_Notes on Parks and Recreation Facilities_
[Sidenote:
The Bellefield Improvement]
Plans for a grouping of public buildings in the Bellefield District,
and for improving the entrance to Schenley Park, have been studied
with some care. Two plans are herewith submitted (Plan A and Plan B),
the essential difference between them being that Plan A contemplates
scarcely more than the improvement of the existing layout, while Plan B
involves a radical change of design, and absolutely requires, for its
happy execution, a control of developments on the Frick property north
of Forbes Street.
In Plan A the ravine between the Carnegie Institute and Forbes Field is
not filled up but is enlarged. The bridge over the ravine remains, but
the present driveway entrance from Forbes Street is moved 50 or 60 feet
east, to give room for a double row of trees to screen the Forbes Field
grandstand. This road is continued south from the end of the stone
bride to Bates and Boquet Streets, thus gaining a direct connection to
the Oakland District. Another driving entrance is shown east of the
ravine to accommodate travel from the East End through Bellefield,
Dithridge and Forbes Streets. Bellefield Street is widened and Tennyson
Avenue is extended from Fifth Avenue to Forbes Street, in order to give
a more fitting approach to the Institute. And finally, an appropriate
setting is provided for the front of the Institute by a small plaza
surrounded by public or quasi-public buildings. It may be noted that
one of these buildings, the stone church on Dithridge Street, already
exists, but it is nearly hidden from Forbes Street by cheap wooden
buildings and signboards.
[Illustration: BELLEFIELD IMPROVEMENT PLAN A]
[Illustration: University Buildings at Berlin, suggestive of the
grouping proposed at the entrance to Schenley Park.]
It cannot be denied that the approach from Grant Boulevard to Schenley
Park remains rather indirect, and even with the Bates Street extension
there is a lack of obvious justification for the bridge location.
It must be granted, however, that this bridge in itself is very
attractive; and the whole scene, the little valley with its informal
groups of shrubbery and trees, spanned at one end by a stone bridge,
is extremely interesting and pictorial and peculiarly characteristic
of the Pittsburgh topography. The novelty of such a scene, in contrast
to the stiff formality of the city all about, gives it not a little
value, and there is reasonable doubt if it should not be saved even
at some sacrifice. An increased use of this valley would give further
reason for its preservation; and the proposed taking of Junction
Hollow for park purposes (discussed below) furnishes the opportunity.
By carrying an informal park treatment from the valley below up the
ravine and under the bridge to Forbes Street, and by having plenty of
walks and benches and attractive planting therein, this ravine becomes
an interesting and inviting branch of the park, and serves also as an
informal entrance to the lower park levels such as Junction and Panther
Hollows. The use and the value of the ravine are thus materially
increased.
In plan B the ravine is filled and the bridge abandoned. The present
Grant Boulevard approach is changed to a more direct and dignified
approach from Fifth Avenue and the Boulevard by widening Tennyson
Avenue and cutting a broad street through from Fifth Avenue and
Tennyson to Forbes Street on the axis of the new park entrance. This
new entrance is a formal court enclosed by the Carnegie Institute on
the east, by proposed public buildings on the north and west, and by
a terrace overlooking the valley, on the south. By narrowing the area
between the Institute and Forbes Field, a court of good proportions is
obtained, and ample space is left on land already owned by the City
for the enclosing building on the west. The strong axial approach
in reality extends the park entrance to Fifth Avenue; and the court
at Forbes Street, while adding to the dignity and character of this
entrance, becomes a fitting plaza around which will be grouped the
buildings of a public character. At the southern end of this court are
the terrace, overlooking the park to the south, and the two driving
entrances, one over Junction Hollow bridge as at present and the other
skirting down the west bank of Junction Hollow and joining the new
Boundary Street (mentioned below), and thence entering the present park
through Panther Hollow.
