Yours of 1st has just reached me here, thank you. There is, perhaps, a deeper root to the matter you bring in question than you have realized, or than the writer of the article you take as a text, realized. There is a generally more or less suppressed tendency in the minds of Architects and of Landscape Architects to quarrel, and to look upon each other as enemies. It has not been at all suppressed in the mind of Robinson of the Garden. He hates architects and looks upon them as obstacles to be overcome by “gardeners.” He has shown this in his paper, a little, at times, but it has been much more plainly avowed in conversation. He, with all friendliness to me personally has regarded me professionally as a traitor to his art. And in England, generally, a recognition of natural antagonism between L.A. & Architects is more common than it has yet been with us. I have done my best to avoid occasion for it here, and have fairly succeeded. But there is constant need to handle the subject delicately and to maintain the theory upon which I proceed with all possible politics. Before a Committee at Albany once, Hunt, with whom I have since worked cooperatively with great satisfaction, asked: “What business has Mr Olmsted in this matter? He is nothing but a gardener” There is a club of Architects in Boston before which last year Charles Eliot read a paper. In the discussion which followed the architects generally took ground, I think, that the L.A. should only be called in after the Architect had determined his design, and should then work subordinately to the architect and in furtherance of his design. The French school, which Hunt represents and which ruled completely at Chicago, as far as architecture was concerned, distinctly makes the architect responsible, I think, for so much of the design of the surroundings of a building as is necessary to make the grounds subordinate, helpful and supportive [710]of the dignity of the building—of its architectural motives and character. As to country houses, I should take very different ground—the opposite, in fact. But so far I have got on very well with these architects, they being well satisfied with what they might think I was proposing as a compromise between opposite motives. At the bottom of the matter there is often simply a question as to which is more important, that which is to be seen in looking from the house or that to be seen looking toward it. (My relations with Richardson were satisfactory & interesting in this respect).

I should have said that the French school undertakes (the Ecole des Beaux Arts, undertakes) to have architects educated in this outside work, and all architects of this school are inclined to formality of grounds; to something of formal quaintness in their arrangement; and, I, fortunately, find this perfectly consistent with my own inclinations, when working in close connection with the house; being more in sympathy with the architects in this respect—in the transitional area between buildings & natural surfaces, than most English landscape gardeners have been. In speaking of Robinson, I should have reminded you of his book, published last year, in reply to the book of Architect Bloomfield. When I brought up Bloomfield’s book in conversation with Waterhouse, (who is one of the senior British Architects and of the highest standing), and expressed my regret that Bloomfield should have taken the stand he did, which amounts to little less than this: that Landscape Gardeners are nuisances, hateful to architects, Waterhouse said, “My dear Mr Olmsted, Mr. Bloomfield is a very young man”; turned the subject, and presently took me out seeking to get suggestions from me, as of one whose judgment would be better than his own, about the treatment of the grounds immediately about his own superb country house. I ought to say, also, that I had a capital conversation on his own grounds with Robinson, and that he appeared to me to give way and practically admit that, I had been right and he wrong, in some of our previous rather heated discussions. (He was most kind & useful to me.)

But I am wandering from the occasion.

I have written to John to find if he can, and send you, a report of Burnham’s bearing on the subject, and a copy of my paper read last summer before the Institute of Architects, or rather before an international convention of architects (nominally) held upon invitation of the American Institute of A., at Chicago. In these papers you will find some account of circumstances that I cannot now accurately recall, which, therefore, in anything you write, you had better not take from me, but by such reference to which as I can make from memory, you may be aided in your purpose.

Our first choice, you will remember, was a body of land north of the city, in dealing with which, we should have been under no such obligations, as at Jackson Park, we were to conform to requirements fixed by the South Park Commissioners, an outside body acting with a single life to a wholly different purpose from that of the Columbian Exposition. We had blocked out a plan for dealing with that north site which would have been open not at all to the [711]objection now brought against the plan adopted for Jackson Park. Because this objection could be avoided on that Northern site, we made it our first choice; not from considerations of taste, but purely of convenience in those respects which the critic you quote, claims should have been controlling. The Commission, not the Landscape Archts, decided that the northern site would not be available, and in so deciding, practically compelled us to abandon the purpose or theory of design, which this critic assumes that we should have insisted upon; compelled us, at least, to depart from any perfectly plain, mechanical and “architectural” manifestation of our faith in the principle of that theory.

