The Project Gutenberg eBook of Report on the New York Botanical Garden
    
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: Report on the New York Botanical Garden

Author: Olmsted Brothers

Release date: May 15, 2022 [eBook #68097]
                Most recently updated: October 18, 2024

Language: English

Original publication: United States:

Credits: The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)


*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK REPORT ON THE NEW YORK BOTANICAL GARDEN ***

  REPORT

  ON

  THE NEW YORK BOTANICAL
  GARDEN

  BY

  OLMSTED BROTHERS

  1924

  NEW YORK
  1924




  CONTENTS


                                                                    PAGE

  Introduction                                                         5

  Part I. Maintenance of grounds                                       6

  Part II. Improvements closely associated with maintenance;
  the making of existing features better of their kind                11

  1. Fruticetum                                                       12

  2. Herbaceous grounds                                               12

  3. Border plantations                                               13

  4. Cherry Garden                                                    13

  5. Means of circulation as related to the improvement of existing
  plantations                                                         13

  6. Qualities generally to be sought in improving the vegetation
  through better maintenance                                          16

  Part III. Improvements constituting new departures and substantially
  independent of Parts IV and V                                       17

  1. Rhododendron Glade                                               17

  2. Model Gardens                                                    18

  3. Iris Garden region                                               20

  4. Landscape Garden                                                 21

  Part IV. Automobile through-traffic                                 25

  Part V. Vicinity of the Museum                                      32

  In conclusion                                                       39

  Appendix A                                                          41

  Appendix B                                                          44

  Resolution of the Board of Managers                                 47

  Index                                                               49




REPORT ON

THE NEW YORK BOTANICAL GARDEN


  August, 1924

  DR. FREDERIC S. LEE, President,
  Board of Managers,
  New York Botanical Garden,
  New York City.

  DEAR SIR:

This Report[1] is submitted at your request to set forth the results
to date of our investigation and study of the grounds of the Botanical
Garden, as a basis for comprehensive plans for their improvement. It
is a revision, in the light of further discussion and study, of a
preliminary report, made in December, 1923.

[1] The reading of this Report will be facilitated by consulting Maps A
and B, which follow the text.

This investigation was set on foot because of an impression, voiced in
your Statement of April, 1923, that the grounds of the Botanical Garden
are much less beautiful and much less attractive and valuable to the
general public, and especially to that part of the public particularly
interested in gardening, in gardens and in landscape beauty, than is
reasonably to be expected in the leading institution of its kind in the
metropolis of the United States.

Our investigation has emphatically confirmed this impression, has
defined its particulars in many respects, and has begun to make clear
the means by which this condition can best be changed to a really
satisfactory one.

For the purpose of this Report the defects can best be considered
incidentally and in connection with the probable means of overcoming
them by positive constructive measures directed toward making the
Garden by degrees more and more excellent, on the assumption that
means can be found to carry forward such progressive improvement in an
orderly, well-balanced and reasonably rapid way without any arbitrary
limit on the extent of the improvement.

As already indicated, this Report is to be regarded as a progress
report, as a step toward the adoption of a general program in
accordance with which definite plans for improvement may be
successively elaborated in the necessary degree of detail.

It will be convenient to group what we have to say under the following
five main headings:

 I. _Maintenance of grounds._ Pages 6-11.

 II. _Improvements closely associated with maintenance_; the making of
 existing features better of their kind. Pages 11-17.

 III. _Improvements which would constitute new departures_ (the
 introduction of distinctly _new features_), so far as not dependent on
 the questions considered under the two remaining heads. Pages 17-24.

 IV. _Questions of automobile through-traffic_ or _park traffic_ and of
 _park uses_ distinct from and more or less conflicting with Botanical
 Garden uses as such; of _possible restrictions on the right of the
 public to enter_ upon all parts of the grounds at all times of day and
 night; and of related matters. Pages 25-31.

 V. _The vicinity of the Museum_ and various other questions dependent
 upon that and upon the questions discussed under heading IV. Pages
 32-39.




PART I

MAINTENANCE OF GROUNDS


The basic need in the improvement of the grounds, without meeting
which other improvements will be nugatory, wasteful and transitory
in effect, is that of greatly increasing the quantity and quality of
maintenance--involving a correspondingly large increase in the annual
expenditure for maintenance.

This matter is so fundamental and the manner in which the possibilities
of annual maintenance control all other decisions is so direct and so
far-reaching, that it seems necessary to discuss it at some length and
attempt to gauge, at least in a general way, the cost of adequate and
economical maintenance.

Maintenance may be made in any given case so costly as to be
uneconomical; but it should be noted at the start that _inadequate_
maintenance is _always_ uneconomical in that it involves progressive
depreciation of the capital investment. In the case of a botanical
garden or a park, where the real values derived from the investment are
largely dependent on the cumulative effect of the growth of plants in
certain ways over long periods of years, the effect of inadequate or
ill-directed maintenance is peculiarly disastrous because the resulting
depreciation (or failure to secure legitimate increase of value) can
never be offset in short order by liberal investment in repairs and
improvements, as can generally be done with buildings and engineering
works. There is absolutely no other road to first-rate results than
by the process of slow natural growth under the selective control,
protection and guidance of suitable methods of maintenance year after
year.

The kind, amount and cost of maintenance of grounds necessary to keep
on the safe side of the border which separates cumulative advance in
values from progressive deterioration depend mainly on three sets of
factors. _One_ obviously is the efficiency and cost of labor and the
skill with which it is directed. A _second_ includes the inherent
advantages and disadvantages of the site and of external or otherwise
largely uncontrollable conditions--such factors as soil, climate,
atmospheric impurities, and the habits of the people who resort to the
grounds. But normally it is the _third_ set which accounts for the
greatest variations in the cost of adequate maintenance. These are the
variations in what might be called types of landscape treatment, such
as:

(a) Established native woodlands, where there is an approach toward the
self-maintaining equilibrium of a mature natural forest.

(b) Areas in which mixed ground-covers of herbaceous or woody plants,
or both, while never quite attaining a permanent natural equilibrium,
such as characterizes many forest floors and many marshes, can be kept
in satisfactory condition by wholesale methods, as, for example, by
infrequent scything and a limited amount of hand weeding.

(c) Broad areas of simple lawn or meadow, little interrupted by trees
or other obstacles, where the main item of maintenance cost is periodic
wholesale cutting by horse or power mowers.

(d) Intricate combinations of turf with plantations and other
obstacles, requiring frequent hand mowing under difficult conditions
and involving hand cultivation, weeding, and other control of the
interspersed plantations.

(e) Areas of a sort requiring still more intensive gardening operations
to secure and maintain the results at which they are aimed.

Other things being equal, the above indicated variations in type of
grounds ordinarily account for a range in the amount of labor required
for suitable maintenance, varying from a maximum of about one man per
year for each acre or less in type “e,” to a minimum of one man for
each twenty acres or more, type “b;” with the possibility of an almost
indefinite reduction of maintenance labor in type “a,” _in those cases
where intensive human use does not enter in to upset the balance_ and
require special counteractive measures.

