Citation
Planning for historic resources in urban parks

Material Information

Title:
Planning for historic resources in urban parks
Creator:
Starr, Helen M. ( author )
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
1 electronic file (v, 77 leaves : illustrations charts, forms, maps (some folded), plans (some folded)) ;

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Parks -- Planning ( lcsh )
Historic sites -- Conservation and restoration ( lcsh )
Parks -- Planning -- Case studies -- Colorado -- Denver ( lcsh )
Historic sites -- Conservation and restoration -- Case studies -- Colorado -- Denver ( lcsh )
Historic sites -- Conservation and restoration ( fast )
Parks -- Planning ( fast )
Colorado -- Denver ( fast )
Genre:
Case studies. ( fast )
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )
Case studies ( fast )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 74-77).
System Details:
System requirements: Adobe Reader.
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Master of Landscape Architecture, College of Design and Planning.
General Note:
Thesis (M.A.)--University of Colorado aat Dener, 1986.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Helen M. Starr.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
on10156 ( NOTIS )
1015683450 ( OCLC )
on1015683450
Classification:
LD1190.A77 1986m .S73 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PLANNING
FOR
HISTORIC RESOURCES
IN
URBAN
PARKS


Lp ii “to
All

97}
THIS THESIS IS SUBMITTED AS PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A MASTER OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE DEGREE AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER COLLEGE OF DESIGN AND PLANNING GRADUATE PROGRAM OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
ACCEPTED:
Committee Member's Name & Title
(Committee Member's Name & Title)
(Committee Member's Name & Title)


PLANNING FOR HISTORIC RESOURCES IN URBAN PARKS
By
Helen M. Starr December, 1985


Acknowledgements
Among the many individuals to whom I am beholden I would especially like to thank Linda Romola, who was steadfast to the end, read the manuscript and corrected many errors; to Dan Young, Jerry Shapins and William Wenk for their assistance; and Beverly Ritchey for typing the final manuscript.


=.......Q"....
Table of Contents
List of Figures
p.v
Introduction P. 1
PART i
r
Recreation Trends and Issues
P-5
a
A Park Department Survey
p9
3
Historic Preservation Planning
p. 12 PART II
A
The Model
P- 21
X
A Phased Appoach: Washington Park
p. 24
Conclusion
p. 68
Appendices
p.69


List of Figures
1. South Lake, Washington Park: Denver, Colorado, 1985
2. Visits to the National Park System
3. Survey Results: Historic Resource Policy
1. DeBoer Perennial Garden, Washington Park: Denver, Colorado, 1985
5. Literature Review
6. National Register of Historic Places criteria
7. Historic Preservation Treatments
8. Lily Pond, Washington Park: Denver, Colorado, 1985
9. Model: 6-Phase Approach
10. City Ditch, Washington Park: Denver, Colorado, 1985 11 . Denver Park System
12. Washington Park: 1925
13. Washington Park: 1985
11. Preliminary Inventory Map
15. Evaluation Matrix
16. Priority List
17. City Ditch, Washington Park: Denver, Colorado, 1865
18. Statue, Washington Park: Denver, Colorado, 1917
19. DeBoer Garden, Washington Park: Denver, Colorado, 1918
20. South Lake, Washington Park: Denver, Colorado, 1906
21. Lily Pond, Washington Park: Denver, Colorado, 1913
22. Analysis
23. Ditch = "Heart" of Washington Park 21. Framework Concept Diagram
25. Framework Plan
26. Authenticity, Research and Funding for Treatment Alternatives
27. Proposed Action 28 . Management Plan
29. Capital Improvement Process
30. Need/Problem
31. Wynken, Blynken & Nod, Washington Park: Denver,
Colorado, 1985, Suitability and Compatibility
32. Capital Improvement Plan: Pedestrian Entry
v


