Presenting Nature

Cover

Contents

Foreword

Acknowledgements

Overview

Stewardship

Design Ethic Origins
(1916-1927)

Design Policy & Process
(1916-1927)

Western Field Office
(1927-1932)

Park Planning

Decade of Expansion
(1933-1942)

State Parks
(1933-1942)

Appendix A

Appendix B

Bibliography

Presenting Nature: The Historic Landscape Design of the National Park Service, 1916-1942

V. A PROCESS OF PARK PLANNING (continued)

THE EMPLOYMENT STABILIZATION ACT OF 1931

The preparation of plans accelerated substantially. In 1931, Congress passed the Employment Stabilization Act, requiring all government bureaus to draw up six-year advance plans on which federal appropriations for construction could be based should an economic emergency occur or should the depression continue. Agencies were to provide cost estimates for carrying out plans to the Employment Stabilization Board.

In 1932, the Landscape Division undertook the work of future planning on an unprecedented scale. Vint's staff made substantial progress on the general development plans based on the development outlines superintendents had prepared the previous year. The plans at this time showed the development scheme for an entire park and covered road and trail systems, fire control plans, and the general layout of all developed areas including utilities, buildings, and roadways. In some cases, drawings were included in the plans to illustrate a special type of wall, guardrail, or other detail to be used at a certain place in the park. [8]

Landscape architect Cilmore D. Clarke of the Westchester County Park Commission influenced the form that general development plans assumed in 1931. In June 1930, Clarke spent ten days in Yellowstone National Park preparing a general plan for the Mammoth Hot Springs area. He represented the New York chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects, which was helping the National Park Service solve problems related to the development of the park headquarters. This area posed a serious problem in park planning. It had previously been used as the headquarters for the U.S. Army during the period when the military managed the park. The village, a popular destination for tourists because of its location at the edge of the famous terraces of hot springs, was marked by a discordant array of structures and buildings and a system of congested roads that contradicted the naturalistic principles that the national park designers sought to uphold.

In 1927, Vint and Ferruccio Vitale of the federal Commission of Fine Arts had visited the area with members of the museum committee to choose a location for the headquarters museum. They abandoned their search for a suitable location, however, and instead began efforts to redesign the area. In 1930, Clarke and his assistant, Allyn R. Jennings, studied the area and drew up a plan that was reviewed by National Park Service Director Horace Albright, Superintendent Roger Toll, and Vint. This plan, which was eventually approved and incorporated into Yellowstone's comprehensive plan, appears to be one of the first general development plans to take the large-scale, hand-colored format that was to characterize the master plans until the late 1930s. Clarke's plan showed all existing features based on Jennings survey of the area and indicated the roadways and structures that were to be removed, alongside those proposed as new construction. It called for the removal of most of the former army buildings and the hotel and its related buildings but retained recently built park buildings such as the superintendent's residence, a barn, and a ranger's residence. The entire area was redesigned, changing the circulation system to one of curving streets around an open elliptical lawn on the site of the old hotel. The new concessionaire's development was situated to the east in a radiating pattern, and the park administration area, residential area, and utility complex were located to the south in several tiers along curving roads. A road with diagonal parking and a median of several planted islands joined the park and concessionaire's business areas. [9]

The 1931 General Development Plan for the headquarters village at Mammoth Hot Springs, Yellowstone National Park, reflects Gilmore clarke's rerommendations for the removal of many Army-era buildings and the centrally located hotel and the construction of new roads, a central elliptical lawn, a main street divided by circular islands of plantings, a concessionaire's development of a lodge and cabins, and numerous smaller buildings spread out according to function. (National Archives, Record Group 79)

The term "master plan" was applied to the general development plan in 1932, when Director Albright spoke before the Twelfth Conference of National Park Executives in Hot Springs, Arkansas. Albright spoke of these plans as the domain of architecture and landscape architecture and stated that the primary function of the Landscape Division was to prepare the plans for all parks in the East and West. The Engineering Division was to provide technical information on construction details and furnish estimates. Vint's staff would coordinate plans and update them annually according to appropriations and changing conditions. By the end of 1931, development outlines and general plans had been prepared for every park, for a moratorium on building had freed up the landscape architects' time and allowed them to work on plans. [10]

For Albright, each plan was more than a breakdown of needed facilities that could be funded through annual appropriations. It was a legacy for the future— a final and decisive vision of how each park should fulfill its dual purpose of preserving outstanding scenery and natural features and providing for public enjoyment. He stated,

What we have here are more than year plans. They are not the stabilization plans; they are the permanent plans for the park. The program set forth in these plans can not be carried out in a period of six years on any basis of appropriations that we can expect. [11]

At the 1932 meeting, the nearly completed general development plan for Mount Rainier was displayed, and Vint described the design process. Working from a photostatic enlargement of the U.S. Geological Survey topographical map for each area, the landscape architects had an enlarged view from which they traced streams, mountain peaks, and other important features. The scale of the finished plans was either the same or one and a half or two times that of the topographic map. The landscape architects made various tracings so that separate maps could be used to plot different kinds of information, such as roads, trails, or developed areas. They also made numerous copies, some of which would be shaded with colored pencils. [12]

By the end of 1932, the plans for all national parks and monuments were complete, with a park development outline, a general plan, and a six-year program. The completed plans took the form of a series of large color drawings and an accompanying narrative, the development outline. The five-year plans for trails and roads that had been developed since 1926 were incorporated into what was now called the master plan for each park. Plans were organized in several sections: major roads, trail systems, major development areas, and minor development areas.