We have attempted roughly to classify the lands of the Botanical Garden
according to the types of landscape treatment as affecting maintenance
costs; grouping them in three classes:

 _Class 1_

 ²⁄₃ to 2 acres per man, as in type “e” and part of type “d.”

 _Class 2_

 2 to 6 acres per man, as in part of type “d” and in type “c.”

 _Class 3_

 6 to 18 acres per man, as in type “b.”

 _Note_: As will be seen, the first class would be likely to require on
 the average about three times as much labor per acre as the second,
 and the second about three times as much per acre as the third.

This classification is not based primarily on the amount of maintenance
labor now applied to the several areas in the Botanical Garden, because
that is manifestly (but in widely varying degree) insufficient for
properly maintaining the sort of treatment which appears to have been
attempted. Neither is it based on an arbitrary assumption of our own as
to what conditions it would be ideally desirable to create and maintain
on each area.

We recognize that your own organization has in the past “bit off” more
than it is able properly to “chew” under present conditions of cost and
of funds available for maintenance; and our classification of areas was
based on what each area was apparently intended to be. Knowing from
experience elsewhere about how much labor is apt to be required for
maintaining various types of landscape treatment in reasonably good
condition under reasonably efficient and skilful management, we have
thus arrived at a rough estimate of the amount of labor which would be
required to maintain properly what you have already “bit off.”

This is a starting-point for all the rest of our discussion. Obviously
by abandoning some of the things already attempted which are relatively
costly of maintenance, thus transferring some areas from a more costly
to a less costly classification, our estimates could be cut without
sacrifice of quality in the maintenance of each kind of area. And, on
the other hand, any addition of new features tending to raise any piece
of land from a cheaper maintenance type to a more costly maintenance
type would call for a corresponding increase in the maintenance force.

Taking the Botanical Garden as it is, then, and assuming the proper
upkeep of the sort of thing that appears to have been intended and
attempted, we believe the maintenance force necessary for adequate care
of what now exists should be about 110 men, which is about 2¹⁄₂ times
as many as are now employed.

As said above, it would be possible to advise some modifications in the
above classification by adapting certain areas to somewhat different
types of treatment than those which we conceive to have been intended,
and thereby diminish the cost of maintenance; but, to put our opinion
broadly, if you had available a sum of money producing annually an
income three times that which is now spent for maintenance, we should
advise putting practically all of that sum into a maintenance endowment
rather than invest any of it in new “improvements” at the expense of
continued deficiency in the maintenance budget.

To put the matter in dollars and cents, we think the most urgent
need for the improvement of the grounds is an increase in the annual
maintenance budget for gardeners, laborers, watchmen, foremen, supplies
(including manure), tools, equipment, etc., from the present figure
of about $70,000 to about $200,000 with a further gradual increase in
connection with any new improvements or changes in conditions of use or
in labor conditions, which may tend to increase the maintenance burden.

Appendix A gives some comparative figures of maintenance labor and
maintenance costs, which we have used in arriving at our tentative
conclusions of this subject.

We see no signs whatever of such a flocking of capable men into the
ranks of gardeners and gardening laborers in America as would tend to
lower the costs of such work as compared with the costs of all the
other things that money buys. If anything, the tendency seems likely
to be the other way, as it has been for some time in the past. The
private individual can and does “pull in his horns” on the matter of
gardening maintenance, by having less of that sort of thing to maintain
in proportion to what he has of the other conveniences and amenities of
life, as the latter become relatively less costly than gardening. The
Botanical Garden, as a specialized institution, if it is to do its job
well, has got to meet the increased cost of the most essential part of
its function without sacrifice of quality. Otherwise it is manifestly
failing as a Garden, however useful it may be in other respects.

But whatever program you adopt as to increase of maintenance funds, it
seems likely that the increase will come only by degrees and that a
serious deficiency must be faced for some time to come.

One of the great difficulties of such a condition is the temptation to
yield first to an impulse that would rob Peter to pay Paul and then
to an impulse that would in desperation reverse the process when it
is seen that Peter also is starving. It is very hard to adhere to a
well-balanced and self-consistent policy of maintenance when confronted
by insufficient means at every turn, but it is even more important
under these circumstances than when no part of the work is in serious
danger of starvation.

As a help toward a consistent and well-balanced distribution of
maintenance funds we would urge a deliberate classification of the
Garden lands for maintenance purposes, along the lines of our rough
preliminary classification but much more carefully studied, and
a correspondingly deliberate and systematic apportionment of the
available resources for maintenance to the several classes of lands.
The emphasis, of course, should not be upon a meticulously detailed
cost-accounting and rigid adherence to budget allotments. Emergencies
frequently arise which require shifts, as when infections arise that
need to be promptly suppressed at the cost of almost any postponement
of routine work. And it is proper here to point out, as a parenthesis,
that we have observed in the Garden some such infections, notably of
scales, which no well-conducted commercial establishment would have
permitted to go as far as they have gone. If the infected plants could
not have been cured with the means available, they would have been
destroyed and burned.

The emphasis in the maintenance budgeting should rather be upon a
general continuity of policy in treating each parcel of land year
after year with about the same degree of economy in relation to other
parcels, unless and until convincing reasons appear for deliberately
changing its classification.

But in addition to this general classification, we strongly advise
the deliberate selection within each class of lands of one or more
preferential areas, no matter how small, which shall be kept up
thoroughly well as _samples_ of what would be done throughout all the
areas of that class if funds permitted, leaving the rest of the lands
in that class to be kept up only as well as the funds permit after
taking care of these small samples perfectly.

The reasons for such a policy are two-fold. In the first place, it
will show the public what can be done with adequate maintenance funds;
and by the very sharpness of the contrast between these samples of
first-rate maintenance in each class and the conditions which poverty
enforces elsewhere in that class of lands, will stimulate increased
financial support. In the second place, it will be of great value
in building up and maintaining the ideals of the maintenance force
itself. Where, because of poverty, almost nothing is thoroughly well
done of its kind, where nearly every job is left half-finished because
of the necessity of taking a few stitches somewhere else, not only
is there much waste of effort--the sort of waste inseparable from
poverty--but also there is bound to be a tendency to demoralization of
the maintenance force itself, a lowering of its standards and ideals,
an acceptance of enforced low standards as good enough, a loss of the
priceless stimulus of pride and shame, of _esprit de corps_.

In addition to such suggestions for improvement of the mechanism
of maintenance, we would urge the importance of placing the
responsibility, under the Director-in-Chief, for the maintenance
of grounds and for those cumulative improvements in detail which
are inseparable from maintenance, upon some one first-class
superintendent having the necessary technical skill and ideals, and
the peculiar qualities needed by one who is to be at once a good
executive and leader in his own department, a loyal subordinate to
the Director-in-Chief, and a sympathetic collaborator with other
specialists. Perhaps you have in your present personnel the man for
such a position. Perhaps you need to look outside. But obviously a
first-class man in such a position is of the greatest importance,
especially during a period of building up the gardening and maintenance
force and improving its work.




PART II

IMPROVEMENTS CLOSELY ASSOCIATED WITH MAINTENANCE; THE MAKING OF
EXISTING FEATURES BETTER OF THEIR KIND


As previously indicated, no sharp line can be drawn between maintenance
of the sort which ensures progressive improvement (as a result of the
controlled growth of long-lived plants and associations of plants),
and, on the other hand, improvements of detail which are not strictly
maintenance but which, although not very notable individually, are
important because of their collective and cumulative effect.