Introduction
People who think of parks usually think of baseball fields, picnic areas and expansive lawns. However, parks are also a rich historical repository. Our nation's urban parks contain important facets of our national, regional and local pasts.
Every historic park contributes to urban form and identity.
Their layouts determined the location of roads, the exclusion of buildings and the location of entire neighborhoods (Mumford, 1977). The design of these parks also reflects our cultural values toward the natural and the built world. The manipulation of trees, topography and building materials are evidence of artistic styles prevalent at the time. Some historic parks are landmarks in the development of the profession of landscape architecture. The roots of the profession are embedded in the origins of urban park design beginning with Olmstead and Central Park in the 1860's. Last, but not least, these parks are part of the everyday lives of thousands of people. People of all types have grown up and developed their personal identities on the turf of these parks. And yet, urban parks are taken for granted.
Two Olmstead parks illustrate the typical problems faced by historic urban parks in the recent past. Belle Isle Park in Detroit was designed in 1881. It was characteristic of many of Olmstead's plans with meandering roads, meadows and forests.
The park was created on an island with an extensive natural forest preserved by Olmstead, an elaborate water system and a formal area at one end. Over time, the park became a hodgepodge of inharmonious and tasteless structures. An exotic casino from the original design became a shelter for the elderly and a third rate eating place. Much of the Olmstead spirit was effectively lost from the encroachments (Heckscher, 1977).
The second park is Delware Park in Buffalo. Olmstead selected the park site in 1868 which he referred to as "almost ready made." It was laid out with many diverse facilities, incorporated the lakeside and a sheep meadow. In the early 1960's, the Scafaquada Expressway was constructed and bisected the park into separate areas. Portions of the park became underused and deteriorated; and other portions became overused. While not the intention of city officials, this major change altered the park forever (Heckscher, 1977). These two examples illustrate the forces of change which do not recognize the inherent values of historic urban parks and their resources.


Clearly, we are living in an age of rapid change. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to put one's existence in clear perspective with regard to past, present and future events. People in the city need to recognize and hold their cultural and physical roots. Saving a city's historic resources in its parks can satisfy at least a part of these needs. They are the physical reminders of days gone by.
Conflicts between preservation and change must be resolved so that current trends in urban park design are successfully integrated with those of past eras. If not, an important component of our urban heritage will disappear.
Figure 1
This study is concerned with the recognition and preservation of valuable historic resources and assets in urban parks especially as they relate to their primary caretakers, the park planning agency. One of the most important means for insuring the protection of historic resources is at the local government level. Park planning agencies should take the leadership role for establishing goals, policies and administrative programs for successful preservation efforts. However, park planners are handicapped by the lack of sources in this area directed specifically to them. It is to fill this void that this study was undertaken.
2


The central thesis of this study is that park planning agencies must recognize the needs and opportunities of historic resources in the urban park and integrate historic preservation planning principles as a critical component of the park planning process. In this manner, historic resources can contribute to the enrichment of the urban recreational environment, and contribute to the greater understanding of local history and identity. The study considers three main questions:
1) What are the benefits for preserving historic resources in parks--specifically, how can these resources enhance recreational opportunities in parks?
2) Are park planning agencies currently planning for historic resources in the urban park system?
If not, why?
3) How should park planning agencies ideally plan for their historic resources?
To answer these questions a research agenda was established to investigate recreation trends and issues; to conduct a survey of park planning agencies; and, to perform a literature review of historic preservation planning studies. From the research findings, a model planning process was established. Finally, a case study was employed to demonstrate the application of the model process. The result is a single source of information for the park planner and interested individuals.
3


