9:30 - 10:00 am
Cultural Landscapes in Yellowstone
Zehra Osman: Division of Planning, Compliance, and Landscape Architecture

Transcript

Zehra Osman: My name is Zehra Osman and I’ve been here at Yellowstone for about 3 ½ years. I’ve been with the Park Service since 1983 and I work for PCLA and you guys just heard a lot about PCLA and I’m going to try to work the slides from the keyboard.

We at PCLA are involved in the Parks development and in a place like Yellowstone that’s really valued for its pristine, natural conditions.  I know a lot of people wonder how it is that (when) a Chief Architect can even get excited about the notion of development.  You know a lot of us have kind of an intuitive rejection of the importance of what humans have done here in Yellowstone with such a magnificent landscape.  However the way that we, especially the landscape architects can get ourselves excited about what we do is to talk about how we provide a platform for visitors to interface with or enjoy the resource.  And when we’re doing that, providing that platform or whatever facility that is that we try to reduce the amount of impact that we run into.

So the other way we can get excited about what we do as Landscape architects, and this is leading into a discussion about cultural landscapes, is as Eleanor talked about, we try to become aware by using interdisciplinary teams and collaborative efforts. We try to become aware of natural resource values and we have to uphold those values and we also look at cultural resource values so, for example, if we’re going to put in a parking lot or we’re going to put in a maintenance shed, or anything like that, or if we’re going to do a plan, do a master plan of the whole area, we want to understand where the archeological sites are.  If there are any ethnographic or historic structures, we collaborate with Herb Dawson, our historical architect, and we look at how we can fit in something like a maintenance shed and use some architectural elements on that new structure to make it compatible with the old and finally, we look at cultural landscapes.

We look at cultural landscapes because we want to, but also because we’re required to by NPS 28 and National Park Service management policy.  If you’re interested, I won’t go into it here, but there are some specific areas where you can read about exactly what it is we’re supposed to be doing and why, but, bottom line, we are treating cultural landscapes as a cultural resource.

What does cultural resource information get us as designers and planners?  Well, to understand the changing human relationship with Yellowstone’s very unique, very harsh, very magnificent environment is oftentimes expressed in remaining physical features. In our slide here, these are the kinds of things our archeologist deals with.  Ann Johnson will be talking later.

Cultural landscapes, on the other hand, deal with the similar kind of looking at physical features that are left, that are remaining on the site and this is where I’m going to get into my  definition of what a cultural landscape is.  They are the human adaptation of the natural environment and it’s often expressed in various landscape characteristics.  And what I would like to do is use a case, Fort Yellowstone, as a way to further define these various characteristics of a cultural landscape to help you understand what they are.

We have not studied Fort Yellowstone, but if we were, the kinds of questions to ask are what kinds of land use occurred here?   How is the land organized and divided?  In the case of Fort Yellowstone and especially along Officers Row, we don’t have Officer’s cul de sac, we don’t have Officer’s Circle, we have Officers Row.  There’s a very definite form in the landscape and the way that the buildings have been placed in the site and the way that maybe that landscape gives us some information about the way the military operated and maybe the hierarchy that existed in that military. 

We look at things like views, the views that the folks in Officer’s Row get are very different than those that the folks in Soapsuds Row get and the fact that some of those buildings face out on to the parade grounds might be something that we would look at when we’re studying the cultural landscape and as you can see, I’m starting very comprehensive in looking at the way humans settled in this area and used this area.  I’m gradually getting into more and more detail.  

Systems of Circulation
The systems of streets and walkways, again, start to reveal some more information about how this land was used.  If we preserved all the buildings on this site and preserved them impeccably, but just because it was pretty, if we just put lawn in between all the buildings, we’d lose a lot of the story of how that area was used.  And so we were looking at what kind of characteristics we wanted to retain, including circulation.

Types of structures that were built:  This is where we collaborate with someone like Herb Dawson, our historical architect.  Where he might look at the buildings and the various architectural features on those buildings that give them a certain character or make them special, what we would look at, again, is the way the buildings are clustered, the spacing in between the buildings.  We might look at how those buildings have a side yard, maybe a back utilitarian area, a front more formal area.  That’s how we might look at the way that structures are on the landscape.   

And then we get into some of the things a lot of people associate with cultural landscapes or landscape architecture, and that would be things like masonry walls, and vegetation.  In the case of Fort Yellowstone, if we were studying that landscape, we might look at the fact that there is a very deliberate planting of Cottonwoods along Officer’s Row and look at how that is very formal and very different than a more naturalistic grouping of trees we might see in other parts of the Park.  

So, in looking at all these various characteristics of the cultural landscape, we always have to tie them back to how they reflect the cultural values and traditions of that period of significance. 

As we’re starting to look at the various cultural landscapes in Yellowstone, and we’re starting to pick up on some patterns of the way things were done at various periods, we’re realizing that we’re studying kind of the physical record of this ongoing effort to balance resource preservation and visitor use.  And also managing the Park and the Park resources, but it’s this evolving story that started one way and it’s kind of brought us to where we are today and understanding that story is a very fascinating thing, it’s a lot of fun.

