VICINITY OF THE MUSEUM
Three main problems are here presented which we have found very
perplexing, and the best solution of which we do not yet feel confident
that we have found. One problem is that of the appearance of the Museum
building in relation to its surroundings and of those surroundings in
relation to it. The second problem is that of the most effective use,
for the purposes of the Garden, of the area immediately surrounding
the Museum and lying between it and Conservatory Range No. 1 and
westward to the railroad. The third is that of making a far better
impression upon the great number of visitors who enter the Garden in
this vicinity, both from the rapid transit lines and by automobile;
and at the same time, while making such a strongly agreeable immediate
impression, inducing them to disperse rapidly to various parts of the
Garden instead of congesting near the entrances.
As to the first, our frank opinion is that the present conditions are
esthetically very bad. Considered simply as a piece of architecture,
apart from relation to surroundings and without allowance for any
limiting conditions which may have necessitated the present design, the
exterior of the Museum building could not, we believe, be regarded by
any competent critic as an artistic success. The story above the main
cornice is peculiarly unfortunate in its effect on the silhouette and
general proportions of the building. And for a building situated, as
this is, in a large open landscape, the high-shouldered effect thus
produced is particularly unhappy. Looking forward to the time when
extensive additions will be made to the north, it would seem worth
while seriously to consider the total elimination or radical change
of the present top story at that time. It may even be worth while to
consider, in connection with the possibility of very extensive future
additions, whether the present building could be entirely enclosed in
and masked by such extensions, with a radical change of architectural
character; as was done with the original ugly units of the Metropolitan
Museum of Art.
The effect of the building is very much worse as seen from a westerly
direction, where the ground falls away rapidly from the basement level
of this high building-mass and where there are no supporting trees near
it, than as seen from southerly and southeasterly directions, where
the ground is more nearly level and there are numerous large trees to
compose with it.
It was doubtless this rapid falling-away of the ground to the westward
which dictated the narrowness of the formally symmetrical treatment
of the axial approach to the building from the southwest. The strip
of land occupied by this approach, with its four rows of fine tulip
trees, is in considerable fill all along its northwestern edge and this
fill drops off abruptly and rather skimpily to what appears to be the
original natural surface of the ground just outside the outermost row
of trees; whereas the façade of the building extends far beyond this
line.
The result is to divide the landscape opposite the long façade of
the building into three distinct parts, of three totally different
characters, the combined relations of which to the building seem to us
most unfortunate.
The formal treatment on the axis is too narrow to furnish in itself an
adequate setting for the frontage of so wide a building, and yet is so
massive that, instead of seeming a mere incident within a unified open
space relating as a whole to the whole façade, it almost completely
divides the open space. This effect is exaggerated by the marked lack
of symmetry between the two resulting pieces of open space on opposite
sides of the axis, both as to levels and as to the presence and absence
of trees.
In relation to so big a building, emphatically symmetrical in design,
the formal treatment on the axis seems to us, therefore, an unfortunate
compromise between two alternative schemes either of which might be
good.
In one of these possible schemes the building would face upon a broad
park-like space of more or less undulating topography, not rigidly
symmetrical about the axis of the building, but not so markedly
unsymmetrical as to the grades in immediate contact with the walls of
the building or its terraces as to produce a limping effect. In such
a scheme, not predicated upon extending the perfect symmetry of the
building far beyond its walls, the approach road, instead of being
straight and axial for a distance of some 400 feet (or about half-way
across the topographic unit in front of the building) and there
breaking into asymmetry, would probably sweep up on curving lines from
right and left to a formal forecourt in immediate contact with the
building.
The other scheme would be to formalize the treatment of the land on
which the building fronts to a width comparable with that of the façade
itself, and would probably extend this formal treatment out along
the axis of the building (although not necessarily at the same width
throughout) to the opposite side of the topographical unit over which
the eve sweeps as one looks out from the building; in other words, to
the opposite side of the valley.
The first scheme could originally have been carried out successfully
at less expense than the second. It probably could now be carried out
at less expense, although only by the sacrifice of the well-grown
tulip tree avenues and some other features of the present scheme. It
would, however, require that a large area, certainly not less than 20
acres, near the Museum and between it and the Conservatory, should be
kept permanently in a rather broad, open, park-like treatment, which
would be suitable for the exhibition of a limited number of well-grown
specimen trees but for hardly any other specifically botanical garden
purposes.
