T H E M A L ngrA R K WAY"

”H EARIN.

BEFGRE THE

CtMMITTEE 6N THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITE . STATES SENATE

n \ (nu!_

 

 

I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I.

 

 

NDSCAPE
.A CHITEC‘TURE

 

 

 
 

 

TI—IE MALL PARKWAY-

 

HEARING}

EEEEEEEEE

 

COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA '

OF THE

 

UNITED STATES SENATE,

. \ .
7" W‘WWWl """T T 4 1:4. we”?! ' ’Efi‘ai’f‘gfm T9531 ‘ 1“LEittf‘ifil-h:§:2'~it‘~"5;..-’L”‘ic.xn, “ n?:‘3‘-*§i”i-t-i=- A“, 1:13;?" .

SATURDAY, MARCH 12, 1904,;

ON THE

BILL (S. 4845) REGULATING THE ERECTION OF BUILDINGS
ON THE MALL, IN THE-DISTRICT

OF COLUMBIA.

1'} .

 

Toocumzms DEPARTMENT
““‘"—— AUG 3 19m

 
   

 

 

WASHINGTON;
. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE.
. 1904.

 

m... may"... _.

LAN-93CAPE
ARCH.

LREGULATINC THE ERECTION OF BUILDINGS ON THE MALL IN

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
UNITED STATES SENATE,
Washington, D. 0., March 12, 1.904.

The committee met at 10 o’clock a. m. .

Present: Senators Gallinger (chairman), Foraker, Dillingham, Fos-
ter, of Washington, Scott, Martin, and Mallory; also Senators Wet-
more and Newlands.

There were also present Messrs. D. H. Burnham, of Chicago, 111.;
C. F. McKim, of New York; Augustus St. Gaudens, sculptor, of
Windsor, Vermont; F. L. Olmsted, jr., of BostOn, Mass. (members of
the park commission of the District of Columbia); W. B. Mundie, of
Chicago, 111.; George B. Post, of New York; W. S. Eames, of St. Louis,
Mo.; Frank Miles Day, of Philadelphia, Pa.; Leon Dessez, Glenn
Brown, and J. C. Hornblower, of Washington, D. C.; James K.,Taylor,
Supervising Architect of the Treasury; G. O. Totten, jr., Thomas M.
Kellogg, architects; Prof. S. P. Langley, Superintendent of the Smith-
sonian Institution; Charles C. Glover, president of the Riggs National
Bank; Franklin W. Smith, and Blair Lee, esqs.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

The committee has called this meeting and has invited you gentle-
men to be present for the purpose of giving consideration to Senate
bill 4845, which was introduced on the 7th day of the present month
by Senator Newlands, of Nevada. The bill, which is very brief, is as
follows:

That no building shall be erected on the Mall of Washington, District of Columbia,

within four hundred feet of a central line stretching from the center of the Dome of
the Capitol to the center of the Washington Monument.

That is the question that will be before the committee to-day. N ot-
withstanding the limited time you gentlemen will have to discuss this

matter, you may depart somewhat, if you so desire, from the ques-

tion directly involved to the consideration of matters more broadly
affecting the project that some of us have in mind of having some sys-
tem in this city, so far as the construction of public buildings is con-
cerned, and the development of the park system of the District of
Columbia. . .

It will be remembered that during the time that my lamented prede-
cessor, Senator McMillan, was chairman of this committee, a movement
was inaugurated and a commission appointed to make investigations
with regard to matters relating to what is popularly known as the
beautification of the city of Washington. That commission, composed

3

94.4

4 ' » THE MALL PARKWAY.

of eminent gentlemen—two architects, one sculptor, and one landscape
gardener—made a report, a copy of which I hold in my hand and which
deals exhaustively With th1s question. Another gentleman, who is
present to—day by my inVitation, Mr. Franklin W. Smith, has given a
great deal of thought to this sub]ect and has written exhaustively on
the questions pertaining to it. .

I wish we had time to go more thoroughly into this question than
we Wlll be able to do to—day, but this committee is overwhelmed with
work, and eVery Senator is crowded with duties upon many commit-
tees, and 11318 a very difficult-matter to get the committee together for
any purpose, and it is necessarily very difficult for any of 11s to give
very much time to the consideration of any given subject, however
important it may be.

Now, gentlemen, we have, before 12 o’clock, when the members of
this committee Wlll certainly have to leave for the discharge of other
duties, an hour and thirty-nine minutes, and that time will have to be
utilized very Judiciously. Each speaker will have of necessity to be
brief, and I trust that by a careful arrangement and utilization of time
everyone who desires to be heard can be accommodated.

As a preliminary I will take the liberty of putting in the record
certain resolutions adopted by the Washington Architectural Club.
I will read them:-

Whereas the new building for the Department of Agriculture, if placed in the posi-
tion now proposed, would materially interfere with the plan for a great vista, devised
by Major L’ Enfant, under the directions of Washington and Jefferson, and

Whereas it would also create an unfortunate precedent, defeating the grand and
now almost sacred ideas of the founders of the national capital; be it therefore

Resolved, That the Washington Architectural Club earnestly protests against this
or any similar encroachment upon one of the grandest plans for civic betterment
ever devised.

Be itfnrther resolved, That this country may not lose an exceptional and magnifi-
cent opportunity for creating the most superb capital of the world, the Washington
Architectural Club respectfully urges Congress to adopt in its entirety the L’ Enfant
idea as amplified and presented by the park commission appointed by the Senate
committee.

Be itfarther resolved, That copies of these resolutions be sent to the Senate and
House of Representatives of the United States.

I have here a letter from Nicholas Murray Butler, president of the ,

Columbia University of N ewYork, which came to me in this morning’s
mail, and which I will read. President Butler makes an argument in
favor of an 800—foot vista, or whatever it may be called, from the foot
of the Capitol to the Washington Monument.

The letter referred to by the chairman is as follows:

PRESIDENT’S ROOM, March 11, 1904.
Hon. JACOB H. GALLINGER,
United States Senate, ’ashington, D. 0.

MY DEAR SENATOR GALLINGER: I learn with great pleasure from the Record of
March 8 that a resolution has been introduced and referred to the Committee on the
District of Columbia, establishing definitely the 800-foot mall between Capitol Hill
and the \Vashington Monument. I was glad to observe, too, from your own part in
the discussion, that you appear to favor this proposal. I write simply for the pur-
pose of saying that all over the country there is a very strong sentiment in favor of
carrying out in their main details the plans for the development of Washington
which were prepared under the guidance of the late Senator McMillan. While
superficially there does not appear to be much difference between an 800-foot mall
and a 600-foot mall, the fact remains that to narrow the mall to less than 800 feet
destroys its proportions and compels the recasting of its details.

 

,9 ,._.,..—_W_.. , .

v ... .....T.....--»u,.... ..

4 .WA

THE MALL PARKWAY. 5

Surely it can not be a matter of prime importance, when the Government controls
or can readily control the adjoining land, whether the building for the Agricultural
Department or any other building is placed 100 or 200 feet in one direction or another.
I earnestly hope, as many others do, that the Committee on the District of Columbia
will support the project for an SOC-foot Mall and secure its enactment into law.

With high regard, I am, faithfully yours,
NICHOLAS MURRAY BUTLER.

The CHAIRMAN. I have also a letter from Hon. James Wilson, Sec-
retary of Agriculture, which bears directly upon this question, and
which I will read to the committee. The Secretary is ill and has asked
Doctor Galloway to represent the Department at the meeting this
morning, and Doctor Galloway is present and will speak for the
Secretary. '

The letter from the Secretary of Agriculture to which the chairman
referred is as follows:

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,

Washington, _D. 0., March .9, 1904.

Hon. J. H. GALLINGER, /
Chairman Committee on the District of Columbia, United States Senate.

DEAR SENATOR GALLINGER: I noted with interest the discussion which took place
yesterday upon the bill offered by Senator Newlands to the effect that “no building
shall be erected on the Mall of Washington, D. C., within 400 feet of a central line
stretching from the center of the dome of the Capitol to the center of the Washing-
ton Monument.” A year ago I was authorized to erect a building or buildings for
the Department of Agriculture, and since the bill became a law the matter has received
very careful attention from my hands. There were some statements made yesterday
in the discussion on this bill to which I should like to call your'attention.

It is true that the original plan of L’ Enfant provided for a Mall 1,600 feet in width,
extending from the Capitol westward to where the Monument now stands. It is
also true that through the center of this’Mall there was to be a roadway 467 feet in
width; on either side of this roadway strips of grass, making thetotal space through
the center of the Mall about 1,000 feet in width. The park commission in its plan
for the beautification of Washington modified the plan, as stated, to 800 feet in width.
At the time that L’Enfant prepared his plan of Washington, the Monument was not
contemplated. When the Washington Monument was erected it was placed 100
feet, or thereabouts, farther south than the center of the proposed parkway or vista——
whatever you may choose to call it. The park' commission, in setting out its lines,
adopted the center of the Monument as one axis and the center of the Capitol as the
other. This makes the building lines run diagonally across the Mall and, as you
will readily understand, gradually, narrows the building spaces the farther you pro-
ceed from the Capitol. As a matter of fact, the building space left to the Depart-
ment of Agriculture on the south side of this 800-foot line is very limited, something
like 200 feet in width. It is entirely inadequate for the construction of our build-
ings. Furthermore, the 800-foot line, if adopted, would necessitate the destruction
of the beautiful Smithsonian building, which is entirely on the north side of the
southern boundary of the line. In other words, the southern boundary of the 800-
foot parkway runs south of the Smithsonian building, and at least 100 feet south of
the present Agricultural building.

If it is your wish I should be glad to have full copies of maps, charts, etc., set
before your committee illustrative of these points. We have had them all looked up,
and have presented the matter fully to the attention of the COmmittee on Agricul-
ture in the House and to the President. Through an arrangement made by the
chairman of the Committee on Agriculture in the House the entire matter was
brought to the attention of the President a short time ago. I inclose herewith a
minute of the proceedings of this meeting.

It was stated in the discussion by Mr. N ewlands, I believe, that we are proposing
to erect our buildings in front of our present structure. This is a mistake. Our new
buildings will go back of the present structure, and will be farther south than the
Smithsonian Institution. In other words, our new buildings will not encroach on
the proposed parkway as much as the Smithsonian building does at the present time.

Assuring you of our desire to furnish any information within our power if you
desire the same, I remain,

Very respectfully, J AMEs WILSON, Secretary.

6 THE MALL PARKWAY.

The CHAIRMAN. Attached to that letter is a minute relative to a
meeting held in the office of the President, February 5, 1904, in refer-
ence to the location of Department of Agriculture building, as follows:

» On Priday,_February 5, 1904, the honorable Secretary of Agriculture and the mem-
bers of the Agricultural Committee of the House of Representatives met the Presi-
dent .by appomtment for the purpose of considering certain matters relative to the
locatlon of the buildings for the Department or Agriculture. The members of the
Committee on Agriculture present were as follows:

Hon. James \Vadsworth, chairman; Hon. E. S. Henry, Hon. G. N. Haugen, Hon.
C. F. Scott, Hon. J. V. Graft, Hon. George W. Cromer, Hon. William Lorimer,
Hon. F. E. Brooks, Hon. H. C. Adams, Hon. Sydney J. Bowie, Hon. Phanor Brea-
zeale, and Hon. J. W. Cassingham.

The President was shown various plans and maps of the city of Washington,
among others the original map of L’Enfant, outlining the treatment of the Mall.
There was also shown the treatment of the Mall as proposed by the Park Commis-
s10n. Attention was called to the location of the present agricultural building and
the present Smithsonian building, with reference to the park scheme proposed by
the Commission. It was pointed out that the Department of Agriculture buildings
could be located on the north side of the parkway, but to this plan the members of
the Committee on Agriculture present were unalterably opposed. They stated that
the proper place for the Department of Agriculture buildings was on the south side
of the grounds near the location of the present structure; that it would be unfortu-
nate to place the buildings on the low ground near B street NW. It was shown
that the whole question hinged on Whether a parkway 800 feet in Width should be
reserved, extending from the Capitol to the Monument, or whether this should be
reduced to 600 feet in order properly accommodate the Department of Agriculture
buildings and to retain the Smithsonian Institute building. The President asked
the committee if they were in favor of this plan, and they answered that they were
not only unanimously in favor of it, but were enthusiastically so. The President
thereupon replied that the matter would stand in that way, and the Secretary of
Agriculture issued instructions at once that we proceed with the plans on the basis
that the buildings would be erected in conformity with the GOO-foot proposition.

. B. T. GALLOWAY,
Chairman Building Committee, Department of Agriculture.

The CHAIRMAN. I am also in receipt of a letter from the American
Institute of Architects, which I will read to the committee.
The letter referred to by the chairman is as follows:

THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE or ARCHITECTS,
Washington, D. 0., March 12, 1904.
Hon. J. H. GALLINGER,
Chairman Senate Committee on District of Columbia.

SIR: The undersigned are informed that it is the intention of the Department of
Agriculture to construct a group of new buildings so located as to seriously interfere
With and actually prevent the development of the original plan of the city of Wash-
ington as laid out in 1790 by President Washington and P. C. L’Enfant.

The city of Washington is, and forever Will be, our national capital, and does not
belong to the District of Columbia, but to the citizens of the 45 States of the Union.

The original plan has been acknowledged in all quarters of the world as the best
scheme devised for a dignified and artistic capital city. It is our duty to have it
executed in such a manner as to make our national city the equal, if not the superior,
of any of the capitals of Europe. '

This protest against such inconsiderate action as the location of any structure that
will prevent a development according to the original plan is therefore ,filed with
you, with the request that you use your very valuable influence toward preventing
what would surely prove to be a national and irreparable mistake.

The Senate bill No. 4845, regulating the erection of buildings on the Mall, intro-
duced by Senator N ewlands March 7, 1904, if passed, will preserve the plan.

W. S. EAMEs, St. Louis, Mo, President A. I. A.
GLENN BROWN, Washington, D. 0., Secretary A. I. A.

The CHAIRMAN. The author of the bill (S. 4845) which the committee
is to consider this morning, Senator Newlands, is present, and while
the chairman will take the liberty of suggesting to the Senator that the

"3‘- ..

 

 

 

THE MALL PARKWAY. 7

members of the committee or other Senators ought not to take much
of the time of this meeting, still, if the Senator desires to say a word,
the committee will be glad to have him do so.

Senator NEWLANDs. Mr. Chairman, I only desire to say a word, and
that is that the executive committee of the American Instituteof Archi-
tects is present—all capable and trained men—to give their views With
regard to this matter, and there are also present certam citizens of
Washington. As to the method of procedure, it Is a questlon In my
mind as to whether the committee should not first hear from Doctor
Galloway regarding the plans of the Department of Agriculture, and
then hear from Mr. Burnham and others.

The CHAIRMAN. The chairman will decide that matter. The order
will be as follows: The gentlemen representing the two proposed bulld-
ings on the Mall, the Agriculture and Museum buildings, Will be heard
first, after which the gentlemen—whether they are members of the
park commission or not—the architects, will be heard, and then Mr.
Franklin W. Smith will be heard for fifteen minutes.

Doctor Galloway, thecommittee will hear from you now.

STATEMENT OF B. T. GALLOWAY.

Mr. GALLOWAY. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I
shall endeaver to be brief in the remarks I shall make, and will speak
with special reference to the matter as it concerns the Department of
Agriculture. I should like first to briefly call attentiOn to the-legisla—
tion that gave the authority to the honorable Secretary of Agriculture
for the erection of the building. That legislation was enacted about a
year ago, and appropriated $1,500,000 for buildings to be erected in
accordance with plans and estimates that the law prescribed. The
buildings were to be erected in the immediate vicinity (those are the
words used) of the present structure. Thus the Secretary is directed
by law to use his own authority and judgment in selection of plans,
and, furthermore, in the location. As soon as the money became avail-
able the work was at once inaugurated, and after some necessary delay
the firm of Rankin, Kellogg & Crane was secured as the architects.
Those gentlemen began the work in September last, and at the time
they began the question of location was left open; but, of course, after
the work had progressed a little the question of location naturally came
up, and the Whole matter of the proposed plan as made by the Park
Commission had necessarily to be considered.

As set forth in the Secretary’s letter, the plan of the park commis-
sion carries with it the idea of a line running from the center of the
Capitol to the center of the Monument, joining the axis, and this line
does not coincide with B street northwest and southwest, which runs
from east to west; that is, the line runs across the Mall in a diagonal
manner in such a way that it reduces gradually the Width of the south-
ern lots until it reaches our Department. Our South lot is 225 feet in
depth—something like that; whereas if the line was straight it would
be 400 feet in width. Our entire grounds comprise 40 acres. I have
here a chart which will illustrate better what I have to say, probably,
than I'can express it. This chart shows the Department of A riculture
grounds extending from Fourteenth to Twelfth streets, an then the
proposed parkway or vista, as proposed by the park commission, with
the walks first, then the roadways, then four rows-of elms abreast,'

\

8 THE MALL PARKWAY.

then another roadway, and grass, etc., making a total width from
building line to building line of approximately 800 feet.

. The Secretary of Agriculture has preferred to keep open the ques—
tion of location as long as possible. After the whole matter was consid-
ered in October last it was thought that it would probably be better
to consider the north site. Consequently our architect worked out a
plan on that basis, and we have a scheme which shows the arrange-
ment of the buildings on the north side of the Mall facing the so—called
parkway.

. Signator NEWLANDS. That is directly opposite the present location,

is i .