Q
PART
I
RESEARCH


Q—
Chapter
1
Recreation Tre&ds and Issues
The historic preservation movement is a rapidly expanding field and yet the movement has not fully incorporated landscapes in areas such as urban parks. There are however several trends in recreation which indicate there is a favorable climate for preserving and developing historic landscapes in our park environments .
Before identifying these trends, it is important to recognize that these resources in their neglected state are being wasted. As discussed in the introduction, they are taken for granted. In this manner, these resources are not planned for, not maintained, not even recognized. The results are structures, buildings and gardens nobody wants to use, nobody cares for and this begins a cyclical pattern of underuse and deterioration.
In other words, an unnecessary waste of land and facilities.
There are a number of population and leisure trends which suggest that historic resources in urban parks require greater scrutiny and closer management. As urban populations grow, so will the need for recreational opportunities close to home.
When Central Park was built in New York City in 1862, 90 percent of the population lived in rural areas. One hundred and eight years later 80 percent of the population lives in cities. In order to meet the change in population densities, it is vital to minimize wasted resources within urban parks.
Urban dwellers also have more leisure time. In the 1870's the average work week was about 53 hours. Today, the average number of hours worked per week is close to 10 hours (Wurman, Levy, Katz, 1972). The 10-hour work week represents a gain of 675 hours of free time annually over the last century. If vacation time and holidays are added to annual free time gains, the total gain becomes roughly one month out of every twelve since the 1870's. This indicates even greater need to reduce waste and increase the urban recreation base.
Some people consider historic parks worthy of preservation simply as works of art. There is a perception that historic parks are old and therefore obsolete. However, a study by Patricia O'Donnell, examining past and present recreational pursuits in urban parks, demonstrates that recreational values have not significantly changed over^the past century. Indeed, the most notable differences are the greater number of users and the increase in diversity of recreational pursuits (O'Donnell, 1983). Older, historic urban parks can still play a viable role in providing recreational opportunities in cities today.


Historic resources also represent an important component of recreational activity. Sightseeing, or visiting historic or national sites ranks sixth of twenty-five outdoor recreation activities in terms of participants as a percentage of population (Statistics on Outdoor Recreation, 1 984.). Visitation statistics to the National Park System (NPS) also provide figures which demonstrate the popularity of historic resources as recreational resources. The chart in figure 2 shows visits to national, historical, and archeological park areas to be the most visited of all the NPS areas. The chart indicates the rate of growth for these areas is among the fastest in the past several years.
Given the popularity for historical sites, urban parks with these resources have the opportunity to capitalize on an important recreational activity.
The previous discussion suggests that integrating historic resources into the park planning process would enhance recreational opportunities, reduce wasted space and facilities and generally assist in meeting the needs of increasing urban populations and increasing leisure time.
Several issues and trends in park planning indicate historic resources can and should be included in responsible planning.
One such issue facing urban park departments today, is the economic constraint of decreasing park budgets. In view of smaller budgets, it is even more important that park departments eliminate waste. Operating existing facilities at full capacity is one prudent approach toward reducing waste. Historic resources are often victims of underuse as a result of poor maintenance and low priority. Rectifying these problems will require greater attention in years to come. In a survey of park departments around thecountry (see chapter 2 for full discussion), one of the most predominant trends in park planning is the change in focus from park land acquisition and expansion of park systems to maintenance of existing facilities. This shift in focus has forced park officials to recognize the growing problems and opportunities surrounding historic resources in urban parks. There is a need to realize the role these resources play in the park environment, and, their suitability or susceptibility for change. As will be discussed later, there are few sources or studies to- aid the park planner in making critical decisions regarding these resources.
Many park planners depend on recreation statistics and standards for making decisions for park development. Increasingly, however, these methods are disputed as inadequate. The National Academy of Sciences found:
"Using population-based standards as a measure of the relative demand for a resource ignores many of the crucial factors affecting demand for recreational opportunities. . . "
6


o
figure 2
Visits to the National Park System
TO 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
year
National Historic & Archeology Sites
National Parks
National Monuments
National Parkways
National Recreation Areas
National Seashores National Capitol


In general, this study found that very little thought is given to the joint analysis of supply and demand. Too often demand statistics are the sole basis for decision-making. With respect to historic resources in parks, there is clearly a demand for their development yet little has been done to ascertain the supply. Demand studies are rarely a true evaluation of actual demand, being in most cases a projection of past use and population expansion. Planning based solely on standards may result in a set number of facilities per acre, per park, or per so many people without regard for the inherent capability of the site to accept them (Bohart & Wilson, 1984.).
While park standards are being disputed, there is a growing trend toward decision-making based on the quality of recreational experience (as opposed to quantity). Many studies and models are being developed .which measure such values as visitor satisfaction, (LaPage, 1981) visual preferences, (Schroeder, 1981), and recreational opportunities, (Clarke & Stankey, 1979). To achieve quality, a resource oriented approach is emerging as a more suitable planning concept. Resource-based planning is the process of letting resources such as soil, vegetation, topography, etc., play the lead role in determining the kinds of recreation facilities and uses which should be developed for an area. This planning concept achieves greater quality results because it allows the resource to provide the greatest possible realization of user satisfaction and, development is limited to the capability of the resource to sustain a planned use. While this concept is more frequently applied to natural resources, the same principle could be practiced with regard to man-made historic resources.
These issues and trends in park planning indicate a shift in focus towards existing opportunities in urban park systems by developing those opportunities to their best advantage, park planners can and should achieve excellent results in the responsible management of historic resources.
#
8