[Illustration: BELLEFIELD IMPROVEMENT
PLAN B]
[Illustration: Junction Hollow at Schenley Park entrance]
The parking of Junction Hollow is indicated in both plans, A and B. The
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad proposed several years ago to relocate and
lower its tracks in Junction Hollow and to abandon its present roadbed
to the City as compensation for the streets and other city property to
be occupied by the new railroad right-of-way. The present roadbed would
become a cross-town thoroughfare[23] (Boundary Street) and the railroad
would be in a cut just west of the street. This whole scheme has many
advantages both to the railroad and to the City, and it is to be
hoped that it may soon be realized. A careful investigation has shown
that the Baltimore & Ohio owns such portions and only such portions
of the valley as it may need to carry out this plan; and it is also
reasonably certain that the Railroad does not contemplate using the
wide portion of the valley--where the Italian settlement now is--for
freight or storage yards. This whole valley is so closely associated
topographically with Schenley Park, it plays so important a part in
many of the views from the Park,--from the entrance, from the Junction
Hollow bridge, from Panther Hollow and the Panther Hollow bridge,--that
its control is of very real moment as a means of raising the value of
the western portion of Schenley Park. Incidently it can be made a very
attractive and valuable park unit in itself. On the whole, the entire
valley from Forbes Street to Wilmot Street, and possibly beyond, should
be controlled, and the taking should extend to the top of the west
bank. In the narrow portion opposite Panther Hollow the Baltimore &
Ohio Railroad owns to the top of the west bank, but undoubtedly it will
be willing to release to the City such portions of this bank as are
not required by its relocation plans; or, if not, some agreement should
be reached whereby this wooded bank will be saved from unnecessary
defacement.
In conclusion, it should be noted that Plan A, although it shows some
new buildings on private land, would be reasonably satisfactory without
them. It is a plan which does not change the present design and one
which can be carried out without the coöperation of private landowners
in the development of adjacent properties. Plan B on the other hand
involves a radical change in the park design, and furthermore it
absolutely requires the coöperation of Mr. Frick in the development of
his property between Forbes Street and Fifth Avenue, or the acquirement
of that property by the City.
Although it is not ordinarily a good public policy to make radical
changes in a park design already established, the improvements thereby
obtained are sometimes so positive and important that the procedure is
fully justified. It is believed that the radical changes proposed in
Plan B are fully justified by the value of the improvement attained.
[Sidenote:
Grant Boulevard]
This street--a boulevard by courtesy--has undoubtedly more than
justified the large cost of its construction by supplying a much-needed
route for automobiles and other fast-moving travel--largely passenger
vehicles--between the East End and the down town district. But it is
to be regretted that a little more foresight was not evidenced in
planning this work; that a better appreciation was not shown of the
splendid opportunities offered and of incidental purposes to be served.
Located as it is at a commanding height on a steep hillside with an
impressive outlook over the Allegheny Valley and the hills beyond, and
with little chance to develop a commercial frontage, this street seems
peculiarly fitted to be a real pleasure way in fact as well as in name.
But instead it has been built without even room for shade trees; it is
a mere street, in all appearances like any other traffic way of the
city, and no more generous in its width than Fifth Avenue or Smithfield
Street; and the unkempt, sordid appearance of the slumping hillsides
above is an ever-present eyesore.