There are many opportunities for this sort of improvement of detail
in the Botanical Garden, as would be almost inevitable where past
improvements and maintenance have been carried on under the handicap of
insufficient funds, and with the recurring temptation to undertake an
improvement under circumstances adverse to the best results.

Merely as examples we will mention a few such opportunities which have
thrust themselves upon us as important. The making of such improvements
is so bound up with improved maintenance that while the cost of them
might properly be met either out of increased maintenance funds or out
of special improvement funds, the work should be done mainly by the
maintenance personnel.


1. _Fruticetum._ What might be called the general scenic quality of
the areas devoted to the systematic collection of shrubs could be
greatly improved, together with its instructiveness as to the esthetic
value of many species as elements in landscape composition, by a
patient, laborious and discriminating study of the entire collection,
acre by acre and plant by plant, followed by a great deal of minor
shifting of the position of individual plants, by the elimination of
some and by the addition of others, so as to make more agreeable and
interesting compositions--all without in the least impairing the prime
function of the Fruticetum as a systematic collection of specimens
of representative shrubby plants. From the esthetic point of view
this job would be very much like the job of a sculptor in perfecting
a model in clay; sometimes pressing back here and building out there
without addition or subtraction of material, sometimes adding a little,
sometimes taking away a little. The details can no more be embodied in
a specification or a plan than can the touches of the sculptor which
determine the final quality of his work. But because the Fruticetum
is not solely or even primarily intended as a work of fine art, but
primarily as a living botanical museum, whoever is charged with the
artistic responsibility for such an improvement would have to keep the
Director-in-Chief closely informed of his intentions in advance and
work under his supervision and with his continuing approval as to the
effect of the changes on the value of the collection from the botanical
standpoint.


2. _Herbaceous Grounds._ There is opportunity for similar improvement,
probably far less general and far less notable in its effect, in the
area devoted to the synoptic collection of herbaceous plants, known as
the Herbaceous Garden. Incidentally it has occurred to us that the name
“Herbaceous Grounds,” which is applied at Kew to an area having similar
purposes, would be better than “Herbaceous Garden;” because the latter
is so apt to suggest to visitors the idea of a garden of herbaceous
flowering plants selected and arranged primarily for esthetic effects,
as so-called “herbaceous borders” ordinarily are, and to cause some
disappointment on finding quite a different sort of thing.

We do not want to imply that the area devoted to this collection is
not now esthetically agreeable. It is among the pleasantest of the
sophisticated features of the Botanical Garden grounds. But without
changing its function as a synoptic collection of herbaceous plants,
which necessarily contains many specimens selected and assigned to
certain localities for reasons quite other than esthetic, we believe
that the existing pleasant landscape qualities of the scene could
be appreciably heightened and refined by minor adjustments in the
positions of the plants and outlines of beds and by the addition of
certain “background” and “filler” plants not part of the exhibit
proper, but serving functions not unlike those of frames and cases and
backgrounds and partitions in an indoor museum.


3. _Border Plantations._ The strengthening, extension and refinement
of screening and background plantations on the borders of the Garden
land is a very important matter for the sake of future effect, because
the outlooks into the surrounding city are generally most inharmonious,
distracting and unpleasant, and it takes a long time to grow trees
large enough to screen them.


4. _Cherry Garden._ The area devoted to Japanese flowering cherries,
which is interesting in topography, contains good specimens and has an
attractive memorial shelter, Japanese in spirit, could be made very
much more lovely by carefully studied shifting of some of the specimens
so as to secure better artistic composition, taking better advantage
of the topography, by the addition of appropriate subordinate elements
for enrichment, and by readjustment of the paths so as to lead people
conveniently and easily to just the right points of view and at the
same time fit into place as appropriate parts of the scene. It could be
made, and ought to be made, a notably exquisite piece of landscape.


5. _Means of circulation as related to the improvement of existing
plantations._ The mention of paths in connection with the Cherry
Garden brings us to a very perplexing and very important matter. In
a botanical garden resorted to by great numbers of people, it is a
fact, as frequently pointed out by the Director-in-Chief, that an
adequate and convenient path system is very important for handling the
crowds without destruction of the more essential element--which is
the vegetation. It is also important that it should lead the people
conveniently, agreeably, and without a sense either of confusion, or
unpleasant compulsion, or of disappointment, through those places
where they can best see and enjoy what is prepared for their benefit.
It is a further fact that the topography of the Garden is in parts so
intricate and peculiar as to have made the design and construction
of such a system of circulation, in a thoroughly satisfactory way,
extremely difficult, especially under the conditions of piecemeal
construction with funds available in limited amounts from time to time.
In places the existing path system is excellent. But in other places,
in face of these topographical difficulties, it seems to us extremely
unsatisfactory, confusing, arduous and uninviting to follow, failing
to lead to the best points of view and neither conforming pleasantly
to the natural topography nor accompanied by a bold and skilful
modification of the topography so as to conform to the exigencies of
proper circulation.

We believe, therefore, that there should be a very careful and thorough
study of the whole system of circulation, existing and prospective,
with a view to determining, _first_, all those areas in the Garden
within which the existing means of circulation can reasonably be
regarded as permanently satisfactory, so that improvements and
refinements to the plantations can there be undertaken without danger
that things will have to be seriously upset by subsequent changes in
or additions to the path and road system. This will clear the way for
perfecting the landscape beauty of those areas by refinements in the
vegetation to the utmost degree that the available means and skill
will permit. Concentration on that sort of improvement will make more
showing, esthetically, per dollar expended than where costly structural
changes are needed, and for that reason should probably receive
preference in the earlier part of the program of improvement.

But in preparation for a _second_ step in the program of improving
the existing features, those areas within which the existing means of
circulation can not be regarded as permanently satisfactory should be
studied in detail, section by section, and detailed plans prepared
for successive sections to determine the precise locations and grades
of the permanent paths and roads; the sometimes radical changes in
grading required in connection therewith; and at least the general
nature of the treatment of vegetation contemplated. This will show what
improvements in detail of vegetation within these areas can safely be
undertaken pending the expected changes in paths, etc., and open the
way for undertaking these improvements without serious risk of waste.

And then, as a _third_ step in the program, the more costly structural
changes can themselves be undertaken, section by section, accompanied
by perfecting the vegetation in direct connection therewith.

Throughout this program of improvement of existing features, the paths
and roads and grading should be considered solely as a necessary
means to the end of developing and maintaining in the most beautiful
manner possible, those features of scientific and horticultural and
landscape interest for the sake of which the Botanical Garden exists,
and of making them conveniently and pleasurably accessible to the
public without their destruction by public use; while at the same time
recognizing that this mechanism of good circulation for crowds _is_
a necessary means to such an end and in some cases can be properly
provided for on such topography only by radical surgical operations the
scars of which must be made and healed before the final esthetic and
scientific end can be attained.