—Q—
Chapter
2
A Park Department Survey
As explained in Chapter 1, historic resources can be a valuable component in the park recreation environment. There is an opportunity for considerable enrichment of urban parks by utilizing these resources to their best advantage. The question this section of the study addresses is: Are park departments currently considering historic resources in the park planning process? If so, are those resources being wisely managed? And, if historic resources are not being adequately planned for, why not? To answer these questions an informal survey was conducted of urban park departments around the country.
METHODOLOGY
A sample of the largest cities in the United States was selected for the survey to obtain an objective and representative view of current park planning practices. Eighteen cities were selected from the same sample used in the National Urban Recreation Study conducted in 1978 to evaluate the current state of recreation in urban areas. A park planner was contacted at the local park planning agency in each city by telephone. The discussions were formatted by a series of ten questions ranging from general park planning practice, to issues specific to historic resources (see Appendix A). In addition, planning documents were solicited to support the discussions for in-depth review.
RESULTS
Results of the survey were determined by comparing planning practices to the number of projects undertaken involving historic resources. Those cities with greater quantities of projects involving historic resources were judged more favorably than those with fewer projects. The survey was limited to determining success by quantity; quality evaluation was beyond the scope of the research.
The most critical factor for managing historic resources in the urban park system is a formal historic resource based policy. All of thecities surveyed did some type of long-range park planning; and, the vast majority, 82 percent, did comprehensive planning. But only 7 of the 18 cities addressed historic resources with a formal policy. Of those 7 cities, all had undertaken the greatest quantity of projects involving historic resources than over the other remaining cities. Conversely, those cities without a formal policy or with an "understood" departmental philosophy had the poorest results (see figure 3).
Q


O
Figure j
SURVEY RESULTS:
Historic Resource Policy
GENERAL PLANNING 100%
Long- Comprehensive Range Plans Plans
FORMAL POLICY
59%
CITIES WITH POLICY 100%


Further review of the policy statements of the 7 city park departments revealed disappointing factors. For the most part the policies were non-comprehensive. Often policies were directed to an individual historic park or limited to historic buildings. For example, San Francisco's historic resource policy states: "Ensure that the historic elements that give Golden Gate Park its unique landscape character are retained and protected. In other words, these policies did not consider all historic resources in the entire system.
The results of the survey also indicate inadequate data gathering for decision-making. Only 2 of the eighteen park departments have conducted an inventory of historic resources in their park systems. This suggests that decisions for historic parks and features are made non-objectively, for such reasons as political goals, or personal preferences of park planners or special interest group pressures.
Park planners generally consider historic resources an important issue. Seventy-six percent felt these resources should be given moderate to high priority in park planning.
Over 1/3 felt they should receive a high priority. However, throughout the survey discussions with the park planners a negative perception of historic resources was detected. Often these resources were perceived as burdens to the park department. More seriously, they were seen as conflicting with overall park goals toward providing recreation. They were regarded as obsolete and an expense burden. Clearly there is a need for the academic community to engage in heightening the public sector's awareness for the opportunities and enrichment historic resources can provide in urban parks. Historic resources can be assets to the park system and in harmony with overall park goals for providing community recreation. (See Appendix B for complete survey data).
The survey results indicate that many urban park departments are not taking full advantage of the opportunities historic resources offer. One reason for this may be inadequate information about dealing with these resources. Perhaps, with greater knowledge and education in this field, positive changes can be made.