[Illustration: Suggestion from Lausanne for treatment of a bluff]
In view of these facts it is urged that the following improvements
be made in Grant Boulevard: First, enough additional width should
be obtained, where the value of frontage or the character of the
land does not make it impracticable, to provide for a planting-strip
with shade trees on either side of the roadway. Second, additional
width should be secured at certain points along the street, where
the opportunity seems most favorable, in order to provide special
tree-shaded promenades or overlook terraces, where people may stroll
amidst comfortable and agreeable surroundings, or sit upon benches
and watch the passing stream of travel or look out upon the broad,
distant views. Third, the steep hillsides above the Boulevard, at
least those which do not have and are not likely to have in the future
any appreciable commercial value, should be controlled by the City
and reclaimed from their present status as free dumping-grounds and
barren wastes. These hillsides are in fact so closely related to the
Boulevard that their appearance is of almost equal import, in the value
of the street as a pleasure thoroughfare, with the treatment of the
street itself. Neatly kept banks, partially covered with trees and
shrubs, would go far toward making this street a boulevard in fact
as well as in name. Finally, where the slopes are too steep to stand
securely at all times of year and in all kinds of weather, retaining
walls should be built to prevent the slumping of clayey hillsides into
the road, and the more dangerous falling of large pieces of stone from
the disintegrating cliffs. Except for the western portion, the banks
are seldom steep enough to require a wall of more than ten feet or so
in height, even if the street is widened fifteen or twenty feet; but
west of the line of Kirkpatrick Street the bank becomes steeper and is
partially supported by strata of rather firm shale. It is where the
bank is almost precipitous for a height of 30 to 60 feet that the
problem becomes difficult. A regular retaining wall of that height
would be a tremendous undertaking and would look none too well in the
bargain. It may be noted, however, that these cliffs are not solid
ledges of shale, but are composed of separate layers, or strata, of
pretty firm shale, between which are layers of loose disintegrated
stone and earthy material. It is believed that advantage can be taken
of this formation, and that all the necessary retaining can be done by
several low walls, built one upon each stratum of ledge, and extending
up to the bottom of the next solid stratum above. Each wall would thus
retain only the few feet of loose material between two solid strata,
and it need not, therefore, be very thick or heavy; and in addition to
the work of retaining, each little wall would act as a support for the
shale stratum above. Such a device would require less than a quarter of
the volume of masonry needed for one large retaining wall. Furthermore,
if each little wall, instead of being built directly over the one below
it, were set back a foot or two, or even more, as circumstances might
require, and if small ledges and pockets were thus left, where little
shrubs and vines and other clinging plants could be grown; and if great
pains were taken to avoid the stiff monotony of regular cut masonry,
it will be possible to make this utilitarian construction a feature of
interest and beauty.
[Illustration: Terraced gardens at Bern, effectively using the
opportunity offered by steeply sloping land]
[Sidenote:
Steep Hillsides]
[Illustration: Hillside suggestion from Nice--Easy gradients and beauty]
[Illustration: Hillside road in a park at Nice]
The problem of making use of the excessively steep hillsides in the
Pittsburgh District is a troublesome one. There is a great deal of
such land in the district, amounting, outside of the flat regions
of East Liberty and the down town districts, to as much as 30 to 35
per cent of the total area.[24] Generally speaking, the slopes are
of little value for business purposes and are not well adapted to
residential use, the cost of development being excessive in proportion
to the location value of the improved property. The market prices are
naturally low, especially for the steeper and rougher slopes and peaks
and gulleys; and there the owners of very many of these unavailable
properties have been delinquent in their taxes for so many years that
the accumulation of taxes and costs of attempted collection form a
lien that is much larger than the owner's equity in the property or
even than its total value. As a rule these "unavailable areas" are
unoccupied and unproductive, and are mainly held by owners not resident
in the locality, whose sole interest in them is in the hope--sometimes
a forlorn hope--of an ultimate speculative profit. In far too many
cases they are apt to be wholly uncared for and to become shabby,
dirty, and altogether unsightly, depreciating adjacent property and
contributing largely to the slatternly conditions in the midst of which
so many of Pittsburgh's working people, no matter how self-respecting
and personally cleanly, are compelled to live.
[Illustration: Steep hillside in Bern, made available for public use
and enjoyment]
[Illustration: Hillside path at Nice, laid out to avoid steep gradients]
The condition is a deplorable one from every point of view, and it is
of great importance that steps should be taken to alter it. Where they
are really worth developing for private occupation, so as to become
useful and productive, such lands ought generally to be so improved; in
the many other instances where to follow such a course would be for
the owners to throw good money after bad, the City ought to step in and
assume the burden of maintaining the land in a decent and attractive
condition, converting it from a public nuisance into a park asset of
positive value to the public.