We are inclined to believe that this area, so conveniently adjacent
to the Museum, to the Conservatory and to transportation services,
ought to be much more intensively used than would be possible under
such a broad, simple, park-like treatment; that it should include,
for example, provision for diversified exhibition gardens and kindred
purposes.
Such intensive use for various appropriate botanical garden purposes
might conceivably be worked out in a series of units almost wholly
informal and naturalistic in character; but for many of them there
would be much more assurance of securing results good of their kind and
at the same time compact, efficient and easily maintained when visited
by large numbers of people, if they were frankly artificial or formal
in their arrangement. Such units, suitably designed and disposed, could
be provided with backgrounds and enclosing and separating masses of
trees, whether deciduous or coniferous or both, which would constitute
part of the botanical collection of trees and would be quite as
numerous as could be provided for in a rather open park-like treatment
such as has hitherto been attempted in this region, if not more so.
On the theory of more intensive use, therefore, the second and more
ambitious scheme involving a considerable amount of formally planned
development as distinguished from a mainly naturalistic landscape,
would seem to be the better.
With either kind of general scheme, although more readily perhaps in
one characterized by the more extensive use of formal elements in the
plan, it would be feasible to provide in this vicinity for the proposed
Garden House and a representative Formal Garden of the most exquisite
sort, as previously discussed in Part III, Section 4.
In our preliminary report we ventured to suggest one possible site for
such a Garden House and for the Garden in connection with it, but we
are by no means satisfied that these would be the best locations, nor
can the best locations be determined without developing a complete plan
for the entire area in question.
Whether a mainly informal scheme or a more largely formal scheme
is adopted, a permanently satisfactory result in this part of the
Botanical Garden can in our opinion be attained only by radical,
extensive and costly changes. Plans for either kind of scheme,
sufficiently well worked out to be dependable and to be clearly
explanatory of the results to which they would lead--such plans, in
other words, as the Managers should have before them at the time
of reaching a definite decision in a matter of such importance and
involving commitment to such large expenditures--can be prepared only
with much study and labor. Every part would be so interlocked with
other parts that it would be unsafe to stop short of working out all
the parts in considerable detail, continually revising and adjusting
until a satisfactory and harmonious whole is quite certainly assured.
We have made numerous diagrammatic and partial studies in hopes of
being able to illustrate and clarify our general statements above, but
those which show enough features to be really explanatory go further
and appear to commit us to more definite conclusions than is safe
without much more thorough and detailed planning than we have felt to
be justified at present.
If it is thought that there would be a reasonable prospect of carrying
out such a radical plan of improvement in the vicinity of the Museum
as we have outlined above, we should be interested to work it out in
definite form so that at least the pros and cons could be thoroughly
canvassed and clearly understood. To do so is so much of an undertaking
that we hesitate to embark upon it and to ask the donors of our
services to pay for it, without knowing whether the Managers would be
inclined to consider such a proposition favorably.
There is, however, one part of any plan for this vicinity about which
more needs to be said, and about which something even might be done in
the way of execution without dangerously complicating the main problem
of how to treat the valley between the Museum and the Conservatory
ridge. We refer to the reception and initial distribution of the
throngs of visitors who enter from the terminal of the Elevated Railway.
It is important, as has already been pointed out, to induce the rapid
dispersal of visitors, and it might be held that a more intensive
development in the vicinity of the Museum and Conservatory would
necessarily defeat this purpose and lead to congestion.
There are, however, two sides to this question. A large proportion
of the visitors, especially of those on foot delivered by the rapid
transit lines, have no definite objective when they enter the Garden.
Also most of them are lazy about walking far; and, if confronted, upon
entering, by a relatively uninviting prospect with few objects of much
attractiveness immediately beyond them, are extremely apt to settle
down or to “mill around” near the entrance without going much further.