For example: in a number of places important lines of path circulation
are needed running transversely to sharp ridges and hollows. This is
a very difficult situation, in which a half-hearted compromise may
be easy but is most deplorable. Every effort should be made to find
a satisfactory way of really solving the problem without violence to
the natural topography, as by seeking a more circuitous route which
will not seem disagreeably indirect and which will fully accomplish
the purposes that need to be served. But where this can not be
satisfactorily done--and there are places where it can not--a bold
course, which pierces through a rocky ridge in a narrow ravine-like
passage artificially made but not unnatural in appearance, or even by a
short tunnel, or which spans a narrow ravine on an arched bridge at the
level of the flanking ridges, may not merely produce a more convenient
path system and one which leaves its users free to appreciate what
they see instead of focussing their attention on the inconvenience
and discomfort of the path, but it may also make nine-tenths of the
path fit naturally and pleasantly to the surface of the ground it
traverses instead of its _all_ looking somewhat forced and unnatural as
it climbs and drops over ground obviously uninviting for a main path.
Again, in view of the necessity, in so large an area, of permanent
means of circulation for automobiles, and of the increasing danger and
annoyance of innumerable crossings of this traffic by crowds of people
on foot, it is important to provide for the ultimate separation of the
grades of main paths and main automobile roads where crossings are
inevitable, much as was done in Central Park at a time when the danger
and annoyance of such crossings were infinitely less than in these days
of motor traffic.

All this sort of thing is of very great ultimate importance, can
not sensibly be ignored and should be planned for, in a courageous,
far-sighted, uncompromising way. But, as previously pointed out,
this does not mean that the _construction_ of a first-rate system of
circulation should take precedence over refining and perfecting details
of planting and planting maintenance. Preference should be given, in
this improvement of the vegetation, to areas the least likely to be
upset by such construction. On the other hand, in areas that are likely
to be upset by such construction, improvements in the vegetation should
be undertaken only when the desirable changes in the paths and roads
seem, because of lack of funds, unlikely to be made for so long a time
that the value of the temporary improvement in the vegetation would, in
the meantime, justify the money and effort expended on it.


6. _Qualities generally to be sought in improving the vegetation
through better maintenance._ The esthetic qualities to be sought and
developed in the care of the vegetation must of course vary widely.
Anything approaching a stereotyped effect, which one seeing elsewhere
would at once recognize as the “Botanic Garden style” is to be avoided
at almost any cost. But some qualities are desirable nearly everywhere,
qualities now too often lacking. The plants should look well-nourished
and vigorous. No pains should be spared, of the kind a good plantsman
best knows how to give, in building up the fertility of the soil in
those respects necessary for the healthy typical growth of each kind
of vegetation in its place, in adjusting different kinds of plants
to the places most favorable for their healthy continued growth, and
in fighting their enemies. One of the agents destructive to this
quality is the public; in its careless or wanton injury of plants by
trampling, breaking and deliberate picking. Both constant watchfulness
by a sufficient number of maintenance men and the promptest possible
restoration of injuries when they occur are essential to keeping up a
good standard in this quality. Nothing encourages depredations so much
as the evidence of previous depredations supinely accepted.

Hence there is no question but that the Garden should be so planned
as to be closed at night and that there should be uniformed guards on
duty when it is open; not merely a few City Police temporarily assigned
to duty here, but special Botanical Garden Guards forming part of the
Garden’s maintenance force, carefully selected and trained for the
double purpose, first, of guiding and assisting the public to get the
greatest legitimate benefit out of what the Garden has to offer, and,
second, of preventing those individually trifling abuses of the Garden
which in cumulative effect tend so greatly to make it shabby.

An important quality, hard to describe in positive terms, is one which
is the reverse of “weediness.” It is not necessarily “tidiness.” That
may be highly appropriate in some sophisticated places: on clipped
lawns, among garden beds of a frankly artificial man-made sort, on
paths and roads and picnic grounds; but for most of the Botanical
Garden, where a natural-seeming aspect should be sedulously sought,
the word “tidiness” suggests a smug and artificial quality quite too
sophisticated. Yet weediness with its connotation of neglect, ought
everywhere to be avoided; and there is a good deal of it today. It
comes from the presence of plants--whether classed in common parlance
as “weeds” or not--which look out of place in their surroundings;
often plants much coarser of texture or ranker in growth than their
neighbors, and always suggestive of encroachment on something that
would be pleasanter without them. Millions of volunteer seedlings
spring up every year and many of them, if not systematically repressed,
are able to survive in places where they look distinctly weedy.

The avoidance of shabbiness and weediness is the negative aspect of the
problem. The positive aspect, in addition to securing healthy vigorous
growth of all vegetation that is not to be suppressed as weedy, lies
in the progressive, appropriate enrichment not merely of the regular
“collections” but of the incidental or background flora.

The latter may in some places involve the introduction of more kinds of
plants, especially of the more delicate native flowering plants, but is
perhaps more likely to mean simply the multiplication in certain places
of a limited number of species peculiarly and charmingly characteristic
of distinctive types of flora, at the expense of those species which
are less characteristic.




PART III

IMPROVEMENTS CONSTITUTING NEW DEPARTURES AND SUBSTANTIALLY INDEPENDENT
OF PARTS IV AND V


1. _Rhododendron Glade._ One of the most beautiful, striking and
completely self-contained and independent new features which could be
added to the Botanical Garden is that which has been for some time
under favorable consideration by the Director-in-Chief in the so-called
“Lake Valley”--a great naturalistic exhibition of rhododendrons
(including azaleas) and of plants suitable for association therewith,
in such a manner as to make a notably impressive landscape unit, a
valley of rich foliage and brilliant bloom enclosed by wooded rocky
hills. The natural enframement of this valley is almost perfect except
on the southeast, where the frame must be completed by adequate grading
and massive border planting. As a scenic and topographic unit the
valley begins in a rocky wooded defile just east of the Lorillard
Mansion, whence it descends, widening slightly but still almost
overarched by trees, to the point where the earth-fill of the road now
under construction traverses and blocks the valley. South of this it
widens out into a broader sunlit valley flanked by pleasantly wooded
hills, the site of a former artificial lake abandoned because of the
intercepting of much of its natural water supply.

The embankment of the new road is in itself an ugly interruption of the
valley, but it can and should be pierced by an ample archway through
which the narrow sylvan portion of the valley and a pathway traversing
it would debouch at the head of the broader glade, the embankment of
the roadway being heavily embowered in trees. Such an arrangement
would afford sweeping views of the open part of the valley from the
road without letting the automobiles spoil the charm of the valley
as enjoyed from the foot-paths within it or seriously impairing the
intimacy of its connection with the narrow sylvan upper portion. The
situation lends itself admirably to providing both the scenic and the
cultural variety of conditions desirable for such an exhibition of
rhododendrons and related plants.

An unfortunate obtrusion at present into this valley are the stables of
the Park Department. It is of vital importance that these be removed
from the scene, preferably to the undeveloped park lands just across
Pelham Parkway. A portion, at least, of the site of these buildings
would be included in the scheme, in order to reclaim the complete form
of the valley and to complete the essential enclosing plantations.