 Understanding the evolving philosophies of this balancing act, and the fact that at one time we thought it was OK to feed bears or that it was OK to pave around a thermal feature and understanding that evolution of Park facilities and what is remaining and how it kind of helps to tell that story. 

Eleanor talked a little about how as Landscape Architects, we’re interested in framing that visual or experiential encounter that visitors are going to have in the Park.  At one time, for example, they used to be able to get right up next to Old Faithful geyser and imagine what a powerful experience that must have been in terms of an experience, wow, but in terms of resource impact, what did that mean.  And then we are looking at and I don’t need to get into this , where what happened in the 70’s where the intention was a good one, but they wanted to move that impact back away back from the geyser.  But we’re looking at, what did that gain us in terms of the visitor experience and did it really help in terms of the paving, the amount of paving and how that affects recharge.

So, again, I just want to reiterate, we look at the comprehensive, overall development and we compare the historic with the current and we also look at the details and we compare the historic with the current condition.  And when I say details, I’m going to get into an example a little bit later, we look at things like paving and stone walls, and in the case of  Apollinaris Spring, we look at the plumbing and that sort of thing.

Early National Park Service cultural landscapes are something we do kind of get excited about.  This is where, between the two world wars, between WWI and WWII, there was a lot of development that happened through out the National Parks and it was during this time that there are certain areas of all the National Parks, including Yellowstone, that acquired a certain character, a certain appearance. 

There was a design philosophy of that time that kind of lead the way in terms of that character, and that is that, in the construction of roads, trails, buildings and other improvements, particular attention must be devoted always to the harmonizing of these improvements with the landscape.  And an important note to make here, is that during this time, there may not have been a lot of science or understanding of ecosystems and that kind of thing.  There was a lot about scenery and so we’re talking about more artistic endeavors, but then, the intention was that they were using the best information they could to harmonize with the scenery. 

How did they harmonize with the scenery?  What’s kind of interesting is that they had some landscape architects who were given a lot of support from the top.  In particular, two landscape architects, Daniel Hull and Thomas Vent(?) seemed to kind of put their signature on a lot of National Park development throughout the Park Service, including Yellowstone.  One of the ways that happened is there were some master plans done.  The idea of master plans came after, there was kind of an inventorying of what was in National Parks.  Some of it was good and some of it was bad. There were a lot of piecemeal projects and ramshackle kinds of things and not all of it fit in with that desire to blend with the scenery.  There was such support of the idea of kind of pulling back and looking at a master plan to try and  think through how all these various facilities fit into the landscape that there was actually a moratorium on all development for a period of time until those master plans were done.  Park Superintendents throughout the service to compile a list of all the facilities they needed so that list could get to the planners and they could make sure to incorporate that stuff into their master plan.           

We talk about rustic architecture happening at this time but I want to back up a little bit.  The way that rustic architecture is successful starts back in how the facilities are located.  I guess this is all stuff that is describing cultural landscapes but the way something is located in the landscape, where you actually put it, and how it might be screened by trees has a lot to do with how it harmonizes with the landscape.  And then, as a final layer, the rustic architectural features, the stuff a lot of people are really fond of.  The appeal of logs, stone masonry, kind of a romanticized version of what people expect to see in the woods, that can fit together with all the other elements in the landscape.   
         
I want to do a very brief, very quick case study to illustrate how we landscape architects might use this information that reveals the cultural landscape studies.  And I want to start out by saying that we’re not interested in creating a living history kind of museum.   Cultural landscapes are meant, the purpose of what we’re trying to do is to help these landscapes evolve.  They have been evolving for years and we want to continue making sure that they work, that the maintenance areas work, that the ranger stations work, that parking lots work and that kind of thing.  But the key is, we have to understand all these various landscape elements well enough that we understand what characteristics we don’t want to change and what characteristics we can let change.  And that’s the tricky part and the fun part. 

Getting into that idea of master plans, at Canyon, this is a 1939 master plan showing how, here’s the Canyon, here’s the old Canyon hotel and how the development was right on top of the Canyon, right on top of the rim.  And what was happening and what the planners noticed is, boy, that kind of ruined the views that people would have cross canyon.  They would see a lot of this development, there was a lot of erosion, loss of vegetation.  And then we start seeing something that is kind of neat is that some evolving ideas of what we can do to protect that scenery.  And you can see the very faint line that goes all the way around the rim and that is called a “sacred area”.  And in this 1939 master plan, here is this idea that we are not going to have any development along the rim an eight of a mile back from the rim to preserve that scenery.  In fact, we’re going to take that some of that development and here’s one of the early ideas of the Canyon we’re seeing removal and relocation of some of the facilities away from that resource.  And just so you know, there was also a “sacred area” around Old Faithful geyser and in Yosemite Valley they had “sacred areas” so this is a kind of idea of a natural zone.  What they did allow in a sacred area was overlooks and trails and I’m going to get into that a little later.