Mr. GALLOWAY. Yes, sir; it also faces the north. This is the View we
have here [illustrating on picture]. On this large picture, that is the
north [illustrating], facing the city, whereas the south front, which is
somewhat more elaborate, is shown in some of these diagrams. So
that we had laid out the plan with that idea in view. Soon after that,
however, some of the members of the House—notably those connected
with the Agricultural Committee—called on the Secretary and expressed
the opinion that it would be very undesirable to locate the building on
the north side, where the situation was undesirable and the ground
very low. The buildings would ’be set up against a lot of lumber
yards and shops and things of that nature; and furthermore, the ground
at best is only about 6 or 7 feet above mean tide. The Secretary
left the matter largely in their hands, and they called on the President,
with the result as already read by the chairman. This action necessi-
tated a complete change in our plans, and we went to work with a view
to ascertaining what could be done in the matter of buildings on the
south side, and we have here a scheme worked out for the south side,-
assuming that our new buildings would be back of the present ones
and extending into the Mall not more than 85 feet.

Senator SCOTT. How near is that to the present Agricultural building?

Mr“. GALLOWAY. Our new buildng will be about 100 feet back of the
present structure—not in front, but back of it.

Senator VVETMORE. Back of the present Smithsonian building?

Mr. GALLOWAY. Yes, sir; about 75 feet back of the present Smith-
sonian building.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that proposed new building to be west of the
present Agricultural building?

Mr. GALLOWAY. No, sir; it will be centered just as the present
building is—not centered exactly with the lot, but will be with Thir-
teenth street.

Senator DILLINGHAM. What is the size of that piece of ground?

Mr. GALLOWAY. This piece of ground, as it stands now, is 350 feet
in width.

Senator DILLINGHAM. Your plan will be 350 feet in width by how
long?

Mr. GALLOWAY. One thousand feet.

Senator NEWLANDs. Is that entire building to be put up now, or is
that the plan of the building as it is to be when completed, with only
a section constructed now?

Mr. GAL'LOWAY. With only a section. This [illustrating] is the sec-
tion which it is proposed to construct now—the four buildings. The
administration building will have to go over for the present.

 

 

 

 

 

THE MALL PARKWAY. 9

Senator NEWLANDs. Do I understand that you can get that on the
lot south of this proposed vista?

Mr. GALLOWAY. We can get that all on the lot. south of the pro—
posed vista, assuming that the parkway is 690 feet in Width. . .

Senator NEWLANDs. But you can not get it on the lot if the Vista is
890 feet in width?

Mr. GALLOWAY. No, sir. . ,

Senator SCOTT. Do I understand you that you propose to build four
separate. buildings, or is it to be one entire building? _

Mr. GALLOWAY. It will probably be all one building when com-
pleted. It will be connected by corridors. I Wish to say Just a few
words with regard to the necessity for that. Our Department work is
very different from that of any other Department of the Government.
We have investigations going on all the time—some With regard to
animal diseases, and it is absolutely essential to cut off certain sec-
tions of the building. Therefore a monumental structure for both
laboratory and office work could not be considered; hence this prov1-
sion for practically separate buildings in one harmonious whole was
ado ted. ,

[Sgnator VVETMORE. Please indicate again on the diagram the four
buildings which you propose to put up. 5 , .

Mr. GALLOWAY. This one [illustrating], this one, and this one.

Senator NEWLANDs. Which site do the architects of the Agricultural
building prefer, the site to the north of this vista or to the south?

‘Mr. GALLOWAY. The site to the north. The architects all agree on
that, I think. At least I have found no architect who did not agree
as to that.

Senator NEWLANDS. That is not 'the one which the Agricultural
Committee recommends, is it? .

Mr. GALLOWAY. No, sir; the whole scheme was laid out by the archi—
tects, as I have stated, but our architects recognized that the Secre—
tary of Agriculture was the proper authority with regard to the sub-
ject, and we have prepared plans adapted to either the north or the
south side. .

Senator DILLINGHAM. What is the contemplated expenditure for the
entire group of buildings when completed.

Mr. GALLOWAY. That is a matter that I would like to refer to Mr.
Kellogg, our architect. He can answer that. We have not considered
that very fully, but on the basis of what work we have done I should
say it would be in the neighborhood of three and a half or four mil-
lion dollars.

Senator DILLINGHAM. What was the cost of the present buildings?

Mr. GALLOWAY. One and a half millions.

Senator N EWLANDS. I understand that the architects objected to and
protested against this change from the north side to the south side. Is
that so? ' .

Mr. GALLowAY. No; they did not protest. They are not of a pro-
testing kind. They are simply gentlemen who gave us their best
advice and services and advised us, of course, that the north side
would be preferable from an architectural standpoint. - I hardly think
the word protest could be used.

The CHAIRMAN. Please hasten as much as possible in your remarks,

Mr. Galloway.

10 THE MALL PARKWAY.

Mr. GALLOWAY. Mr. Chairman, I think I have gone pretty thor-

oughly over the whole ground. I desire to call attention to these

exhibits which I leave on the table. The first exhibit, marked “A,”
shows the parkway or Mall as it exists at present, with the Monument
in the distance, and shows the angle, the Monument being off the
center. The'next exhibit is a photograph of a model showing the park-
way scheme with the walks and rows of trees, and the same thing is

set forth in the large picture which we have here. Exhibit C is.

the original map of L’Enfant. That is simply is portion of the Mall,
which shows the proposed driveway through here [illustrating], 467 feet
in width, running due west from the Capitol—the Monument was of
course not contemplated at that time—with grass and rows of trees on
either side. The next picture, marked “D,” shows the scheme 800
feet in width, running through the Smithsonian grounds and the Depart-
of Agriculture grounds. You will note that the south line stands a
considerable distance back of the Smithsonian and a still greater dis-
tance back of the Agricultural Department. You will also note on the
right in the plans an outline of our present buildings. The next pic-
ture, marked “Exhibit E,” shows the 600-foot line. In that picture
the line goes about through the center of the present Smithsonian
building and through the rear of the present Agricultural building.

Those are the exhibits to which I desire to call especial attention
and to say just one or two words in conclusion with reference to the
attitude of the Secretary upon this whole subject. I think the Secre-
tary has been consistent from the first, that it would be undesirable to
put more buildings on the Mall, and that is one reason why he has
hesitated about going on the other side; that if the Mall is to be kept
for the city it should be kept as a natural park rather than a formal
one, as proposed here by the park commission; and, secondly, because
the very nature of our work makes it necessary for us to have a series
of buildings which will require more ground than a compact structure.
The whole difficulty arises naturally from the fact that the Monument
is off center and our building lot on thesouth side has been restricted.
If the line ran straight from the Monument to the Capitol our lot
would be about 450 feet, which would serve every purpose.

Senator N EWLANDs. Suppose the Mall triangle, as it is called,
was treated in a different way, and the streets running north and
south were readjusted so as to enable the buildings to be lined up par-
allel with Pennsylvania avenue, and the whole thing was given a park-
like appearance south of Pennsylvania avenue, would there be any
objection to the Agricultural Department being put on that avenue?

Mr. GALLOWAY. I do not think there would be any objection what-
ever. I think that is one thing which the Secretary has been inter-
ested in more than anything else—the preservation of the present Mall
as a park rather than as a plaza for the erection of buildings and a
formal treatment like some of our avenues. We have on New York
avenue a row of trees with grass in the center, and it will only require
a little stretch of the imagination to see trolley cars passing down the
roads which the park plan puts through the Mall.

Mr. F. W. SMITH. The Secretary of Agriculture has expressed him-
self most emphatically against cutting away of the trees in the Mall
and as being in favor of their being left as a park.

Mr. GALLOWAY. Yes, sir; and I think that is the general sentiment

of the people of Washington. I think if the people of Washington-

’49“

 

 

THE MALL PARKWAY. 11

could vote upon that proposition they would be unanimously in favor
of it. ' . .

Senator FOSTER, of Washington. What is the difference between
the north and the south side? .

Mr. GALLOWAY. The mean level on the north is about 7 feet above
tide. We have had since I have been in the Department, about fifteen
years, 4 feet of water over that low ground, and of course the placmg
of these buildings there would mean that the ground would have to be
raised. I believe the plan contemplated a supporting wall and viaduct
on the streets running north and south. That would be necessary on
Thirteenth street especially.

STATEMENT OF PROF. S. P. LANGLEY, SMITHSONIAN INSTITU-
TION. ‘

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anyone present representing the Smithson-
ian Institution? - ' . ,

Mr. LANGLEY. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I
have not a great deal to add to what the committee has already heard.
As is generally known, there has been an appropriation made. of
$3,500,000 for the erection of a new museum building. That building
lies entirely to the north, not only of the axial. line from the center of
the Capitol to the center of the Monument in its present position, but
north of the 400-foot width which travels exactly before the portico.
As far as that is concerned, I have no representation to make to the
committee, for either plan will accord with the present locationof the
building at that place. With regard to the old Smithsonian building,
which I hope we all take a kindly interest in, the case is different. As
that building now stands, it is included in both the 300.and 400 foot.
width proposed. I presume that we are talking of nothing now which
is immediate, but if this ever, \in the course of succeeding .yea'rs,
becomes a Clear roadway undoubtedly the Smithsonian Institution
under either of those conditions would have to suffer.

The CHAiRMAN. Professor Langley, let me ask you—because your
statement presents a view which I have not heretofore heard sug-
gested—would a proposed GOO-foot roadwayencroach upon the old
Smithsonian building? Would there not be a clear 300 feet to the
south of the center line if it was 600 feet wide? .

Mr. LANGLEY. The axial center line, as I have it in the print before
me, and which I now speak of, is about 220 feet or 210 feet—I have
not the exact figures—from the north of the north portico. of the
Smithsonian building. The 300—foot line parallel to that.ax1al line-
passes through the rear of the present Smithsonian building, which
consequently is entirely within the 800—foot—almost entirely Within
the 300—foot line. The 400-foot line is entirely to the south of the
present Smithsonian building. .

Senator WETMORE. May I ask Mr. Langley a question?

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly. ' . . .

Senator VVETMORE. I would like to know-whether it is not entirer
possible in these days to push back—in other words—Tto move 'a build-
ing without injuring it in the least; in other words, if in the_future it
should become necessary to move in any way the Smithsonian Insti-
tution, whether it might not be pushed back and preserved.

Mr. LANGLEY. That is rather a question for an engineer, but my

12 , THE MALL PARKWAY.

own impression is that either that can be moved to the south, or that
even the Monument can be moved, if the gentleman will allow me
that suggestion. [Laughter.]

Senator WETMORE. In other words, it is possible to do almost any-
thing in these days from an engineering point of view? ‘

Mr. LANGLEY. Yes, sir. My knowledge of engineering is not suf-
fiCIent to render my impressions of any value to the committee, but I
spoke quite seriously to the committee just now when I said it would
be possible to move the Monument if desired; but it would certainly
be possible to move the Smithsonian Institution.

Senator N EWLANDs. Is the Smithsonian Institution a durable build-
ing? I have been told that the material of which it is constructed is
disintegrating. ' .

Mr. LANGLEY. No; you can not say that it is disintegrating. It
was built of Seneca limestone, I think, and it is in very fair condition.
There has been some slight disintegration in the south tower, but not
enough to cause any apprehension.

Mr. BURNHAM. Professor Langley, is the Smithsonian Institution
now complete as to the exhibits? Do you anticipate in the future that
the valuable material will require a much larger building or do you
consider that it is now a finished structure?

Mr. LANGLEY. I have always considered it—a’nd it is a good deal a
matter of opinion—to be a finished thing, not to be added to.

Senator NEWLANDs. How about the present Museum? Will there
have to be new museums in the future?

Mr. LANGLEY. That is, looking a good way ahead. Isee nothing
now to demand it, but the Museum is steadily growing. There are
something like 5,000 catalogued topics, and at its present rate of growth,
if it continues to prosper, we may expect not in the wholly indefinite
future to need more buildings. ’

. Mr. BURNHAM. If the chairman will permit me, am I right in stat-
ing that it is two years since Mr. Langley and I spoke on this matter,
and it was his opinion then that at least four times the material should
be displayed in the museum for which there is no accommodation.

Mr. LANGLEY. I do not know whether I said four times, but we have
certainly more than double. It may be that I did say so, but I will
content myself now by saying that we have a good deal more.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, we have only about an hour and six
minutes of time remaining. Mr. Burnham, do you desire to be heard
now?

Senator N EWLANDs. Will it not be possible to continue the meeting
this afternoon, Mr. Chairman? -

The CHAIRMAN. There are a great many other important matters
pressing on the committee for attention, and I do not think it will be
convenient. Mr. Burnham, we will hear from you.

STATEMENT OF MR. D. H. BURNHAM, OF CHICAGO, ILL., A
MEMBER OF THE PARK COMMISSION OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.

.Mr. BURNHAM. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee,
you would naturally expect to hear that I stand for the element of
beauty in public buildings and grounds. I stand also for a system, so

 

 

 

THE MALL PARKWAY. . 13

that in the future buildings shall be erected with reference to their
grouping as a whole. The VVorld’s Fair illustrated the beauty which is
produced by a grouping of buildings. Here a systematic plan was first
evolved. so that the general result should be one of beauty, . The
beauty of the whole composition is superior to that of any indiVidual
building. People saw the World’s Fair, and it had its effect. One of
the effects seems to have been a desire on the part. of the people to
have a general plan (pl. 2) made for their capital city. .FhlS feeling
must have been brought home to Senator McMillan, and he apprem—
ated the fact that this sentiment was not only among professmnal men,
but that there was a steadily growing and strong sentiment among the
people of the United States themselves. We were asked to .come here
and to take up the question of a general plan for the beautification of
this citv. It seemed to be our opportunity to perform a public duty as
well asua public work, an opportunity which does not often come to an
architect. With the feeling that it would occupy but a few. years, it
gave us pleasure to devote that much time to the public_serv10e. We
offered to study the problem without compensation, believmg that in
such a spirit we ourselves would be led to produce our best.“ .
Senator NEWLANDs. Will you please state who areassociated With
vou, and what their relations to the VVorld’s Fair are in this work?
U Mr. BURNHAM. Mr. Charles McKim, of New York. .
Senator SCOTT. By the way, is he the architect who built the office
for the White House? .
Mr. BURNHAM. I would like to speak upon that pomt before I am
hrou rh.
t Senator SCOTT. I think it would take more than an hour to do that,
and I guess we can not hear you this morning. . _
Senator N EWLANDs. Mr. McKim is here and Will give the explana-
tion himself. It is merely. a temporary structure: . .
- The CHAIRMAN. We will not discuss that question this morning.
Mr. BURNHAM. The members of the commission were Mr. C. F.
McKim, of New York; Augustus St. Gaudens, of Vermont; Mr. F. L.
Olmsted, jr., of Boston, and myself. The commissmn began‘ its
work by making a survey—an opticalsurvey—e-of the District, first
going through the city in every direction in order to familiarize our—
selves as much as possible with the lay of the ground Within the‘city
boundaries. We then made several tours around the outskirts of the
city, in which we went up the Potomac as far as the falls to see the
character of the water supply as well as the general appearanceof the
scenerv in this section of the District. We enc1rcled the City on
the hills, spending a great deal of time, keeping our minds open as far
as possible, without going to the documents or attempting to examine
what had already been done. In this way we expected to become
familiar without prejudice from anything that had already been done
with the situation. We went to Arlington and then on the water as
far north as, it Was possible and down the river to Alexandria. It was
then suggested that it would be wise for us to see the old estates in
Virginia. In this way we familiarized ourselves With the very source
of the original inspiration. We went down the Potomac River and up
the James and York rivers, visiting the old colonial estates located on
these rivers. After having Completed these surveys we examined the
documents, among others the well-known L’Enfant plan (pl. 1), which

14 THE MALL PARKWAY.

was prepared under the direction of and in participation with General
Washlngton. Washington himself selected this location and then
employed L’Enfant to carry out his ideas.

'Curiously enough, it is now said that there is a little town south of

; Pittsburg and near Connellsville which was also laid out by Washing-
_ ton when he was a surveyor, platted much earlier than the Washing-
" ton City plan. This town has streets radiating from the center, show-
,1ng that it was Washington’s conception that we have here in the city
of Washington. The L’Enfant plan dealt with am axis—I am speaking
strictly now of the Mall, from the Capitol to the Washington Monu-
ment. This Monument was authorized in 1782. The plan of L’Enfant
was adopted by Congress and signed by General Washington in 1791
(pl. 1), so that it was at that time—and so far as I can find has remained
officially since—the plan of this part of the city. We do not find that
there has been any reversal of that action taken by Congress.

After making an examination of existing material it was most evi—

dent that it was our duty to go abroad and visit the various capitals of
' Europe and thus familiarize ourselves with principles and features in
the Old World which might be utilized With advantage and profit in our
country. . We craved, of course, all the suggestions we could get which
the intelligent minds of the past had to give us. Nothing less than
that seemed our duty, and it was at very great inconvenience to each
one of us that we made the journey. It was our plain duty, as we
conceived it. .' i

We studied all of the important and grand arrangements in the
suburbs, as well as the closely built and monumental sections of the great
cities of the world. We saw the notable avenues and streets in the
different public and private grounds. Having made this investigation
it was plain that the scheme of Washington City could not be improved.
The great feature of this scheme was a grand parkway from the Capitol
to the Monument. Having determined that this feature was fundamen-
tal, the question of the width became the burning question. What
width should a parkway be which was a mile and a half long in the midst
‘i of one of the great capitals of the world? (Pls. 2 and 3.) We made a
very thorough examination of every notable plantation where trees
awere used and an open space left between them, and we found that
he nearest approach to the one in the Mall in its dimensions was
ushy Park, near London, and the parkway in front of the residence
of the Marquis of Salisbury.