The mere fact of the existence of interesting things half a mile away,
which they can not see and do not know about, is very little inducement
to their dispersal. We believe that a better theory even for the mere
purpose of dispersing the public and inducing them in large numbers to
penetrate into the interior of the Botanical Garden, and certainly a
better means of making them promptly interested and satisfied, is to
provide from the very start a series of markedly attractive prospects,
leading on from one to another in several different directions, so
as to “toll” them along; making what they see at each step offer a
direct inducement to go further; drawing some to the right and some
to the left and some straight ahead; but, no matter which course they
choose, leading them onward step by step and making continued movement
psychologically inviting.
We think that no one who studies the conditions on the ground can deny
that those who arrive by the Elevated Railway at the western corner
of the Garden (the route of approach which is apparently used by the
largest numbers and is likely to remain so) upon arriving at the end
of the causeway near the men’s toilet house are confronted with a
very uninviting prospect. They debouch abruptly on a disagreeable and
dangerous grade crossing of two automobile roads. Some of them are
deflected at once into the not unattractive little _cul-de-sac_ between
the railroad and these roads. Those who cross the roads find themselves
crossing a broad path nearly at right angles to their course and in
neither direction showing anything that is very inviting or likely to
draw them aside. Ahead of them rises an uncomfortably steep path in
rather poor condition and again not presenting any immediately inviting
prospect, although beyond the top of the rise the Conservatory looms
above the foliage in a way that suggests something interesting in that
direction.
If in the absence of other immediate attraction and of a knowledge
of just how to reach more distant points of interest, they pursue
this mild invitation to a slightly toilsome ascent, they reach the
west corner of the Conservatory terraces in a rather unimpressive way
and find their way around either to the main entrance court on the
southwest side of the Conservatory or to the flower garden on its
northeast side, whence they can drift along pleasantly enough through
part of the Pinetum to the Herbaceous Grounds and so to the east or
southeast, entirely by-passing the vicinity of the Museum.
To reach the latter from this important entrance the normal route
is to turn abruptly to the left after crossing the two roadways and
descend on a distinctly uninviting path, shut off from the main body
of the Garden area by a hillside rather uninterestingly planted. This
hill must be passed by a walk of a sixth of a mile, parallel with
and looking toward the automobile roads and the railroad, before
entering the main cross-valley between the Conservatory ridge and
the Museum. This valley is entered at an elevation which does not
present an attractive or inspiring view of such landscape quality as
the valley has and does not lead the eye and invite the steps to the
very delightful region east of it. The Museum looms into view in one
of its less attractive aspects, but to those who are more interested
in outdoor than in in-door matters a walk of fully a third of a mile
intervenes before they begin to find themselves in surroundings which
have the quality so much to be desired, upon entering the Garden, that
of giving immediate delight while stimulating to press onward.
This is negative criticism. To take the constructive side, without
pretending to submit a final solution, let us imagine how a solution
might be approached from the point of view, let us say, of a stage
manager bent upon getting certain fairly definite pleasurable reactions
from large numbers of people and ready to spend money freely to get his
“effects.”
Starting from the station of the Elevated they would be led, as now,
through a belt of trees rising from the low land on either side of
the causeway which they must traverse to reach solid ground. This is
the one admirable feature of the present approach--a sort of sylvan
screen, in passing which to brush off, as it were, the impressions of
the utterly urban commonplaceness of the railway mechanism. The sylvan
character could well be more complete, more overarched and umbrageous;
it could well extend somewhat further along the route; and instead of
adhering to the boundary of the property the causeway might well strike
at once diagonally into it, so that the surroundings on both sides
would be permanently controllable. It would almost certainly be made
to rise on a gentle gradient so as to pass across the two automobile
roads, above grade, probably by an arched bridge of sufficient width
to carry a narrow plantation of shrubbery on either side, after the
manner of the bridges which carry roads and paths across the transverse
traffic-roads of Central Park, arriving at grade upon the flatter
portion of the hillside west of the Conservatory, where the main lead
would debouch from the shut-in sylvan vestibule upon an open sunny
space, rich with color of flowers and well-kept, smooth, green turf;
strongly enclosed on the northwesterly side, toward the railroad and
the city and the direction of bleak winds, by a dense enframement
of tall-growing full-foliaged trees. The present enframement of the
space on the southeast is fairly good, with its inviting glimpse of
the Conservatory dome and its suggestion of specifically horticultural
interest. This unit of first impression, about a hundred yards in
length from southwest to northeast, would occupy the space where the
word “Pinetum” first occurs upon the Guide Map, but where in fact are
ill-kept, impoverished slopes of grass, bordered by weak and dwindling
firs, of species which have proved not to thrive in such a locality.
