On the occasion of our late visit to Philadelphia, made in accordance with your letter of Nov. 21st for the purpose of advising in regard to the main outline of the new Park, we learned that the idea of laying out a public pleasure ground on a liberal scale had grown up in connection with a well matured scheme for protecting the purity of the water supply of the City, and the question of Park boundary had resolved itself into a question of a greater or less increase in width at different points of the continuous strips of river bank which were needed for the purpose of controlling the shores of the Schuylkill between the Fairmount dam and the Wissahickon creek; the intention being to preserve the intermediate reaches of the River as a Reservoir. We also found that considerable tracts of land were already in the possession of the Commissioners; that others were being secured, and that the general question of the extent and choice of ground desirable to be taken up for a Park had been for some time under discussion by your Committee. We were at the outset made fully acquainted with the more important suggestions that had been developed in the course of this discussion, and at each subsequent stage of our examination were furnished with detailed information in regard to numerous complexities and contingencies that required to be taken into account.

Having thus, in a comparatively short space of time, been enabled to obtain a general understanding of the various circumstances affecting the question at issue, we shall now endeavor to give you our abiding impressions thereupon: as however any attempt on our part to indicate the precise outline that offers the greatest advantages, would involve us in a discussion of many local questions with which we are not, as yet, entirely familiar, the present report will necessarily be of a somewhat preliminary character, and will be restricted to a consideration of the leading requirements which must be provided for in any comprehensive scheme for a City Park, and to an examination of the land in the neighborhood of the proposed river basin, with reference to its special adaptation to answer these requirements.

Such a scheme should, in the first place, provide ample opportunity for comparatively private walking exercise in the fresh air; it should also include a liberal provision for driving and riding, unhampered by the obstructions that occur in the City Streets; its next, and in many respects, its most important object should be to appropriate the best series of beautiful landscape [232] pictures that can be included within a tract of ground of not unreasonable extent; and its last main purpose, so far as the Park proper is concerned should be to secure ground which, while rural, delicate and refined in general character and abounding in suggestions, at least, of seclusion and tranquility, should also be recognized as offering an opportunity and an occasion for constantly recurring public gatherings of a lively and festive character.

A Park may however be well considered to all of these leading requirements and may yet but incompletely fulfill its proper function in the general municipal economy of a great City, if it is at too great a distance from the residences of those who are to use it, or if the approaches to it are of an indirect, meagre and unattractive character, and liable to be so crowded by common commercial traffic, as to cause general inconvenience or even apprehension to the feeble, the timid or the weary.

Usually, while a Park site is unimproved or in the earlier stages of construction, the value of property in its vicinity or on the Streets leading to it is comparatively uninfluenced by the fact of its location, but when large sums have been spent in developing it, and it becomes an agreeable resort, the high roads that give access to it most easily, are thronged with pleasure travel and property upon them grows to be so valuable that improvements in the approaches are extremely costly: it is therefore very desirable that in connection with the general scheme in its earlier stages, a clear leading idea should be formed of an ultimate plan to be adopted in regard to the Streets that connect the Park entrances with the heart of the City.

Experience has also shown that the distance which can be passed over easily in the course of a pleasure drive is much greater than can be furnished in a City Park, even if it is one of very liberal dimensions with reference to every other requirement, and it becomes desirable therefore, to prepare at the outset for an ultimate extension of the rural drive far beyond the boundaries of the Park itself.

It must also be constantly borne in mind that a Park is but one of many public improvements that serve to give character to a City, and that even if it contains within its limits all the leading requirements above referred to and is also furnished with agreeable approaches and liberal extensions, it may still be unsuccessful as a whole, if care is not taken from the beginning to avoid a serious conflict with other municipal interests. Having thus glanced at the leading requisites of municipal Parks in general, we shall now proceed to examine the ground in the vicinity of the Schuylkill with special reference to its adaptability for meeting these requisites.

Accommodations for Walking, Driving & Riding.

In the present Fairmount Park, the citizens of Philadelphia have an opportunity to enjoy agreeable walking exercise; and this section of the ground will always present attractions to pedestrians who wish to take a short [233] sauntering stroll: it is desirable however that a City Park should also offer the opportunity for as long a walk as any person in vigorous health would wish to take habitually, and in the course of such a walk, a visitor should have ample opportunity to overlook, and experience the sense of ownership to considerable spaces of ground that are unmistakably within the Park limits; for although a long walk through a wood interspersed occasionally with narrow stretches of turf may compare agreeably with a walk in the Streets through the midst of a town, a City Park ought to offer much more than this, and should plainly suggest the possibility of a free range over a great extent of country without encroaching on the rights of private individuals.