[Illustration: An overlook terrace at Lyons]
To advance this end the City ought to pursue a definitely active
policy in the matter. First, it should systematically insist upon the
maintenance of all such vacant lands in a clean and orderly condition,
and, upon the failure of any owner to perform the duty, it should
declare the condition of the lot a nuisance, clean it up, and make the
cost a lien upon the property. Second, it should entirely reform the
procedure with respect to the collection of delinquent taxes and other
public liens; instead of allowing them to run on indefinitely with
accumulating costs, it should enforce a prompt settlement or demand the
sale of the property for taxes. Third, it should deliberately acquire
considerable areas of the lands in question, by tax sale, private
purchase or condemnation, having due regard, in selecting the lands for
acquisition, for their relative adaptability to public and to private
use.
[Illustration: Precipitous hillside in Paris, planted and cared for by
the City]
Generally speaking, these steeper and more irregular pieces will be of
greater use to the public than they could be to private occupants. It
must be noted, however, that their value for recreation is distinctly
limited. They cannot adequately or economically supply the local needs
for playfields, outdoor gymnasiums and the like; and as isolated
fragments they cannot, of course, fulfill the functions of large rural
parks. It is possible, however, to lay out sidehill walks on easy
gradients and to furnish seats and terraces, especially near the upper
edge of such declivities, where the people of the neighborhood can
stroll and rest and enjoy interesting and extensive views over the
city, the river or the adjacent valley; always with the steep natural
hillside below as a foreground.
Such areas, for instance, as the rugged slope under Bluff Street,
or the precipitous land south of West Carson Street should be under
public control. Hillsides less conspicuous, less striking in their
characteristics, and offering inferior opportunities of outlook--while
in themselves, perhaps, of doubtful value to the city--should be taken
over rather than allowed to become positively injurious features
in private hands. In other cases, unless their cost is practically
nothing, and there is no apparent probability of future taxpaying
development, the City could hardly afford to purchase and maintain them.
[Illustration: Hillside at Meissen, made useful and attractive by
terracing, planting and care]
GENERAL DISCUSSION OF PARKS
In any city closely built over a large area, public parks or
recreation grounds become one of the most urgent civic needs, if the
health and vigor of the people are to be maintained. And the most
important classes to provide for are the children and the women of
the wage-earning families; most important, not only because of their
numbers and of the direct influence of their health and vigor upon the
efficiency of the coming generation, but also because they, least of
all, have energy and opportunity to seek out healthful recreation at a
distance. Normally it requires two distinct kinds of recreation grounds
to supply the needs of these people,--the local or neighborhood park
for frequent and regular use, and the rural park for occasional holiday
enjoyment.
[Sidenote:
Neighborhood Parks]
The size and form and character most desirable for neighborhood
recreation grounds depend upon the functions to be performed by each.
Some of the activities in the best developed playgrounds, as for
example in Chicago, are these: (1) The playing of little children
in sand-piles and upon the lawn, under the watchful guidance of an
attendant who not only keeps them out of danger and mischief, but plays
with them, tells them stories and stimulates the healthy activity of
their little minds and bodies. Here the mothers may come with their
children and remain to watch them play or leave them in safety. A plot
one hundred feet square may be of value for such uses. (2) For boys of
larger growth and men and for girls and women, the more active games
with and without apparatus, in the open air and under cover, always
with opportunity and inducement to bathe, and, if possible, with a
swimming-pool. Sometimes space is found for the big field games and
regular athletic sports on a running track; sometimes for nothing that
takes more space than basketball. (3) For the older and the less active
people, pleasant shaded walks for strolling and benches to sit upon
amid agreeable surroundings, with opportunity to see the youngsters
play, and once or twice a week, perhaps, to enjoy a band concert. (4)
For the use of all, a field house where the sanitary accommodations are
kept to a standard of cleanliness and order that sets a good example
to the neighborhood, where a reading-room branch of the public library
is available, and in which one or more large rooms are at the disposal
of the neighborhood for lectures, entertainments and dances. Clean,
healthy recreation may thus be given full play amid decent surroundings
instead of being driven to saloons, to vicious or questionable
dance-halls and other baneful establishments for the commercial
exploitation of the spirit of play.
Of perhaps first importance in the planning of local parks is
the problem of distribution--accessibility to the people served.