The CHAIRMAN. How wide are those?

Mr. BURNHAM. Almost exactly 300 feet. They are nearest to dimen-
sions adopted by the park commission, and the dimension is a very
beautiful one. Any other dimension would very much injure the pro—
portion of width to length and thus destroy the effect.

Senator WETMORE. Do you mean 300 feet between trees and trees?

Mr. BURNHAM. Between trunk and trunk is the measure. Of course
the foliage of the trees will overhang. There would be no allowance
for this overhang of foliage where the parkway was narrower. The
parkway as contemplated does not give a clear 300 feet because of
this overhang. It is considerably short of that in its effect if you look
between the trees. In order to make more sure, and to check our-
selves, as we felt the very graVe importance of the recommendations
to the Senate, we requested the Supervising Architect of the Treas-
ury to erect some flag poles where we could see them from the steps

 
  
 
  

 

THE MALL PARKWAY. 1 5

f the Ca itol and from the Monument itself. This was arranged
(and many rtrials were made. We tried 250 feet, and we trled 490 feet,
and we tried 300 feet, and the BOO-foot space was most plainly the
best. Then the question not only came up but was dlscussed. whether
the commission should recommend to you the very best thing‘ they
were capable of finding, or whether something less, somethlng of infe-
rior grade or quality, should be recommended, and we had no doubt
that you would expect of us—and certalnly we felt ourselves that it
was the proper thing—to recommend the very best treatment of th1s
piece of ground. _ _ . h

Having determined that a 300-foot openlng is necessary between t e
greatest monument in the world (pl. 3) and one of the greatest domes _
in the world. the discussion went to the supportlng of 1t by trees on
each side. There again we examined every notable avenue 1n Europe. 3
We found that not less than four trees constltuted an avenue; three:
trees produce a bad effect, because no space is left.1n the center and 1t.
becomes lopsided—people walk either on one s1de or the other—‘2:
whereas with four trees there is a valley under the trees, with a great:
promenade on either side. Then the distance apart for plantlng 8111.183
was considered, and many hundreds of elm trees were measured mg
order that we might not make a mistake in the distance which thejE
trees should be placed apart, lengthwise or crossw1se, and th1s result;
represents our conclusion after a careful study. The effect of four
trees is rich. There are some notable avenues in England Whlch have
six, and even more, and there is a certain richness and beauty that
convinced us of the propriety of recommending not less than four i7
trees on either side of the central parkway vista. We feltthat the 5'
scheme had better not be executed if only two trees on the s1de were i
planted. It would be better not to attempt the development, because \
the line of trees would be so thin and ineffective as to make thls city
a laughing stock instead of obtaining such an effect as the 4 entlre
country has the right to ask of Congress. _ .

I do not suppose that the commlttee des1res to go into the matter of
the general features of this scheme. Therefore, I Wlll say. nothing
more than call attention to the fact that the monument hav1ng been
pushed over by the engineers when they built it because they found a
better foundation, has made it necessary to deflect the ax1al llne sllghtly
to the south (pl. 2.) In the report of the commlssion a recommenda-

ion was made that the Government should buy all of thisland between

. Maryland avenue on the south to Pennsylvania avenue on the north.

Senator NEWLANDS. That part which is called the Mall triangle?

Mr. BURNHAM. Yes; the part which is called the Mall trlangle.
That is very strongly recommended in the reportof the Comn11ss10n
from which 1 now read:

With this gradual improvement has sprung up a general desire that the L’Enfant
plans be reverted to, and that the entire space south of Pennsylvanla avenue be set
apart solely for public purposes.

That is the recommendation of the commission; I may add, the very
strong recommendation of the Commission. It has been evident to us
from the start that the building space on each side of the Mall would
be inadequate for what Was already in sight, and that in the future
the Government would have to possess a great deal more land to
accommodate future buildings. ' _

Senator NEWLANDS. Which improvements do you think should go

16 THE MALL PARKWAY.

up first, the buildings on the south side of Pennsylvania avenue or

those on the Mall?
_ Mr. BURNHAM. I have .no opinion about that. I should sav when
it comes to this question about the agricultural building*if it is.
expected that I should say anything about it at all—that the agricul-
tural buildings should go where they will have plenty of land, the
nearer the W’hite House the better, because that is a building which
is controlled by a Cabinet officer. From our point of view it would
be much better if the building should be constructed on the corner of
F 1fteenth street and Pennsylvania avenue, bringing it into closer rela-
tionship with other departmental buildings.

The CHAIRMAN. That presupposes the purchase by the Government
of the lands south of the avenue, does it not?

Mr. BURNHAM. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. While the present plan is to put it on land already

owned by the Government?

Mr. BURNHAM. Yes, sir. N ow, with regard to the two locations on
Government land, Doctor Galloway has said that the north side was
not considered becauseof its proximity to the lumber yards. 1 should
not think it wise from any point of View to go on with this Mall
arrangement or to attempt any great improvement unless you feel
confident that in future it would not border on a lot of lumber yards.
It seems to me that should not be considered, as they will disappear
as they do in all growing cities. That ground, being available, is sure
at no distant date to be covered with noble buildings, either by private
individuals or the Government. We say that the Government is going
to need that and more ground. The reasons for that belief could be
placed before you. In the course of another generation this section
will become necessary to the Government or municipality. It seems
to me that that is an argument that should not be neglected.

The other argument was in regard to the grading. I have made a
quick computation here of the figures given me and find that there will
be 160,000 cubic yards of grading necessary to build up to the grading
line. The Pennsylvania Railroad people are doing their grading for
15 cents, and I suppose this could be done for perhaps 30. That com—
putation would result in $48,000 extra cost. I will add to that walls,
which would perhaps be $30,000, making a total of $78,000 which it
would cost you to make that site suitable.

‘ Mr. GALLOWAY. May I ask, Mr. Burnham, if the park commission, at
the time they were considering these plans in detail, considered that
question of retaining a wall along the north side of those low grounds?

Mr. BURNHAM. Yes, sir; we did.

Mr. GALLOWAY. Does that involve the viaducting of the streets
running into the Mall from the north?

Mr. BURNHAM. No, sir.

Mr. GALLOWAY. Thirteenth street would be given up anyway?

Mr. BURNHAM. Yes, sir; streets would cross the Mall by a depressed
grade, which would be a thing of great beauty, as everyone sees who
rides along the Capitol grounds where such a grade exists. You look
down, the hill falling away from you. It is a thing of great beauty,
and so it would be with the streets coming from the Mall.

Mr. GALLOWAY. The Department in considering this location on the
north side looked carefully into the question of viaducts. Of course
we have studied that very carefully, and Major Symons is very sure

 

 

THE MALL PARKWAY. , 17

that our foundations there'would costmore if they were on the site of
the old canal.

Mr. BURNHAM. Well, foundations are handled with economy in these '

days in a great many ways. » The concrete pile is the most direct way.

'If you have a deep foundation you go down with a pile—a heavy con-

crete pile—until you strike absolutely firm earth, and after that you
build arches from pile to pile, and make a great saVIng in cost. I do
not think/ that is at all a serious matter. It might cost a little money
in deepening, the foundations there, but I doubt if it will amount to
much.

Mr. SMITH. May I ask what is the comparative cost of such a foun—
dation as that which is being dug right out on the hillside from the
solid earth, with no foundation? _

Mr. BURNHAM. You can not" have it built without any foundation.

Mr. SMITH. I mean actual foundation, and on the north side of Penn-
sylvania avenue you have solid earth. Is not the cost enormous In
an extra foundation on a bad foundation? ,

' Mr. BURNHAM. The word enormous is not the proper word to use.
It might be a few thousand dollars, mom or less.

Mr. SMITH. A few thousand dollars.

Mr. BURNHAM. I say a few thousand dollars. In regard to the Sec-
retary’s feeling that the treatment of the Mall should be natural instead
of formal, that is a question of taste; it is a question for educated men
to settle for the country, it is a question for this committee. It is 'a

question for the committee to settle whether they would have the most _
beautiful thing that man can conceive or whether the park shall remain: ,

in its natural state. We do not feel that it can with propriety be left.

in its natural state. We do not think that in the midst of a great city,é
which has formality all about it, that informality should become the
rule. We think with the Capitol at one end and the Monument at the

other, which are the most formal things in the world, the treatment .

between these structures should be equally formal (pl. 3). It is not

MN

proposed by us, and never has been proposed by us, to build an ave— 1

nue. It has been proposed that there shall be a great open Vista, and
the vista is the great architectural picture, if we may speak of land-
scape work as architectural. The center is to be covered with grass,

like a green carpet, with narrow roadways on each side overhung by .

the trees, but the effect is that of a green carpet, as is clearly shown
by the coloring on the map before you. (Pls. 2 and 3.)

Senator DILLINGHAM. Substantially as is represented in the pictures
behind you? (Pls. 2 and 3.)

Mr. BURNHAM. Yes, sir; substantially as represented on the draw-
ings. (Pls. 2 and 3.)

Senator NEWLANDS. Is this Mall, from building to building, about
the width of the Capitol—this 890 feet—about as wide as the Capitol
is lon ? ' ‘

Mr.g BURNHAM. The Mall, from building to building, is a little
greater than the width of the Capitol, as it should be, the buildings
forming the architectural lines which lead up to the Capitol.

Senator SCOTT. Do I understand you as advocating a 600 or an 800
foot width? (Pl. 4.) '

Mr. BURNHAM. I am advocating the plan which we carefully worked
out and which we believed, as your servants, after the most careful
investigation on our part, to be productive of the finest results.

M P—04———2

18 _ THE MALL PARKWAY.

Senator MARTIN. What was that width?

Mr. BURNHAM. The width shown on this map. (Pl. 4.)

Senator VVETMORE. Eight hundred and ninety feet?

Mr. BURNHAM. Yes, sir.

Senator NEWLANDS. Mr. Chairman, I will state that I find I have
made a mistake in stating that as 800 feet in the bill. I supposed that
was the width called for.

Senator SCOTT. It is virtually 800 or 890 feet?

Mr. BURNHAM. Yes, sir. I want to say once more, in order to
impress it upon the committee, that it is not alone the length, but it is
the great size of the Monument—nearly 600 feet high—and the Dome of
the Capitol which influenced us. Things must be in proportion. If
it was a short, narrow parkway it .could be made 200 feet in width,
but it would appear mean and insignificant in a park of the magnitude
and length of the Washington Mall. If you put only two trees on
' each side it would be preferable that nothing be done to improve the
Mall. .

Senator N EWLANDs. Do you desire to say a word about the Smith-
sonian Institution? ,

Mr. BURNHAM. I was going to speak of the Smithsonian Institution
and that will be the end of my statement. It can be moved. We
frankly confess that our scheme would result in moving back the
Smithsonian Institution so far as it now projects into thecomposition;
that in a scheme involving many millions of dollars, if one object
already in position can not be made to harmonize, we frankly confess
that in our opinion it ought not to stand in the way of a grand improve-
ment. I do not suppose there is a possibility in any city of the world
of doing a thing fora capital city without destruction. In Parls, under

I Louis Napoleon, they destroyed entire neighborhoods, and what was
5 the result? What did he make of Paris, and what is it to-day? All
that it cost him in the accomplishment of the end his entire work—-
is returned in profits from outsiders who go to visit Paris each year
. since the improvements were inaugurated.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Burnham, if the old Smithsonian building is
moved, what about the Agricultural Department building? Do you
argue that it ought to come on the north side? .

Mr. BURNHAM. I do most sincerely. I think that large plece of
ground (Pl. 2), which is entirely suitable for it, ought to be used.
The only objections raised by the Department to that site are two—
first, that there are lumber yards in the rear; these Wlll pass away
at once when the new building is erected. Everyone’s experience
demonstrates that. The second objection is the cost of the grading.
Neither of these objections are at all serious. _lf the buildlng 1s
placed on the north site, it will be in accordance w1th the plan before
you (pls. 2 and 3), and will further the making of a grand orderly
system, which, as you build from tlme to time, Will be carrled. 1nto
execution, so that the buildings shall not be erected in a dlsjomted
and random manner, and the most desirable result Will be attained.

 

Senator NEWLANDs. With regard to Pennsylvania avenue, if you _

will excuse me. Could this museum be put on Pennsylvania avenue
also?

Mr. BURNHAM. I have not looked into that question, but I presume
it could be; I do not see any reason why it should not be 1f the Gov-

' ernment buvs the ground or Mall triangle. The management or

 

 

 

 

THE MALL PARKWAY. 19

arrangement of the streets would then be in your own hands, and it
would be possible to recast them and make an orderly adjustment of
future buildings fronting on Pennsylvania avenue. The Commission
believes very strongly that the Government ought to possess this
ground while it is comparatively cheap.

Mr. NEWLANDs. You have just said that the place on the north side
of the vista is .the best place for the location of the Agricultural
Department, but I understand you that as between that location and
Pennsylvania avenue near the Treasury Department you would prefer
the latter. Is that so?

Mr. BURNHAM. If I could place it where I wished, I would prefer to
locate it on Fifteenth street and Pennsylvania avenue (pl. 2).‘ We
considered this site at one time. We felt that it should be placed in
connection with the other great governmental buildings at the best
point. I mean the other buildings having to do with the Executive
Departments, strictly speaking.

Senator N EWLANDS. Your idea is to crowd them all about the White
House, is it?

Mr. BURNHAM. Yes, sir; just as all this ground which is shown on
that plan as fronting the Capitol should be purchased and owned by
the Government (pl. 2).

Senator SCOTT. What is now on the space between Twelfth and
Fourteenth streets, Where you propose changing for the north side?

Mr. BURNHAM. Someone else will have to answer that question for me.

Mr. GALLOWAY. Those are the proposed buildings for the Depart-
ment of Agriculture. It is the ground for these buildings.

Senator SCOTT. I understand that, but what is on it?

Mr. BURNHAM. Nothing at all. .

Senator SCOTT. The street is there?

Mr. BURNHAM. Yes, sir; but there are no buildings on the street.

Senator WETMORE. The lumber yards referred to are included in the
propqsed Pennsylvania triangle that is to be acquired by the Govern-
ment.-

Mr. BURNHAM. Yes, sir.

Senator WETMORE. And if this is acquired they would necessarily
disappear?

tMr. BURNHAM. We think the Government should possess that land
a once.

The CHAIRMAN. You, of course, appreciate the difficulties that con-
front us in this matter. Two buildings have already been provided
for, and in a sense construction has commenced on one of them—the
Agricultural building. At least, they have selected the site. Now, to
carry out your plan, which commends itself highly to a great many
people, it would be necessary for the Government to purchase the
Whole of this land south of the avenue, which the Government will
probably not do this year or next year.

Mr. BURNHAM. No, sir; it will not be necessary to do that. The
site on the north end of the Agricultural grounds the Government
now owns. That is the site which we recommend.

The CHAIRMAN. That is, I understand, north of the roposed park-
way. But in answer to a question by Senator Newlan s you said you
preferred that those buildings should come out on Pennsylvania avenue.

Mr. BURNHAM. We were perfectly content with the location on the
north of the park vista. Senator Newlands asked me if we could not

20 THE MALL PARKWAY.

go somewhere else, and I said certainly we can. But the location on
the Mall and north B street is a perfect location for it.

The CHAIRMAN. What I wanted to emphasize was this, that we will
have to eliminate from this discussion the idea of the Government’s
purchasing the land south of the avenue en bloc, because the Govern—
ment is not going to do that at present.

Mr. BURNHAM. If you asked us for a recommendation we are will—
ing to put ourselves down in writing and say that we are anxious that
it should go on the north side of the Mall, and to insure you that any
increase in cost because of the location would be infinitesimal.

Senator SCOTT. Is it back of that old power house?

Mr. GALLOWAY. Yes, sir. Mr. Burnham has stated, I think, that
if the Agricultural building was erected in that locality those buildings
would disappear immediately. That is probably a figure of speech.
It might be twenty—five years or fifty years or one hundred years,
during which time we would be within a stone’s throw of not only
houses of ill repute but of the old power house and lumber yard and all
the rattle traps in the city. That is the thing that brought the matter
more clearly to the attention of members Of Congress than anything
else, and that is all. We objected to putting those beautiful buildings
right up by that ground.

Senator WETMORE. Why should you not condemn some land back
of where you propose to put the building on the south side?

, Mr. GALLOWAY. For the very reason which the chairman has sug-
gested. It is very easy to condemn land, but the policy of the Gov-
ernment is against it. '

Senator WETMORE. You assume that?

Mr. GALLOWAY. Yes, sir. _

The CHAIRMAN. We have a half hour remaining We will hear Mr.
Post next. '

STATEMENT OF GEORGE B. POST, OF NEW YORK.

Mr. POST. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I am not a member of the
park commission, and know but little about the matter under consid-
eration by the committee. I am simply an outside architect, you might
say, and am present tO-day simply in that capacity. Of course I have
an interest in this question. My knowledge of the plans of the park
commission is at best superficial. I have examined the plan and was
highly impressed with the degree Of skill with which thematter has
been treated and in which it has been considered. I would like to say
something with regard to the ultimate result. It concerns a great
architecturally beautiful city—a city which it may take two hundred
years to build, and I think nothing should be done at the present time
that will stand in the way of the ultimate accomplishment Of that
result. _ ‘ 7

The problem under consideration is a very difficult one—the question
of what will be the effect of distance and perspective on a grouping or
arrangement of masses. I think it speaks volumes for the wonderful
intelligence of the founder of his country, General Washlngton, that
after a careful study of the situation the park comm1ss1on found that
nothing better could be done than to adopt substantiallythe scheme. as
conceived by General Washington and laid out by him and Ma]or

 

(I

THE MALL PARKWAY. ' A 1

L’Enfant. The principal element of this scheme consisted in two
grand vistas, one from the Capitol to» the Monument (which was pro-
vided for at that time by an act of Congress (pl. 1)), and another from
the White House to the same monument. '

The distance from the Capitol to the Monument is 1% miles. Now,
I have been for forty—three years practicing architecture, and before
that for quite a number of years I studied civil engineering and archi—
tecture, and during that entire period I have been trying to learn
something about proportion. I think I can say positively that for a
length of a mile and a half, 900 feet in width would be as small a space
as could possibly, with any effect, be left for a vista or park way. I
believe that it would be fatal to the whole scheme to make that park
way an avenue. I think it must be a park way, as Mr. Burnham has
said, a green carpet and substantial roads at the sides.