In Appendix B we have developed somewhat more in detail, in a tentative
way, the ideas which have occurred to us for the treatment of this
Rhododendron Glade; and we believe it would be the best large new
feature on which to concentrate first, after assuring increased funds
for general maintenance and for the detailed improvement of existing
features.

It must of course be borne in mind that the proper maintenance of such
a Rhododendron Glade will cost much more per acre than the old lake
with its borders of unsophisticated woodland, or than a simple meadow;
and that such an improvement, however desirable from every point of
view, ought not to be undertaken without seeing the way perfectly
clear to obtaining the necessary _additional_ maintenance funds. The
principle, of course, is the same as that which has very properly led
various institutions to refuse gifts of very much desired new buildings
in the absence of endowment for their operation and maintenance.


2. A group or series of desirable new undertakings is that referred to
in your report of April, 1923, under the heading “Model Gardens.” Some
of the most valuable of these from the point of view of the general
public, such as city back-yard gardens and typical good treatments for
small suburban homes, present peculiar difficulties in that they would
be rather lacking in realism and effectiveness unless associated with
buildings which would be in themselves inharmonious with the general
informal park-like landscape of the tract as a whole, and that most of
them would need almost complete isolation from each other and from the
general landscape.

There are along the Pelham Parkway frontage some rather isolated areas
of moderate width, as yet undeveloped and cut off by rocky hills from
the rest of the Botanical Garden which can be devoted in whole or in
part to small detached Model Gardens.

But one of the assets of these sites is the fact that they _do_ front
on the Pelham Parkway and can be seen by the large numbers of motorists
who use that route without ordinarily entering the Botanical Garden
enclosure. So far as practicable, therefore, it would seem advantageous
to use these sites for exhibits somewhat of the nature of “show-window
displays”--bold, striking, adequate to arrest the attention and
pleasantly arouse the interest of people going by at the rate of twenty
miles an hour or more, despite the interposition of the enclosing fence
and the trees of the Parkway itself. There seems no sufficient reason
why this part of the grounds should not be thus thrown visually open
to the outside, because the logical line of scenic enclosure for the
main body of the ground lies for the most part on the height of land
just north of this bordering strip. We are not prepared as yet to offer
definite and well-considered suggestions for the kinds of Model Gardens
most suitable to these sites, but it would seem that they might well
include some of the more bold and striking types of display offering
a succession of colorful effects through each season. On the other
hand, it would be a pity to put only such exhibits in these “show
windows.” Some other equally striking but perhaps more refined and
quasi-naturalistic exhibits should be provided for, such, perhaps, as a
show of lilacs and one of Crataegus and crab-apples and other so-called
“flowering” trees.

For small special domestic gardens of urban and suburban types, places
might be found, preferably in direct connection with small houses
occupied by Garden employees or adapted to necessary uses other
than residential which are capable of fitting into a dwelling-house
structure, in accessible locations near the entrance closest to rapid
transit stations but completely isolated from the general landscape by
screen planting.


3. _Iris Garden Region._ What seems on preliminary inspection like an
opportunity for an essentially new feature of much beauty and interest,
if dealt with boldly and skilfully in a large way, is presented in the
vicinity of the present Iris Garden and Horticultural Garden. Here is
an open hillside sloping irregularly to the eastward from a bench at
about elevation 90 near the Southern Boulevard, to a hollow at about
elevation 60 near the interior road, and flanked on either side by bold
well-wooded hills. Its landscape unit, however, is disturbed by the
bulge of the rounding ridge occupied by the Horticultural Garden and
by the fact that the open space, once quiet meadow or lawn, is cut up
and spotted with paths and flower beds which are yet not sufficiently
continuous to produce a unified texture of a richer sort.

Directly opposite to the east is the one important gap in the rocky
ridges which border the Bronx River on the west for three quarters
of a mile, and in and beyond this gap the natural woods are thin or
altogether lacking, giving opportunity, at the sacrifice of a few
trees, for a very lovely natural-seeming transverse vista extending to
the ridge just west of the Rose Garden.

The vista is well worth getting in itself, because one of the defects
of the Botanical Garden today is its deficiency in landscape reaches
and views of sufficient length to give the sense of spaciousness and
the mystery of distance. Moreover there is an unpleasantly complete
landscape separation of all the land to the east of the river from that
to the west.

But the special opportunity which the situation of the Iris and
Horticultural Gardens seems to present lies, in connection with opening
the vista, in the bold regrading of portions of the non-conforming
hillside above mentioned, and the extension of the mainly herbaceous
planting of these gardens so as to produce a continuous and unified,
though rich and varied, texture throughout the space within the framing
trees and hills.

Within the limits of this general conception the garden might
successfully be given any one of an infinitude of local expressions,
from that of a naturalistic hillside rich in flowers, like some alpine
glades, to that of an intricately terraced hillside where the flower
beds and paths would be made flatter in cross-section for the practical
convenience of intensive use and be supported by low walls. Such a
terraced treatment might, on the one hand, be highly architectural
in its general structure, or, on the other hand, it might be rather
casual and unobtrusively irregular and picturesque like many of the
hillsides so pleasantly and richly terraced into vineyards and gardens
by the peasants of Italy, of Switzerland, of the Rhine and of Japan.
Considering the practical necessities of exhibiting many kinds of
plants of horticultural interest, of making them closely accessible to
large numbers of people, of cultivating the beds and of avoiding the
waste of rain water on steeply sloping cultivated ground, we should be
inclined to favor the latter type, frankly man-handled in its general
scheme but rather free and picturesque in its detail, its terraces
supported in the main by uncemented walls suitable for treatment as
wall gardens. The lower slopes and terraced benches could well be used
in large part for a great collection of the upland irises, perhaps
in conjunction with peonies; the hollow at the base might be devoted
largely to the moisture-loving Japanese irises; while the outer and
upper portions could be used for other horticultural exhibits of the
type represented by the now isolated and unrelated beds of beautiful
chrysanthemums, of narcissus, and (this spring) of tulips.


4. If and when the Park Department greenhouses and work yards can be
removed from the old Lorillard Mansion gardens, as they certainly ought
to be for the proper development of the Botanical Garden (preferably,
as in the case of the Park stables, to the undeveloped park lands just
across Pelham Parkway) a peculiarly valuable area in the very heart of
the Garden’s most precious landscape will be freed and will offer a
very notable opportunity for a new feature.

To begin with, the opportunity here exists to create a long north and
south view, wholly self-contained, beautifully enclosed, and nicely
fitted to as interesting a piece of topography as is to be found
anywhere within the limits of the Botanical Garden. And, as already
stated, there is a serious deficiency in such long inviting views.

In the second place, within the land thus freed from obstructive
utilitarian structures, and without impairing the long views thus
obtained but enhancing their charm and interest, there could be
developed, under the most favorable conditions, an admirable example
of a sort of thing of which there certainly ought to be a first-rate
example somewhere on the tract. The sort of thing we mean is a type
of what is sometimes called a landscape garden, the heart of which is
a beautifully modelled lawn, enframed by beautifully composed trees
irregularly disposed, under which the lawn here and there loses itself
in shadowy mystery, while elsewhere its irregular margin is formed by
masses of flowering shrubs and flowering herbaceous plants, providing,
as an incident of the landscape, an informal or naturalistic herbaceous
garden designed predominantly or almost exclusively for esthetic
effect.