It may be considered one of the great advantages of a public domain of this kind, that it gives occasion for the coming together of the poor and the rich, on ground which is a common possession, and that it produces a feeling which to the poor is a relief from the sense of restriction, which they generally experience elsewhere in comparing their limits of activity with the apparent freedom of those whose cares and duties have a wider scope. As Art deals with the manners and morals of men through the imagination; this is one of many reasons why the expression of amplitude and free sweep in the scenery of a Park, which can only be produced by broad meadow like surfaces with shadowy and uncertain limits, is an artistic requirement of the first importance.

The same kind of surface is also necessary to the highest expression in landscape materials of the quality of peace and repose in nature which is more grateful than any other to the Citizen weary with the toil, the clangor, the bustle and all the crowding and conflicting currents of life which are habitually associated in his mind with the confined range of streets and the contracted enclosures of the town.

In short, the Citizen, as such, is brought up under influences that naturally tend to a full appreciation of all the advantages that are to be gained by a strict attention to compactness, and the Park should be so designed as to give him the benefit of an ample experience in the other direction.

Of course what is desirable in this respect with regard to those who will walk in the Park, is also desirable to those who will ride or drive; and the Park roads will be unsatisfactory as a whole, if the idea of breadth and freedom of range in the territory adjoining is not somewhere made decidedly predominant.

As art can supply almost any deficiency but this, the land most essential to be secured, so far as the walk and drive are concerned, will be that which admits of the most open treatment and which is most suggestive of breadth. We shall presently indicate the locality which offers the largest advantages in this respect, and but one further observation is necessary in regard to the relation of the roads and walks to the question of the further acquisition of land for the Park.

When new Park drives shall have been completed, the present circuitous carriage roads in the higher ground of Fairmount Park may very likely [234] be abandoned; we can hardly doubt on the other hand, that the shore drive will be preserved. Supposing that the new drives should be so laid out, that a carriage entering the City end of the Park on the West side of the River, after traversing the Park proper, could pass over the Columbia Street bridge, and by some agreeable connection with the East shore road, be driven back, through Fairmount Park to the City, it is obvious that this arrangement would be a very convenient one, and it will therefore be necessary to have regard to the practicability of effecting it in regulating the boundaries on the East side.

Landscape effects.

The opportunities that will be offered by the Philadelphia Park for the enjoyment of beautiful natural scenery, will certainly be remarkably extensive; it must necessarily include within its limits a large body of water, with varied and interesting shores, and in whatever direction the additional land to be acquired may be taken, it can hardly fail to be of an agreeable character. It is clear however, that the landscape attractions of such a public pleasure ground as you have in view, must consist of something more than an aggregation of disconnected scraps of scenery.

A City Park to deserve the name, must be a well balanced, artistic composition, and the first aim of the Commissioners should therefore be, to secure additional territory in the direction that will be most efficacious in giving unity and completeness to the various land and water views, already under their control.

Having carefully studied the question of location in this aspect, we have come to the conclusion, that what is most needed to secure to the Philadelphia Park the elements of a very noble work of Landscape Art, is the incorporation within its boundary of a stretch of turf, that shall seem to be on the same large scale as the Schuylkill basin, otherwise the land effects will be subordinate in interest to the water effects, which is manifestly undesirable. Of course this aim can only be accomplished to a very measurable extent, but it is therefore the more important, that so far as it can be done, it should be done.

We may here observe, that the question of expensiveness in a City Park, turns less upon the cost of land in the outset, than upon the outlay which will be subsequently required, from year to year, for the maintenance of a suitable finish and character in the grounds when formed. Those parts, which depend for their attractiveness on elegant details of planting or other special decorations, require much constant labor to be kept in satisfactory condition, while every acre of turf may be made at least to pay its own way.

It is also desirable, with the view of avoiding a desultory, repetitive general effect, that some culminating point of interest should be determined on, to which other elements of interest may be subordinate; if possible this [235]

should be some specially characteristic scene, that may be accepted as the central or apparently central feature of the whole Park.