Jackson Park site could only be had on condition that, at the end of the Exposition, it should be returned to the trustees of it—the Park Commissioners—in as good condition for their trustee purposes, as it was when taken from them. Should it not be restored in such condition, the members of the Directory—a most public-spirited body—would be open to a suit for damages (And there is to be, I suppose, as it is, a most interesting suit at law upon this point, and others; as to the damage to the ground). I cannot quote the terms of the treaty between the two bodies, but it amounted, I think, to that. Reviewing all the circumstances, the only safe course open to us, as the responsible designers, was to make such modifications of the old Olmsted and Vaux plan for a public park as could be made in order to adapt it, as far as practicable, to the architectural requirements of the Exposition, without lessening its adaptation to the purposes of a public recreation ground afterwards. That, you see, was a very different problem from the problem which the critic assumes we had before us. The excavation for what was made, in the Exposition plan, the main basin, (the central feature of the Main Court); and for the lagoon between the island and the Government Building, had already been made. The “creek” north of the Government building had to be left as it was; the larger part of the North lagoon; of the South lagoon; of the pond west of the California building, had to be accepted as of the fixed conditions: for evy one of the trees in the quarter afterwards occupied by the State and National buildings, for all on the “island” and for all on the shore opposite and in the district West of the Administration building, which our plan would compel to be removed, we were officially notified that the Directory would be subject to a charge of $30—a tree. Thus, you will see, that the acceptance of the site by the Directory & the National Commission, was virtually a requirement upon the designers as to the extent and form of the lagoons. We could not vary very greatly from the outline which Olmsted & Vaux had adopted for the lagoons without adding greatly to the cost of the undertaking. The problem of design, as given us, practically made it a condition that the lagoons, originally designed by Olmsted & Vaux, for another purpose, should be incorporated in the plan for the Exposition without any very serious modification. Now, then, the question was, can this be done, and if so, how can it be done, consistently with a satisfactory arrangement of the required buildings? In the study of this question a series of sketches were made showing how the plan of the lagoons, [712]with some slight modifications, would leave a series of sites available for the buildings in question. (And so on, the problem is better & more fully stated in one of the papers to be sent you, I think) With reference to this question, we called in Mr Root, Mr Burnham’s partner and the highest authority upon such a question available to us. At that time our plan had only been very imperfectly put on paper. In fact I believe it was to be shown only in the form of a series of drawings on tracing paper, indicating, when laid over the old park plan, wherein the plan for the Exposition was proposed to be modified from the plan for the park by the introduction of terraces making the higher ground available for buildings to a greater extent and with better general results than it otherwise would have been. The final general (or fully comprehensive) drawing of the plan was not made until after we had brought the architect Root into consultation upon the question of the disposition of the buildings, and it was then made largely by Root’s own hand, as Mr Burnham, in the Report to be sent you, states. That is to say, Root assembled in one drawing what had previously been detached drawings of parts of the scheme. (I am not aware that Root originated anything, though it is quite possible he did). (Harry Codman made the first drawing of the feature of the main court and basin; I first suggested the placing of the administration building, and the ground Railway Station and the secondary Court between the two) In my report to the Institute, (which was to be printed as a pamphlet) the story is told perhaps more fully—At any rate fully enough for a citation or quotation. So, also, I think in Burnham’s report, in which there is a manifest desire to do full justice to Root’s part, as there should have been. Both papers, and all the records will show that the Architects, (the representatives of the Architects), had evy opportunity to correct any such comprehensive errors of general design as the critic may suppose that Landscape Architects were, from their professional education, likely to be prone to fall into. Root, however, and Burnham as well, at this preliminary and formative stage, fully accepted the leading motives of the L.As. and the L.As. were only eager to get from them suggestions, from their experience as architects, for its improvmts, and there was certainly not one which they maturely advised that was not cordially incorporated in the L.As. plan. It is impossible to imagine a more complete and cordial and spontaneous intercommunication of ideas and cooperation—the L.A. leading.

If now, there is at the bottom a question to be considered as to the result, as proven by experience, perhaps that question might be put in this form:- Has the advantage of the lagoons, first, as an element of scenery; second, taking account of the fifteen bridges over them and the convenience provided for transportation in the sixty rapidly-moving boats upon them, compensated for such interruption to direct communication on foot between the buildings as was caused by the divisions made between the buildings by the lagoons? I do not think it an easy question. I think it a question upon which intelligent men may differ. They would differ, perhaps, very much in the degree in which they differed in the degree of their natural and their educated regard [713]for “landscape”; for landscape composition, for picturesque composition in distinction from the dignity and stateliness of grand symmetrical architectural composition; and, in respect to such difference, cultivated men have differed at different times as they have in respect to wigs and cocked hats and hair powder. Cultivated men have had different opinions even at different periods of their lives. But have artists, real artists, looking to ideals, and independently of the influence of temporary fashions? Here we approach a real question, perhaps, that I do not feel competent to deal with.