Now, gentlemen, the people of this country are beginning to be
rapidly educated in matters of art. It is astonishing to see how much
they knOw in the most remote parts of the country with regard to the
art of the world, and they will be more and more insistent in their
demands that the capital of this Country shall be made as beautiful as
it possibly can be. You gentlemen are the trustees for the people in
holding this property, and I can not but think that you would make a
serious mistake if you should allow any encroachment to be made on '
the fixed laws which seem to be almost essential in securing the ulti-
mate proportions Of the city when the time of its ultimate develop-
ment arises. I have heard a good deal of talk about the expenditure
of $200,000,000 to carry out the work of the park commission. It
seems to me that this $200,000,000 might be distributed over two hun—
dred years. It might be that time before the work is completed, and I
am not sure that a better scheme than the one presented can be con-
ceived. I very much doubt it. .

I am very certain that any scheme that is conceived hereafter will
have the Mall and axis properly proportioned as its main axis. When
you are dealing with brick and stone, you are dealing with something
of a permanent character. If you put a building on lines which ought
not to be encroached on, it is with the utmost difficulty that that
building can be removed. Mr. Burnham has spoken of the removal,
of the Smithsonian Institution. I think that sixty or seventy or ninety
years from now, when the brownstone of the Smithsonian Institution
crumbles to pieces, as it undoubtedly will do, when the time comes to
remove it it may very well be set back behind this line. I do not
believe that Mr. Burnham or any other member Of this commission
would recommend the immediate removal of the Smithsonian Institu-
tion for the carrying out of any scheme for the beautification of the
city Of Washington.

The CHAIRMAN. Right there, I presume that you understand the
difficulties which beset us. In other words, to use a well-known phrase,
“It is a condition and nota theory that confronts us.”

Mr. POST. I understand that perfectly.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, in order to establish this park way we must
legislate; we must pass a bill through both houses of Congress, and it
would be a rash assumption on the part of any man to say that it could
be done at the present session. In the meantime the Department of
Agriculture is proceeding to erect its building, and we have no way

22 . THE MALL PARKWAY.

of issuing an injunction against them if we were disposed to do so.
Now, what is the remedy?

Mr. POST. I think the remedy is to prepare some such bill as that of
whlch I saw a draft, that no building should be built within a certain
distance of a certain line drawn from the center of the Capitol to the
Monument, and if on the south side of that line there was not suffi—
cient area the building should be put somewhere else. ' It seems to me
that that is the solution of this matter.

The CHAIRMAN. That, of course, is the modus, but those of us who
have something to do with legislation understand the difficulties of
domg that. However, the effort can be made, and perhaps it will be
successful at this session.

_Mr. POST. I know it is difficult, because we had experience of that
kind in New York, when we endeavored to get legislation through,
and before we had gotten the proper legislation through those sky—
scrapers had been built which have destroyed the beauty of the city
and we have had to drop the matter.

h ThéaZCHAlRMAN. Is there any other gentleman who desires to be

ear .

Mr. NEWLANDS. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the committee hear
Mr. Eames.

The CHAIRMAN. There are three interests here to be heard from:
The gentlemen representing these proposed buildings, who have spoken;
the Institute of Architects, who have been heard to some extent, and
Mr. Smith, whom I promised to give the closing fifteen minutes of the
hearing.

Senator MARTIN. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be well for us to
extend the time a little. This is a very important matter. It has been
reported stenographically and will be printed as a Senate document.
I feel that this is a matter of extraordinary importance, and I think
we had better have another session of the committee rather than to
hurry matters too much at this time.

SenatOI'FORAKER. I suggest that we appoint a subcommittee to sit
after the Senate adjourns to-day and have the examination proceeded
with. The statements can be taken down and those of us who have to
go elsewhere can read them hereafter.

Senator SCOTT. I should prefer going on next week when we could
have a full committee. '

The CHAIRMAN. I can not sit today after 12 o’clock, but I will be
glad to appoint a subcommittee if Senators will suggest their willing-
ness to sit to-day. '

Senator MARTIN. I think it is necessary for us to hurry this matter
because whatever we are going to do should go on an appropriation
bill. I think it would be very difficult to pass . a bill through both
houses in any other way.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Martin, what do you think the chances are
offlgetting an appropriation like this through on an appropriation
bi .

Senator MARTIN. I do not think there will be any difficulty about it.
You, Mr. Chairman, are in a better position to do it than I.

The CHAIRMAN. My impression is, that the chances 'are very small.
However, we will continue the hearing, and while I will be compelled
to leave the session at 12 o’clock, I will appoint some other Senator to
act as chairman.

 

 

 

 

THE MALL PARKWAY. 23

STATEMENT 0]? W. S. EAMES, ST. LOUIS, M0., PRESIDENT OF THE
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS.

Mr. EAMEs. Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to occupy the valuable
time remaining for the discussion of this subject, as I believe the inter-
ests of the situation have been well explained and illustrated by Mr.
Burnham and Mr. Post. I can scarcely add anything to what they
have said. I can, however, direct your attention to the very wide-
spread interest in subjects of this kind which is being manifested in
all parts of the country. On the Pacific-coast in the city of Seattle
last month I saw a most admirable and elaborate scheme for the
improvement of that city. A commission has only recently performed
a similar service for the city of Cleveland. Philadelphia is now in the
throes of a like agitation. As chairman of a similar commission in the
city of St. Louis, which was appointed by our mayor, I can say that
we have undertaken to do the same thing for our city. You Will find
that all over this country there is the most extended interest in this
subject, and I believe it is our duty as citizens and professional men,
and you as the representatives of the people, to look after and be
responsible for what may happen in directions of this sort and assume
that responsibility and carry it out. I do not think I can add anything
to the remarks that have been made, but I do express the earnest hope
that this measure proposed by Senator Newlands or some similar action
will be taken in order that we may not prove recreant to the responsi- ‘
bility which we owe to the people of this nation.

STATEMENT OF FRANK MILES DAY, ARCHITECT, PHILADEL—
PHIA, PA.

Mr. DAY. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I have
been asked to say a few words with regard to the influence which the
Senate committee’s scheme for the improvement of \Vashington has
had upon the people throughout the country, and especially upon
improvements in various cities. I came from Philadelphia, where we
are considering a very extensive improvement in our park ways. and
the arrangement of the river banks and of driveways, and’vproblems of
a like character. In the southern part of Philadelphia, about 2 miles
to the south of our city hall on Broad street, it is proposed to widen
the street greatly and to put in an avenue, I regret to say on a smaller
scale than the park way proposed here, but still the seeds sown by your
committee have taken root in Philadelphia, and the scheme of improve-
ment of the southern part of Philadelphia has been put on foot. I
had the honor of designing it and of putting it on paper. That scheme
started without much hope of results, but it suddenly commended
itself to all of the people of the southern part of the city, and I under-
stand that at a recent election the authorization of a half million
dollars was made by the people to begin this work. I think, how-
ever. that the most notable influence of your proposed improvements
in \Vashington is that at Cleveland. .

In Cleveland they have been studying for a number of years the
proper relation of their buildings, municipaland national, so that an
accumulated effect may be had rather than the effect of individual and
scattered buildings. In Cleveland a commissiOn of distinguished

24 THE MALL PARKWAY. .

architects has arranged a plan by which the. municipal and Government
buildlngs, involving a central station and other things, shall be placed
about a great plaza, which plaza will have to be carved right out of
the City—right out of the thickly built portion of, the city—leading from
the monument down to the lake, and that is not merely on paper; it is
in process of completion. The United States court—house, which was an
integral part of that scheme, is now under construction. The terminal
station will undoubtedly be placed as indicated on the plans. The city
hall and the court-house are condemned, and the whole proposition is
now on foot. Although started before your plans were adopted, they
have greatly influenced matters in Cleveland. I merely mention facts
which have come directly under my personal observation. But in
studying the question, taking up maps and seeing what has been done
1n many of our American cities, I see that many such improvements
are contemplated which are generally the direct result of the influence
of the plans which your committee has adopted. .

I want to say, also, that I do not think yourcommittee realizes that
there is among the intelligent people of the country a most profound
appreciation of these plans and a most earnest desire that they should
be carried out and that the thing should be put definitely on its feet
and should be established as a means of procedure for the improve—
ment of Washington. No one ex ects that much of it will be done at
one time, but if the plan can be a opted it will give the most profound
satisfaction to a large body of intelligent citizens in all our principal
cities. It would be easy, if it were worth while, .to bring to you tes-
timony from twenty societies of all kinds in Philadelphia testifying to
the interest Which they have in this matter and the reasons which actu-
ate them in desiring that it should go through—not merely artistic
societies, but trade societies and associations of that character.

Senator N EWLANDS. As I understand it, Mr. Eames, you claim that
these plans, designed for the park improvement of the city of VVash-
ington and the placing of buildings, etc, have had an educational effect
upon the entire country?

Mr. EAMEs. They have been a very great object lesson to the whole .

country. They have educated the people, and they have educated the
provmcial architects—the architects of smaller cities. The whole pro-

fession looks upon them as a great design and a wonderful performance. -

Senator NEWLANDs. There is a growing tendency, is there not, Mr.
Day, to elaborate plans for towns and cities which are to be gradually
worked up, I suppose, covering one or two generations, just as you
would elaborate a plan for a particular building, is there not?

Mr. DAY. It is felt that any other procedure would be utterly foolish
and futile. Our cities are growing so overwhelmingly that if we do
not give thought to the future we are left in the lurch and then we
have to go back and carve out space at enormous cost. New York
has been negligent of its affairs, and within the last four or five years
she has had to go into her congested districts and has spent about
$9,000,000, I think, on only about 9 acres, in carving them out.

Senator NEWLANDs. You think it is better to lay out beforehand on
a full and adequate plan, even at considerable expense, rather than to
trust to incidental development from year to year?

Mr. DAY. Yes; that is better in all relations of life, and especially
with regard to cities. , q -

Senator NEWLANDS. Mr. Chairman, I would like Mr. Post to say a

 

 

 

THE MALL PARKWAY; , 25

few more words with regard to foundation. He is, an architect of
large practice in New York.
The CHAIRMAN. Very well; let Mr. Post proceed.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF GEORGE B. POST.

Mr. POST. Mr. Chairman,-I would like to say a few words with
regard to the matter of foundations on swamp land. Until very
recently it might have been a serious question, but Yankee 1ngenu1ty
has led to the suggestion of constructing foundations w1th pneumatic
caissons, which have enabled us in the city of New York to properly
construct these foundations. New York, as you know, has a tendency
to slide off into the river. The new method has enabled us without
any great expense to build a perfectly sound foundation by sinking
what is known as» the pneumatic caisson. It has removed the entire
difficulty of providing wood foundations in swamp lands, In New
York, if you would like to know something about it, we find that the
expense, is three or four thousand dollars a caisson, which involves

'but a small additional expense where you have to go down from 50

to 90 feet to get a foundation.

STATEMENT OF J. C. HORNBLOWERJAROHITECT, WASHING-
- TON, D. G.

Mr. HORNBLOWER. Mr. Chairman, I do not know that I have any—
thing to say upon this subject. I think the ground has been fully
covered. With regard to foundations, I know something about the
condition at the foot of Tenth street, where the museum is to be built.
There would be no special difficulty in providing a foundation in that
location. There are other parts of the city north of Pennsylvania
avenue, upon which I have built where the conditions are far more
unfavorable. ‘

Senator NEWLANDs. Please point out the location of the National
Museum, which you have referred to on that plan?

Mr. HORNBLOWER. It is directly opposite the Smithsonian Institu-
tion, on the north side of the Mall, between Ninth and Twelfth streets
(pl. 2) [indicating on map]. This is the Smithsonian reservation in
the Mall, as I understand it, from B street north to B south and from
Ninth to Twelfth streets, and the Museum itself will center on Tenth
street. ~ ’

Senator NEWLANDs. It is immediately to the east of the site sug-
gested by this Commission for the Agricultural Department, is it not?

Mr. HORNBLOWER. Yes, sir; immediately to the east. I do not see
any reason why the foundation condition should not be the same.
However, it is impossible to predict with certainty until borings have
been made. We have had test pits made on the site of this Museum
and have met with no special difficulty.

Senator NEWLANDS. What have you to saywith reference to the
preservation of this vista of 890 feet?

Mr. HORNBLOWER. I do not know that anything can be said in addi—
tion to what has already been said by the gentlemen who have pre-
ceded me upon this question.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Dillingham in the chair). That is to say,
you fully agree with them?

26 THE MALL PARKWAY.

Mr. HORNBLOWER. Yes, sir. I do not see how any exception can
be taken, except there be a shortsighted policy of assuming that 200

' feet on which it is proposed to locate the Agricultural building is the

only ground on which that building can be placed. I see no reason
for believing that, and I see no reason why it should not extend across
B street, which is a street of unimportant character. It would not
cost a vast sum to increase that area. The ideal place, in my judg-
ment, for the Agricultural Department is nearer the White House.
Senator NEWLANDS. With reference to the extension of the National
Museum, I understand that extensions will be required by the National
Museum Within a reasonable time, will they-not?
_ Mr. HORNBLOWER. That depends on what the Museum is going to
amount to. Mr. Burnham has plans for a museum in the city of
Chicago which will be several times larger than ours. .
Mr. BURNHAM. It is 1,100 by 600 feet. ‘
Mr. HORNBLOWER. But the whole ground included in that area is
covered. It is not all covered in our Museum.

Senator N EWLANDS. I understand that they have enough now to fill

the building, but what about additions?

Mr. HORNBLOWER. I understand there is enough material collected,
which will be sent to St. Louis on condition that it go afterwards to the
National Museum, and this material, which is a special exhibit—a geo-
logical exhibit——is enough to fill the present Museum. Then the Wrar
Department and the Navy Department have both made the National
Museum the recipient of their collections, which are constantly grow—
ing. So that it would seeinfalthOiigli I have no authority to make
any statement in the matter—but it would seem to me, if the Museum
is to be compared with private museums in the cities of Chicago and
New York, beyond question it will require in the future additional
buildings. As to the probability of future growth I can only refer to
the words of Dr. G. Brown Goode, the first director of the National
Museum, that “A museum that is finished is a museum that is dead.”

Senator NEWLANDS. In case those additional buildings are con-
structed, could they be extended, with proper architecturalefl'ect, out
toward Pennsylvania avenue and front on Pennsylvania avenue in case
the Mall triangle is acquired by the Government.

Mr. HORNBLOWER. I think that would be a suitable site for addi-
tional museum buildings.

Senator N EWLANDS. Let me ask you another question: If that Mall
triangle is acquired for the purpose of public buildings is it better
that it should be acquired piecemeal, block by block, or as an entirety,
so as to readjust the streets and give them a parklike appearance?

Mr. HORNBLOWER. The streets in that triangle are of secondary
importance. They are inferior, and the policy of buying one square-
bounded by streets that will not exist twenty years hence, and putting
the municipal building at an angle with the avenue, as if the avenue
did not exist and was not a great thoroughfare, is, I think, an unwise
policy. I believe the whole ground should be at once acquired and
the thoroughfares which will be needed from north to south should be
retained and the other streets obliterated, the future buildings to front
on Pennsylvania avenue. '

Senator NEWLANDS. And on the line of Pennsylvania avenue?

Mr. HORNBLOWER. Yes, sir.

 

 

THE MALL PARKWAY. 27

Senator NEWLANDs. Does present architecture agree with the propo-
sition of building block by block, or does it regar it as 1n]u'riousé.
Mr. HORNBLOWER. From an architectural pomt of View it is unWISe.

STATEMENT BY CHARLES F. M’KIM, ARCHITECT, NEW YORK.

Mr. MCKIM. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I shall
not trespass upon you for any length of time, and I feel that what has
been said has been so adequately said that your patience should not be
further taxed by any remarks from me. I may say, however, that
with regard to this enterprise, it has been fully explained by the
chairman of our commission, who has a full knowledge and acquaing
tance with the subject. I wish to call attention to the models. The
models testify in an obvious way. They are an ocular eVidence which
is more convincing than any amount of speech. So I would urge, if
the plans are to stand, it will be on their merits, or fall, according to
their value which shall be found after the arguments which have
brought them about have been sifted. I think the study of the plans,
and especially» a study of the models, will be absolutely conv1ncing to
the committee and should go far toward giving them andother Sena—
tors and Representatives a better understanding of what is proposed:
The model may be seen in the Congressional Library, only a step
from the Capitol.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that has been examined by all the members.
of the committee. .

Mr. MCKIM. It is very essential at this time, especially, that the
profession of architecture should not remain idle with respect torthe
future development of the park system of the national capital. The
plans of the commission appointed by the Senate, through the efforts
of the American Institute of Architects, have already been made
familiar in the public press and by illustrated lectures in all the 'prin-
cipal cities and. have made a strong appeal to the national pride. Edu-

_ cated people everywhere have come to understand the scope of. the-
work and to sympathize with it. Throughout the country, especially .

in Buffalo, in Cleveland, St. Paul, and as far west_as Seattle, the
example has served to quicken, strengthen, and inspire each City to

develop and to make the most of their natural advantages. Moreovergg

in England the interest in this undertaking has been very great.
STATEMENT OF W. B. MUNDIE, ARCHITECT, CHICAGO, ILL.

