printable version
CHAPTER IV
April 1876–December 1876
This chapter marks the early stages of three remarkable projects in Olmsted’s career—the New York State Capitol, the Boston Park system, and creation of a city plan for the Bronx. Letters to William Dorsheimer and Charles Eliot Norton describe the aftermath of the protest of the New York chapter of the American Institute of Architects to the proposal of the advisory board of Olmsted, Leopold Eidlitz, and H. H. Richardson to complete the state capitol in a different architectural style than that adopted for the first stories of the edifice. The letter to Charles Dalton of April 8, 1876, shows the influence that Olmsted exerted on the 1876 proposal by the Boston park commissioners for an extensive park system in their city. The reports of November 1876 by Olmsted and the engineer to J. J. R. Croes spell out the general principles of their plan for the Bronx and explain their design for the first section, between Riverdale Road and the Hudson River.
Other documents present Olmsted’s design proposals for public parks in several cities during this period. The report to William Martin of August 1876 describes in detail Olmsted’s proposal for a new design for Tompkins Square in Manhattan, while his letter to Thomas Lanahan contains his imaginative proposal for the treatment of four small squares adjoining the Washington Monument in Baltimore. Three letters to H. A. Nelson describe issues relating to major design elements of the work on Mount Royal, and the letters to William Macmillan and Dennis Bowen chronicle ongoing construction of the Buffalo parks. The letter on Landscape Gardening to The Garden provides a clear statement on Olmsted’s views concerning the use of monumental and architectural objects in parks.
[184]
On more personal topics, the letter to his son contains a curious, cautionary tale, while his comments to Charles Eliot Norton of December 27, 1876, reveal the intensity of his response to the presidential election of that year.
To William Edward Dorsheimer
| The Hon. William Dorsheimer Dear Sir; |
[April 2, 1876] |
I returned from Boston this morning and have only since seen the remonstrance against the plans of our Board signed by Mr Bloor for the NY Chapter of the Institute of Architects. Eidlitz and Richardson are here and I find from them that the statement that it represents the unanimous opinion of the Chapter was certainly unwarranted. But if it did it would none the less be a shamefully unsound document. We anticipated charges of the same general character, considered whether we should be at all weak with reference to them and satisfied ourselves that we should not, but we did not think that they would be presented in such a form nor that they would have a backing so apparently respectable.
From the first distinct charge it must be inferred, either (a) that a Romanesque superstructure would be “absolutely inharmonious” with a Roman base, or that (b) the simpler forms of Italian Renaissance are incongruous with those of its Roman parent, or (c) that the lower parts of Fuller’s design are not of the simpler forms of Renaissance, neither of which positions could be seriously sustained.
But if such a misassociation is for the sake of argument assumed, it would, again be inferred from the whole drift of the paper that the association of Romanesque and Gothic forms with Renaissance was held in horror by good architects. There are numerous instances in which distinguished Renaissance architects have practiced in defiance of this opinion: notably Sir Christopher Wren, who repeatedly did so and who even introduced Renaissance features in the most prominent positions in Westminster Abbey. There are hundreds of notable instances in which others have deliberately done the same. You may recall examples in the Ducal palace, the Duomo of Milan, the Certosa of Pavia, and various other well known edifices. As to the statement about the introduction of brilliant color — you perfectly know its falsity & its futility.
The statement that it has always been considered indispensible to [185]
Façade of Doges’ Palace, Venice, with Giant’s staircase, showing upper windows not on axis with those of lower stories
In Cambridge I saw Profr Norton, who said “I was so much pleased with your report that I immediately read a large part of it to my class” [in the History of Art]
As to the propriety of the imposition of a Romanesque superstructure upon a Roman though somewhat Renaissance base he said he had no doubt.
If we are to do anything publicly about the matter we should prefer to do so in answer to official inquiries from you.
]
]