possessed a d e f i n i t e set of s o c i a l b e l i e f s that were of t e n expressed through s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s and p o l i t i c a l a c t i o n — s p e c i f i c a l l y through the Vancouver Trades and Labour A s s o c i a t i o n . The working c l a s s B r i t i s h were always pushing f o r a c t i v e r e c r e a t i o n space, and although t h e i r requests were o f t e n ignored, they.kept up a constant pressure that was e v e n t u a l l y e f f e c t i v e - i n the c r e a t i o n of a c t i v e game areas w i t h i n the parks. The B r i t i s h middle c l a s s were a l s o i n t e r e s t e d i n r e c r e a t i o n , and were o r i g i n a l l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the development of the Brockton Point a t h l e t i c f i e l d s . ( C r i c k e t had been a gentlemen's game f o r c e n t u r i e s ) . The B r i t i s h a l s o set a f i n e example f o r the r e s t of Vancouver w i t h t h e i r meticulous and c o l o u r f u l p r i v a t e gardens. Flower beds and shrubbery i n the Gardenesque s t y l e g r a d u a l l y became more and more p l e n t i f u l and obvious at the entrance to Stanley Park. Today, the formal flower gardens are a popular part of Stanley Park j u s t as they are i n Queen E l i z a b e t h Park, Van Dusen Gardens, and other c i t y parks. The promenading areas i n Stanley Park, J e r i c h o Park, and some of the beach parks were a B r i t i s h i n f l u e n c e . Many of these promenades were developed e a r l y i n Vancouver's h i s t o r y , such as the f i r s t t r a i l s cut i n Stanley Park, and the promenade was s t i l l popular i n the 20th century w i t h areas l i k e the board-walk at K i t s i l a n o Beach. The development of Vancouver's bathing beaches was als o a B r i t i s h i n f l u e n c e . The greatest i n f l u e n c e that the B r i t i s h experience had on Van-couver's parks, and p a r t i c u l a r l y Stanley Park, was a respect f o r that which i s n a t u r a l . The love of a n a t u r a l h e r i t a g e i s a p r i n c i p l e that the B r i t i s h passed -208-along to Canadians, and t h i s b i a s was to emerge on numerous occasions i n Vancouver when her c i t i z e n s vehemently opposed t h r e a t s to the n a t u r a l i n -t e g r i t y of Stanley Park. At the tu r n of the century, there emerged some American i n f l u e n c e s on Vancouver's park landscape and these i n f l u e n c e s grew as the century un-fol d e d . The c r e a t i o n of an e l e c t e d Park Board i n Vancouver was an American i n f l u e n c e . Although the Park Board budget was handed down annually from the C i t y C o u n c i l , i t encouraged more autonomy w i t h i n the Park • Board and enabled a dedicated p e r s o n - l i k e Mr. Ferguson who had a great i n t e r e s t i n parks, to give a l l h i s spare time to the development of Stanley Park. L i k e the Americans, Vancouverites were i n v o l v e d i n the push f o r p r i v a t e enterprise,and the Park Board's domination by businessmen ensured that the t o u r i s t d o l l a r was a strong c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n the development of Stan-l e y Park. The hard s u r f a c i n g of the p e r i p h e r a l park d r i v e i n 1911, f o r example, enabled the establishment of a motorized bus s e r v i c e to take t o u r i s t s through the park. The incremental development of Hastings Park as an e x h i b i t i o n ground was an American i n f l u e n c e , and Vancouver was q u i c k l y absorbed i n t o the P a c i f i c Northwest F a i r c i r c u i t . The design and f u n c t i o n of the grounds were d i c t a t e d by American examples. The advent of the C i t y B e a u t i f u l movement i n Vancouver brought numerous design elements that had o r i g i n a t e d i n the ideas presented at the 1893 Chicago World's Columbia E x p o s i t i o n . Thomas Mawson's plan f o r the Head of Coal Harbour was an ambitious C i t y B e a u t i f u l