Senator N EWLANDs. As I understand, you are employed by the
municipality in Chicago in connection with their architectural work?

Mr. MUNDIE. Yes, sir; part of the time.

Senator NEWLANDS. And you are also an architect in general prac-
tice?

‘ Mr. MUNDIE. Yes, sir. . .

Senator NEWLANDS. Will you be kind enough to give your opinion
regarding this proposed vista from the Capitol to the Monument?

Mr. MUNDIE. I come to Washington from the West to represent.
our architectural societies which have studied this matter. Lectures
have been given; the matter has been studied a great deal all through
the West, and eSpecially in Chicago by three assomations there, and we
would dislike very much to see the plan destroyed (pl. 4). We look

-Iw

apxum

28 THE MALL PARKWAY.

upon it as a national heritage from L’Enfant and “Ta-shin
think to cut into that line now would be doing somethiiigtfhlataifviiil’d
be irreparabletand you never would get back to the beauty and the
grandeur of this work as proposed in that grand parkway. ”It is not
an avenue (pls. 2, 3, and 4); it is a parkway which is shaded from the
Monument to the Capitol by trees—shaded all the way. It would take
:33]: time f01 its completion, but this whole thing is going to take
Now, in a municipal way, in Chica 0 we have similar '* "
cons1deration; Mr. Burnham might havg touched on that bedggseshggls
directly connected with it. The museum he speaks of is to be placed
in the center of a grand park costing an enormous sum of money. It
is partly filled now so as to come under the south park system. Mr
Olmsted .1s also connected with this enterprise. He is now also con:
nected With a series of small parks throughout the city for municipal
improvement, mainly brought about bv this system of parkways
which originated in Washington. It is having its influence as Mr
Eanies has said. all over the United States. i .
Now, to do away with that Mall, or cut it down until it becomes a
mere shoestring a mile long between the most formal structures which
we 'have, would be a step backward, and other cities would feel that
While they are going ahead, Washington is going backward. We
wish to consider the Mall as the starting point while the present
improvements are being made, and not encroach on the line of 890
feet. (pl. fl.) In the West I know the people are anxious to see these
things carried out.

s t 'Ni ‘ l
i ena .01 LWLANDS. You are on the executive committee of the '

American Institute of Architects, are vou not?

Mr. MUNIHE. Yes, sir. 7 - i .

Senator NEWLANDs. Mr. Chairman, I would like to hear from Mr.
Olmsted, the landscape architect. .

STATEMENT OF F. L. OLMSTED, JR., LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT,
BOSTON, MASS.

_ Mr. OLMSTED. Mr. Chairman, I think I need add but little'to what
has already been said. Of course Mr. Bui‘nham has expressed the
Views of the members of the commission fully and accurately. After
careful study we feel that the width selected is (pls. 2 and lyrequisite
whenever in the future the project is carried out, and to permit the
advancement of a building line (pl. at) at the present time will prevent
the ultimate execution of the project. If that space is not encroached
upon it remains open as a possibility for the future. I might add
one point which has not been emphasized, namely, that in view of the
commission this space is a park space.

The statement has been made again and again that it is a project for

:an avenue, for a street, and for a boulevard. It has been stated many

times that it is a project for a new street to take the place of, Pennsyl-

vania avenue as a main thoroughfare. That has never been the con—
ception or the idea of the commission. We hope that it may be and

remain a great park space, and our View is that the space should not
beencroached upon by buildings; neither are we in a hurry to get
buildings erected on the north and south. In the original project it was
a park space, and buildings were shown along the edges of the park in

 

 

 

THE MALL PARKWAY. 29‘

the original L’Enfant plans (pl. 1) as incidental to the great open area,
and the commission takes that view at the present time.

Senator NEWLANDs. I do not understand it, then, to be the design of
the commission that those buildings along the edges of this open park
space shall be immediately constructed as against the construction
Contemplated on the south side of Pennsylvania avenue? _ . .

Mr. ()LMSTED. Not in the least._ The View of the commiss10n is
simply that when the buildings are erected along the sides of this open
space, as suggested in the original plan (pl. 1), they should not come
far enough forward to creep (pl. 4) into the open parkway or destroy
the vista.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. F oraker in the chair). Your idea is, as I under-
stand it, that 890 feet in breadth is as narrow a space as comports with
the dignity of the situation. . -

Mr. OLMSTED. Precisely; yes, sir.

Senator N EWLANDs. It has been often stated as an objection to this
plan that its execution will cost $200,000,000. What do you say With
regard to that? . '

Mr. OLMSTED. I do not know where the estimate of $200,000,000
came from. If $200,000,000 refers to the cost of the buildings sketched
on our plans, which may in the future occupy the various positions in
connection with this project I would say that it was a striking under—
estimate. .

Mr. F. W. SMITH. Especially including the terraces, etc.

Mr. OLMSTED. Including simply the public buildings for which there
is room within the territory referred to in this plan.

Senator NEWLANDs. Including the Mall triangle.

Mr. OLMSTED. Including the Mall triangle. All the public buildings '
to be erected in the city of Washington during the next two centuries
will undoubtedly cost more than $200,000,000 But as to the cost of
planting four rows of elm trees down each side of the Mall, the cost
is, relatively speaking, a trifling one. The point which I can not em—
phasize too strongly and which the commission feels to be a vital one
is simply that the park space should not be encroached upon by public
buildings. .

Senator MALLORY. I was not here at the beginning of the session,
and I desire to ask if it is contemplated that there should be a drive-
way of any kind for vehicles in this vista space? I notice on the plans
that there are side roads on each side of the central line. Is it con-
templated that there should be vehicle driveways? f

Mr. OLMSTED. It was contemplated that there should be a narrow
roadway at the edge of the parkway on either side of the central line.

Senator WETMORE. Will you please indicate just exactly where it is?

Mr. OLMSTED. I think it is shown clearly in the perspective View
before you (pl. 3). The lawn shows along the center with roadways

,-.on either side. Those roads, if I remember correctly, are shown on
ithe commission plan as 35 feet wide. '

The CHAIRMAN. PWout on the plan which has been sub-
mitted by Mr. Burnham.

Mr. OLMSTED. There is a broad parkway in the center and a road
next to the tree. The roadway is against the trees on one side, the
foliage overhanging it (pl. 8).

The CHAIRMAN. The road on one side of the Mall will'be in the sun
and the other part in the shade, according to the time you travel?

 

.m wl‘r i z

. m»... f.

 

30 THE MALL PARKWAY.

Mr. OLMSTED. Precisely so. The precise width or character of the V

roads or paths which may be needed within this district, as shown upon

the plans of the commission, the commission regards as matters of
detail.

Senator MALLORY. Of course.

Mr. OLMSTED. The fundamental point upon which we feel a very
firm conviction is as to the total space which ought to be kept free
{113m building in order to permit the necessary width in the middle.

. 4. ' .

The CHAIRMAN (Senator FORAKER). I think we understand you.

Mr. SMITH. Are there not roads at Bushy Park covered by trees.

Mr. OLMSTED. No, sir. Bushy Park is out in the center with a
broad turf space on either'side Of the trees.

Senator NEWLANDS. Mr. Olmsted, your firm was engaged with Mr.

Burnham, Mr. McKim, and Mr. St. Gaudens in the World’s Fair
. work, was it not? ‘

Mr. OLMSTED. Yes, sir. _

Senator- NEWLANDs. And your occupation is that of a landscape
architect?

' Mr. OLMs'rED. It is.

Senator NEWLANDS. I wish to ask you about the work at Boston.
Was that work attended to by yourfirm ?- .

' Mr. OLMs'TED. Yes, sir. The work is that of the Metropolitan Park
Commission of Boston, which has been in the hands of my firm, and
since 1896, under my personal direction.

Mr. SMITH. Do you not think, Mr. Olmsted, that the composition
of‘that Massachusetts Park commission of five gentlemen of leisure,
of independence, of affluence and intelligence, giving their undivided
attention’to it, is a model for the accomplishment of this work? Is it
possible for a committee like this—crowded as we know it is with
various matters—to properly consider a scheme like this which is to
last for all time? ‘ '

The CHAIRMAN. We will have to put an end to this sort of discus-
sion. Mr. Olmsted will hardly want to express an opinion as to the
competency of this committee. ‘ . ' .

Mr. SMITH. I mean the opportunities of this committee; I did not-
refer to the compentency of this committee. That park commission
he is familiar with and he can well judge how effective it was. Sena-
tor Hoar has introduced a bill precisely to that efi'ect, and I think it is
before this committee now. I think it would be well to have Mr. Olm-
sted’s opinion as to the scheme of the Massachusetts Park commission. '

Mr. OLMSTEI)‘. That commission has been an extremely efficient one.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS M. KELLOGG, ARCHITECT.

Mr. KELLOGG. Mr. Chairman, as representing the architects of the
Agricultural building, I would like simply to add a few words of expla-
nation, which Doctor Galloway did not do as plainly as I should have .
liked him. We have, while not absolutely protesting against the loca-
tion on the south side of the Mall for these buildings still we have in
the strongest way possible favored the north side for the very practi-
cal reason that we have more space, and as architects of the” buildings
we feel that we can make the north side thoroughly presentable and

 

 

PLATE' 1.

 

N0. 61.—L’ENFANT MAP OF WASHINGTON (1791).

PLATE 2. Analostan Island. Lincoln Memorial. Executiire group. Legislative group.

‘7 -‘q—|-.—-w~—r.

    

\ Memorial Bridge. ' Monument Garden. Union Square.
Washlngton Common.

NO. 19.—GENERAL PLAN OF THE MALL SYSTEM.

PLATE 3.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NO 58.*—‘GENERAL VIEW OF THE MONUMENT GARDEN AND MALL. LOOKING TOWARD THE CAPITOL.

PLATE 4.

 

 

__iL_JI___45|_4L_JL.

 

 

 

 

Q

///

  
  
 
   
    
    

 

 

"AWL e r . WASHINGTONDC.

 

   

DIAGRAM OF'A PORTION OF CITY SHOWING

 

 

 

  

PROPOSED SITES FOR FUTURE
PUBLIC BUILDINGS

SCALE filo—o

 

 

 

 

 

     

 

 

 

 

   
   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
 
 
   

     
 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A—Indicates where Department contemplates locating new Agricultural Building.

B—ShoWs present location of the Pennsylvania Railroad,
which has been vacated for the purpose of carrying
into effect the original Plan of President Washington.

mm W “W “200 I600 2000 n
L
DEC. 190]

L4 I_i L. .
“It; “i / i ,
5 L49: 5145,

2,", /4 a 9 ; W a

r , _ 4 z {N

,/ ”I f
[:2] m 1 EWNMW’“
/{H

 

 

YHE NORRIS PETERS co I’HOTFLI IIHQ wAsmNGTON 0 C

TREATMENT BETWEEN THE CAPITOL AND THE MONUMENT.

Central area, a lawn 300 feet wide with narrow roadways on each side, flanked on the north and

south with elm trees four abreast.

The building sites are on North B Street and South B Street facing the Mall, and 890 feet apart.

 

. $.ru’flysfiw; :

 

 

 

N

THE MALL PARKWAY. 31

thoroughly feasible. I think after the question sifts down to the
question of this Mall project, it is a question of locating these Agricul-
tural buildings so that they will not interfere with the best. and latest
scheme that has been considered. That is the keynote of the whole
situation.

Now, if we can convince a Congressional committee—I think we
have already the Senate with us—that the north side of the Mall is a
feasible place to locate these buildings, it will not be necessary to go
further into the question 'of the Mall project at all. As architects of
the buildings, we feel that it is perfectly feasible to place them there
and on the south side. We would possibly prefer to put them there
for some reasons, but even with the limit of 600 feet we are crowded
for space. We can not get the architectural effect with the 600 feet
that we can with the 800 feet on the north side of the Mall. Therefore

_ I think that we would get at the question by raising the ground on the

north side and placing the buildings on terraces and thus overcome the
question of the matter of low ground, and we would have every advan-
tage in placing the building on the north side without regard to the
scheme of the Mall project.

STATEMENT OF AUGUSTUS ST. GAUDENS, SCULPTOR.

Mr. ST. GAUDENs. Mr. Chairman, I have very little to say except
to indorse emphatically what has been said by my confreres on this
commission. 1 wish to ask that if any work is done by another com
mission, nothing should be done unless by a commission of profes—
sional men so as to obviate the spreading around of public monuments
haphazard as is done in this city and New York. If Pennsylvania

avenue should be occupied—and that block particularly—it should be /

studied under the same conditions that the plan before you has been
studied. (Pls. 2 and 3.) ‘

The CHAIRMAN. The real question before us, which neither you nor
Mr. McKim had touched upon, is the one with regard to the narrowing
of the space between the Capitol and the Monument, and whether that
can be done without great and irreparable injury to the future beauty
of the Mall.

Mr. MCKIM. Mr. Chairman, I think we are a unit on that point,
that it would be an incalculably fatal step destructive of a great com-
position. It is a matter of national and not of local importance.

Senator MALLORY. To narrow it from 890 feet?

Mr. MCKIM. Yes, sir; by an inch. - We need width more than-
length. In the language of Lord Elverson—I am quoting Mr. Root~
“rather,” he said, in the Canadian controversy, “rather would I lie
down on the floor of this court and die first.” That was not in passion,

but in conviction. We have studied this enterprise very carefully, _

and have given our time and thought to it, and we are firmly of the
opinion that'a greater rather than a less width is absolutely essential,
and that not by a single inch should it be narrowed. (Pl. 4.)

Senator NEWLANDS. I Wish to ask if L’Enfant’s plan (pl. 1) did not
involve a wider vista than this plan? '

Mr. MCKIM. Yes, sir; by 100 feet.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will now hear Mr.‘ Franklin W.
Smith for fifteen minutes, as promised.

32 THE MALL PARKWAY.

STATEMENT OF MR. FRANKLIN W. SMITH, PRESIDENT OF THE
NATIONAL GALLERIES COMPANY.

' Mr. CHAIRMAN. You and myself are aware, as no other individuals
1n thls room are aware, of the intensity of feeling with which I accept
1, your invitation to speak for fifteen minutes. I unfold here a brief,
printed June 30, 1902, in explanation of this allusion. It has been
eld secretly, meanwhile. It is an argument-for open competition from

the entire country in plans and suggestions for improvement Of

Washington.

In 1900 I completed Senate Document 209, Fifty-sixth Congress,
first seSsion. It embodied study, travel, and labor during fifty years
of my life with “Conclusions in Designs, Plans, and Suggestionsifo

Aggrandizement of Washington.” Expenditure in their promotona .

began in 1900 in my Prospectus for National Galleries, has since been
continuous. It has been contributed by a widowed sister in-Boston in
total of more than $52,000, equaling that drawn for the park com-
mlssion from the contingent fund of the Senate. I have contributed
toward said designs and suggestions a larger amount. The Halls of
the Ancients for their illustrations inclose fan outlay of my personal
labor, results of travel, and disbursements that $100,000 can not
duplicate.

I stand here to—day as the Dreyfus of the civil war, with a history
upon its records‘closed by the action of Lincoln at the threshold of
his death for my deliverance. That conflict with revengeful con-
spiracy of high officials in the Navy Department for mv exposures
left little of earnings from early business activities. .

I now express not too forcibly my convictions as a citizen that upon
this committee devolves a monumental and complicated responsibility
that can not be discharged by gentlemen burdened, like yourselves,
with multifarious affairs.

One hundred and fifty minutes are assigned to—day to this hearing.
One hundred and thirty-five minutes have been appropriated by the
park commission and professional associates in advocacy of their
plans. I gave notice of a plan as elaborate and more expensive to me,
personally, than these before the committee were to the United States,
and was advised not to bring it, as I should have no opportunity to
explain it. I mention this as conclusive evidence that the resolution
introduced by Senator Hoar, renewed from 1900, of a commission,
. after the precedent of Massachusetts, of men of leisure and afliuence,
is a necessity for final judgment upon great plans for the national
capital to be forever worthy of the nation. _

Document No. 209, above mentioned, was the first official recog-
nition of the suggestions of an initiative plan for the improvement
of the capital. As stated in the above exhibit, it was withdrawn by
Senator Hoar upon a request to make room for the Commission of
three here present. A competition from the genius, intelligence, and
patriotic interest of the people of the United States was expected to
be invited. It would have been eagerly contributed. My voluntary
plans, not here to be seen for lack of time, are the only result. Paris
demanded fifty plans before those of Baron Haussmann were accepted.
Recently for a monument to Bismarck, in Hamburg, 220 designs were
' presented. In Senate debate upon the hearing for the memorial

/"

 

THE MALL PARKWAY. 33

bridge, it was admitted that a great mistake was made in that only
one set of plans was invited. Certainly, it is apparent that in future
it will be recognized as a like, but greater, mistake if now, upon the
vast plans demanded for a national capital the ideas of three men, no
matter who they are, should be fixed this afternoon as a finality.