The last of these desiderata seems to be offered at George’s Hill, where a most beautiful view is to be had in the direction of the City, which, from this point, is just far enough off to be entirely picturesque. Fortunately, [236] also, the needed turf stretch lies in the exact line of this view and directly at the base of the hill, from which it gently falls away towards the river, with a simplicity of surface, that is highly suggestive of successful Park treatment.

In our judgment, George’s Hill, and the land between it and the river, is the most important territory which it will be in your power to enclose for Park purposes, inasmuch as no other, that came under our observation, will supply these all important requisites, namely a feature of central interest, which is also a point of view, for a large open landscape, the horizon lines and the middle distance of which, are all that can be desired, while the foreground is well adapted to a fine, harmonious and thoroughly parklike, artistic development. Moreover, the river, embosomed among the lower hills, and but half disclosed under overhanging trees, is here a delightful, but still, as it should be in the principal view of the Park, a secondary element of the composition.

The prospect obtained from the Belmont House is of a different character, the City and the River being more prominent, but it is highly interesting, and very desirable to be included in the Park.

We will now however, leave this branch of the subject, as it is not our purpose to enlarge upon the landscape opportunities of the ground, more than is sufficient to explain our views in regard to the general direction that the outline of the Park should take.

Concourse.

A City Park, as already observed, should be so arranged that it may offer, in addition to its rural attractions, ample opportunity for social gatherings, and it seems to us, that George’s Hill is the natural point in the Philadelphia Park, at which this idea could be most properly enunciated and emphasized. Here might be the concourse for visitors in carriages, on horseback or on foot, and on the meadow below the playgrounds for old and young. The scene would thus, on a pleasant afternoon, be in the highest degree lively and animated with human interest, and would offer an agreeable contrast to the more secluded and retired portions of the Park; it would at the same time, admit of landscape treatment so large in scale, and the leading lines of the general composition would be so controlling under all circumstances, that the whole effect would be an harmonious one however large might be the assemblage of visitors.

Approaches.

As the portions of the City most thickly built up, and the greater number of residences are on the East side of the Schuylkill, while the main body of the Park is to be on the West side, the question of adequate approaches is perhaps the one next in importance to be considered.

[237]

At present, there is no general line of communication, laid down on the City map, on the West side that is entirely suitable for the purpose, and we desire to indicate broadly a scheme of Park approach, which, if practicable, will help to overcome this difficulty with comparatively little sacrifice.

Thirty fifth Street offers a satisfactory line for this purpose. By accepting the Sycamore Street front of the Stand Pipe lot as the commencement of the Park drive and walk, a handsome entrance, may be made, from which the road may be carried with a slight detour, under the railroad bridges marked “A” and “B” on the diagram, (on the opposite page), then under a new bridge, which may easily be constructed, so far as grade is concerned, under Girard Avenue at the point marked “C” and afterwards with a curve, may pass under the railroad bridge marked “D,” from which not remote point its course would be unhampered by existing railroad tracks.

To constitute Thirty fifth Street a satisfactory approach, it should be widened and continued in as direct a line as possible, to connect with the new South Street Bridge, it would then be conveniently taken by all persons coming to the Park over the Wire bridge, the Market Street bridge, and the Chestnut Street Bridge, as well as by all residents of the compacter parts of the town West of the Schuylkill.

As it is desirable to retain the direct line of Girard Avenue for a traffic road, it is so shown in the diagram, and a park approach can be made from the West end of Girard Avenue bridge, which would be so laid out as to pass under the railroad bridge “D”.

It is very desirable that a liberal plan should be adopted, probably in connection with Spring Garden Street, for improving what may be distinguished [238] as the Fairmount Park approach, and some general arrangements for access in other directions might be considered with advantage in connection with the final definition of the Park boundary, but our observations have not enabled us to indicate positively what grounds it would in this respect be most desirable to take.

Extensions.

The extension of drives beyond the limits of the Park proper may next be considered. The general question of roads from the City, adapted to other purposes than those simply of ordinary business transportation, is now under consideration and presents many difficulties in New York and Brooklyn, but so far as Philadelphia is concerned it is yet possible to meet this requirement in the most fortunate manner, for the present Wissahickon Creek road offers such unparalleled attractions for pleasure driving, it [is] so accessible and convenient of approach, and can be secured at this time at a cost so moderate, that no other route is at all to be compared with it. As, moreover, a necessity exists for taking the river banks below the Creek for City purposes, it is evident that the East shore furnishes an opportunity for connecting the Creek road naturally and agreeably with the shore drive now laid out as a part of Fairmount Park.