Practically there are few women or small children who will take the
trouble habitually to walk much more than a quarter of a mile to a
playground or local park for exercise or rest, and for most a carfare
is out of the question. This means that, ideally, there should be
neighborhood recreation centers not more than a quarter or at most a
half mile from every home in the city.
As for the total area desired for local parks, it is so seldom possible
to get enough that there is little danger of overdoing the purchase;
and the extremely limited experience of any of our cities renders any
definite figures on the subject decidedly misleading. But there is a
rather general consensus of opinion that about 5 per cent of the total
city area is a reasonable minimum allowance to be devoted to local
parks, playgrounds, and squares, and that more than 10 per cent may be
uneconomic.
In Pittsburgh the questions of size and distribution of local parks
must be considerably affected by the topographical conditions. The
city and the contiguous boroughs are, to a certain extent, subdivided
into hilltop and valley communities, close together it may be, but
nevertheless isolated one from the other by almost precipitous
hillsides from one hundred to four or five hundred feet in height.
These communities are sometimes very small and are frequently very
irregular in shape, as, for instance, when confined to the bottom of
a narrow valley only two or three hundred feet in width and a mile
or two in length. And even on those hillsides where a less severe
topography does not actually stop development, it may still make
intercommunication so difficult and laborious that the upper portion is
practically separated from the lower.
Under such conditions it is certain that a comparatively small
recreation center is the most suitable local park unit, especially in
the rougher portions of the Pittsburgh District. In Chicago and other
cities of normally flat topography, such advantages have been found
in grouping related activities--economy in maintenance and operation,
and increase of efficiency per thousand of population served--that,
_other things being equal_, reasonably large park units, probably
twenty acres or more in extent, are considered more desirable than the
same total area split into a larger number of small scattered squares.
But the conditions in Pittsburgh are peculiar. Here each isolated
community, no matter how small, needs its local park; every portion of
the long, narrow valley settlement should be near a park; and hillside
settlements at distinct levels should have separate opportunities for
recreation. Considering the size and shape of the area to be served in
many of these cases it is evident that the advantages of concentration
must give way to the need for frequent centers, and that economy will
here indicate the adoption of a normal size considerably less than that
most desirable for cities of flatter topography.
In selecting the land for local parks in Pittsburgh there are three
chief points to consider: cheapness, suitability of the land for the
purpose, and accessibility to the people who will use it. The best
method of procedure is as follows: first, decide upon the general
locality within which the park is needed and the functions which it is
to serve; second, make a general examination of the values of property
within the locality, consider roughly the cost of developing different
kinds of land into the sort of park required, and select, tentatively,
one or more sites which seem promising; third, obtain options on such
of the land within the limits of the tentative site or sites as can
be put under favorable option; then, fourth, ask publicly for the
tender of any lands in the locality for parks, and hold public hearings
thereon; finally, in the light of the information thus secured, select
definitely the site and boundaries of the park and take the lands by
condemnation proceedings. It is far better to proceed in this way than
to begin by buying or accepting certain pieces of land, no matter
how favorable the terms may be, and subsequently acquiring adjacent
pieces to rectify the boundaries or complete the requisite area. The
very establishment of a park renders the adjacent land more valuable
at once, and therefore, if the City buys park land piecemeal it has
to pay in the latter purchases an increased price due solely to its
having previously started to establish a park in the neighborhood. The
condemnation process, preceded by obtaining options where possible,
takes all the land at one and the same instant, and the cost is that of
land in a park-less district.
Delay is apt to add but little to the cost of acquiring parks in
built-up regions where land and building values are reasonably stable,
whereas it adds enormously to the cost in regions at the growing margin
of the city. Here, where the greater city of the future is being
made, is surely the opportunity to save the large cost of supplying a
built-up district with neighborhood parks.