At the time of this appointment I read of the Commission, “ behind
spanking bays,” riding over the hills about Washington. For four—
teen years, gentlemen, there might have been seen, at intervals, an
old man winding afoot through this region, for vantage points of
vision on the hilltops at the north, or at Prospect Point of the insane
asylum on the south, coursing through the Mall and among the weeds
of Potomac Park. He studied the topography, the draina e, the
uncomeliness and was delighted in imaginations of the splendit possi-
bilities of this capital. He had been familiar with renovations of chief
cities of Europe; had walked around the ramparts of Hamburg and
Frankfort-on-the-Main in 1851, afterwards made luxurious boulevards
in a single decade. He had been absolutely familiar with the recon-
structions of Paris, at an expenditure of $200,000,000 in sixteen years,
by residence and frequent visits therein. He had seen miles of squalid
streets, pestilential quarters, labyrinths of crime, recreated in magnifi—
cence at a profit—pray, mark you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, at a
vast profit. He had seen the same renovations in Berlin, Bologna,
and Rome. He had analyzed the three volumes of Haussmann’s
Memoirs, which vindicated his prediction that——

“ t/aeprosyyerity resultant from great public works projected, would . from
z'tself'gire birt/L t0 s'ijfiez'erzt resowces to assure t/le ext/in ctr/£072 Oferepenses
incurred for t/ze works.”

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, those historical and materialized prec’
edents led to my conviction, based upon indisputable facts and fig-
ures, that the only proper scheme for the aggrandizement of VVash-
ington should, in scale, in enterprise, and in grandeur, not merely equal
examples cited, but vastly surpass them. To vindicate this conviction
I herewith submit conclusions in Senate Document No. 209, revised
and illustrated in No. 1 of the Washington Magazine, as an essential
addendum to be published with this argument, Viz, that no scheme for
the improvement of Washington should have consideration that does
not present as primal necessities—

1. Embankment of the river flats that noxiously penetrate the atmos—
phere and hideously deface the aspect of Washington.

2. Redemption by reconstruction of Pennsylvania avenue from its
shabbineSs.

If your committee will secure provision by legislation for expenses
of surveys and computations, they will prove that Pennsylvania ave-
nue can be splendidly aggrandized from its slumdom at a profit.

Mr. BURNHAM. I must ask you to correct your statement there.
This scheme, which you refer to as the park commission scheme, dis-
tinctly and emphatically recognizes that the Government shall buy
a/IIid own at once, or as soon as possible, all of the ground north of the
I all.

Mr. SMITH. I understand that; but I maintain that the first step-
should be to redeem Pennsylvania avenue entire, north and south sides.
Your model proposes to leave a market midway in permanence; there
is no suggestion even of a removal. Furthermore, your schemes are

M r—04—3

34 THE MALL PARKWAY.

presented as foreshadowings for a distant future, as has been said this
afternoon, “to come along in a hundred years.” I quote the gentle-
man’s own expectations with reference to the elaborate Mall plan,

“Nothing immediate.” Mr. Chairman, can not Washington, with

double the wealth of France behind it, in ten years make wise outlay
of $100,000,000, when Paris spent $200,000,000 in sixteen years, an
investment that paid for itself and upon which the travel of the civi-
lized world pays perpetual dividends? .

The present deliberations of the park commission and of this com-
mittee propose buying the low wet land on the south side of Pennsyl-
vania Avenue by piecemeal. Not a suggestion has come from anybody,
but myself, to purchase the north side, with exception of those struc-
tures which can be merged in accordant facades.

I submit the following propositions are immediately in order,

because the purchase of two squares, as proposed, on the south side of
the avenue for the Agricultural and Commerce Departments, will at
once enhance the value of every foot of ground on that side of the
avenue. An intention announced of national purchase of the south
side of the avenue will vastly enhance also the value of the north side.
If the money of the Government brings this betterment, why should not
the value of the betterment be returned to the National Treasury that
secured it? This was the policy of Pari . Witness the Boulevards
Haussmann, Malesherbes, Sebastopol, St. Mohel, and others; miles
arfid miles in length; but this is arguing it from a merely money point
0 View. ’
' Another generation will not pass before the parsimony of a Con-
gress that can vote $400,000,000 for war and leave the north side of
Pennsylvania avenue to be a perpetual hodge—podge will appear
pitiable.

The CHAIRMAN. What do you mean by Pennsylvania avenue?

Mr. SMITH. Both the north side and the south side thereof, west of
the Capitol to the White House.

Senator DILLINGHAM. What is meant by the word “ redeem?”

. The CHAIRMAN. The question has been raised, Mr. Smith, as to the
significance of your use of the word “redeem.” Do you mean that
the Government shall purchase the north and south sides of Pennsyl—
vania avenue and demolish the buildings?

Mr. SMITH. Yes; with the exception of three, the New Willard, the
Raleigh, and the Star Building on the north, and the colossal, unclas-
sical infelicity of the post-office On the south side. It is not aligned,
as it would have been in Paris, with Pennsylvania avenue. It will
long rear its medizeval tower askew with everything adjacent. I mean
for these works to be prosecuted by a commission after the precedent
of my glorious old State of Massachusetts, as proposed in the bill of
Senator Hoar; referred to your committee in 1902, and withdrawn at
request of Senator McMillan to clear the track for this park commis-
sion of three. It is now renewedly referred to your committee.
Others beside myself await eagerly your action.

In 1892 three commissioners. were appointed by the legislature of
Massachusetts to report at the next session an act appointing a metro-
politan park commission to hold office for seven years, till 1900. They
were to serve without pay. They were to make annual recommenda—
tions, asking appropriations. These were always granted. In 1900
they resigned, submitting a final report of their labors. They had

 

THE MALL PARKWAY. , 35

. provided parks for 36 cities and towns; they had purchased 9,279 acres

' ' . ' ' 'kways
of forest seashore and I‘lV e1 bank connected by 17 miles of pai ,
of whiclf 12 had been constructed and opened for.use. They con-
demned and parked the banks of two rivers, protecting them forever
from impurity, and turning them into pleasure grounds and delightful
omenades. _ . _ .
prSenator EORAKER. Can you tell us Just what you mean by redeeming

Pennsylvania avenue? .
Senator SCOTT. Do you want to tear the houses down, 01 what do

I mean? _
3 Ole/Ir. SMITH. Yes; decidedly and plainly, . Here is a photograph from
Pennsylvania avenue that I had taken in 1991. [exhibiting photo};
graph]. It is 13 years worse to-day. There [indicating]_is the bloc
with which I would replace this slum, Justas they did in Paris, by
miles, at immense'profit. Such properties, if offered by the (Jovern-
'ment at auction, would have competition for ownership from capitalists

he world. '

Of'Iihe CHAIRMAN. Would you have the Government go .into that?

Mr. SMITH. Assuredly, as I have stated by a commiss10n appOinted,
without pay, as was done in Massachusetts. They came every year to
the legislature and said, “We recommend that so n‘i‘uch be spent next
year, here are our plans,” and Massachusettsvoted Yes overwhelm-
ingly. Not a dollar was spent without legislative approval, and the
proudest results were accomplished. . 'h d .

Mr. Chairman, I plead for porticoes for Washington as they a in
Antioch, Athens, Palmyra, Persopolis, and for miles in Rome. They
should range the banks of the Potomac. Then. thousands can. walk
under their delightful shelter or above them, in air and sunshine when
desired, as did citizens of the [ancient world. ” . _

The plate of “Pennsylvania‘Avenue Redeemed herew1th displays
them along Pennsylvania avenue bordering the park, like the gardens
of the Tuilleries in Paris. . . ,

Consider the location of the proposed costly expenditure of marble
terraces, etc. Expansion of lVashington is now and to be at the north.
Where are your fine carriages going hereafter? Drives of elegant
pleasure of the future will follow Rock Creek Park and sightly pic-
turesqure elevations northward. It was attempted to turn London s
population out of the Strand upon the Thames embankment. It was
a failure. The embankment is vacant to—day compared With crowds
that pour along the Strand. So it will be With Pennsylvania avenue
hereafter. . . .

Those white, refracting marble terraces depicted by Guerin Will be
abandoned for shaded roadsides in the suburbs. I said to the super-
vising architect, “They are very hot.” “Yes,” said he, ‘ they are
very hot.” I thought I would have been sunstruck 1n the Mall on the
15th of June. Now, it is proposed for a _v1sta to cut away those
magnificent trees and to destroy a park which ought to be thrown
open to the laboring classes of the population on that Slde of the
avenue, with playsteads, free turf grounds for children, gymnasia for

youth, sheltering pavilions for tired workers and old age, as on the

Charles bank in BostOn. (See Doc. 209.) . .

Mr. BURNHAM. It is not the intention of the park commissmn that

a single one of those trees shall be destroyed, but that they shall all

be moved into their proper places. Not one of them is to be destroyed.

36 THE MALL PARKWAY.

CONTRASTs—THE CAPITOL AND NEAREST NEIGHBOR.

     
     
 

 

Rear of premises at the northeast corner f P ' 'l I ' " ' M '
Monument and entrance to round ‘ o xennsy vania Avenue lhe estate is before the Naval
years worse in 1904- g s or the capitol. Photo tor B. W. Smith, May, 1891. Thirteen

 

  
 
 

mu,“

A.
k I
M... M
I -
hum"; ml

w...” "i

no, _

 

" y x" ‘u L M ( y N. ,» 3W].
«v—x m at», I ‘ ‘ i f
v ¢ ' N A
. r . f a.“ i
, n in]. mud um; an??- i
2 M.»- L

5
ml
1
i

l
«M

I
_ mun
. x > \' ‘ .
G. . \ x
. i ' ‘.
AK" (U i i C
p « n ma as nature: mu ‘m‘uu
, \ . V . y x. x . x I:

 

 

. . DESIGN FOR REPLACEMENT OF THE ABOVE.
lNotIce two tiers of projected arcades—esplanades above

outlook therefrom over porticoes of the south to enlarge 1

chceél that from the inclosed arcades on Rue Rivoli, Paris
e

Obelisks; the Plaza ranged by Pylons and Lotus Columns of Karnak.

and a Roman solarium (roof garden). The
he Parkt, Iiiht lilicelpf present slums, will far
. -. ‘ .. . . .across 0 e "ui eries ard t.

Perspective 01 Pennsylvania Avenue Reconstructed: Union Park, VV’ashiIitorfraiid Lincoln

 

THE MALL PARKWAY. 37

Mr. SMITH. True, they are to. be removed for a vista. The vista
from the Capitol to the Monument will be magnificent. lt should be
preserved; it should be aggrandized, lifted from the ground level to
an elevation. How ’4 Not by cutting a broad, hot sward through an
existing grove and planting a mile and a half of “ tapis vert,” with
signs “ Keep ofi' the grass.” We can find an expedient from the mag—
nificence of Rome.

Span that park by a double-storied columnar pavilion, as seen in
this frontispiece, surmounted by a roof garden. From its roofgarden,
the magnificence of the Capitol and the Monument would be enhanced
by an etfective angle of visiOn. The structure would be grandly orna—
mental (see the illustration herewith). But more! It would substi-
tute for the “ tapis vert," the exclusive and luxurious conception for a
monarch, 60 acres of happy ramble for labor and its ofl‘spring; delect-
able, airy outlooks for the people; a splendid architectural substi-
tute for what New York now builds upon its piers for the poor along
the docks on the Hudson. It will add acres of roofed porticoes and
sunny esplanades.

Gentlemen, your legislation is for a Republic. Its types of bene-
ficent enterprise should not be drawn from the tapis vert of the palace
of Versailles and other of the amazing extravagances of the grand
monarch, Louis XIV, who said, “ I am the state.”

In twenty years he spent $200,000,000 on a sumptuous palace——a
sum equal to all the cost of the renovation of Paris; 30,600 soldiers
were employed. A tapis vert, sacred from the feet of the people;
vast, superb stables, marble courts, etc., were massed for his royal
delectation.

Versailles was not an appropriate inspiration to the Commission,
for the rustic, free, enjoyable Peoples’ Park that will be rightfully
claimed by tired labor in its environment at South Washington.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith, your time has expired.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, my fifteen minutes; but Mr. Burnham had thirty
minutes. I will only add that I desire to invite the members of this
committee and other members of Congress to the lecture hall of the
Halls of the Ancients on any evening that may be convenient, and I
will be glad to give, with stereopticon illustrations, my conceptions of
what I think is desirable in the way of improvements of the tract from
the Capitol to the Naval Observatory.

, Senator DILLINGHAM. Mr. Smith, how broad would you make this
area between the Capitol and the Monument?

Mr. SMITH. I have not dwelt particularly on that, though I have
covered a great many points in the Washington Magazine. My own
conception of it——and here let me say that I hope you will not think

Senator DILLINGHAM. Just answer the question, please.

Mr. SMITH. I plead that everybody may bring in their suggestions.
I would not cut a track through there now. I would leave it to
nature, as it is.

Senator DILLINGHAM. How much would you have preserved from
encroachment by public buildings? That is the point.

Mr. SMITH. I will answer you. My whole theory as to public
buildings is to clear the south side of Pennsylvania avenue of buildings
and put them on the north side. It is very bold and far beyond any
conception that has yet been suggested. I say that that swamp is not
a proper foundation for any building.

 

38 THE MALL PARKWAY.

Massachusetts bought several of the costliest residences on Beacon
Hill and destroyed them to add to the State House Park. I think the
bill (copy of which 1 have seen) appropriated over $2,000,000. These
and other such facts are examples for the United States of America.

Senator DILLINGHAM. WOuld you allow the encroachment of build—
ings within 400 or 450 feet of the center line from the Capitol to the
Monument?

Mr. SMITH. I want to see the triangle south of Pennsylvania avenue
absolutely condemned and wiped out and added to the park. '

The CHAIRMAN (Senator F oraker in the chair). If there are no other-
gentlemen who desire to be heard, the committee will adjourn.

Senator NEWLANDs. Mr. Chairman, I desire to ask if we will be
allowed to insert in the record any data that may be desirable, such as
letters from architects and artists and associations. There may be
something that we will wish to put in hereafter, but it will be brief.

The CHAIRMAN. If it will not be voluminous and there is no objec-
tion by any member of the committee, that permission will be granted.

There was no objection.

Thereupon the committee adjourned. ’

\

/
.

Nd

PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE FROM THE CAPITOL TO SEVENTEENTH STREET. REDEEMED FROM SQUALOR AND ‘RECONSTRUCTED IN SPLENDOR.

 

 

The plate exhibits the north side ranged by proposed stately, arcaded blocks with roof gardens
(the Roman Solaria).

On the south side are continuous porticoes below esplanades, both for delightful promenade——
beneath in a shelter from the sun, above for cheer of sun rays when desired.

At the center of the line on the 'site of the present market is seen the peristyle of the Chicago
Columbian Exposition. , '

 

yr: mm; or Psovpsrfro i Pam A
, , .ros rm: 7
AGGRANDISENLNT or ,Wasniscmrs ..
' To mamas _ L .
A ‘Rmmmos Ems chrmsrsusrzon
' ‘ ' . ‘ or ._ g ‘
, Pssssrmsum AVENUE '
DESIGNS FOR Pertussis.Etrrmsstwaioss
_ An ‘ _ . .. 4
Ecysrw; Pugs mm“ imam: Clowns
V Examine
MATE; Slifif’fs "IQ ‘Mdsmsmom .mns-iincbiag.
Figural.» wssms firsts his '

 

isms P mamas :2
mama:

South of the Mall along the Potomac are the landing places for its commerce. They receive the
coal, lumber, bricks, provisions, merchandise, etc. Thence it is teamed across the Mall for distribution
in the city. \ A ' _
At Sixth street is seen a pavilion bridge. Beneath is a sunken roadway for the motley transporta-
tion. Above are two ranges of arcades for sheltered promenade.

In the center a section with roof
garden'at higher elevation.

Notice the Agora, Washington and Lincoln obelisks, Egyptian court with pylons and porticoes of lotus columns.

 

 

THE ’ MALL PARKWAY. . 39

ADDENDA N0. 1.

A PERISTYLE SHOULD BE ON PENNSYLVANIA INSTEAD OF A MARKET.

The most serious default in the scheme of the Commission is its
degradation of Pennsylvania Avenue forever instead of its redemption
and adornment. ' ' .

It quietly mentions a central market on its present site with “ample
accommodation.” In the various glowing descriptions of the splendor
of future realization of their dream that have appeared, there has
been no aesthetic presentation of the picturesqueness of- the market
scenes, to be the “ Midway” of the most crowded and important avenue
of Washington. Let the tens of thousands who now annually cross to
Paris imagine the Halles or the Marché St. Honoré opening from the
Avenue de l’Opéra instead of the Place Vendomel ’

The vista of the Peristyle of Mr. Atwood at Chicago was the archi-
tectural gem if not even the glory of the Exhibition. It fittingly
expressed the noble conceptions of the late Mr. Root, of Burnham &
Root, who, it is said, laid down the entire noble ground plan.

Mr. Root and Mr. Atwood, both deceased, have been quite forgotten
in the tributes to the genius and skill revealed in transitory material
yet for enduring memory and record at Chicago.

It would be a graceful and grateful recognition of one whose mantle
from Elijah fell upon him, Elisha, to reconstruct in Washington on
. Pennsylvania Avenue, for a‘Portal to the Park, the Peristyle of George

B. Atwood as a monument to its creator. With porticoes continuous
it would be a central, sustaining grandeur in transition from the vast
constructions——its terminals at the east and west.

40 7 THE MALL PARKWAY.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

George B. Atwood, architect, deceased.

PERISTYLE OF THE CHICAGO COLUMBIAN EX
A deser ed an ‘ ' — ' ' ' POSITION-
v d noble memorial to hIS fame suggested by F. W. Smith—for reconstruction 1n concrete as a portal to the Park instead of a market as now on Pennsylvania Avenue

 

‘fiv'___, ,J .u~____i

THE MALL PARKWAY. 41

ADDENDA N0. 2.

 

ARGUMENT rOR CONCRETE INSTEAD OF MARBLE CONSTRUCTION.