In character of design this unit might be anything rich and vigorous
and gay and inviting, but perhaps a rather sophisticated naturalistic
treatment might be best, a foretaste _in petto_ of the prevailing
characteristics of the Botanical Garden as a whole, as an antechamber
to the principal elements of formal design adjacent to the Conservatory
and the Museum, through which or past which lies access to the main
body of the grounds.
Before entering this unit of first impression, but just within sight
of it, would branch easily to the right a path of direct approach to
the main entrance court on the southwest side of the Conservatory,
so treated as to give a glimpse suggestive of the kind of interest
to be found by following that course. Passing through the unit of
first impression one would cross the main path or paths of the flower
garden which lies northeast of the Conservatory at a grade and in a
way which would give glimpses of that garden, inviting some to turn
aside, while the main lead would continue northeasterly at easy grades
through successive minor units of informal character but individual,
distinctive interest, all backed up by heavy tree plantations on the
northwesterly side, to a point on the hillside pleasantly overlooking
the valley southeast of the Museum. Here the choice would be open of
proceeding, on the one hand, directly toward the Museum, from a point
on its axis at a distance of rather more than two hundred yards from
the building, or, on the other hand, through the valley to the plainly
visible and very pleasant and inviting region south of the Museum,
through which to reach the Herbaceous Grounds, the Economic Garden, the
Hemlock Grove, the Water Gardens, and all that lies beyond them.
Because of its grades, because of the sense of at once getting into
the heart of things, and because of leading on insensibly from one
point of attraction to others beyond it, such an entrance scheme would
be incalculably more effective than the present one, and as already
indicated could be made to fit in with almost any final treatment of
the main cross-valley near the Museum.
If actually put into execution before the latter was finally planned,
it would involve some path-building and other minor changes in the
valley which would have to be regarded as temporary and subject to
modification. For that reason and because they are otherwise so closely
related to the vicinity of the Museum we did not include this group of
entrance improvements with the others listed in Part III. But if the
Managers, in view of the urgency of other matters and the large cost
of any radical improvement in the vicinity of the Museum, should see
fit to postpone decision as to the latter for a long time it might be
worth while to consider the improvement of this entrance independently
thereof.
IN CONCLUSION
The purpose of this Report is in part to point out needs and
opportunities for bettering the grounds of the New York Botanical
Garden, in part to set before the Managers, some of the rather
complicated and far-reaching considerations which ought constantly to
be kept in view whenever a decision affecting any part of the grounds
confronts them, in order that they may make each decision wisely for
the Garden as a whole and avoid snap-judgments.
It is not in itself a program, but it may become a useful basis for a
program to be adopted by the Managers, definite as to the near future
and tentative as to the more distant future.
It is not at all in the nature of a set of plans and specifications
for all or any of the modifications suggested. So far as any of
the suggestions it contains may be embodied into a program by the
Managers, the first step in the physical execution of any part of
that program should be the preparation of plans and specifications
so thorough and detailed that the Managers, with the aid of their
various technical advisors, can assure themselves in advance exactly
what is proposed to be done, just how it is to be done, how it will
affect other parts of the program, and what it involves financially and
administratively both in first execution and in proper maintenance.
The Managers and the Director-in-Chief of the Botanical Garden are
in a wholly different situation in such matters from the owner of a
private estate, whose purposes may be admirably served if, with a
fairly consistent and intelligent idea of the kind of place he wants,
he authorizes a succession of improvements in general terms and leaves
the details of execution of each, within reasonable limits of cost, to
be settled as the work proceeds by designers and executives in whom he
has confidence, without requiring complete plans and specifications
in advance. The difference is not merely that the Managers have a
fiduciary obligation to take fewer chances than a man may reasonably
do with his own property, but also that the purposes to be served are
far more complicated and enduring and proposals need to be scrutinized
in detail from more diverse technical points of view before final
commitments are made.