The problem of design, you will see, practically required that the excavations already made by the Park Commission for the lagoons should be incorporated in the design. Was this practicable; in short, was it practicable to provide in the design for the Exposition, in this and other respects, for the return of the site to the Park Commission, in as good condition for the Park Commission’s purpose as it was when taken, without accepting as a necessity of the situation, what would otherwise be an undesirable indirectness of communication between the buildings? Given the various spaces required to be occupied by buildings; given the necessity of completing the lagoon system already advanced, was a plan practicable to be devised that would not be open to the objections made to our plan by the critic? The Board of Architects, Mr Hunt, eminent representative of the French School, presiding, after long discussion, decided that it was not; so decided unanimously, and so, by formal resolution and report, advised the National Commission. So far as there might have been a question between Architects and Landscape Architects, as to principles of Art, it was formally removed by this action of the Board of Architects. Remember that this Board was a highly representative body; that the selection of its members was made by an architect, (Burnham); that it included the President of the American Institute of Architects, and an ex-President; and that this ex-president was educated in the French School, and has since been formally honored by the gold medal of the British Institute of Architects. It would be hard to conceive of a more authentic, deliberate, formal and accurate acceptance by architecture of the service of Landscape Architecture; a better recognition of the value of such special study and devotion to problems of arrangement (that architects as such are not educated to make) as the special education of L.A. fits them for.

Perhaps you will find that the main question is something like this:-Now the Exposition is over, can it be seen in the light of experience that the advantages of the lagoons, crossed as they have been by fifteen bridges and serving, by means of sixty boats, for a most restful, convenient and delightful mode of transportation between different parts of the Exposition, compensate, on the whole, for such interruption as they caused to direct communication between buildings? I am strongly inclined to think from all I saw and heard that the verdict of the public, and of the intelligent and cultivated and capable public, has been that the compensation was complete and that the preliminary judgment on the points of the Landscape Architects, and the Board of [714]Architects, has been fully sustained and justified. It is to be decided by every man largely by his personal experience. My personal experience is that there was nothing in the whole Exposition by which people were more fascinated, and which is remembered more vividly & with more pleasure than the use of the boats and the sensuous enjoyment of the general panorama which the use of the boats and of the shore walks, opened. In my own “personally conducted” parties, the enjoyment of the scenes, near and distant—the foregrounds and the perspectives—made available by the boats and by walks along the shores—greatly exceeded any other enjoyment had in the Exposition. I found it difficult to restrain the tendency to drift from the Exhibition buildings back to the shores and the boats; either night or day. As far as I know the Architects, especially those having responsibility in the matter, were well-satisfied. I have seen no sign that any of all those who have had occasion to study the experience of the Exposition carefully, have doubted that the obvious disadvantages of the design, growing out of the devious courses of the walks compelled by the lagoon features, were outweighed by its advantages. I admit that it was, in advance, a question upon which intelligent men might differ. It is a good thing that it should now be brought up for discussion. But, whatever, the final conclusion may be, this at least, can, I think, be settled and ought to be finally settled, that it is not a question between Architects (Building Architects) and Landscape Architects. There is no such question; there never has been such a question. The practicability and the desirability of the most complete, cordial and single-minded cooperation between building and landscape architects has been demonstrated in the Exposition as it never had been before. And in writing upon it, it will be as well to let it become manifest, without making the fact prominent or dwelling upon it, that the L.A. were officially employed before the Architects—before any other artists or designers—and that from the moment of their employment, their attitude was one of readiness and eagerness for the most frank and equal cooperation with Architects. Not alone architects and landscape architects, all human beings are prone to jealousies and suspicions, and especially so when they divide off into classes and professions; there being no more notorious exhibition of this tendency than is to be seen in the less cultivated members of so called religious sects and of schools within religious sects. It takes rather larger men than are common to rise well above this tendency. Of such men Root and Codman were specimens. So were Hunt and Burnham and the leading architects of the Exposition.

I have written you at much greater length than I had expected; have been much interrupted and feel that I have not been holding my grip on the subject. But you will gather my mind upon it, and you will see that a very delicate and judicious discussion of it is desirable. Too much care cannot be taken; too much cannot be done to draw architects into a habit of thought about Landscape Architecture the reverse of that illustrated by this critic. Frankly, if something important shall have been done in this respect by the Exposition, it will not be the least of its important results. Evything shd be done to promote [715]it; evything to allay and suppress the habit of thought among architects which this critic exemplifies. I look back with great satisfaction upon what I have succeeded in doing to repress an attitude of antagonism between Building and Landscape Architecture, and for the cultivation of fraternity. The Exposition ought to be the seal of a permanent & historical alliance in this respect. I hope that you will write in a kindly and hospitable spirit, taking ground that the cordial and efficient cooperation of the two allied professions is a most interesting and happy element of the Exposition—greatly to the credit of both professions and of excellent promise for the future of all art in this country. It is really an important historical circumstance & the public ought to be made to realize it.

Sincerely Yours

Over

I suggest that in anything to be written on the subject it might as well be at once assumed that the base of the Exposition was much too large; that it would have been much better if higher standards had been adopted; standards that would have excluded perhaps a third of all that was exhibited and by so much have lessened the space occupied; the amount of ground and extent of floor to be walked over. I think that the course of the Committee of Ways and Means (I suppose it was) in sticking an innumerable lot of trifling concession coops and shantees with slight regard to the landscape design, was much regretted. Another time it will be much better to have fewer and larger buildings and to have restaurants and peanut stands provided for, here and there, within the great buildings rather than multiply small ones. Obviously it will be more economical and the general result will be grander.