A recommendation of concrete construction was in mind at the
writer’s first approach to criticism Of the schemes Of the Commission,
viz: TO construct long stretches, heavy masses, and wide surfaces Of
terraces and embankments of concrete instead Of marble. In published
descriptions thus far there has been no mention Of concrete.

The saving Of eXpense by the latter will be enormous. In dura-
bility Of beauty, contrary to first impressions, the superiority will
be with concrete, if combined with rusticity and verdure. White
marble in its glaring brilliancy (when new) is set forth in dazzling
force by the Guerin renderings on exhibition. Marble embankments
will change color and reveal fissures. It will be as dull as concrete
(which can be enlivened with mica) that will remain intact through
the ages. _

I Would that in contrast, terraces of rough-faced concrete, which
vines love, overrun with English ivy, the Ampelopsis and Wistaria,
in spring illumined by the Bignonia and in autumn by Clematis,
had been as pleasingly portrayed by the artists.

In 1900, while in Europe, I made a visit to the Lago Maggiore
for study Of Italian gardens, terraced with foliage, having this appli-
cation Of it for Washington in view. .

The island, Isola Bella (Beautiful Island), in 1671 was a low,
barren rock. All its soil has been transported. For more than a
century it has been extolled as “a magic creation Of labor and
taste,” by Gibbon, as “an enchanted place, a work of the fairies.”
Its beauties are indicated, in the plate annexed.

Its constructions are inexpensive, imperishable —— Open concrete
arches, carrying esplanades, walled in foliage. .

At the base of the tier Of terraces, the gardener seized a branch of
the wild ivy Of Italy hanging from a round shaft Of dense green, say
25 feet high and 6 feet in diameter. The, whole mass was shaken in
tremulous waves at his will. I was amazed. It did not rise from or
reach to the ground, but was pendant from above verily it was a
resurrection Of the hanging gardens Of Babylon; a realization Of which
I had never yet imagined or expected in existence.

I found there patterns for economical and graceful decoration for
the pleasure grounds of VVashingtonwin cost far less and in beauty
far more than ever can be in white walls of marble layers.

It is a treatment grandly practicable for the cliffs Of Rock Creek
and along abrupt elevations at the'north.

.It has been an astonishment to me that the architects of the United
States have not yet utilized concrete as it has been throughout Europe .
for twenty years.

My first demonstration Of it in St. Augustine, in 1885, in a building
65 by 90, was upon the attraction of it to McKim, Mead & White—
followed upon their advice by the then young architects Of the Ponce
de Leon. Meanwhile it has gradually been adopted for heavy con-
structions, bridges, etc. Its thoroughly scientific application as Béton

 

 

42 THE MALL PARKWAY.

Armé (concrete armed, or reinforced with steel), under the Henne
b1que system is now widespread throughout Europe. Its thorough
demonstration 1n Paris in an eleven-story building, highlv ornamented,
1n the. Rue Danton, in the permanent palaces of Fine Arts, at the last
explostltipn, and elsewhere, has not arrested the attention of American
are 1 ec s.

PAVILION AND TERRACES AT ISOLA BELLA, LAKE MAGGIORE.

 

 

My prediction of it in 1890, published widely in my first Prospectus
for National Galleries, as the coming material, both basic and orna-
mental, is now recognized as near fulfillment. _

. The production of American Portland cement in 1890 was 335,500
barrels; in 1901, 12,711,225 barrels. (Report of U. S. Geological
Survey.)

yas

pend masses of iv
2d a great company

vel on the opposite side de

0 top for festivities would ho

ppcr 10
at th

From their u

The csplanadc

_ . . pporting them are shown.
described, realizatlons of hanging gardens.

The concrete arches s11

 

 

THE MALL PARKWAY. 43

PAPER BY MR. GEORGE KELLER, ARCHITECT, 0F HARTFORD,
CONN.“

If the Senate bill 4845, “regulating the erection of buildings on the
Mall in the District of Columbia,” becomes a law it will virtually result
in the gradual adoption by Congress of the Park Commission’s plan
for the improvement of the Mall. Hitherto this plan has been referred
to as only a suggestion for the guidance of Congress, but now it seems
to be regarded as if it were an unwritten law, and that anything
materially conflicting with its requirements is to be strenuously
opposed. Both Senator Hale and Representative Cannon have strongly
protested against the inference that this plan had the approval of
Congress, and Senator Hale opposed granting permission to have the
plans exhibited throughout the country if the purpose was in order
“to stir up a sentiment in favor of the scheme.” Now that a senti-
ment has been stirred up it seems a fitting time to welcome a discus-
sion as to the merits of this plan to which it has not yet been submitted.
It has had plenty of clever advertising, but anything approaching a
fair criticism of the plan has been studiously avoided.

To confine this discussion to what is the best Width to adopt in order
to produce an agreeable vista, when it has not been determined that
any vista is an actual necessity, is to lose sight, of the principal ques-
tion, which is this: Is the Park Commission’s plan for the improve-
ment of the Mall a suitable one for the purpose? The Senate, acting
under the advice of the War Department, I suppose, has already dis-
regarded one of its important recommendations in fixing the position
of the proposed memorial bridge across the Potomac to start from the
old Naval Observatory grounds instead of from where shown on the
Park Commission’s plan. Before irrevocably fixing the position of
the Agricultural building so as not to interfere with an imaginary
vista, it ought to be previously considered whether there is a reason—
able probability of the future existence of such a vista or that the
Park Commission’s plan will‘ be adhered to. Itis not necessary to
wait until this plan has had the approval of Congress, but long enough
to discover whether it commends itself to sound common sense. For
this reason the question should not be considered piecemeal, but the
whole plan, so far as it relates to the Mall, should be carefully studied.

That there have been differences of views as to the proper treatment
of the Mall can be easily shown, but this plan of the Park Commis-
sion’s has been greeted with such an outburst of applause from the
press of the country that all criticism seems to have been silenced and
people have begun to consider the scheme as definitely settled and
beyond further discussion. This is partly due, no doubt, to the elab-
orate and beautifully rendered drawings and models prepared'without
regard to cost and supplemented by a splendid collection of foreign
Views bearing on the subject, so that there has seldom been seen in
Washington such an attractive architectural exhibition. The public,
unaccustomed to considering so vast and complex a subject, and
bewildered by the vision of terraces, avenues of trees, Vistas, Italian
gardens, monuments, and temples, has confined itself to admiring the

 

a Mr. Keller made application to be heard, but unintentionally was not notified
of the hearing. Upon suggestion of the committee he subsequently filed his paper,
to be made a part Of the proceedings.

44 THE MALL PARKWA Y.

artistic display without attempting to intelligently study the underly—
ing scheme on which its real value depends, not on beautifully executed
models or clever water-color drawings. These plans have been copied
and exhibited all over the country and thus a sentiment has been
stirred up in favor of the scheme. That there are serious objections
to some features of the scheme I shall venture to point out, particu-
larly in the treatment of the Mall, the grouping of public buildings,
the Monument grounds, the Lincoln monument, and the memorial
bridge.

In studying the different suggestions for the improvement of the
Mall, made about two years before the appointment of the Park Com—
mission and contained in Senate Document 94, Fifty-sixth Congress,
second session, it will be noticed that all the writers of the articles

refer to the difliculty of bringing the Washington Monument into '

harmonious accord with any of the proposed schemes. This difficulty
arose on account of an unwise departure from L’Enfant’s original
design, which fixed the position of the Monument at the intersection
of the prolonged axis of the White House and the Capitol. Had the
Monument been placed where intended by L’Enfant it would have
established an intimate relation between the two buildings, and brought
the general disposition of the buildings and grounds into complete
harmony, but, unfortunately, the Monument was placed considerably
ofl the axis of the White House and slightly off that of the Capitol, so
that it seems to have no relation to either of them.

This was far from the intention of L’Enfant, and any design for the
improvement of the Mall that does not take this into account and sug—
gest a suitable remedy will fail to find the right key to the difficulty.
Mr. Olmsted, in his paper, although admitting its importance, does
not attempt to remedy it, but proposes to let it alone and treat it as an
“eccentricity of the one great feature in an otherwise perfect scheme.”
To shut the eyes does not remedy an evil, and Mr. Olmsted, or rather
the Park Commission, after further consideration, suggest a remedy,
which will be considered later. Mr. Peltz, too, judging from his plan,
is of the same mind as to the hopelessness of getting over the difficulty,
and contents himself with drawing a few curved walks about the base
of the Monument. Mr. Seeler, in attempting to cure the evil, makes
its eccentricity the more apparent by surrounding it with a colonnade,
which is also all that Mr. Glenn Brown has to suggest. It is apparent,
at a glance, that the object of encumbering the base of the noble obe—
lisk with meretricious classic colonnades, entirely out of keeping with
the Egyptian simplicity of the shaft itself, is to disguise its eccentric
position in relation to the White House and Capitol. Mr. Cass G11-
bert, in describing his plan, says: ' '

I would frankly accept the fact that the Monument is off axis with the White
House, and would place, at an equal distance from its axis, a low, but very important
Monument, richly adorned with sculpture of grandiose scale and acting as a foil for
the Monument.

This is a step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough.
Besides, “grandiose sculpture” would be too much of a f01l for the
severe lines of an obelisk. . .

Having all these preliminary studies before them and recognizlng
‘ the difficulty of the task, the Park Commission renew the attack and
endeavor to cure the veil in this way: “To establish axial relations

 

THE MALL PARKWAY. 45

between the Monument and the White House,” the first report says, “is
a most difficult and complicated problem; and it was only after a long
process of elimination of the various forms of treatment which sug-
gested themselves, that a sunken garden, framed in by tree-bearing
terraces in the form of a Greek cross, was finally decided on.”

There has been a perfect rage lately among landscape architects for
sinking sunken gardens all over the country, so that “no home is
happy and no back yard complete without one,” as has been wittily
said of the prevailing fashion for pergolas, ever since the Buffalo
exhibition introduced pergolas and sunken gardens to the public.
Sunken gardens are now to be seen as a part of the landscape archi-
tecture of many pretentious country houses, and it was even seriously
proposed to have one in the center of Copley Square, Boston; but it
was left to the Park Commission to suggest one in front of the Monu-
ment, where it would be as inappropriate as would a sunken garden
be in front of the Great Pyramid, for the Egyptian severity of outline
and grandeur of scale of the obelisk would not be in harmony with the
playful conceit of an Italian garden; neither does the incongruous
group of insignificant columns and temples springing up like archi—
tgctfural mushrooms about its base add to the dignity of the simple
s a t.

The report goes on to say:

Rectangular basins of water support, or, rather, point to, a central pool, and from
the sunken garden a flight of steps 300 feet in width, corresponding to the width of
the tapis cert in the Mall, lead up to the base of the Monument, thus giving to that
structure the 40 additional feet of height which rightfully belongs to it.

No one had previously felt the need of this additional height, but if
it rightfully belongs to it on the west side, why should the east, north,
and south sides be deprived of their just rights and obliged to go with—
out? The west side, which faces the Capitol, and the north side, which
faces the White House, are the natural approaches to the Monument,
and are far more important than the east side. Why, then, this invid-
ious distinction, unless it is to answer one of the objections to a
sunken garden by treating it as if it were an advantage to have to
climb a flight of steps 40 feet high? The freshet of 1901 flooded the
Monument grounds, and if there had been a sunken garden there at
that time you could have floated a man-of-war in the Greek cross.

It is difficult to understand how the axial relations between the
Monument and the White House are to be established by the device of
a sunken garden in the shape of a Greek cross. It seems to do it on
paper as you look down on it, but it is doubtful whether the symmetry
of the plan would be perceptible to a person on the ground level. The
artist who made the drawing illustrating this part of the scheme appar-
ently had misgivings of the same sort, for he has introduced a balloon
in the landscape from which the observer may study the axial relations.
The fact is, that it is futile to attempt to balance a magnificent obelisk—
which is nearly 600 feet high—by anything less than another obelisk
of the same height, and not by digging a hole in the ground.

In considering the proposed treatment of the Mall, let me refer to
what the report says as to the climatic conditions in Washington:

On beginning work the commission was confronted with the fact that while from

the 1st of October until about the middle of May the climatic conditions of \Vashing-
ton are most salubrious, during the remaining four and a half months the city is

46 THE MALL PARKWAY.

subject to extended periods of intense heat, during which all business is conducted
at an undue expenditure of physical force. Of course nothing can be done to change
the weather conditions, but very much can be accomplished to mitigate the physical
strain caused by summer heat. -

To destroy hundreds of trees in order to form a shadeless tapés wert

300 feet wide and a mile and a half long is a strange way to mitigate
the heat of summer, yet this is what is proposed to be done on the
Mall from the Monument to the Capitol, and it will be no relief tocall
it tapes cert when it is really tapas brmz, parched in the sun with the
' heated air tremulous above it.

It is designed to form a border of shade trees on each side of this
avenue, framing in the vista, as it were, and what there is left of the
Mall is then cut up into building lots for Government offices, so that
hardly a vestige of the original Mall will be preserved.

When proposing to introducein this country the tapes certs of Ver—
sailles and St. Cloud, or the long walks at Windsor and Bushy Park,
the Park Commission did not take into account the moist climate of
France and England, where the grass remains green all summer long.
If sheets of running water, diversified by fountains and jets d’ecm,
were to occupy the space devoted to tapas werts the vista would still be
preserved and the atmosphere cooled by the evaporation of the water.

The treatment proposed by the Park Commission for the surround-
ings of the Capitol is admirable and calls for no criticism. Particu-
larly fine is the idea of Union Square with its statue of Grant in the
middle, supported by his two great lieutenants—Sherman and Sheridan.
The sites suggested for the statuesare far better than the places already
chosen, and it is to be hoped that the chosen sites will not be adhered to.

Having disposed of the Mall and the Monument, the Park Commis-
sion next addressed themselves to the Memorial Bridge, about the pro-

posed design for which there was so much controversy three years ago.‘

It is gratifying to find that their recommendations are a complete vin-
dication of the part taken by me in protesting against the adoption of

the design recommended to Congress, for the report condemns the -

ornamental towers in the center of the bridge as “unnecessary and
undesirable features,” and recommends that the Lincoln memorial

should be placed in the middle of a circular plaza at the Washington ‘

approach to the bridge, and a corresponding memorial. to balance it at
the approach on the other side of the river. This is ]ust what I had
been endeavoring to impress on Congress “in season and out of season,”
three years ago, but I hardly expected Mr. McKim to so emphatically
condemn what his partner, Mr. Stanford White, had declared to be
entirely worthy of the approval of Congress. _

In this dilemma the Park Commission now attempt to rev1ve an
absurd and exploded notion that a competition is not for the purpose
of selecting a design, but for the selection of an architect, and imply
that there is nothing inconsistent with professional etiquette and fair
dealing for the author of the rejected design to appropriate the mam
. features of another design under the pretense that the improved design
is the old one “restudied” under new conditions. It is like a man
who once asked 'a gunsmith to repair the stock, lock, and barrelof his
gun, of which he had but the ramrod left. .’

But though the Park Commission has seen fit to adopt the mam
features of my design for the Memorial Bridge and the monumental

 

THE MALL PARKWAY. 47

treatment of the approaches, I am obliged to' take issue with them~ in
the treatment they propose for these appropriated ideas.

In the first place they disapprove of building the Memorial Bridge
of stone because the draw is of steel. Therefore they say “candor
demands” that the whole bridge should be of steel. ’With all due
respect to the opinion of the Park Commission I beg to differ from
them as to what candor demands. In the famous Tower Bridge in
London, which was the prototype of the rejected design, candor did
not demand that the towers or bridge proper should be of steel because
the bascule draw was of steel; nor in the long bridge across the Rhine
at Worms are the towers and arches of steel because that material is
used in some portion of the bridge. If the builders of the middle
ages were told that their castles should be of wood because the draw,
bridge was of that material they would consider the advice as a weak
invention of the enemy and go on building with durable stone. Then,
as steel does not lend itself to monumental effect, the Park Commission
discover that the Memorial Bridge should be quite simple, with no
elaborate architectural features—a steel bridge, in fact—which, after
the lapse of fifty years, would be an unworthy memorial to a noble
object. The Pennsylvania Railroad is replacing its metal bridges with
bridges of stone, as experience has taught it that, in the long run,
stone is the more economical and a hundred times more durable
material.

To mark the approach to this light and airy steel bridge—for candor
would not permit it to simulate the appearance of stone—it is pro-
posed to erect a colonnade of heavy Doric columns, 200 feet long and
50 feet wide, in the middle of the circular plaza at the Washington
approach; and a corresponding architectural feature is to balance it at
the opposite end of the bridge, as if the architect and the engineer
were contending for the palm, one building like a Titan and the other
like a spider, in a structure which should be treated as one harmonious
whole, and not like specimens of two types of construction.