It should be the invariable rule, as it is in some of the states of
Germany, that the amount of land which will be required to meet the
public needs of the locality when fully developed should be set apart
as a necessary incident to the subdivision of land. The method of
setting apart such lands in a district which is subdivided and put on
the market by a single owner would normally be dedication, as in the
case of streets; but where the area to be subdivided is controlled by a
number of different owners, the City might have to purchase or condemn
the necessary public spaces and assess the cost upon the whole district
benefited, as it frequently has to do with streets that run through the
lands of several owners. A rigid and universal city regulation as to
the reservation of open spaces would remove the competitive pressure
which now forces many real estate owners and promoters to adopt, as a
pure matter of business, an illiberal and short-sighted policy in the
layout of land.
Some of the most successful suburban real estate operators in the
northeastern states have satisfied themselves, and are now operating
on the principle, that the dedication of land for local park purposes,
up to a reasonable amount, if so arranged as not to interfere with the
lotting system, actually increases the net returns from the operation.
On a plat which was drawn by Wood, Harmon & Company to illustrate
the application of this principle, about 30 per cent of the area was
devoted to streets (about the normal figure for Pittsburgh) and about
7¾ percent to the park.
[Sidenote:
Rural Parks]
The large rural park ought to provide something quite different from
the neighborhood park. Except for those who live near it and for whom
it may serve incidentally as a local park also, it is remote from the
people, can be visited only occasionally and with some effort, and
it will be justified only if it affords something which the small
local parks are totally unable to give. To afford the maximum of
pleasant contrast with urban conditions is its fundamental purpose
and, if it fail in this, there is reasonable doubt if its return in
public usefulness is worth its cost to the community. A considerable
degree of seclusion from adjacent land with its city developments is
practically essential, and the more complete the barrier, both as to
sight and sound, the more perfectly will the park fulfil its purpose.
A sense of spaciousness is very important,--the expansive opposite of
cramping city streets and walls. For this is needed the concentration
of a large area in a single park. But of greater importance than mere
size, especially in Pittsburgh, is the topographical situation. Hilltop
lands though not in the least secluded frequently offer vantage points
from which to look upon vast stretches of landscape, thus giving the
greatest possible sense of spaciousness and lack of confinement. On the
other hand, the valleys, with their wooded banks, are unrivaled in the
natural opportunities they afford for almost complete seclusion from
urban surroundings. Fortunately the Pittsburgh District is well endowed
with available sites of both kinds, a few of which are noted below
under "Special Park Opportunities."
SPECIAL PARK OPPORTUNITIES
The following are some notes, made in the course of the main
thoroughfare investigations, regarding certain special opportunities
for parks and parkways in and about Pittsburgh.
1. _Moultrie Street Playground._--The small playground at Moultrie
Street, in the Soho District, should be enlarged; for it is in the
midst of a section where the need for public recreation facilities
is very great. Moultrie Street, running north from Fifth Avenue, can
be abandoned beyond the south side of the playground, because the
proposed street on the hillside to the west[25] will furnish the needed
connection between Fifth Avenue and Centre Avenue. The playground can
then be extended from side to side of the valley bottom and north to
the foot of the dump, thus getting an area of some 3½ acres. This dump,
by the way, should not be extended any further down the valley.
2. _Millvale Playground._--At Millvale, Butler Street bends into the
mouth of the valley leaving a fair space of vacant land (some 5 or 6
acres) between the street and the railroad. Although this would not be
an ideal location for a large neighborhood park, because the district
benefited is entirely on one side, and the maximum number of people
that could be accommodated would not be found within easy walking
distance, a small park such as this, adjacent to the dense population
of Millvale, would probably be within reach of all the people it could
reasonably serve. Where flat vacant land is so scarce, this opportunity
for a small park should not be neglected.
3. _Etna Playground._--At Etna there is some vacant land in the hollow
between Butler Street and Pine Creek in the vicinity of Isabella
Street. Though the area is small, it should be reserved for public
recreation, for it is in the midst of a dense population of working
people, a place where playground space is most in demand.