design scheme and although i t -209-was f i n a l l y r e j e c t e d , elements such as the geometric flower beds and covered bandstand at the Malkin Bowl area i n 1915, are part of that legacy. Some of the areas at the Hastings E x h i b i t i o n grounds i n 1915 a l s o d i s p l a y e d the i n -fluences of C i t y B e a u t i f u l thought. The movement f o r supervised c h i l d r e n ' s playgrounds a l s o o r i g i n a t e d at the Chicago World's F a i r . I t was a movement that crossed the continent at the t u r n of the century although the f r u i t s of t h i s movement were not evident i n Vancouver u n t i l the 1920's. Vancouver's p r o x i m i t y to the American West Coast was very i n f l u e n t i a l and was i n c r e a s i n g l y r e f l e c t e d on the landscape. The C a l i f o r n i a bungalow s t y l e home o f f e r e d a l e s s formal way of l i v i n g w i t h indoor-outdoor rooms, (verandahs) and scores of these were b u i l t i n the e a r l y part of the century, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n K i t s i l a n o . ^ The C i t y Clerk's correspondence r e v e a l s that the Vancouver Park Board was i n frequent contact w i t h West Coast c i t i e s . They wrote to Bellingham to confer on the best s t r a i n of grass f o r a Northwest park; they modelled the Park Board's f i r s t Annual Report i n 1911 on S e a t t l e ' s example; and based on the success of the rose gardens i n P o r t l a n d , expressed the d e s i r e to make Vancouver the "Rose C a p i t a l of C a n a d a . T h e r e i s l i t t l e evidence of any a r c h i t e c t u r a l i n f l u e n c e s from Eastern Canada^ and the Park Board's cor-respondence revealed minimal contact w i t h Eastern Canadian Park a u t h o r i t i e s . The Community C i t i z e n p a r i t i c p a t i o n i n Vancouver i s not a phenomenon that de-veloped i n the middle of the 20th century. I t was a l s o a feature of the 1890's when the f i r s t t h r e a t to Stanley Park induced a f i e r c e b a t t l e between i n -d u s t r i a l i s t s and c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s and r e s u l t e d i n a l l the e s t a b l i s h e d groups -2 l'O'-an d o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n Vancouver p u b l i c a l l y supporting one s i d e or the other. When Thomas Mawson's design f o r the Head of Coal Harbour was pre-sented and approved by the Park Board i n 1912, numerous groups again expressed t h e i r o p p o s i t i o n to the threat to the naturalness of the park. I t i s i n -t e r e s t i n g that the Vancouver C i t y B e a u t i f u l A s s o c i a t i o n was not a group ad-vo c a t i n g the American C i t y B e a u t i f u l design elements, but a group advocating the " b e a u t i f i c a t i o n of the c i t y " , and i n t h e i r minds Stanley Park was best represented by i t s n a t u r a l f e a t u r e s . This group was in s t r u m e n t a l i n pre-venting Mawson's plan from being c a r r i e d out. In 1918, the Park Board o f -f i c i a l l y adopted a p o l i c y s p e c i f y i n g that a l l f u t u r e development i n . t h e Park was to enhance i t s n a t u r a l d i g n i t y . Neighbourhood ratepayers groups were a l s o i n f l u e n t i a l i n the design of neighbourhood parks. The K i t s i l a n o Improvement A s s o c i a t i o n was in s t r u m e n t a l i n the expansion of K i t s i l a n o Beach and l a t e r had a great deal to say i n the design and f u n c t i o n of K i t s Beach. S i m i l a r l y , the Mo ^ ^ ^ ^ £ g^&;^^i ^ @ l i i i n rdview ratepayers p e t i t i o n e d the Board f o r improvements to Cla r k ' s Park and the a c q u i s i t i o n of V i c t o r i a Park i n Grandview. The ward system was very condusive to a c t i v e c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n e a r l y Vancouver and f o r p o l i t i c a l reasons, organized ratepayers seemed to ca r r y considerable weight w i t h the C i t y C o u n c i l . Various n o n - p o l i t i c a l