As to the colonnade itself, it smacks too much of the advertisement—
an immense placard with Lincoln standing in front of it. The sil-
houette of the colonnade against the sky suggests the ruins of the
temple of the sun, or the abortive attempt to reproduce the Parthenon
on Calton Hill, Edinburgh. Far nobler and more striking would be

-a memorial arch, a circular hall of fame, or a monumental column that

would “ compose” whichever way it is viewed instead of a long, mean-
ingless, inaccessible portico of Doric columns 200 feet long and but
50 feet wide~“ like a shad seen edgwise,” as Dr. Horace Bushnell once
likened a building to—askew with the memorial bridge and the Rock
Creek boulevard. »

As to the grouping of public buildings the conditions have materially
changed since L’Enfant’s design was made, and while it is commend—
able to carry out his design as far as practicable, it would be criminal
to ruthlessly destroy a whole park in order to make it conform to a
suggestion made over one hundred years ago, when the Mall was a
wild waste of unimproved land. As was said before, the Park Com~
mission propose to cut up into rectangular building lots what is left of
the Mall, after making the vista and the tree-shaded walks on either
side of the great tapas avert. These buildings, strung along for a mile
and a half between the Monument and the Capitol, would not be as

48 THE MALL PARKWAY.

convenient for conducting the public business as would buildings
grouped near the White House and the Capitol, reserving the Mall,
which is low—lying ground, as an ornamental park, with a suitable
avenue of approach in the center leading to the Capitol from the Mon-
ument. grounds. '

If we examine L’Enfant’s plan we will discover that he contemplated
having public buildings extending on either side of the White House
to the south toward the Monument, and considerably past the Monu—
ment on the eastern side. He also indicated building sites to the east
of the Capitol, as in the Park Commission’s scheme. Fortunately the
land south of the White House and east of the Capitol is still largely
unimproved, and much of it is owned by the Government. It provides
sites for further public buildings for one hundred years to come, and
where they would be convenient for the transaction of public business,
so that common sense would suggest that these sites be chosen instead
of going down in the hollow of the Mall, where buildings would entail
the complete destruction of its park—like character.

In the case of the White House, if one were called on to improve
its surroundings without regard to the needs of the Government, the
principal ornamental feature, following a well-recognized rule of
landscape architecture, would be laid out toward the sunny south and
not toward the cold northern aspect. The north being already laid
out as a park, surrounded by old and historic mansions, the true direc-
tion for future public buildings to take would naturally be toward the
south, where the land lies inviting such embellishment as stately pub-
lic buildings would give to it. The Park Commission confess the
necessity of framing in the White House lot, but instead of carrying
out L’Enfant’s evident intention to do this with stately buildings on
the east and west sides, they propose to do it with “plantations of
trees.” If there is such a deep regard for everything shown on the
Washington L’Enfant plan, why do they depart from its plain inten-
tion and substitute plantations of trees for monumental buildings?

It is only fair to expect of anyone criticising a scheme which, how-
ever mistakenly, has evidently been honestly and laboriously developed
that he should be piepared to offer something as a substitute for the
features objected to. This I am prepared to do by submitting a plan
which was sketched out in Washington before the Park Commission
was even appointed, and developed the following summer, before the
Commission had left this country to visit foreign cities in quest of
suggestions, and long before any extracts from the Park Commission’s
report had been made public, so that it can be fairly considered as an
original COntribution to the subject. It has one feature in common
with the plan of the Park Commission and indeed to most of the dif-
ferent studies of the subject, the forming of a vista from the Monu-
ment grounds to the Capitol, but the treatment of this feature is entirely
different. In the two illustrations accompanying this paper the bird’s-
eye view is from a sketch made over three years ago; the plan which
was made later has incorporated in it some of the features of the Park
Commission scheme.

, To begin with the Washington Monument is the crux of the whole
scheme, for to bring that into axial relations with the White House
and the Capitol has been seen to be the chief difficulty of all those who
have essayed the task of improving the Mall. On the remedyto this
difficulty hangs the success of whatever plan may be adopted.

 

THE MALL PARKWAY. 49

' In Egypt the obelisks were usually erected in pairs as memorials to
their great dead, one on either side of the gates, of the temples. It
was only when they were carried off to Europe and this country that
they were treated as isolated monuments. The two obelisks known as
“Cleopatra’s Needles” formerly stood in front of an ancient temple;
but now one is set up on the Thames embankment, London, and the
other in the Central Park, New York. The temple El Karnak still
possesses an obelisk 108 feet high, a monument to Queen Hatshepu.
The fellow of this great obelisk has been broken, and its fragments
strew the ground.

A low monument, such as Mr. Cass Gilbert proposed, no matter
how important, would never balance such an immense obelisk as the
Washington Monument, which is 55 feet square at the base and 550
feet high. It would always have a halting, unsatisfactory effect. It
is obvious that the simplest way out of the difficulty is to adopt the
custom followed where the obelisk had its origin and erect another one
500 feet west from the axis of the White House to balance the monu-
ment which stands 500 feet to the east. After one has grown accus—
tomed to the novelty—of this idea its appropriateness becomes evident.

At an anniversary of VVashington’s birthday, at Chicago, a few
years ago, Senator Hoar contrasted Washington with Lincoln. After
considering other great names in ancient and modern times, including
Greek and Roman heroes, Saxon King Alfred, and the Duke of Welling-
ton, Senator Hoar said: .

One figure remains and one alone, 'who in the opinion of mankind may share with
Washington his lofty pinnacle. His is an American name also. Never were two
men more unlike in every lineament that made up their mental and physical por-
traiture than George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. But each of these men
embodied what was best in his countrymen in his generation. Each was the first
citizen among a people who were like him. Each wrought in accord with his time.
Washington more than any other man was the creater of anation, of which Lincoln,
more than any other man, was the savior.

Washington and Lincoln are admitted to be the two greatest figuresin
the history of the country, they stand on the same level in the estima-
tion of the people, and therefore it seems fitting to erect this counter-
part of the Monument to commemorate the life of him who was the
counterpart of WashingtonflLincoln. In fact, the obelisk would be
a more characteristic form for a memorial to Lincoln than it is to
Washington. The one was a courtly gentleman and the other was one
of nature’s noblemen, plain and upright.

Any important monument intended as a foil to the Washington
Monument would necessarily have to be a costly one, and equally
costly, though ineffective, would be a sunken garden, so that it would
be better to use the same amount of money on an obelisk which would
at once balance the one erected to Washington and remedy the unfor-
tunate mistake made in departing from L’Enfant’s original plan. It
was proposed to build a memorial arch to President McKinley at a
cost of $1,500,000; the Washington Monument cost $1,200,000, and
its fellow could be built for less than $1,000,000, which comparatively
small sum should not deter Congress from sanctioning the project on
account of the cost. Lincoln has no monument in the Capital worthy
of his great services to the country and it seems as if this place were
waiting to be filled by a fellow obelisk to Lincoln, the peer of Wash- .
ington.

M P—04—4

50 THE MALL PARKWAY.

The Place de la Concorde in Paris has one of the '
:tanding 1n the middle of the square between two Oogfiisiiiznfiilfiiif—
baiiicsIi ICue Side of the Place is open to the river Seine, which is crossed
t 1?; l oielfsrkt derllzli.e(:)(£)i;corde, 'tdle btritdlgefflollowing the axis of the cen-
. . osi e SI e o e ace is lined with alaces th
centei open to the Rue Royal, which ives a fine view op , e
lefii‘ijpl. To the right andileft lie the CEamps—Elvsées and ftl‘iblefiffeen
p e Tuileries, respectively. In like manner if two obelisks were to
ace the White House it would naturally follow that they should be
gViixgfinfaIpeappirfiprgite seltténg in a (siplengllid Monument square, framed
‘ n s an ecorate wit arden ' i
destroy the Viewof the Potomac from thegWhiteSlfgilidgg (This :Oiiait‘g
gould face the river, and on the opposite side would be the White
ino‘iéigcglrppenctllsl inrplosed by public buildings, extensions of the blocks
apart. e reasury and Army and Navy buildings—1,000 feet
.The east and‘west sides of this Monument s uare °
With important buildings having ample spaces getweeiizlabfi 1ts): 2:161}:
properly set off its beauty, and with foliage to carry the e e leasantl *
an}; 1restfiglly {)roilnil one structure to the ant. y p i 3
e pu .10 iii ings facin the White House '
the same direction as the budeings which boundgfigdliiiiifiidhiusldulalfle f2
the east and west and extend northerly beyond the square aOsl far a”
Pennsylvania avenue. These buildings would face broad avenues each
150 feet Wide, being continuations of Fifteenth and Seventeenth streets
respectively, and would form dignified and stately approaches to MoniiZ
ment square from Pennsylvania avenue. This arrangement would
group the Government buildin s in. proximity to the White House as-
theyshould be, and. yet provi e ample space in order to maintaih a
cons1stent and dignified effect. It also admits of connecting all of the
buildings by underground passages for use in case of emergencies
The level of the Pennsylvania Railroad tracks where they cross. the
Mall is but 7 or 8 feet above the sea level, and the ground level at the
base of the Monument is 40 feet 6 inches above the level of the sea
which is the general level of the proposed Monument square, so that

it would seem more sensible to group magnificent buildings costing -

from two to three millions each around this s uare r -
them down in the hollow of the Mall. In ((lfl‘del' tit23::;agul£0£1€:
arrangement it would be necessary to reclaim ‘some of the land but
the example of the Back Bay in Boston has shown what may be done
in that direction. By a conservative estimate it has been ascertained
that the whole of the region owned by the Government" north of the
Monument can be filled up, if so much elevation were desired to the
level of the White House lawn and the Monument base foi“ about
$3,000,000. The cost of condemning six squares around Lafa ette
Park would be in the neighborhood of $2,000,000 each or $12 000y000
a_sav1ng to the _Government of between nine and ten,milli01is injthat
géregtiokp alqifie if the southern site is chosen. Mr. Post has explained
iu ow een’in.“ ' ' ‘ '7 '
ovgrcome. g eeiing difficulties can be ieadily and economically
By grouping the public buildin s near the White H °
relieved from the encumbrance ofgmassive buildings sguigsfiiiacfii/ifidl t1:
that. park-like character properly belonging to it, while it permits the
present Smithsonian Institution, Museum, Botanical Gardens, etc., to

 

THE MALL PARKWAY. 51

remain, and retains the proposed Agricultural building where it has
been decided to place it.

Some idea of the extent of the White House grounds and the Mon-
ument square as laid out on the plan to which this description refers
may be formed by comparing them with well-known like spaces else
where. The White House grounds cover about the same area as the
Garden of the Tuileries in Paris, which opens into the Place de la

loncorde, for the White House grounds measure 1,000 feet by 2,050
feet, and the Garden of the Tuileries 990 feet by 2,256 feet. The Place
de la Concorde is 715 feet by 1,000 feet, and the Monument square is
1,800 feet by 2,000 feet, so that the spectator is 1,000 feet from the
obelisks, or twice their height, the proper distance to get the best
effect for such immense objects. _

.In considering the improvement of the Mall it is assumed that the
wise recommendation of the Secretary of War to Congress will be ulti-
mately adopted. This advises the possession by the Government of
the whole of that tract of land contained in the triangle embraced
between Pennsylvania and Maryland avenues, and from the Capitol to
the White House grounds. Whether the recommendation of the Sec—
retary is carried out or not, the main features of the proposed improve-
ment can be accomplished, leaving that part of the scheme involving
the condemnation of land to the future, but still preserving to the Mall
its park—like character. An opportunity will then be given to carry
out, in a measure, L’Enfant’s original intention to treat the Mall as a
beautiful foreground to the Capitol, with a wide and dignified approach
up the middle of the Mall leading from Monument Square to the
Ca itol.

Ti; is proposed to treat this boulevard so as to distinguish it from
the other avenues of the capital, to give it a peCuliarly ornamental,
park—like character in harmony with3ts surroundings without sacrific-
ing the stately, impressive effect that the principal approach to the
first building in the country should have. The open space in the mid
dle of the boulevard is intended for scenic effect, forming abeautiful vista
closed by the Capitol at one end and the Monument at the other. This
broad space is not for the use of traffic. ‘or this reason, instead of
treating it as at Versailles and Fontainebleau as tapas Ive/fies, or leav—
ing it as a long, monotonous roadway reflecting the heat of the sun,
the middle of the boulevard is occupied by a succession of pools 150 feet
wide of running water, on either side of which are avenues lined with
trees, traversed by paths where one may walk or drive in the shade
from the Capitol to the Monument. The pools cool the air and reflect
the sky and the trees lining the boulevard. -

The Mall is'crossed transversely by ”streets connecting Pennsylvania
and Maryland avenues on either side, devoted, as at present, to traffic,
and where they intersect the boulevard the crossings are marked by
fountains, the middle one designed as a monument to L’Enfant, sur-
rounded by the realization of his long-neglected and almost—forgotten
plan. The cascade west of the Capitol, as shown in his design, is
retained, and feeds the succession of pools strung along the center of
the boulevard until finally the water is emptied into the tidal basins
bordering the south side of the Monument square. A great circular
basin occupies a space between the obelisks. The flow of water nec-
essary to insure an abundant and continuous supply to the cascade,
ornamental ponds, and fountains is calculated to be brought from the

5 2 THE MALL PARKWAY.

Anacostia River, which engineers assert is entirely feasible. The rest '
of the Mall not devoted to the boulevard or the streets crossing it is
1ntended to be laid out as a park, with no buildings between it and
Pennsylvania or Maryland avenues to shut out the View from those
thoroughfares. .

The walks of these thoroughfares on the side next tothe Mall are
intended to have avenues of trees so as to provide pleasant, shady
promenades entirely around the boundary of the Mall. The effect of
this park, open to the View from Pennsylvania and Maryland avenues,
not hedged in by buildings or other obstructions, will tend to encour-
age the removal of the shabby buildings on the opposite sides of the
avenues, and lead to the erection in their stead of beautiful structures
worthy of their position. This has been the experience in New York
along the lines of Fifth avenue, Eighth avenue, and Fifty-ninth street
where these streets overlook the Central Park; the same thing is
observed in Princess street, Edinburg, the principal business street of
that city, which faces the Princess street gardens and Castle Hill. It
is also to be seen in the Rue Rivoli, Paris, where the beautiful shops
are on one side and the garden of the Tuileries on the other. Instances

could be multiplied, but these are suflicient to show the tendency to
improve property overlooking public parks, so that there would be no
occasion for including the opposite sides of these thoroughfares in the
general scheme for the improvement of Washington, for that will
right itself.

In conclusion, it may not be amiss to repeat here a suggestion made
to the Senate committee in March, 1901, before the appointment of
the Park Commission, as follows:

Instead of appointing a restricted cemmittee of experts to prepare a plan for the
improvement of Washington, it is respectfully suggested that a competition be insti—
tuted and that the Senate subcommittee invite, say, five architects and five landscape
gardeners or architects to submit general plans in competition, paying them a rea-
sonable amount, but giving others who desire it the liberty to take part. Each archi-
tect invited should be directed to associate with himself a landscape architect, and
each landscape architect an architect of his own choice. This would insure a variety
of ideas for the consideration of the committee and each design would be the joint
production of an architect and landscape architect. The terms of the competition
should be drawn up by the subcommittee with the assistance of an architect and a
landscape architect as advisers, who should have no interest whatever in any of the
designs submitted. These advisers should select a certain number of designs from
those submitted, and, placing them in the order of their merit, leave the final choice
to the Senate committee, or such a commission as is provided in the Senate bill for
the execution of the proposed Memorial Bridge, viz, the President of the Senate, the
Speaker of the House, the chairmen of the Senate and House District Committees,
and the Secretary of War. '

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

        

 

   
     

 

 

 

/4

$1M»:-

 

 
 

 

 

 

mm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    
   
     

 

*‘x'o .. .
@Jém ‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

L_
gill/11¢ .

rZI/IIII/g

 

 

 

 

 

  
 
 
 

 

     
  
    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Z/ll/l/g ylilf/Ig
owl/x. ézj/Za
I/[I/o

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q©©®®@®©%

.5

 

   
  

I. W/r/‘fe House.
2. Army, ”3 vy and Sfa/‘e Depfé

 

 

3. Treasury.

4. Wash/ngfon Monument '
5. Unco/n ‘1

6. Cap/Vol.

Z Posf Off/co,

8. A n'ca/fara/ 56,07?
.9. a// of Records.

70. D/Sfr/bf BU/Vd/ng.
17. Museum.

12. Penné' R. R. Sfaf/on.
13. Armory.

l4. L't'nfanf Monument
/5. Memonlal Ha”.

I6. Memom'a/_Br/'o’ge.

/ 2 C ongressmna/ ‘ A fora/y.

Suggested by Mr. George Keller.

 
    
     

J:' —~:.~‘ . —
FM, _::.~{\E‘A=,-“$ 3—:

/ /
- ,mh‘

W
. __ ‘ng- fK-‘fi‘x‘
‘ N’s .’

        
   

Suggested by Mr Geor
. ge Keller.
SCHEME FOR LO
CATION OF MEM
ORIAL BRIDGE A
ND MONUMENTS
; GROUPING OF
PUBLIC BUILDI
NGS AND IMPRO
VEMENT OF TH
E MALL WASH
, lNGTON, D. c

INDEX.

. Page.

American Institute of Architects, letter of .................................. 6
Burnham, D. H., statement of ............................................. 12
Butler, Nicholas M., letter of.----.-.-....--..-.--..-...-, ................. 4
Day, Frank Miles, statement of ............................................ 23
Eames, W. 8., statement of ............................................... 23
Galloway, B. T., statement of ............................................. 7
Hornblower, J. 0., statement of ........................................... 25
Keller, George, paper of .................................................. 43
Kellogg, Thomas M.,’statement of--.--.-.--...--.-..--....---.--.--.----,- 30
Langley, Prof. S. P., statement of ......................................... 11
McKim, C. F., statement of ............................................... 27
Mundie, W. B»., statement of .............................................. 27
Olmsted, F. L., jr., statement of ........................................... 28
Post, GeorgeB., statement of ............................................. ' 20
additional statement of ................................... 25

St. Gaudens, Augustus, statement of ....................................... 31
Smith, Franklin VV., statement of ......................................... i 32
\Vashington Architectural Club, resolutions adopted by ..................... 4
Wilson, Hon. James, letter of ............................................. 5

53
0

m-fifikstvi no:

“v“.
1. 5r. F": 1.5!