Respectfully submitted,
(Signed) OLMSTED BROTHERS
APPENDIX A
_A record of actual cases giving comparative figures of maintenance
labor and maintenance costs. Referred to on pages 7 to 9 of the Report._
We have classified this record in accordance with the three classes of
maintenance given on page 8 of the Report.
It should be stated that these figures are only approximate, because in
some, and perhaps most, cases it was not possible to eliminate all the
factors that should have been eliminated or to include all the factors
that should have been included. However, they are close enough to serve
as a basis for discussion and estimating. Labor is figured on the basis
of $4.00 for an 8-hour day, 288 days in a year. The reason for not
stating where the various areas referred to are located is that some
people preferred not to have their data openly published; although none
of them, probably, would object to having them passed around privately.
CLASS I
In this class the labor upkeep for the year consists of the
equivalent of one man per year for ²⁄₃ to 2 acres. It comprises such
areas as described under (e) on page 7, examples being the Rose
Garden, Herbaceous Garden, the gardening effects immediately around
Conservatory Range No. 1.
There are about 40 acres of this class in the Garden.
A PUBLIC ROSE GARDEN
_Maintenance costs_
Labor per acre per year $870.00
Supplies and teaming per acre per year 1,130.00
---------
$2,000.00
Rate per year = 1.327 acres per man.
A PRIVATE FORMAL (walled-in) GARDEN,
a part being a rose garden. Area ⁴⁄₅ acre.
Rate per year = 0.53 acre per man
(A little teaming extra.)
AN HERBACEOUS AND ANNUAL GARDEN,
for supplying cut flowers for the house.
Area ³⁄₄ acre.
Rate per year = 1.12 acres per man.
(A little teaming extra.)
A PUBLIC CITY PARK,
of a highly ornate and sophisticated kind,
comprising ornamental trees and shrubs,
hand-mown lawns, “bedding-out,” statues, pools,
and so on. Area 24 acres.
_Maintenance costs_
Labor per acre per year $906.40
Supplies and teaming per acre per year 154.00
---------
$1,060.40
Rate per year = 1.272 acres per man.
A PUBLIC HERBACEOUS GARDEN
Area 4 acres, about half of which is lawn.
_Maintenance costs_
Labor per acre per year $1,060.00
Supplies and teaming per acre per year 375.00
---------
$1,435.00
Rate per year = 1.087 acres per man.
CLASS II
In this class the labor upkeep for the year consists of the equivalent
of one man per year for 2-6 acres. It comprises such areas as described
under (d) on page 7, examples being the Cherry Garden, Fruticetum, and
perhaps the lawn areas around the Museum. There are about 75 acres of
this class in the Garden.
A SUBURBAN PLACE
Design rather complex, outline of lawn very irregular.
Area 1.80 acres, composed as follows:
Buildings .18 acres
Roads and yards .13 ”
Garden (mostly vegetable) .13 ”
Lawn .50 ”
Balance (trees and shrubbery with a few
paths and herbaceous beds) .86 ”
_Maintenance costs_
Labor per acre per year $512.00
Supplies and teaming per acre per year 127.22
---------
$639.22
Rate per year = 2¹⁄₄ acres per man.
SHRUBBERY AND LAWNS ON A SUBURBAN PLACE
Area, 30 acres.
Rate per year = 4.09 acres per man.
(A little teaming extra.)
QUASI-SUBURBAN COUNTRY PLACE,
excluding farm lands, including considerable
macadam road about 16’ wide, mostly
grass-bordered.
Landscape portion, 22 acres, composed as follows:
Grounds immediately about house, largely in
turf terraces, with a few beds of annuals about 3 acres
Nursery 1³⁄₄ ”
Balance made up of lawn, partly hand-mown
among trees and partly horse-mown, with
considerable areas in trees with undergrowth 17¹⁄₄ ”
Rate per year = 2¹⁄₂ acres per man.
(A little teaming extra.)
CLASS III
In this class the labor upkeep for the year consists of the equivalent
of one man per year for 6-18 acres. It comprises such areas as
described under (b) and (c) on page 7, examples being the general
woodlands of the Garden and the North Meadow. There are about 265 acres
of this class in the Garden.
A MUNICIPAL PARK,
of a simple kind, consisting of tree and
shrub plantations, and large areas of meadow
or lawn roughly mown.