Right now I want to zoom in on that portion of this 1939 plan and talk about that idea of how things are located.  Again, this is more of a holistic view of a cultural landscape but the early planners, you kind of start to see this horseshoe shape oriented out on Cascade meadow, very different from what we have today, that horseshoe shape today.  What we’re starting to see is these patterns in a lot of different developed areas in the park where the planners are using that mosaic of meadows and forest that you see in Yellowstone. When you’re removing these facilities from something as spectacular as Canyon, then what do you use as a focal point as an artist that would be as beautiful as something like a meadow.  What is key, is that a lot of development was inside the forested edge of the meadow so that they were hidden from view; but if you were standing here, and this is where the museum and the old store was, you could see out across the meadow.   It’s kind of more of an exciting design than what we have today, but, you see again, this is the administrative area where the housing is, in the trees, the campground, the cabin area.  So use of trees for screening and the use of meadows as a new focal point.

And then, there was a post war switch, when we had the new horseshoe shape, now the facilties instead of orienting outwards toward Cascade Creek and meadow, were orienting around the new focal point of the day, the shopping center parking lot.  But I’m not going to get into that kind of history.  What’s interesting is what they kept in terms of the old planning ideas.  They kept the idea of a village like they had before and they kept the idea of utilizing trees for screening all of that development.  Here’s a close up of the administrative area, this is Cascade Creek meadow and even this interior meadow is kept intact.  Of course, it’s a wetlands and you don’t want to build on it anyways, but in some cases we’re even seeing that the forest hides it and we use that as screening.  I’m not going to get into Mission 66 style, it’s not my favorite .

Now I’m to look at some more details of cultural landscape and I’m going to get into how we’re going to use these details for planning.  When we look at that sacred area, where we’re only going to have overlooks and trails, at Canyon, the designers noticed that the use of material, wood railing, decks, ramps, the use of wood created a lot of hard architectural lines.  And you could see those lines across the canyon.  So we’re still not there yet in terms of conserving scenery.  This slide might be a little too dark, but you can kind of see the Upper Falls overlook here and the hard lines that it creates in the landscape. 

So now we have to go to another level of design and look at how we can do scenery preservation through the use of certain materials and the idea of using masonry walls. 
Carefully selected stone, and in the case of the canyon, large stone of a certain color and texture and placed in a way that they look like they’re growing out of the canyon walls.  So you’re not seeing any hard architectural lines, you’re not seeing a top of a wall that’s perfectly horizontal like other parts of the part, it’s a very distinct style of masonry.  Also, the idea of getting away from wood decks and using earthen paths and asphalt.  Asphalt, no matter how we may feel about it, was kind of a signature material of the time.  It was very flexible, you didn’t have to do a lot of cutting and filling, you could lay it right over roots and rocks so they considered that a really appropriate material to use in these overlooks. 

And the use of vegetation.  When they used retaining walls, and you can see this any place in the park that had a kind of rustic architecture, retaining walls allowed you to not have to do a lot of cut and fill and you could save trees and  if you saved trees, you could screen the development, so there was an attempt to save existing trees. You can see here with this planter at Lookout Point a planting of new trees.    So the cross canyon view of this development were screened and it might also frame the views as people were standing here and looking out. 

Steps instead of the wood railings. The steps appeared as though they were carved out of the ground and this is at Artist’s Point, the vegetation came right up to the edge so it looked like it had been there for a long time.  And this is how it looks today.  Here’s a 1958 view of the Upper Falls Overlook.  You can see the rocks appear as if they are growing out of the Canyon walls. 

(So, when) We want to assess new ideas and proposals for how we’re going to help these landscapes evolve, and for these contemporary issues and uses we might have.   There was a design competition for Artist’s Point a few years ago and some really neat ideas came out of that. Sometimes it’s really hard when you have a lot of really good design concepts for a place, how to weed through all of that and decide what is appropriate and what isn’t.    Our objective is to be less subjective about architecture and look at things like, in this proposal, where they have a gateway between the parking lot to the promenade of Artist’s Point.  We could say, that’s inappropriate for the Canyon when the attempt for so many years, was to get away from those hard architectural lines.  In this case, someone might be providing an idea for some rock retaining walls and we can look at the style of that wall.  I don’t know if you can see, but on the top overlook they proposed to bring that wall up to a safety standard.  In doing so, they added rocks and created a very flat surface on the top of that rock wall.  Again, we could get into that level of detail when we’re trying to understand what is and is not appropriate for Artist’s Point. 

OK, this is my last slide.  Again, trying to tie back to what PCLA is trying to do, trying to understand these cultural landscapes so that we can better fit new design and new ideas and undertakings into this historic landscape. 

Zehra Osman:  Do we have any questions?  I’d be happy to answer them.

Male voice:  We can take questions at break time.