On the West side the natural boundaries of the Park do not happen to accord with the City Streets, as however, these were laid out on paper without reference to any such scheme as is now entertained, and as such an improvement must inevitably result in a different occupation of the land from that on which the present street plan was predicated, it is desirable that the arrangement of the streets should be revised and accommodated to the Park necessities, rather than that any attempt should be made to adapt the boundaries of the Park to the present Street lines.

This quarter of the City is not at present built up; and aside from its natural advantages, which are considerable, its vicinity to the new Park would under any circumstances tend to make it an attractive neighborhood for family residences, the more particularly as it is at present free from all suburban nuisances, and offers none of the advantages for manufacturing and commercial purposes, that are so abundantly found in other directions near the City. Inasmuch as no highway passing through it, has yet become important to the general business of the City, it does not appear that any serious public inconvenience could result from an entire change in its arrangement.

In any new plan, thus to be made, the leading lines of road, throughout the district immediately beyond the limits of the Park, should have a character intermediate between those adapted to the general traffic of the business part of the City on the one hand, and those devoted exclusively to pleasure driving within the Park on the other.

Among other suggestions brought to our notice, was one that had [239] reference to the locality known as Robert’s Hollow, which lies between George’s Hill and the Wissahickon Creek. It was assumed that the Park, without extending over this district, would be sufficiently large, but Robert’s Hollow was nevertheless proposed to be secured by the City in some form, and prepared for pleasure travel, as it appeared to offer the most natural and agreeable connection between the roads traversing the Park and the Wissahickon Creek drive.

If this proposition, of which the advantages are clear, should be carried out, it is evident that the first step would be taken towards such a remodelling of the present street lines, as we have just referred to, and it would become simply a question of more or less re-arrangement in this section of the City.

It seems to be well worth while therefore to consider at this time, the relation of this whole district to the Park, and to the probable future needs of Philadelphia. So far as our observations have extended, it would seem that the interests of all concerned would be best served by the adoption of some comprehensive scheme, [that] should not only provide for the more obvious requirements of public and private convenience, but that should also be conceived throughout with reference to a succession of artistic effects of a semi-rural and permanently suburban character. Such an improvement adequately developed would probably, without expense to the City, add materially to its attractiveness as a place of residence, and it would certainly offer a very agreeable adjunct to the facilities for pleasure travel to be provided within the Park itself.

Accommodation for general traffic.

It only now remains for us to consider briefly the general bearing of the question of Park boundaries on other City interests. As from police considerations it is essential that any great Park within a City should ordinarily be closed to the general public at night, either traffic roads through it should be provided at convenient intervals, or the Park outlines should be arranged diagonally, so that they will not be felt as a serious obstruction to the ordinary communications from one part of the City to the other.

In the Philadelphia Park, Girard Avenue, as already suggested, may be kept open as a traffic road. The Columbia Street bridge, which is another important Avenue of communication, crosses the Schuylkill on a diagonal line, and as a roadway, suitable for Park travel, could probably be constructed above the present road ways, we should be quite willing to accept the Columbia Street bridge as a Park boundary line, if it may be adopted without disadvantage in other respects.

If this is thought feasible, the space between the two bridges is so short, that the Park would hardly be felt as an inconvenience, even if the whole quarter of the City to the West of the river were entirely built up, and [240] certainly if we consider the river in the light of an ornamental feature of the Park, it is undesirable to give occasion for the construction of any bridges not absolutely required for public convenience. If, however, in the opinion of those most competent to judge, any projects for new bridges, conceived without reference to the Park, are likely to be carried into execution, an effort should be made to determine their position at this time, so that their relation to the Park may be considered before the boundary lines are finally determined.

Boundary lines.

Having thus given you our impression as to the several localities most desirable to be secured in order to meet the more important requirements of a Park, we may say in regard to the boundary on the West side, that from the Junction Rail Road, it had better be carried parallel with the Pennsylvania Central Rail Road, and at such distance from it, that handsome Avenues and Streets can be laid out between the Park and the line of the “Central” road. It should be continued on this course till George’s Hill has been passed, and then turning nearly at a right angle, be carried with an irregular sweep to the West of the hill, and North of Belmont House, soon after passing which, it should be carried directly to the river bank, near the Columbia Bridge.