Area, 103 acres.
_Maintenance costs_
Labor per acre per year $127.45
Supplies and teaming per acre per year 60.06
---------
$187.51
Rate per year = 9.04 acres per man.
A COUNTRY PLACE
Area 250 acres, composed as follows:
Cultivated fields 36.0 acres
Pasture 35.4 ”
Garden 3.4 ”
Orchard, golf-links, and tennis courts 10.0 ”
Lawn and shrubbery near garden 2.0 ”
House-grounds (lawn, shrubbery, perennials, ¹⁄₄ mile
of road, complex design) 4.0 ”
Cottage grounds (lawn and scattered trees) 4.0 ”
Woodland, about 150.0 ”
Rate per year (average) = 25 acres per man.
APPENDIX B
More in detail, our ideas as to the Rhododendron Glade and the ends to
be aimed at in its establishment are as follows, subject, of course, to
modification by further conferences with Dr. Britton.
The scheme of planting would be such as to produce in a large
general way and at all times the esthetic qualities of _beauty_ and
_picturesqueness_. The effect of hybrid rhododendrons or azaleas in
variety at times of bloom could be gorgeously magnificent so that the
beholder might be fairly carried away in his admiration.
At other times the display of bloom, while perhaps in equally large
masses and equally effective in stirring the beholder, would be of a
more delicate kind, such as is produced by the mountain laurel, which
might be further enhanced by being combined with ferns, some of which,
notably the gossamer fern (_Dicksonia punctilobula_), are at their
most delicate stage of beauty when the laurel is in bloom. When not in
bloom, there would be the beauty and interest of variety of form, of
varying shades of green, of the play of light and shadow produced by
the thoughtful disposition of the plants in masses and groups or as
individual specimens. During the leafless season of deciduous plants
there would be the pleasing contrasts between the greens and the
bronzes of these evergreen ericaceous plants and the leafless branches
and twigs of deciduous subjects.
Hybrid rhododendrons, Carolina rhododendrons, azaleas,
lily-of-the-valley shrub, Japanese fetter-bush, Japanese bell-flower,
would be some of the kinds occurring in large numbers, particularly
over large areas on the slopes; and sorrel trees would rise above the
general mass here and there. Combined with these would be such smaller
growing plants as heath, heather, bearberry (effective cataracting over
rocks), box huckleberry, lambkill. All of these would be distributed
well up and down the slope, some of them even occurring sparingly on
the floor of the valley.
The many ledges and little rocky declivities would be taken into
account in planting so that these would not be unduly concealed,
because they would be an important factor in the beauty and charm of
the place and could be made to compose and contrast agreeably with the
vegetation.
In passing it might be mentioned that _Rhododendron maximum_ and
_Rhododendron catawbiense_ would not occur in this scheme except as a
few plants of each merely to represent the species, because they have
been used abundantly elsewhere in the Garden and because to make them
effective scenically, they would have to be used in such large numbers
as would seriously curtail other more important effects.
The greater part of the floor of the valley would be a more or less
continuous cover made up of low-growing members of the family. There
might be a quarter to half an acre in cranberry bog, serving purposes
of scenic effect and affording a lesson in economic botany at one
and the same time. Other plants that should appear over considerable
areas, in simulation of the way they occur in nature, are leatherleaf,
Labrador-tea, Rhodora (if it can be made to thrive), _Kalmia
angustifolia_, _Kalmia glauca_, _Andromeda polifolia_. While in the
main this floor-cover should be low, there could be relief here and
there from its continuity by individuals and small groups of highbush
blueberry, swamp azalea, sweet pepperbush, and even of rhododendrons
and mountain laurel.
While the main appeal would thus be to the esthetic and horticultural
sense, the botanical or scientific would be well provided for. There
would be as complete a representation of the _Ericaceae_ (including
such other families as formerly were a part of it) as the climate, soil
and location would permit; but many kinds, especially those that would
contribute little or nothing to the general scenic or floral effect
by being present in large numbers would be represented, each by a few
individuals or small colonies so disposed that they could be easily
discovered and examined, especially by those interested in learning
about the family in detail. Examples of this class are species of
_Daboecia_, _Pyrola_, _Kalmiella_, _Dendrium_, _Menziesia_, _Epigaea_.