4. _Etna Park._--A short distance up the Pine Creek valley, just
above the upper mills of the Spang-Chalfant Company, is a large
meadow between the railroad and the main valley thoroughfare on the
east, and the steep hillside on the west. Bearing in mind that this
valley is the most important line of connection from Pittsburgh to
the northern districts and is consequently sure to build up thickly,
even as less important valleys have done, it seems wise to secure this
land for public use while it is still vacant. Some fifteen acres are
now available, and a complete, useful, and beautiful recreation ground
could easily be made therewith. The flatness of the ground would make
the development of such a park easy and comparatively cheap.
5. _Chartiers Valley._--There is a good deal of vacant land along the
Chartiers Valley, even in the vicinity of McKees Rocks. Considering the
character and density of the population at McKees Rocks, and in the
northern corner of Sheraden, it would seem eminently wise to secure a
reasonable amount of this for local parks.
6. _Rankin Playground._--In Rankin there is a hollow east of Kenmawr
Avenue between the Pennsylvania Railroad and Braddock Avenue, which
is available for a playground. Eight or ten acres could probably be
obtained, and, by controlling the banks of the hollow, a beautiful
and secluded little park could be made. It is in the center of thickly
populated sections of Rankin and Braddock.
7. _Sawmill Run Parkway._--The Sawmill Run valley, from the West End to
Fairhaven and possibly beyond, offers a park and parkway opportunity
which should not be neglected until commercial development becomes
a serious stumbling block to its realization. It is an interesting
valley of varying width and form, enclosed by high, steep banks,
occasionally wooded; in some parts it is wide enough only for a drive,
while in others large, flat meadows make ideal places for play. And
Sawmill Run itself, when it is no longer used as an open sewer,
will be an additional element of park value. Surrounded as it is by
land accessible to the city and reasonably adapted to residential
use, this valley seems an unusual opportunity for effective park
service. In taking it for park use, Shalerville and the Bell Tavern
settlement would, of course, be excepted; otherwise, the holdings
should be continuous from Temperanceville to Fairhaven; and such
scattered buildings as would in any way impair the value of the
park should eventually be removed. A boulevard thoroughfare should
extend the length of the valley, serving not only as a cross-town
connection between important radial thoroughfares, but as a link in a
circumferential parkway system.[26]
8. _Nine Mile Run Park._--Perhaps the most striking opportunity noted
for a large park is the valley of Nine Mile Run. Its long meadows of
varying width would make ideal playfields; the stream, when it is freed
from sewage, will be an attractive and interesting element in the
landscape; the wooded slopes on either side give ample opportunity for
enjoyment of the forest, for shaded walks and cool resting places; and
above all it is not far from a large working population in Hazelwood,
Homestead, Rankin, Swissvale, Edgewood, Wilkinsburg, Brushton and
Homewood; and yet it is so excluded by its high wooded banks that the
close proximity of urban development can hardly be imagined. If taken
for park purposes, the entire valley from the top of one bank to the
top of the other should be included, for upon the preservation of these
wooded banks depends much of the real value of the park.
A pleasure drive should extend from one end of this valley to the
other. The route of this drive has not been studied. At the northern
end, however, there is no apparent obstacle to reaching any of the
important thoroughfares, such as Penn Avenue or Forbes Street. At the
other end there is a good chance to extend a parkway down the river
as a riverside drive,[27] connecting at the Glenwood bridge with a
proposed boulevard thoroughfare to the down town district.[28] This
would furthermore be a desirable link in a circumferential parkway
system which it is not unlikely will some day extend southward from the
Glenwood bridge, and ultimately connect with the Sawmill Run parkway
above proposed. (Section 7 above.)
9. _Squaw Run Park._--Northeast of Aspinwall, the valley of Squaw Run
with its tributary, Stonycamp Run, would be ideal for park use. It has
great beauty and variety of landscape. It has fields for playing as
well as woods and a brook. It is secluded and by its wooded banks can
always be kept so, even when the higher land about it is commercially
developed. It is none too accessible at present, but it is in a clean
and beautiful region, well adapted, topographically, for residential
use, and such development will inevitably follow the improvement of
transportation facilities to the business districts of Pittsburgh. The
park will then supply the local needs of the surrounding communities,
and, furthermore, it will be easily reached from many parts of the
city. A parkway thoroughfare should extend up the valley.[29]
10. _Guyasuta Park._--Just west of Aspinwall is the valley of Guyasuta
Run, a beautiful wooded ravine well suited to give holiday enjoyment
to the people. It is already used extensively for this purpose, and it
should be saved for the people for all time.
