printable version
To Charles Sprague Sargent
| [August 27, 1891] |
A FEW ANNOTATIONS, FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY, UPON
“ARCHITECTURAL FITNESS,” HUMBLY SUBMITTED TO
THE CONSIDERATION OF HIS OMNISCIENT EDITORIAL
MAJESTY, BY HIS PROSTRATE SERVANT, F. L. O.
1. Rightly or wrongly, before a stroke of work was done, the undertaking was officially declared not to be aimed at anything with the slightest likeness to “an urban park,” but as intended primarily to provide a basin, unfortunately required in the locality, for dirty water, and, secondly, to form this basin in such a manner that it would plainly appear to be, what in fact it would be,—the restoration to decency of a tract of degraded fen-land, about which a city was threatening to grow.
2. Richardson’s work at North Easton was conceived after he had examined two works of rough-hewn stones and boulders, built in Central Park twenty years before. (This upon the point of following a fashion set by him.)
3. Richardson’s Boylston bridge was planned (in so far as the “single,
[383]simple, sweeping arch” is concerned) by the landscape designers of the Fens, in a drawing bearing date 1879, the height and span being designated.
4. Richardson’s first drawing, made in 1882, for that bridge, closely follows memorandum drawings prepared by the landscape designers of the Fens, in which drawings, the outline of the arch; its full plan, elevations and cross sections; the batter of the wall;—in short, every important feature except the tourelles and the shape of the coping of the parapet,—had been prescribed as fundamental landscape requirements of a bridge in that locality.
5. Richardson’s design for this bridge proposed, as his drawing, submitted to the Commission, showed, that it should be faced with boulders. Richardson examined a quantity of boulders owned by the city, with a view to their being used in it. His design in this respect was changed, upon the advice of City Engineer Wightman, who was made responsible for the stability of the structure. (Mr. Richardson was in Europe when the arch was built and it was built under the superintendence of Mr. Wightman, not of Mr. Richardson’s office assistants.)
6. The other construction in the Fens spoken of in your Majesty’s article is at a place where the landscape design required that a road should pass at as low an elevation as possible, in order that, from certain points, the
Agassiz Bridge, Back Bay Fens, Boston, Photograph by Detroit Publishing Company
]eye should range over it. This could not be accomplished, if anything like the Boylston Street single, simple, sweeping, graceful arch of masonry should be used. The volume of water required at times, to pass this place was so large that, conforming to the landscape requirements above stated, several low openings under the road would be needed for it. (There were other reasons of landscape propriety which it is unnecessary to specify.) These low openings would be little more than big culverts. It was not thought best to introduce in such a place a long, low, tame engineering belt of masonry with culvert holes through it, nor, indeed, anything of a conspicuously artificial aspect. The necessary construction was made of the stones of the country, most readily obtained on the Park Commissioners’ property, these being of a good, warm, but subdued, color, laid by the Park Commissioners’ daily force, and it was so planned that these stones would be mantled by foliage growing out from stores of soil behind and through crevices between them, to that degree that their individual forms would not be perceptible from any point accessible to the public. It was much easier to accomplish this purpose with boulders than with quarried and dressed stone.
7. The design of this bridge has not yet been carried out. The entire road being built over a deep morass, several years have been allowed for its settlement. An order was given for restoring grades and going on with the work, several weeks ago, and the stone is now being cut for it. When the structure is complete, and after time for growth has been had, the amount of low foliage, screening the boulders, will be double what it is now. The structure will then be a perfectly strong, but inoffensive, means of allowing the waters of the Fens to pass under a road without interruption of vision over low masses of verdure. Q.E.D.
8. It is one thing to use the handiest stone in the vicinage in an undressed condition, to form blocks for sustaining and guiding into picturesque attitudes, climbing, creeping, twining, draping and veiling forms of foliage, and quite another to use it with the affected and parroting motives which your Majesty justly characterizes. It will nowhere appear that your servant has ever used it in the manner that you impute to him, nor will it be found that he has followed any fashion in his use of it; on the contrary, it will be found that fashion staggered years behind him.
9. The rough stone walls, (every particle of them taken off the neighboring fields and built up from an existing irregular ledge of rough rock), were no sooner laid than creepers were planted to cover them and they, with their accessories, are already half hidden under their fluttering foliage. Respectfully submitted that this does not show that such a construction was adopted because of a fashion of displaying rough stone, but rather because the beauty of the designed sheets of foliage is thought to be better exhibited, and to have a more natural effect when thus disposed over a backing of rough and deeply crannied, rather than of flat and dressed stone.
10. Mr. Richardson not only countenanced, approved and cooperated
[385]
Rough Stonework, Overlook Steps, Franklin Park, Boston
Richardson was thus apparently much less in sympathy with your Majesty’s views in this respect than your Majesty’s most obedient, humble servant.
To John Charles Olmsted
| Dear Jno. | B&A R.R. 8th Sepr 1891 |
I failed to find Walker or Roach & Tilden and sent back the plans for them. You will advise them. I will only say as {to} the Franklin Park cottages, I would have them of the general aspect of the simplest style of English rural cottages; thatch roof; diamond paned, lead mounted, casement windows, long horizontally, low walled, projecting, thick thatched eaves, casting strong shadow and half hiding the walls; the roof being the principal feature. If it can be managed unobjectionably, I would step from a porch, or uncovered stoop, down into them, as is nearly always done in old English cottages; the effect being lowly walls. So covered with overhanging thatch, I should like pebble dash walls. I would have the main room go to the roof timbers, and lighted by dormers, gaining all practicable simplicity and breadth of undisturbed surface in walls. Rotch will find it hard to make them simple, quiet and featureless enough. I would not object to little gardens in front, enclosed by low walls to be completely covered with honeysuckle or euonymus & cotoneaster.
I found Hartwell & Richardson in and liked them; thought they promised well.
[388]
Shelter on Schoolmaster Hill, Franklin Park, Boston
The Board’s order was that the plan shd be changed so that the house would be of one story above ground but with a partial second story for necessary accommodation of lessee & family, (not the servants of the Refectory), and, perhaps, a deck partially covered with awnings and canopies. I have pictures of Syrian and Persian houses in my mind, of the simpler antecedant types out of which moorish architecture has been developed and I have visited such houses in Eastern Mexico, extremely simple, bold walls with rich decoration in small features at the openings. I tried to suggest this without imposing it, and they seemed to take to it, though regretting that the Board wished to make so little of the building architecturally. With refce to effect from the carriage approach I said that the north windows could be omitted if desirable, as in the pre–moorish sort of structure. I should think it would be, and if more light should be desirable in the interior than wd come under the trellis, skylights in the deck would not be objectionable. I set them thinking about terra–cotta supports for the trellis and brick pavement. Finally told them to go on the
[389]
Refectory Building, Franklin Park, Hartwell and Richardson, Architects, 1895
The building is to be planned with a view to the possible requirement of a second story after thirty years.
Narrow terra cotta columns to support trellis might, to secure greater stability, be connected at intervals—
Eventually vines could be grown to supply foliage above deck (2d Story) taking place of awnings.
H. and Richardson will take all desirable guidance if you get hold of them soon enough to start them well.
F.L.O.