It would undoubtedly be desirable to include some plants not of the
_Ericaceae_ for the purpose of enhancing the artistic effect. Ferns
it seems should surely be added. Further, we have in mind some of the
conifers, especially various dwarf yews and junipers; also hemlocks,
both our northern and the Carolina, and particularly the common
inkberry.
The system of paths would be such that the people would be led around
to the various vantage points for obtaining the best impressions, and
also that access would be afforded for the enjoyment and study of the
plants in detail.
Besides path-building, considerable other work of a constructive nature
would be required. The bottom of the valley would have to be filled
two or three feet in depth above its present elevation and drained
somewhat in order to provide the condition suitable for growing the
floor-cover vegetation mentioned in the foregoing. Quite likely it
would be found advisable to deepen and otherwise to improve the soil
conditions on the slopes by adding and incorporating leaf-mold, swamp
muck, and the like, and, perhaps, some of the prevalent friable soil
native to the region. Here and there a tree might have to be cut and
the existing tree growth otherwise manipulated in order to regulate,
to as close a nicety as possible, the proportion of light and shade,
a factor to which some of the _Ericaceae_ are more sensitive and
responsive than the common run of plants. Other constructive work would
be that described and implied in the body of our Report.
The area under consideration comprises about ten acres, but it is quite
possible that it might be increased to fifteen acres should the growth
of the collection of plants make this necessary or desirable.
Resolution of the Board of Managers of
THE NEW YORK BOTANICAL GARDEN
adopted November 20, 1924
RESOLVED, that the Report of Olmsted Brothers be approved in principle
as a guide for future treatment of the grounds in the Garden except
that there be reserved for future consideration that part of the Report
which deals with the proposed modifications of the present road system;
and that this Report be printed.
INDEX
Arnold Arboretum, 25
Automobile highway, 26-28
Automobile traffic, 25-31
Border plantations, 13, 26
Botanic Garden style, 16
Bridge across Bronx, 29
Bronx Park East, 26
Bronx River Parkway, 25-27;
and Grand Concourse, 26
Burke Avenue, 27
Cherry Garden, 13, 42
Elevated Railway entrance, 36-39
Fordham University, 26
Formal Garden, 22-24, 34, 41
Formality of gardens, 22
Fruticetum, 12, 42
Gardeners, lack of, 9
Garden House, 22-24, 34
Gorge of Bronx River, 23
Grounds: Classification of, 7-8;
cost of maintaining, 9, 41-43;
Herbaceous, 12;
maintenance of, 6-11;
men required for maintenance of, 9;
need of classification of, 10;
importance of superintendent for, 11;
preferential areas of, 10
Guards, 16
Herbaceous Grounds, 12, 38, 41, 42
Horticultural Garden, 20
Improvements: Constituting new features, 17-24;
of existing features, 11-17
Infections in Garden, 10
Iris Garden region, 20
Kew Gardens, 12, 25
Lake Valley, 17, 31
Landscape Garden, 21, 24
Lorillard Mansion, 23-24
Maintenance, 6-11;
effects of inadequate, 6;
qualities to be sought in, 16
Model Gardens, 18
Museum: Vehicular approach to, 29-31;
vicinity of, 32-39
New features, 17-24
Park Department Greenhouses, 21
Park Department Stables, 18, 21
Path System, 13
Rhododendron Glade, 17, 44
Roads: Across Bronx, 29;
across Rhododendron Glade, 18, 31;
east of Museum, 28;
from Iris Garden Entrance, 28;
in Fruticetum, 31;
in general, 14;
interior, 28-31;
near Museum, 29-31
Rose Garden, 31, 41
Superintendent, 11
Tidiness, 16
Visitors, dispersal of, 13, 35
Vistas, 20, 21
Water Gardens, 28, 30, 38
Weediness, 16
Transcriber’s Notes
Page 11: “IMPROVMENTS CLOSELY ASSOCIATED” changed to “IMPROVEMENTS
CLOSELY ASSOCIATED”
Page 14: “confusing, ardous” changed to “confusing, arduous”
While the footnotes refer to a map as following the document, this was
not included in the original.