Each plan began with a statement of the park's purpose taken directly from the legislation establishing the park. The location of the park and its relationship to state highway systems and nearby population centers were described. The roads and trails were broken into sections and distances that required either improvement or construction. The major development areas were the park villages having many functions and both concessionary and government facilities, such as the valley floor at Yosemite. Plans for major development areas included buildings and structures related to park administration; concessionaire facilities; utilities such as power, telephone, sewerage, and water systems; minor circulation systems of paths and roads; vistas; and in some cases, existing vegetation or natural features that should be protected or retained. The minor development areas were outlying areas such as ranger stations, park entrances, and campgrounds. They included a range of areas in which several types of development or clusters of buildings and structures were situated, including important intersections that posed particular design problems or that were particular importance in park design, such as Chinquapin Intersection at Yosemite.

Areas serving only a few functions and having a relatively simple layout—such as patrol cabins, hiking shelters, parking overlooks for scenic views or trailheads, and fire lookouts—were generally located on the master plan sheets for the fire protection plan, system of trails, or system of roads. Although not the subject of detailed attention in the master plan, these were commonly treated in site plans and architectural drawings prepared once funding was available.

From 1932 to 1942, master plans were revised annually. They plotted existing construction and recommended changes in the form of new construction and removal of existing features. They also noted important vistas, areas of vegetation, and individual trees or rock formations that merited preservation. The plans reflected an integrated approach to park planning and management. Each master plan was based upon an understanding of the significance and purpose of the particular park. Vint described its function:

The Master Plan of a national park fills the same function as a city plan or a regional plan. Its use is to steer the course of how the land within its jurisdiction is to be used. Nothing is built directly from it. Each project, whether it is a road, a building, or a campground, must have its conjunction plan approved. In the course of approval it is checked as to whether it conforms with and is not in conflict with the Master Plan. [13]

While the landscape architects were responsible for preparing the plans, they made no administrative decisions. They were employed in an advisory and professional capacity. Plans were drawn up as recommendations for the approval of the park superintendent, the division chiefs from the Western Field Office, and the director. Later the regional directors and the regional landscape architects, architects, and engineers became involved in the decision-making process. The plans also facilitated the review of concessionaires' plans for expansion, by spelling out the extent of development that was considered reasonable to accommodate public use and comfort. [14]

Drawings for individual projects plotted on the plans were made as funds became available for construction, reviewed for consistency with the master plans, and approved separately. Planning made it possible to program the funds and phase projects according to funding, personnel, and needs.

When employment stabilization and relief funds became available in 1933, the National Park Service was equipped with comprehensive plans and, in many cases, actual drawings. The service was ready to begin construction. The efforts that park service officials and Vint's staff had put into advance planning brought immediate results in the form of public works and emergency conservation work.

During the 1930s, capital improvements in the form of roads and buildings were funded through public works or regular park funds and used private contractors and skilled labor. The coordination of public works projects with emergency conservation work enabled parks to make substantial progress on the master plans. From April 1933 to March 1936, resident landscape architects worked closely with the landscape architects and architects assigned to the Civilian Conservation Corps camps. In 1936, design services were consolidated in regional offices set up for state park Emergency Conservation Work. These offices became the National Park Service regional offices when the service was regionalized a year later. As park development proceeded, the plans were updated. The annual plans visually charted the impact of New Deal construction and conservation programs on national park development. The completion of many plans believed unattainable in 1932 was realized within a decade.

What had been conceived as advance planning for the construction of roads, trails, and facilities by the end of the 1930s encompassed all aspects of park administration. To a large extent, the plans addressed issues of interpretation, forestry, fire control, engineering, scenery preservation, automobile traffic, pedestrian circulation, and concessionaires' operations. During the 1930s, the development plans included, in addition to site plans, sheets on vegetation, fire control, utility layouts, geological formations, and wildlife areas and provided housing and road inventories and interpretive statements to guide the service's growing programs.

One of the most important advantages of developing an outline and a plan was that areas could be developed as a functional unit with a carefully predetermined set of structures. Standard approaches to making certain kinds of facilities inconspicuous could be devised. A ranger station serving as a checking point was located where it could control incoming and outgoing traffic and provide ample space for parking for visitors seeking information, water, and comfort. Water fountains, signs, curbs and sidewalks, paths, and flagpoles were conveniently placed at these points. Comfort stations were located behind screens of existing vegetation and in inconspicuous places and reached by curving footpaths from the parking area. Directions were given by simple and carefully placed signs. Maintenance facilities, including garages, sheds, workshops, dormitories, and mess halls, were located on side roads out of the view of the public. The components of these developed areas were standardized so that visitors could anticipate the provision of certain services at given points within a national park.

Within the general formula for developing certain types of areas, designers were able to coordinate functions such as trails and paths with the broader circulation system and the natural features of a particular park. They were also able to develop floor plans and specifications for specialized buildings that, while meeting functional requirements, could be adapted to the natural conditions and character of each site. Furthermore, the plans enabled designers to develop a unifying architectural theme for each park or for similar areas within larger parks. These themes were related, through materials and form, to the natural setting and cultural history of the park.

Continued >>>

Last Modified: Mon, Oct 31, 2002 10:00:00 pm PDT
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/mcclelland/mcclelland5b.htm