.gif)
Presenting Nature
MENU
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)
|
Presenting Nature:
The Historic Landscape Design of the National Park Service, 1916-1942 |
|
V. A PROCESS OF PARK PLANNING (continued)
PLANS AS A TOOL FOR LANDSCAPE PRESERVATION
In 1942, ten years after the term "master plan" was introduced, park service spokesperson H. T. Thompson stated, "In parks, master planning may mean development—it may also mean purposeful refusal to develop." Mount Rainier's park development outline of 1929 demonstrated the role of park plans in landscape preservation when it recommended six areas as the maximum number of developments in the park and urged that all other regions be left undisturbed except for the construction of trails and patrol cabins. The concept of wilderness areas was relatively new to the park service. The previous year, Director Mather had designated the glacial zone and particular areas of outstanding natural beauty at Mount Rainier as wilderness areas. They were accessible only by foot or on horseback and were otherwise to remain undeveloped. By 1929, large areas in each park had been set aside to be left in their natural condition. [15]
The Secretary of the Interior Ray Lyman Wilbur saw Glacier National Park as an excellent example of a park where certain areas should be preserved in primitive conditions. Furthermore, he saw no reason to modify the plans for wilderness areas in order to open new country in the older and more developed parks like Yellowstone and Yosemite. [16]
Under the 1929 planning outline, any area not identified as a developed area was considered a wilderness area. This was in keeping with the idea that the master plan was a blueprint for the future. Plans also identified "sacred" areas, which were to be protected from development or other forms of disturbance. Selected for their pristine condition, sacred areas were small zones or designated features, such as the one-eighth-mile radius around the Old Faithful Geyser at Yellowstone, a geologically important rock formation such as Yosemite's Sentinel Rock, a group of trees, a margin of land along the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone, or an island in the river at Tuolumne Meadows in Yosemite. Such areas were inviolate and to remain unimpaired. In fact, the park service saw these designations as equally important to park management as development plans. In the 1930s, research areas were added to the list of areas specially designated for preservation. Research areas were reserved for the scientific study of plants, animals, and other natural features and were accessible only by trails. Examples of these were a 75-acre biotic succession area at Gregory's Bald in Great Smoky Mountains National Park and a 4,000-acre area between Tuolumne Meadows and White Mountain in Yosemite. [17]
The plans also served as a tool for landscape preservation. Important viewpoints and vistas, stands of trees, and rock formations were identified on the plans and designated for protection. The plans served as a guide for cleanup operations by calling for the elimination of unsightly or deteriorated buildings and structures that, in many cases, predated the organization of the National Park Service.
The Grand Canyon area of Yellowstone National Park—one of the park's most scenic—posed one of the most perplexing problems to park designers. In 1927, Vint recommended that no camping be allowed within 100 feet of the brow of the hill. The master plan was used to alleviate the deterioration and destruction of scenery that had been caused by overdevelopment and overuse. A sacred area was designated along the two rims above the Yellowstone River. Citing the intention of the legislation founding the park, the master plan summarized the dilemma faced by park designers:
The present Canyon area development has violated, and continues to violate this Act to a considerable degree, to the detriment of the area and to the exclusion of thousands of tourists enjoying the area to the greatest possible degree. The present concentration of development about the Upper and Lower Falls is gradually breaking down the natural conditions so that within a comparatively short while the area will be barren, except for those who visit the lodge. It is not readily accessible to the other tourists without the intimate knowledge of the area or without a guide. . . . The circumstances are such that it would seem wise to try to correct these mistakes, and justify the effort for a number of reasons.
Conservation is primary and that point is readily conceded. Aesthetically the present development is beginning to compete with the Canyon for attention. Gradually it becomes more prominent as the vegetation dies or is done away with. This alone should be reason enough for restoring it to its original state if possible. . . . Economically it is advantageous to concentrate this development at some other location. Under the present set up there are three separate and unrelated water and sewer systems. . . . The administration of the area would be facilitated if a well-organized scheme were carried out. . . . The object of such improvement would be eventually to remove all of the development away from the edge of the Canyon to an area better suited to such development and yet allow expansion on a well ordered scale. [18]
Recommendations for restoring the scenic beauty of the area were several. All development except for trails, paths, and observation points was to be removed from the edge of the canyon. Trails, roads, and parking were to be improved. Concessionaires' facilities, including a lodge, over 300 cabins, and a campground with 173 tent cabins, were to be removed and similar facilities built at a new village site set back from the north side of the canyon. At the new site, the government would establish a campground based on the system of individual campsites and an amphitheater. The existing government campground had been laid out by Charles Punchard and improved in the late 1910s. It had been heavily used and was the site of some of Davidson's first work in transplanting during the summer of 1927. By 1930, the Landscape Division resolved that the only way of saving the campground area was to move the campground elsewhere and allow the natural vegetation to recover. Eventually, all the frame platforms and stairways along the canyon were to be replaced with observation bays made of stonemasonry walls and flagstone terraces.