The suggestion in your report of April, 1923, at first appealed to
us strongly, namely, that this area, if and when freed from the
Park Department greenhouses, work yards, etc., be used for a really
first-rate Formal Garden in connection with the reconstruction of
the Lorillard Mansion, which you proposed should serve as a place
for exhibitions, for the meetings of garden clubs and for kindred
activities. Unquestionably it is a very desirable thing to provide, in
the most perfect possible way, somewhere in the Botanical Garden area,
for the grouping of such functions in a beautiful building, domestic
in scale but considerable in size, intimately related to a beautiful
garden of a suitable kind. The most suitable kind of garden for such a
purpose would be, in an agreeable sense of the word, “formal;” that is
to say emphatically not “naturalistic.”

This is not the place to attempt a thorough clearing up of the
confusions of meaning which have caused for many years so much
misunderstanding over this word “formal” as applied to gardens and
gardening. Most of the misunderstanding is due to unexpressed mental
reservations as to what is meant by the word, or to differences of
emphasis on various phases of formality. To some the word suggests
mainly certain kinds of formality which are unattractive or even
distressing to them; associated with stiffness, rigidity, bald
precision of detail, or such complete dominance of architectural
elements as to make the term “garden” almost a misnomer. To others
the word suggests merely a pleasantly obvious orderliness in the
general disposition of the major parts of a garden, frankly expressing
deliberate human design and control; as by symmetry of certain forms
about a straight axis, or the disposition of paths and masses of
vegetation in such a way as to suggest to the eye easily recognized
simple shapes of agreeable proportions, rectangular and otherwise;
all of which is consistent with great exuberance and freedom and
spontaneity of detail, especially in the growth of plants and in the
composition of plants within the orderly and formal framework of the
general plan. If so conceived, “formal” is applicable alike to a garden
made up wholly of flower beds and turf and to one largely characterized
by paved walks and steps and walls and fountains and sculptural and
architectural elements, provided the latter be enriched by sufficient
vegetation to entitle it to the name of garden at all.

Obviously a botanic garden is hardly a legitimate place to devote much
space or money to the creation, for its own sake, of any formal design
so predominantly architectural or sculptural in its interest that the
vegetation plays a wholly secondary rôle--such a thing as might be
more properly called a court-yard or a plaza than a garden. But it is
equally obvious that it is legitimate and desirable to provide, for
the benefit of that great part of the public which is interested in
plants mainly for their usefulness in pleasure gardens, one or more
excellent examples of a sort of garden which countless generations
of mankind have delighted to have in association with dwellings--a
frankly man-made thing, expressing man’s skillful artistry and the
completeness of his command over his surroundings: formal in the sense
that the dominant form of the thing as a whole and the form of the more
conspicuous relationships between its several parts are not merely
beautiful but unmistakably intentional and deliberate.

We do not question that such a formal garden could be done beautifully
in the locality now in question.

On further study, however, two considerations have led us to believe
that this is not the best place for such a thing. One is that a center
for meetings and exhibitions, both indoor and outdoor, other things
being approximately equal, ought to be more conveniently and quickly
accessible from rapid transit stations than is the neighborhood of the
Lorillard Mansion, and also should have space in its vicinity for small
special exhibition gardens and preferably also for special exhibitions
under glass, which could be introduced near the Lorillard Mansion only
by sacrifice of existing and potential values of another sort of great
importance to the Botanical Garden.

The most notable natural feature of the Botanical Garden, perhaps as a
matter of botany and certainly as a matter of landscape, is the gorge
of the Bronx River with its wild growth of hemlocks and associated
plants, its picturesque precipitous slopes and ledges, its sense
of remoteness and seclusion from the city and most of the works of
man. The Lorillard Mansion and its appendages conspicuously intrude
upon this landscape unit in a manner contradictory to its essential
character. From the point of view of botanical consistency no less than
landscape value these contradictory elements ought to be removed and
the entire landscape unit of the gorge, on both sides of the river,
gradually restored as nearly to the conditions characteristic of such a
gorge in a state of nature as is consistent with making it accessible
to and enjoyable by large numbers of people. No artificial structures
except such as are necessary to that end should be maintained here and
these should be made as inconspicuous as is consistent with efficiency
in operation and maintenance. The precise limits of this gorge unit we
are not prepared to define positively as yet; but plainly they should
include the site of the Mansion itself, the slopes to the north of it
(where the small stone stable occurs) up to the height of land on the
east, and in the region further south at least far enough eastward from
the river to include the whole of the narrow ridge that lies between
the river and the Park Department greenhouses.

We believe this consideration alone precludes the rebuilding of any
garden house or other such structure on the site of the Lorillard
Mansion, whether the matter is looked at from the point of view of a
Botanical Garden or that of a public park.

The land which lies to the south of a line drawn through the existing
foot-bridge across the gorge and to the east of the service road
that hugs the west side of the greenhouse is not quite so intimately
associated with the gorge; and, if the natural forest border on the
low intervening ridge were restored and widened and made more dense,
the outlying area beyond the limits above defined might perhaps have
a landscape character quite dissimilar to that of the gorge without
impairing the perfection of the latter. But to introduce even in this
area a highly elaborate and sophisticated formal development with a
garden house of considerable size, would bring two contrasting kinds
of things in such close juxtaposition as to make the plan questionably
wise.

The second consideration, closely related to the point just made,
is that we have found no place on the whole Botanical Garden lands
nearly as well adapted as this swale (where the greenhouses are)
for the development of such a naturalistic Landscape Garden as we
have attempted to describe above; for the development of a landscape
characterized by a long stretch of beautifully modelled lawn in
association with free-growing trees, flowering shrubs and herbaceous
flowering plants; or indeed for the development of an equally long,
restful, completely unified and self-contained view of any sort. These
also are elements of which there should be at least one admirable
example within the Botanical Garden.

Therefore we have sought for other possible sites for a first-rate
formal garden in conjunction with a building for exhibitions, meetings
and social activities and with other features desirable to associate
with such a center. We believe that these things can be provided for
in another locality, which upon the whole would be more advantageous
for such purposes, and we will discuss it in Part V. For this reason we
do not hesitate to recommend the assignment of the Lorillard Mansion
area and the area embracing the Park Department greenhouses and the
swale south of them nearly to the picnic grove for the purposes of the
Landscape Garden above outlined.




PART IV

AUTOMOBILE THROUGH-TRAFFIC


The successive steps in the formation of routes of automobile travel
within and through and near Bronx Park, largely controlled as they have
been by considerations entirely independent of the Botanical Garden,
and the interjection of the Botanical Garden into the area traversed
by or affected by these routes, have resulted in a situation quite
unprecedented, so far as we know, in any of the important botanical
gardens of the world.

Many of these botanical gardens are substantially self-contained, free
from intersecting through-routes of vehicular travel, and subject
to design and management for botanical garden purposes alone. Most
of them, like Kew, have no roads for public vehicular travel within
them at all. The Arnold Arboretum, more nearly comparable in size
with the New York Botanical Garden than is Kew, but because of its
confinement to woody plants presenting less administrative difficulties
in controlling public abuse of its collections than is the case where
more strictly garden-like elements are involved, has roads open to the
public in the daytime, but it is completely closed at night and up to
the present time the roads have not been open to automobiles.

