I received the revised map of your grounds through Commissioner Garrett on the 15th inst. and have since given some study to the question of their plan. I have an idea of a design upon which, before I undertake drawings, I should like your judgment and to introduce it I shall indicate the course of reflection through which it has come to me.

The areas to be laid out have been hitherto simply reserves of space by which the monument was kept open to view. That they might be neat and seemly they have been graded each to a plane surface, coated with turf and enclosed by an iron fence. Nothing could be better adapted to its purpose than this simple and consistent treatment.

The design of the monument to which the grounds are thus made auxiliary belongs to the last rather than to the present century and of the period which it thus represents the country has no better architectural memorial. There is not and there never will be another monument to Washington more accordant with his own tastes. Faulty in conception, according to the best art judgment of our day, it is undeniably stately and impressive. No other American city holds an heirloom of equal value nor one which is as sure to command the veneration of posterity.

While the grounds in their present condition are consistent with the monument and, as a part of its apparel, meet every requirement of good taste, they are small in area, narrow and not well adapted in form to be used as public pleasure grounds.

I confess that in view of all these considerations I have shrunk from the duty of advising any considerable departure from their present design and [267] that I doubt if any can be made by which something of their value as with reference to the monument will not be lost. But considering their central position in the city, the large densely built and populous area in which they are situated and the lack of public squares in Baltimore; considering also that they cannot long be left open as they are without becoming desolate places, the demand for a change of arrangement seems justified.

The considerations I have indicated nevertheless make it necessary that in attempting any material change, something shall be had in view of more than ordinary consequence; something which shall be of permanent and substantial value, thoroughly creditable to the city and likely to outlast, with the monument itself, many changes of fashion.

If laid out in what may be described as a common, modest, inexpensive way, such as would be suitable if they were designed for the use of a respectable family, or even a score or two of respectable families, the result would not prove satisfactory even temporarily. In the first place gardens of that character, in the midst of a public place and in direct association with dignified public structures, would seem puerile, paltry and fussy and, in the second place, they would be actually cramped and inconvenient; they would consequently be ill used and a shabby and forlorn aspect would become inevitable.

If, on the other hand, a broad simple arrangement should be attempted consisting of a spacious alley extending from end to end of each plot, bordered by symmetrical strips of turf and set in the midst of a formal avenue of trees, the grounds would assume a more intimate and important relation to the monument than they have at present, namely that of exterior halls or grand approaches.

This is the idea presented in the report which you sent me of a committee of the Common Council, in which the removal of the slight iron fences and the separation of the whole arrangement from the wheel ways of the adjoining streets by a low wall is justly recognized as a necessary condition of its success.

It is practicable to carry out this proposition in such a manner as to produce a good and dignified result, but to obtain a sufficient impression of unity of design between the monument and its approaches it would be necessary that the walls and their copings, the edgings of the walks and such steps, ramps, piers and terminals as there might be found occasion for should be large in scale and of an effective, massive and enduring character, commensurate with that of the monument.

Although this theory of design has had your provisional approval I am not quite satisfied to set to work upon it for the reason, among others, that I am sure that the result relatively to the public enjoyment of it would seem to have been too costly. There would be, for instance, nearly 3000 linear feet of the low enclosing wall alone to be built of which a large share of the expense would be under ground.

[268] [269]

The appearance of the four approaches would be very much the same and in each case would be monotonous, formal and stern rather than cheerful or entertaining.

To relieve this aspect fountains might be introduced, as has been suggested, but they also would have to be kept in general accord with the ruling motive of dignity and grandeur which would involve simplicity and sobriety.

There would also be an infelicity in advancing by four similar alleys toward an object of which the crowning feature would face toward but one. The approach to the front should be broader, but would in fact be narrower than those toward the sides of the statue.

I would not say that all those objections cannot be overcome so far as to produce a result in which they will not be seriously felt, but if some theory of design could be hit upon which would practically lend itself more readily either to gaiety or to some pleasing poetic association further removed from the hard, common-place prose of the streets it would be preferable.

What is desirable in this respect is a general theme of which, to borrow a term from music, each of the four plots should present a distinct movement, each movement admitting a contrast in detail with all the others.

It would cost more, I judge, considerably, to carry out the idea to which, as I said, these reflections have brought me, than that which you have had in mind, but the result would I am confident be much more than proportionally valuable.

What I would like to do is this:

The monument is at a distance of nearly a hundred feet from the nearest part of the grounds to be laid out and is divided from them by public streets. If the trees, now obviously misplaced, and the fences, at the ends of the grounds nearest the monument were removed, (as they would be in carrying out the idea of the straight alleys), the imagination would bridge the intervening space and connect the grounds with the monument. If, on the other hand, in the place of the present straight fence there should be a distinct architectural line of masonry, then, in looking toward the monument from within the grounds, it would seem to stand, as in fact it does, upon a broad, level, central plateau or terrace. The grounds would then appear much more distinctly detached and would be more readily regarded apart from the monument and their treatment might be much more complex in its interior detail without incongruity and without serious injury to the effect of the monument.

As the proposed walls would not be seen together it would not be necessary to have regard for symmetry of arrangement in determining their position. I would, then, place that on the east side at such a distance from the monument that the principal doors of the Peabody Institute and the church opposite would give fairly upon the terrace and that on the south side at a still greater distance. As the natural surface of the ground falls away on both these sides, the base of the walls would be several feet below the base of the monument; I would build them up to an equal height with it and make the intermediate [270]

spaces level by embankment. The walls would then need to be surmounted by a pierced parapet or balustrade.

On the garden side of each of the structures thus crudely indicated I would have a wall fountain and the walls about its issue should be formed with a view to sculptural decoration in relief. The design in each case should be significant of one of the four seasons. Then, through each of the gardens below I would have a recurrence, in some more or less distinct form, of the special motive of the fountain at its head. I do not mean emblematically but in such manner that according as it should be spring, summer, autumn or winter, the visitor should find in one or the other specially grateful and appropriate conditions. For example, I would have one fountain framed in Cyclopean masonry, to be run over by ivy and let the garden below it be adapted to and take its character largely from evergreen shrubbery. The frame of another should simulate a cool grotto and the garden below it be provided with shaded walks; a third should indicate harvest bounty, and the garden below it rural [271]

[272] quietness with the bright hues of the foliage and flowers of the ripening year. In the fourth fountain, placed lower than the others on the south side, the waters from all the rest should unite and burst out again and again, and in coverts sheltered from the winds and open to the sun there should be the earliest bloom and verdure of the year.

Such a general theme could, if there were breadth enough, be best worked out by a plan which a little below the fountains would run into the natural style, but I doubt that this could be well done in spaces so narrow and I should probably rather aim to secure something of the quaint character of the old fashioned flower garden, always maintaining, however, largeness of scale and convenience of passage and looking more to turf and shrubs for decoration than to florist’s materials.

It would be a month’s work at least to fully digest this suggestion and define it in drawings so that a trustworthy estimate of the cost of realizing it [273] could be made. I hardly think it would be worthwhile to undertake it however with a less sum in view as likely to be required, than $50,000.