clubs were a l s o able to add to the Vancouver park landscape. The Brockton Point A t h l e t i c A s s o c i a t i o n developed the a t h l e t i c grounds at Brockton P o i n t i n the l a t e 1800's; the B.C. Jockey Club developed horse r a c i n g at Hastings Park; the J u v e n i l e P r o t e c t i o n Agency arid l a t e r the - t>- ; ' " Gyro Club advocated the p r o v i s i o n of supervised c h i l d r e n ' s playgrounds; and a f t e r the F i r s t World War, the Kiwanis club provided the Stanley Park Rose -211-' Garden. These groups as w e l l as the l o c a l c i t i z e n s groups were an important part of p u b l i c involvement i n the development of Vancouver's park system. Although there were flaws i n the Vancouver park system,the c i t i z e n s of Vancouver were tremendously proud of t h e i r parks. T o u r i s t brochures i n -e v i t a b l y concentrated on the magnificence of Stanley Park, and today i f one were to examine a d i s p l a y of postcards i n a Vancouver shop, a l a r g e percentage of them would undoubtably be of Stanley Park. L o c a l c i t i z e n s perceive the park as being one of the C i t y ' s f i n e s t a s s e t s . E r i c N i c o l sums up the a t t i t u d e that the people of Vancouver have, whether c o n s c i o u s l y , or unconsciously, t o -wards Stanley Park. " U n l i k e London's r o y a l parks, or the sporty ambiance of the B o i s d e Boulogne, Stanley Park means to the Vancouverite, a permanent preserve of wilderness and the v i r t u e s of l e sauvage heureux de bon. Older c i t i e s have long s i n c e f o r -gotten the n a t u r a l s t a t e of innocence that man's h a b i t a t i o n expunged. Vancouver holds i t i n t r u s t , z e a l o u s l y , w i t h i n the nine-mile perimeter of "the Park". Vancouver's c i t i z e n s h a l f expect t h e i r daughters to be v i o l a t e d , but he who l a y s a r a p i c i o u s hand on the Park i s begging f o r v i o l e n t avenging." 7 -212-FOOTNOTES -1- Jere Stuart French, Urban Green, C i t y Parks of the Western World (Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publ. Co., 1973), p. 21. I b i d . , p. 5. 3 Edward Gibson, "The Impact of S o c i a l B e l i e f on Landscape Change: A Geographical Study of Vancouver" (Ph.D. t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1971), p. 118. 4 Deryk Holdsworth, "House and Home i n Vancouver: Images of West Coast Urbanism, 1886-1929", i n The Canadian C i t y : Essays i n Urban H i s t o r y , ed. G. S t e l t e r and A. A r t i b i s e (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart L t d . , 1977), p. 195. W i l l i a m McKee, "The H i s t o r y of the Vancouver Park System 1886 -1929" (Masters T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1976), pp. 132-133. ° The Roger's Sugar R e f i n e r y , b u i l t i n the l a t e 1800's,is a magnificent example of B r i t i s h V i c t o r i a n I n d u s t r i a l a r c h i t e c t u r e which was a l s o used i n Eastern Canada. Rogers however, was an American who grew up i n New York and New Orleans, and because he played a l a r g e part i n the design of h i s r e f i n e r y , i t i s l i k e l y that the i n f l u e n c e was B r i t i s h , by way of the United States. 1 E r i c N i c o l , E r i c N i c o l ' s Vancouver (Vancouver Doubleday Canada L t d : ' 1970), p. 78. -213-BIBLIOGRAPHY UNPUBLISHED SOURCES P u b l i c Records Minutes C i t y of Vancouver. Council Minutes, V o l s . 1-21, 1886 to 1915. C i t y of Vancouver. Park Committee Minutes, V o l . 1, 1889 - 1890. ' C i t y of Vancouver. Park Board Minutes, Vo l s . 2-3, 1891 to 1915. Correspondence C i t y of Vancouver. C i t y Clerk's Correspondence, Inward, Vo l s . 1-58, •'' - 1886 to 1915. C i t y of Vancouver, C i t y Clerk's Correspondence, Outward, Vols. 1-42, '1891 to 1916. C i t y of Vancouver. Park Board Correspondence, Vo l s . 1-17, 1888-1917. A d d i t i o n a l Manuscripts A d d i t i o n a l Manuscripts, 54 V o l . 