In an area the size of the New York Botanical Garden, we believe that
automobile roads for circulation within the area are necessary and
desirable, although for the public benefit to be derived from the
Botanical Garden as such it is extremely desirable, as heretofore
indicated, that every possible care should be exercised to minimize the
danger and annoyance of frequent crossings at grade of these roads and
the main routes of circulation for people on foot.

But the successive and almost independent steps in the development of
the _main lines_ of _through-travel_ for automobiles in this part of
the Borough of the Bronx, have placed the Garden in the path of some of
the most important of these lines and thrown upon its roads a burden of
through-traffic which is already a very serious problem and bids fair
to become immensely worse.

The completion of Bronx River Parkway, debouching from the north into
what was evidently designed as a local loop road for circulation
wholly within what is now the Botanical Garden, taken in connection
with the prior opening of the Grand Concourse (laid out long after the
establishment of Bronx Park and the design of most of its roads), opens
through the Garden, on roads very ill adapted to the purpose, what
is plainly destined to be one of the most busily thronged automobile
thoroughfares leading in and out of Manhattan.

Both for the benefit of this through-traffic as such and for the
benefit of the Botanical Garden as such, a radical improvement in this
situation seems almost imperative. It is possible that the City may
find a way to open a new and more direct connection for this great
line of through-traffic independent of the Botanical Garden, between
the Grand Concourse near its present northern end and a point in the
southerly part of Bronx River Parkway north of the Garden. (See Map B.)
Also there is even more reason to hope for the contemplated connection
of Bronx River Parkway Drive with the northern end of Bronx Park East,
the complete opening and improvement of the latter to Pelham Parkway,
and its ultimate extension across Pelham Parkway into Boston Post Road.
Such by-passes, if provided, would greatly ease the situation, but even
so it would remain far from satisfactory.

Certainly if this is not done, and probably even if it is done, there
should ultimately be a shorter and less tortuous road, on good lines
and grades and of ample width, following as closely as practicable the
westerly boundary of the Botanical Garden and substantially independent
of all its routes of interior circulation, from Bronx River Parkway
Drive at a point north of the northwest corner of the Garden lands to
Southern Boulevard, which borders the southern part of the Garden on
the west, and connecting at grade, conveniently, with the roads which
cross into the Garden over the railroad at Woodlawn Road, at Mosholu
Parkway and at Bedford Park Boulevard (200th Street).

Such a road or parkway for through-traffic, because of the necessity
for connecting with the bridges over the railroad, should be built
largely in heavy fill, on a broad embankment that would provide a
platform for a tall and dense border plantation serving ultimately
to screen from the landscape of the Botanical Garden not merely the
railroad but the very conspicuous miscellaneous buildings on the
higher ground to the west, far better than they can ever be screened
otherwise. And from such an embankment-road the throngs of people using
it would be able to overlook and enjoy in passing the neighboring
portions of the Garden without invading it or coming into conflict with
those who resort to the Garden primarily for its own sake.

As a matter of intelligent city planning we believe that ultimately a
branch of such a thoroughfare should be, and probably will be, provided
directly south near the railroad to Fordham Road along the edge of the
Fordham University property. We understand that this is now prohibited
by legislation secured in the supposed interests of Fordham University;
but looking to the remote future we cannot but believe that the time
will come when it will be to the interest of all concerned to complete
such a connection in a properly designed manner. This possibility
obviously reinforces the importance of such a through-traffic line as
we have suggested along the westerly boundary of the Garden, whether
the City does or does not open the independent connection between the
north end of the Grand Concourse and Bronx River Parkway.

There has long been an agitation for a street across the Bronx
valley from the end of Burke Avenue on the east to some point on
Webster Avenue. This proposal first took the form of a high-level
viaduct substantially on the north line of the Garden lands. This was
indefinitely postponed because of its excessive cost. The project
now comes up again in the form of a descending earth-fill embankment
from the end of Burke Avenue, crossing by bridges over the road which
connects the Garden with Bronx River Parkway, and over the Bronx River,
coming nearly down to the elevation of the meadow along the northerly
line of the Garden land at a point between the river and the railroad,
thence curving across the northwest corner of the Garden land and
rising on an embankment adjacent to the railroad so as to meet the
grade of the existing bridge over the railroad at the Woodlawn Road
Entrance. This latest proposition, besides being less costly, can
be made in its ultimate effect a much less conspicuous intrusion on
the landscape of the Garden than a high-level viaduct. Its immediate
effect would be very distressing through the substitution of high, raw
earth-banks where many well-grown trees now exist; but _if these banks
are liberally and skilfully graded and composed of material suitable
for the vigorous growth of permanent trees and underplanting_, and if
they are properly planted, they can be made in due time to furnish a
good enframement of the Garden, especially desirable on the railroad
side.

The portion of this embankment road which would parallel the railroad
from the north boundary of the Garden to the Woodlawn Road Entrance
bridge would coincide with the west-side through-travel route
previously discussed, and if the City undertakes the work it is highly
important for the Garden that the grading plans be worked out in such
a way that the slopes can be counted on as permanent, that trees can
be promptly planted on them and grown to maturity. It would be a shame
to permit the work to be done in such a way that after beginning by
the destruction of the now-existing trees it would leave the new
plantations subject to probable destruction by a future widening of the
embankment when the west-side through-route is opened.

South of the Woodlawn Road Entrance the construction of the west-side
through-route may be quite remote, but we believe it would be most
unwise to proceed except upon the assumption that it will ultimately
be constructed. Its precise location and grades and the eastern
limits of the regrading necessary in connection with it we have not
attempted to determine. Obviously the operation as a whole should be
so designed as to minimize the disturbance to the Garden to the utmost
degree consistent with securing (a) satisfactory grades, alignment
and width for the through-road, (b) the best possible permanent
bordering plantation for the landscapes of the Botanical Garden, and
(c) incidentally attractive park-like qualities for the enjoyment of
users of the through-road, including pleasant views over the Garden
while maintaining an effective barrier, for police purposes, between
this road and the interior of the Garden. Our impression is that a
continuous, dense, high, but narrow screen of trees and undergrowth
should be provided between the road and the railroad; that the slope
toward the Garden should be more openly and intermittently planted;
and that the permanent fence between the road and the Garden might
in many places take the form of a mere parapet supported by a high
retaining-wall so as to permit unobstructed views of the Garden without
facilitating trespass and at the same time minimize the encroachment of
the slope-grading on the present plantations of the Garden.

We assume, then, such a west-side through-traffic road, as a
fundamental part of a comprehensive plan for the Botanical Garden.

With this new through-traffic line and the complete improvement of
Bronx Park East, the interior roads can be wholly or almost wholly
relieved of the burden of through-traffic, and some of them could
advantageously be eliminated. One road in particular seems to us
unnecessary and undesirable under such conditions. This is the one
which extends past the easterly corner of the Museum and across the
Water Gardens. As long as it remains, it will offer a temptation to
high-speed through-travel by automobiles and motor cycles between the
Southern Boulevard Entrance and Bronx River Parkway. It will also
interpose a very objectionable traffic-line between the Museum, with
other features yet to be developed in its vicinity, and the entire area
of the Garden to the east of it. Incidentally it constitutes a strongly
marked line in the landscape composition, having a very awkward and
unpleasant relation to the orientation of the large and dominating
architectural mass of the Museum itself.