11. _Allegheny River Parkway._--A riverside thoroughfare is described
on page 79 (Part II, Section 61), running from the Sharpsburg bridge up
the Allegheny River to Hoboken or Montrose. This should certainly be
treated as a parkway, for opportunities to take advantage of the river
in this way for public enjoyment are rare in Pittsburgh. Connections
should be made into the Guyasuta Run and Squaw Run valleys.
12. _Beechwood Boulevard._--From Highland Park to Frankstown Avenue,
Beechwood Boulevard follows the bottom of a valley. The plateau land
above is thickly settled, and the valley banks are mere dumps of the
most unsightly and objectionable character, which rob the Boulevard of
much of its value as a pleasure drive. These banks are commercially of
little use. In some portions of the valley there is sufficient depth
of private property between the Boulevard and the foot of the bank to
give usable frontage on the parkway, but the location, in the bottom
of a valley, is so undesirable for house sites that a very cheap and
unsightly development is apt to take place. This would be even more
damaging to the pleasure drive than the present conditions. It is
urged, therefore, that this whole valley from the top of one bank to
the top of the other be taken as an essential part of the present
parkway.
[Illustration: Lincoln Avenue bridge over Beechwood Boulevard, at
Silver lake, Pittsburgh]
13. _Negley Run Parkway._--It is further urged that the entire valley
of Negley Run be added to the park system. This would be part of the
plan for extending a thoroughfare parkway from Beechwood Boulevard up
this valley and along Princeton Place to the heart of East Liberty.[30]
14. _Silver Lake Playground._--Partly as an improvement to Beechwood
Boulevard, but chiefly for its own sake, Silver Lake, together with the
enclosing valley and its banks, should be taken for park purposes. It
is an attractive spot in the midst of a closely built up section which
has no local parks. Though small, it could well supply much of the need
for recreation in the immediate neighborhood.
15. _Haights Run Valley._--Another valley which should be added to
Highland Park is that of Haights Run. Topographically it is so related
to the park that any defacement of its present beauty by unsightly
usage would greatly injure the value of the western portion of
Highland Park. The whole valley, from its mouth to Wellesley Avenue
and west to the top of the bank, should be controlled. A parkway
thoroughfare from East Liberty down to the river should follow this
valley.[31]
16. _Bluff Street Hillside._--The precipitous bank, between Bluff
Street at the top and Second Avenue and the Baltimore & Ohio tracks at
the bottom, is a topographical feature of much interest and beauty in
itself and having, further, a peculiar value as a typical and striking
example of the natural physical characteristics of the Pittsburgh
District. Commercially, it has little value, unless perhaps as a site
for signs, and such use should above all others be guarded against.
The whole bank should be owned or controlled by the City to prevent
its defacement and to preserve a natural element of civic interest and
beauty.
17. _Mt. Washington Hillside._--Another feature of the same sort,
only much larger, more conspicuous and therefore more important, is
the precipitous hillside south of the Monongahela River from the West
End to the Castle Shannon incline. Most of this slope is owned by
the Railroad, and it may be that an agreement can be made with them
whereby the City need not buy the land in order to stop effectually all
defacement. But, whatever might be the best plan for control, there is
no doubt that the area in question should be preserved intact for all
time as a monumental example of the Pittsburgh landscape.
FOOTNOTES:
[23] Part II, Section 29, p. 69.
[24] See map between Preface and Introduction.
[25] Part II, Section 12, page 62.
[26] Part II, Section 71, page 81.
[27] Part II, Section 32, p. 70.
[28] Part II, Section 14, p. 62.
[29] Part II, Section 63, p. 79.
[30] Part II, Section 23, page 66.
[31] Part II, Section 25, page 67.