13, Stanley Park F i l e s . Reports Buck, Frank. "Some E a r l y Pioneers of the Town and Rural Planning Move-ment i n Canada." Vancouver: Town Planning Commission, C i t y of Vancouver (Mimeographed) Mawson, The Honourable Thomas H. A.R.I.B.A. Report on A l t e r n a t i v e Schemes f o r the Improvement of Coal Harbour and Stanley Park, Vancouver, October, 1912. Theses Frye, Mary. "The H i s t o r i c a l Development of Municipal. Parks i n the U.S.: Concepts and Their A p p l i c a t i o n s . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s , 1964. Gibson, Edward M.W. "The Impact of S o c i a l B e l i e f on Landscape Change: A Geographical Study of Vancouver." Ph.D. . d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1971. -214-McFarland, E l s i e Marie. "A H i s t o r i c a l A n a l y s i s of the Development of P u b l i c Recreation i n Canadian Communities." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s , 1969. McKee, W i l l i a m , "The H i s t o r y of the Vancouver Park System 1886-1929." Master's Thesis, U n i v e r s i t y of V i c t o r i a , 1976. Meek, Margaret, "The C i t y B e a u t i f u l Movement i n Canada;" D r a f t . Master's Thesis, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1971. I I . PUBLISHED SOURCES 1. Books  General Barzun, Jacques. C l a s s i c , Romantic and Modern. Toronto, L i t t l e Brown and Co., 1943. Black, Eugene C., ed. V i c t o r i a n Culture and S o c i e t y . New York: Walker and Co.., 1974. B r i g g s , Asa. V i c t o r i a n C i t i e s . Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books, 1963. Brown, Kenneth and Whitaker, Ben. Parks f o r People. London: Seeley Se r v i c e and Co., 1971. Burke, Gerald. Towns i n the Making. London: Edward Arnold Pub., L t d . , 1971. C l i f f o r d , Derek. A H i s t o r y of Garden Design. New York: F r e d r i c k A. Praeger Pub., 1963. Chadwick, George F. The Park and the Town: P u b l i c Landscape i n the 19th  and 20th Centuries. London: A r c h i t e c t u r a l P r e s s , 1966. D o e l l , Charles E., and F i t z g e r a l d , Gerald B. A B r i e f H i s t o r y of Parks and  Recreation i n the United States. Chicago: A t h l e t i c I n s t i t u t e , 1954. Dutton, Geoffrey. Founder of a C i t y . Melbourne: F.W. Ghesire, 1960. E l l e n s b u r g , Stephen. Rousseau's P o l i t i c a l Philosophy. I t h a c a : C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1976. French, Jere S t u a r t . C i t y Park of the Western World: Urban Green. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Pub.,Co., 1973. -215-Giedion, S i g f r i e d . Space, Time and A r c h i t e c t u r e : the growth of a new  t r a d i t i o n . Cambridge: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P ress, 1967. H a l l , John C. Rousseau: An I n t r o d u c t i o n to h i s P o l i t i c a l Philosophy. Toronto: MacMillan Press L t d . , 1973. Heckscher, August. Open Space: The L i f e , of American C i t i e s . New York: Harper and Row Pub., 1977. Howard, Ebenezer. Garden C i t i e s of To-Morrow. London: Faber and Faber L t d . , 1946. J e l l i c o e , Geoffrey and Susan. The Landscape of Man. London: Thames and Hudson, 1975. L a u r i e , M i c h a e l . An I n t r o d u c t i o n to Landscape A r c h i t e c t u r e . New York: American E l s e v i e r Pub. ,Co. ,Inc., 1975. Maslen, T.J. The Friend of A u s t r a l i a . London: Hurst, Chance and Co., St. Paul's Church Yard, 1830. Mawson, Thomas. C i v i c A r t : Studies i n Town Pl a n n i n g , Parks, Boulevards, and Open Spaces. London: B.T. B a t s f o r d , 1911. Nash, Roderick. Wilderness and the American Myth. New Haven: Yale U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1967. Nuttgens, P a t r i c k . The Landscape of Ideas. London: Faber and Faber L t d . , 1972. Olmsted, F r e d r i c k Law Sr. Forty Years of Landscape A r c h i t e c t u r e : C e n t r a l  Park. E d i t e d by F.L. Olmsted J r . and Therdora K i m b a l l . Cambridge, Mass: The MIT P r e s s , 1928. . Landscape i n t o Cityscape: F r e d r i c k Law