We are inclined to think that the steep road which now runs from
the hollow below the Iris Garden up over the ridge and down to the
junction of Southern Boulevard and Pelham Parkway, could advantageously
be eliminated. To do so would certainly be advantageous to the great
majority of people who visit the Garden on foot, and would remove one
element of danger and complexity at the important traffic-junction
where it now makes a five-corner intersection. It would also facilitate
a more useful and more beautiful treatment of the Iris Garden unit
through which the road now runs.

On the other hand, certain additional road construction is necessary to
complete a satisfactory system of interior circulation for the Garden.

One such addition of unquestionable importance is a link across the
river somewhere south of the Gorge, so as to avoid the necessity
of going outside of the Garden enclosure into Pelham Parkway and
back again into the enclosure in passing between the southeasterly
and southwesterly parts of the land. In our opinion such a road and
bridge, while ultimately necessary, are far less urgent than many other
improvements. But it is extremely important to fix the precise location
and grades of such a future road because of its intimate relation to
the design of all the adjacent areas, within which improvements in
maintenance, in planting, in the path system, etc., are needed. These
should all be directed toward a well-studied landscape treatment into
which this road will fit perfectly whenever it is built. In other
words, the design of this road and bridge ought to be part of a design
for the permanent treatment of the two landscape units to the north of
it--namely the Hemlock Gorge unit and the suggested Landscape Garden
unit--and of the picnic grove unit to the south of it; and no permanent
improvements should be attempted in any of these areas until the plans
for all have been worked out with a considerable degree of finality.
Our present impression is that the best line for the road would be,
very roughly, as indicated on Map A. This shows alternative lines for
the easterly end of the road, choice between which can not be made
without working out the details with much care. In any case the road
ought not to be permitted to encroach upon the natural southern and
southeastern limits of the topographic unit suggested for development
as a Landscape Garden. And probably in any case an underpass should be
provided for a foot-path connecting that unit with the picnic grove
unit.

The proposal of a west-side parkway for through-traffic outlined
at the beginning of this portion of the Report, together with the
development of the vicinity of the Museum, discussed in the following
section, Part V, necessitates a revision of the vehicular approach
to the Museum and of the connection along its westerly side with the
roads in the Fruticetum. As to the latter connection, it would be
almost as undesirable to force vehicles, circulating within the Garden
between the vicinity of the Fruticetum and the vicinity of the Museum
and points further south, to go outside the Garden enclosure into the
contemplated through-travel road and back again, as it is to force
out into Pelham Parkway the vehicles that need to cross the Bronx
River in the southerly part of the Garden. And for reasons already
indicated we believe it would be far better to provide such an interior
circuit west of the Museum and the Water Gardens, even at the expense
of considerable local regrading and replanting, than to maintain
permanently the present road in the heart of the Garden northeast of
the Museum.

The location of the present east-and-west road south of the Museum
through the center of the valley which lies between the Museum and
the ridge northeast of Conservatory Range No. 1, and the concurrent
splitting of this valley into two halves of contrasting treatment--the
northeast half occupied on the Museum axis by a formal approach to the
Museum which begins abruptly in the very middle of the valley unit,
while the southwest half is treated as an open informal landscape--is
to us very distressing and esthetically self-contradictory. Some
permanent cross-connection for the interior circulation of vehicular
traffic somewhere between the Museum and Conservatory Range No. 1 seems
essential. The best place for it we are not yet sure of, because it
is involved with three other very perplexing problems which will be
discussed in the next section of the Report.

Briefly there seem to be four possible solutions: One would be to
leave the cross-road substantially where it is but to unify the valley
by applying the same kind of landscape treatment to both its halves;
either by extending a generally formal treatment southwesterly across
the valley from the Museum to the opposite ridge, this treatment being
traversed by the cross-road; or by curtailing the formal treatment to
the immediate vicinity of the Museum and leaving the entire heart of
the valley treated informally but still traversed by the cross-road. A
second would be to shift the cross-road much closer to the Museum and
leave the entire heart of the valley open for treatment as a single
unit, either informal or formal, but undivided by a road. A third
would accomplish a similar result by shifting the cross-road much
further from the Museum to a position fairly well up the slope on the
southwesterly side of the valley. A fourth would be to remove the road
entirely from the valley by resorting to the old road line just to the
northeast of Conservatory Range No. 1.

Upon the whole, as well as we can judge without working out thoroughly
the problems discussed in the next section of this Report, it would
seem that number three or number two of the above alternatives would
hold the best promise of first-rate ultimate results. These two are
roughly indicated as alternatives on Map A.

Under the circumstances, clearly, no considerable permanent changes
should be undertaken in the area between and surrounding the Museum and
Conservatory Range No. 1 until a satisfactory general plan for this
whole area has been worked out and agreed upon, unless they are such as
would surely fit in with any one of the above mentioned alternatives.

Only one other additional road for interior circulation has occurred to
us as at all desirable, and we are not yet entirely confident that it
is worth while. The road now under construction from the Rose Garden to
the Allerton Avenue Entrance is in part ugly and positively dangerous
in alignment and grade. The most objectionable points are where it
crosses the Lake Valley and near the undeveloped Arboretum Entrance. It
is apparently possible to lay out a substitute for this section of the
road on good lines and grades, by swinging off from this newly built
road at a depression southwest of the Propagating Houses, crossing by
an arch over the ravine east of the Lorillard Mansion and from there
to the Rose Garden following approximately the old Lorillard approach
road. In this position the road would overlook, without intruding upon,
the Landscape Garden discussed in Part III, Section 4, and would make
it possible to bypass or entirely to eliminate that section of the
newly constructed road which now injures by its embankment the Lake
Valley and which has the only steep and dangerous gradient and curve in
the Garden road-system.

There are various other adjustments of roads and road-junctions, mostly
of a minor sort but important in the aggregate, which ought to be made
in order to adapt what were designed as park drives for horse-drawn
vehicles to use as automobile roads in a botanical garden; but we will
here mention only one, the very confusing junction in the Fruticetum
north of the Water Gardens. This ought to be radically changed and
simplified for the convenience and safety of traffic, and we believe it
can at the same time be so handled in connection with the readjustment
of the Fruticetum planting as to improve the appearance of this part of
the Garden very materially.




PART V

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.



*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK REPORT ON THE NEW YORK BOTANICAL GARDEN ***


    

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.


START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when
you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

    This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
    other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
    whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
    of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
    at www.gutenberg.org. If you
    are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
    of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
  
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:

    • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
        the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method
        you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
        to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has
        agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
        Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
        within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
        legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
        payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
        Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
        Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
        Literary Archive Foundation.”
    
    • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
        you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
        does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
        License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
        copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
        all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
        works.
    
    • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
        any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
        electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
        receipt of the work.
    
    • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
        distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
    

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.