Glacier Point was another area that the Landscape Division believed had been developed beyond the public interest. Yosemite's superintendent strongly argued that the Glacier Point Road should end at the campground, thereby eliminating any encroachment on the scenic point itself. He viewed Glacier Point as a spectacle to be developed by pathways and educational exhibits, not by road traffic. The landscape architects asserted that the ideal plan was to remove the hotel and the nearby lookout and provide a terminus at the rim with radiating paths and trails to various scenic overlooks. The master plans from 1932 on called for the redevelopment of this area as a pedestrian promenade having a rustic log guardrail along the edge of the rim, a new lookout, and connecting trails to various viewpoints, including the famous overhanging rock. Although the removal of the buildings was never approved (the hotel burned in the 1960s), the plan made it clear that such development as had already occurred was undesirable given the extreme importance of the point. Here the plan became a "tool" to visualize an ideal based on the principle of landscape preservation. The plan described the promenade:
Glacier Point is perhaps the most superlative location in Yosemite National Park from which an unsurpassed view may be secured of the High Sierras. Under the present setup it is difficult for transient visitors to grasp or appreciate the magnitude of the vast panorama spread before them. With the adequate development of this promenade and observation point the visitors may be more eager not only to view the glorious scene, but also to learn a little of the forces of nature that brought about these gigantic transformations, and they will be impressed and pleased with the facilities the Park Service has provided for their utilization and enjoyment. [19]
The plans became a vehicle for putting forth the landscape architect's point of view, either in opposition to development proposed by superintendents or others or in favor of cleaning up or in other ways improving the scenic character of the parks. At Mount Rainier, the Landscape Division used the plans to object to the park concessionaire and engineer's proposal for the construction of a scenic road extending into Paradise Valley:
The Landscape Division has consistently opposed construction of this road on the grounds that it will generally depreciate landscape views from the Paradise area to have moving automobiles and a roadway between Paradise and the mountain, and because of the addition to existing scars which its construction will necessitate. Furthermore, it is believed that no real need will be met by its construction. [20]
Although the landscape architects opposed the project from a landscape standpoint, they were willing to cooperate with the park engineer to stake out a line of a "least objectionable nature." Similarly, they felt that the construction of a spur road between Narada Falls and the lower campgrounds at Paradise should be put off until it became "indispensable for traffic reasons," because of scarring from cut-and-fill operations and because the road would destroy much of the forest screen in an area already scarred by development. [21]
Above-ground telephone poles and wires were a continual annoyance to the landscape architects, who urged superintendents to relocate them underground for scenic effect and economical reasons. Mount Rainier's master plan carried the following argument:
The Landscape consideration of getting all wires out of sight is the main point, and surely worth the cost. . . . The idea that exposed wires must clutter the landscape, ruining views, detracting from the natural simplicity of the scenery and even preventing the taking of good kodak pictures from many points, is one thing which draws condemnation from every visitor. . . . But waiving all these esthetic values, the absolute impossibility of keeping lines in operation in the winter and the great cost of maintaining them through the summer, makes the economic angle of underground wires an appealing one. [22]
As ultimate plans for the development of the park, master plans were linked on the one hand to the purpose for which the park had been set aside. On the other hand, they were to uphold the broad policies of stewardship and management stemming from the 1918 and 1932 statements of policy. The ever-present concern for justifying development is indicated in the following summary of progress included in Mount Rainier's 1938 master plan:
In order that this enjoyment and education may be available, the park must be accessible and developed areas must be built and maintained. The road system as described in the following pages will allow such accessibility and yet will make available to the automobile but one-fifth of the area of the park or less than 50 square miles. . . . Five developed areas, three major and two minor projects, with free auto campgrounds, comfort stations, water and sewerage systems, hotel and cabin facilities, and the proper quarters and equipment necessary for the maintenance organization are planned. The connecting road system is now 40% complete and the free camping facilities at Longmire and Paradise areas are about 90% complete and those at Yakima about 70% complete. . . . The completed development of the park contemplates leaving at least 80% of the entire area of the park in its primitive state and the north side has been set aside as a "Wilderness area" to have no roads or other man-made features within its boundaries, excepting the minimum number of trails for its protection and preservation. . . . A trail system is planned of approximately 300 miles, one-third of which will be standard tourist trails in the vicinity of the developed areas and the remaining two-thirds forest trails for the more adventurous nature lovers, but primarily for the proper protection of the park. This trail system is now about 70% complete.... The roads, trails, telephone systems, developed areas and other items of the park program are all in keeping with the organic law creating the National Park Service; to make available to the present generation and preserve for future generations the wonders and beauty of Mount Rainier National Park. [23]
By 1942, master plans were the guiding tool for the operation of the National Park Service. In 1942, one service spokesperson summarized their value:
They help the parks to preserve the scenery so that in their final development it will still appear that man has done nothing to alter the natural landscape. They keep constantly before planners and construction men the original concepts of the National Park Service— that provision for public use must not alter the natural beauty of parks and that developments must be harmonized with the typical character of the area. They caution the park administrator against permitting unwise building or use which might destroy the very thing the visitor comes to admire. They provide for adaptation to ever changing conditions while providing loyalty to the fundamental responsibility—the conservation of the park areas. [24]
In 1939, the park service issued Master Plans: A Manual of Standard Practice for Use in the National Park Service, to be used in developing the plans for 1941. This was the first comprehensive manual for completing plans, which after 1936 had been drawn up by the design staff of the regional offices. By this time, the process for developing plans was extensive and required data and preparation by specialists outside of the Branch of Plans and Designs (formerly the Landscape Division). The plans mirrored the expanding programs of the park service and the increasing numbers and types of parks entering the park system in the 1930s. [25]
The master plan had become the "controlling document for all development." The plan retained the format of a general development plan and a development outline. The general development plan, sometimes called a zoning plan, graphically illustrated all existing and proposed elements of the park's ultimate development and indicated the ownership and use of adjoining lands. The development outline now called for detailed sheets for each program area and served as a working tool to coordinate the thoughts and efforts of the various offices needing facilities. The superintendent was responsible for coordinating the field activities of the various specialists, and the Branch of Plans and Design was responsible for compiling the information and interpreting it graphically.
The road and trail systems were covered by separate drawings and narratives. Plans for each developed area continued to be prepared by the resident landscape architect and regional architect; in addition to all buildings, bridges, trails, and roads, plans were to include minor features, such as flagpoles and drinking fountains. Plans for telephone and radio systems and utility layouts, which were the responsibility of what was now called the Branch of Engineering, appeared on separate detailed maps.
One program to gain in importance and make use of the planning process during the 1930s was forest protection. Plans called for a map indicating the various types of vegetative cover present in the park. This map was used to rate fire hazards, indicate areas needing insect control or suffering from tree diseases, develop campgrounds, assess conditions for wildlife, plan for reforestation, control erosion, and chart plant succession. Reforestation maps were included when large-scale planting was being considered to correct erosion or restore primeval or historical forest conditions. Forest fire control maps charted existing and proposed improvements such as firebreaks, lookout stations, fire guard cabins, communication systems, caches of fire tools, sources of water, roads, and trails. [26]
Additional plans concerned the diverse issues facing different kinds of park units. Historical maps and interpretive statements, for example, became part of the planning for the historic sites, battlefields, and monuments such as the Statue of Liberty, that had come into the park system in 1933.
Henry Hubbard wrote of national park plans in 1939,
The Master Plan is the essential machinery by which this planning is accomplished. . . . The Master Plan presents a complete graphic record of the designer's conception of the ultimate development, and its many parts represent the combined effort of all who are concerned with the policies governing the future use and protection of the park. [27]
Through annual revisions, year-to-year accomplishments were recorded and the ultimate plan refined as time progressed, "thus providing an outline of the existing conditions and a constantly improved statement of future policies." Hubbard recognized the value of the plans during the New Deal:
The advance planning program set forth in the Master Plan is carried into execution through a long-range work program, based on the desired priorities of construction, allocation of funds required, and the personnel available to complete the work. The value of advance planning, with respect to the service rendered to the various administrators of park lands has been especially well demonstrated during the past few years of emergency activity when the Service was found ready with plans and prepared to offer immediate employment on worthwhile projects. [28]
As the United States entered World War II, the Civilian Conservation Corps ended and public works funding ceased. The preparation and revision of plans slowed dramatically during the war, and, except for new areas such as Big Bend, planning virtually ceased. Most staff had gone into the armed services or were working for the war effort. Those who remained spent their time working on "unsettled problems and policies that influence park development," since no funds were available for construction. The process of master planning that Vint had spearheaded in 1930 withstood the test of time and was revived as the essential planning tool following the war. Vint reported in 1946,
The continuity of the planning process has been maintained although the thread became very thin for a time. The machinery is intact and as personnel return and programs get under way, Master Plans will be brought up to date. Many park facilities, like our cities, are adequate for 1930 conditions. All indications are that people will come in greater numbers than before and facilities to accommodate them are inadequate. There is much to be done on many new problems. [29]
Continued >>>
Top
Last Modified: Mon, Oct 31, 2002 10:00:00 pm PDT
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/mcclelland/mcclelland5c.htm
.gif){kind=small}