Olmsted's Plan f o r a Greater New York C i t y . E d i t e d by A l b e r t Fein.. New York: C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1965. . Walks and Talks of an American Farmer i n England. London: D. Bogue, 1852. . P u b l i c Parks and the Enlargement of Towns. Cambridge, Mass: American S o c i a l Science A s s o c i a t i o n , R i v e r s i d e P r e s s , 1870. Osborn, F r e d e r i c J. Green B e l t C i t i e s . London: Evelyn, Adams and MacKay, 1969. Roper, Laura Wood. F.L.O. A Biography of F r e d r i c k Law Olmsted. Baltimore: John Hopkins U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1973. Rutedge, A l b e r t J . Anatomy of a Park. Toronto: McGraw H i l l Book Co., 1971. -216-Tobey, George. A H i s t o r y of Landscape A r c h i t e c t u r e : the R e l a t i o n s h i p of People to Environment. New York: American E l s e v i e r Pub., CQ.^Inc., 1973. H i s t o r y and L i t e r a t u r e of. Vancouver Boam, Henry J . B r i t i s h Columbia: i t s H i s t o r y , People, Commerce, I n - d u s t r i e s and Resources. E d i t e d by A. Brown. London: S e l l s L t d . , 1912. Holdsworth, Deryk. "House and Home i n Vancouver: Images of, West Coast Urbanism, 1886-1929. "In the Canadian C i t y : Essays i n Urban  H i s t o r y , pp. 186-207. Edi t e d by G. S t e l t e r and A. A r t i b i s e . Toronto: McClelland and Stewart L t d . , 1977. Johnson, P a u l i n e . Legends of Vancouver. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart L t d . , 1973. Matthews, J.S. The Naming and Opening of Stanley Park, 27 September 1818, and Appointment of F i r s t Park Commission. Vancouver: C i t y A r c h i v e s , 1948. Morley, Alan. Vancouver. From M i l l t o w n to M e t r o p o l i s . Vancouver: M i t c h e l l Press, 1961. N i c o l , E r i c . E r i c N i c o l ' s Vancouver. Vancouver: Doubleday Canada L t d . , 1970. 2. Journa l A r t i c l e s Grimwood, P a u l ; S c o t t , Owen; and Warson, M a r i l y n . "Roots 5: George Laing-Landscape Gardener, Hamilton, Canada West, "Landscape  A r c h i t e c t u r e i n Canada 4 (No. 1 A p r i l 1978). McDonald, Norbert. "A C r i t i c a l Growth Cycle f o r Vancouver 1900 - 1914." B.C. Studies 17 (Spring 1973): 26-42. McDonald, Norbert. "Population Growth and Change i n S e a t t l e and Van-couver." P a c i f i c H i s t o r i c a l Review 39 (August 1970): 297-321. Markham, Susan and Edginton, Christopher. "The Common of H a l i f a x , Canada's F i r s t Park." Recreation Canada No. 1 (February 1979): 12-17. Mawson, Thomas H. " P u b l i c Parks and Gardens." The Town Planning Review 1 (October 1910) : 205-211. Simu t i s , L . J . " F r e d r i c k Law Olmsted". American I n s t i t u t e of Planners  J o u r n a l 38 (September 1972): 276-284. -217-Pamphlets Archives S o c i e t y of Vancouver. Vancouver H i s t o r i c a l J o u r n a l . Vancouver, B. C., January 1958. Grant, Roland D. Vancouver, the Mecca of the T o u r i s t , the Commercial  and Scenic Centre of B r i t i s h Columbia. Vancouver: Vancouver T o u r i s t A s s o c i a t i o n , 1903. P a c i f i c Coast F i r e Insurance Co. Our F i f t y Years 1890 - 1940. Brochure, Vancouver, B.C. Rawlings, W.S. Vancouver B r i t i s h Columbia Handbook of Parks, Playgrounds  and Bathing Beaches. Vancouver: Board of Park Commissioners, 1925. Sage, Walter. Vancouver: The Rise of a C i t y . Vancouver C i t y Archives undated pamphlet. Vancouver C i t y Archives. Standard T o u r i s t ' s Guide to Stanley Park. C. H. Rayment D i s t r i b u t i n g Agent. Vancouver T o u r i s t A s s o c i a t i o n . Souvenir of Vancouver, The Sunset Door- way of the Dominion. 1903. V i c t o r i a Parks Department. Beacon H i l l Park. 1974. Annual Reports Vancouver, Board of Park Commissioners. Annual Report. 1911-1915. Newspaper F i l e s ( C i t y of Vancouver Archives) Ferguson, A.G. Ludgate, Theodore. Mawson, Thomas Stanley Park. Vancouver Parks. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0094726/manifest

Comment

Related Items