On the East side, above Columbia Bridge, if the ground to be taken with reference to the preservation of the purity of the river, shall be of sufficient width to give an agreeable carriage drive along the shore, a very important park purpose will be served, but if more is taken than enough to develop this idea thoroughly, it is not obvious to us that the remainder could be appropriated to any use from which the City would receive an equivalent value for its cost. In a work of art, every feature introduced should not only have its own special interest, but also its bearing on the general effect, and therefore nothing should be allowed a place that can be omitted without real injury to the design. The land in question South of the Laurel Hill Cemetery is pleasantly undulating, agreeably wooded, and altogether very attractive, and it might with propriety, be laid out for residences in the semi-rural way already spoken of as suitable for the district in the neighborhood of the Park on the other side of the river.

If well managed, such an arrangement would secure the permanence of beautiful scenery on the river slopes above the bridge, and thus, at small cost to the City, would practically much enlarge the Park, at least in its boating and riverside elements, while, without involving any actual extension of the property to be enclosed by the City, in this direction, it would establish an uninterrupted landscape connection between the broad and sunny, meadow-like expanses and gentle slopes of the park proper, and the strongly contrasted rocky declivities and picturesque glen scenery of the dark and sparkling Wissahickon.

[241]

Considering George’s Hill to represent the best artistic centre for the Park, and the line of a view therefrom, towards the City, as the axial line of its general design, the East slope of the River above Columbia bridge seems to be outside its natural landscape frame, and if the extent of ground indicated to be taken should be thought insufficient to supply the needs of the City of Philadelphia, it would probably be better to accept a comparatively narrow boundary on the East side and to emphasize still farther, on the other side of the river, the idea of broad acres and extensive domain. The best that can be done in this way, within the limits of a City, must always be somewhat inadequate, and as narrowness is a weak point in most Parks, and one that is likely to be especially felt in the Philadelphia Park, in which, with its extensions, the idea of length will be developed in a remarkable degree, everything should be done that can be done to secure a vivid impression of amplitude wherever this effect is decidedly aimed at.

There lies however on the East side of the river, between the Girard Avenue Bridge and the Columbia Bridge, a tract that may, with advantage to the general design, be added to the park property. This ground, which is in full view from George’s Hill, possesses individual attractions which would make it an agreeable strolling ground, accessible by a short walk to many of the inhabitants of the 20th ward, the population of which is rapidly becoming dense, and it is also traversed by ravines which present favorable opportunities, by arching under the railroad, to connect the shore road with the upper level park road that is proposed to be taken over the Columbia Bridge. The possession of this ground will therefore make it practicable to layout, on the East side, a return stretch from the drive on the West side which has been already alluded to as desirable, for if the high level roadway crossing the river can be brought at both ends of the bridge, inside the park boundary fence, and the drive can be carried under the railroad track, the needed links in the circuit will be supplied.

Through this ground it will also probably be desirable, at some future time, to lead an approach by which Broad Street may be directly connected with the Park, and for this purpose one of the intermediate streets, should, if practicable, be widened, as an adequate outlet from the City, for pleasure driving, will by and by, be much needed in this direction.

If a line is extended nearly parallel to the river, from the Northeasterly angle of the boundary of Fairmount Park to Columbia Street (or to the River if a sunken traffic road should be introduced connecting Columbia Street with the bridge) all that seems to be essential for the purposes named, would be included in the territory thus taken, and this would complete the enclosure of land, the acquisition of which, we are prepared to recommend.

In regard to the change in the route of the railroad now passing over Columbia Bridge, which was spoken of as possible, we may remark, that it could hardly fail to benefit the park project in many ways but, as we were told that it was not to be reckoned on with certainty, we have assumed in this [242] report, that the Park must be so planned as to meet the difficulties offered by this railroad if it should continue permanently to occupy its present line.

Our study, you will observe, has been mainly directed to the determination of the localities most desirable to be acquired for the purpose of preventing the new Park from being cramped or illbalanced in any of its essential features, and the final outline may probably, with advantage, be carried at some points beyond the limits we have suggested, we have not however ventured on any general discussion of the question of size, because it is evident that a wise decision in regard to the actual amount of land that it will be best to take, must depend on a more intimate knowledge of the prospective needs of the City of Philadelphia, than we at present possess.