—Q—
Chapter
3
Historic Preservation Planning
Many concerns were raised as a result of the park department survey. Foremost among them was the inadequacy of current planning practices concerning historic resources in the park system. The park departments themselves provided few answers toward answering the question, how should park planning agencies ideally plan for their historic resources? Indeed, lack of information sources applicable to planning for historic resources in parks may be a contributing factor toward insufficient use and development of these resources. A review of the literature concerning historic resource planning is included here to assist in providing appropriate answers for this question.
Figure 4
Historic resources in the landscape have only recently begun to receive attention in the landscape architecture profession as well as by historic preservation professionals. Lately, there have been attempts to legislate the protection of the Olmstead heritage in the landscape (H.R. 4-356, 1 984-) . Yet little research has been conducted relating to historic resource planning in urban parks. The study prepared by Patricia O'Donnell, "Historic
12


Preservation as Applied to Urban Parks", and some of the current published park restoration and rehabilitation projects provide limited information about this subject. These publications account for mostly preservation design concepts and provide only indirect insight into long-range planning practice issues.
METHODOLOGY
Many other related fields, such as architecture and city planning have begun to address the issues involving historic resources in their respective fields. To answer the question, "How should parks plan for their historic resources.", these studies were reviewed to broaden the investigative base. The purpose of this review is to:
1) establish current historic preservation planning procedure; and,
2) determine if the procedures are applicable to the park planning process.
Five representative studies concerning historic preservation planning were chosen from five related fields for a comparative review. These fields included city planning, rural landscapes, architecture, historic landscapes, and cultural resource planning (see figure 5) .
ANALYSIS
From the comparative review a number of fundamental similarities can be identified. All of the studies expressed similar overall goals to protect, provide "wise stewardship" and select appropriate management measures for historic resources. The studies reinforced the conclusion made from the telephone survey that policy development is vital to eventual success of planning strategies for the respective fields. For example, Miner writes; "Behind an effective program is found an expression of. . . policy in support of the concept of preservation and an approach to achieve it."
Each study employed a similar process which include several fundamental steps for developing a historic resource or preservation plan. These steps are:
1. Defining the resource.
2. Preliminary inventory of historic resources.
3. Preliminary evaluation of historic significance.
4. Develop a comprehensive inventory of valuable resources.
5. Develop preservation alternatives and actions.
6. Incorporate findings into overall planning process.


- â–¡
Literature Review
Figure 5
â–¡ City Planning
MINER, RALPH. Conservation of Historic and Cultural Resources. Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials, 1969
â–¡ Rural Landscapes
MELNICK, ROBERT Z. Cultural Landscapes: Rural Historic Districts in the National Park System. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1984.
â–¡ Architecture
U.S. DEPARTMENT of' housing and urban
DEVELOPMENT. Historic Preservation Plan: Savannah, Georgia. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1973.
â–¡ Historic Landscapes
O'DONNELL, PATRICIA. Historic Landscapes Survey, American Society of Landscape Architecture, 1984 (unpublished document) .
â–¡ Cultural Resouce Planning
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE. Cultural Resources Guidelines. NPS-28. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1980.


To illustrate the similarity in procedure consider for example the planning process identified by both Miner and Melnick:
MELNIGK
1. Undertake Preliminary Identification
2. Preliminary Determination of Significance
3. Apply Evaluation Criteria
4. Final Inventory
5. Select Appropriate Management Options
6. Prepare Cultural Landscape Report
7. Implement Management Options MINER
%
"Components of a Comprehensive Conservation Program"
1. Preliminary Survey
2. Comprehensive Inventory & Evaluation
3. Criteria for Evaluation
4. Area Analysis
5. Program Framework
6. Tools for Program Implementation: Public Options
Their processes focus on the development of an inventory as well as ultimately management recommendations. They are objective efforts to collect all the facts before making final decisions regarding significant historic resources. The typical process as synthesized from the literature analysis include the following: The first step in the process is defining the resource in question. While the step was universal among the studies, the particular standards for defining the resource varied according to the respective field. Savannah defined the resource in terms of architectural elements, and the Melnick study defined the resource in terms of landscape components. Nevertheless, in all cases the definition of the resource established the parameters of the survey.
15


In the next step, a preliminary survey is conducted to identify all potential significant resources. This step includes historical research to determine the historical context and a windshield survey of existing field conditions. The windshield survey serves to confirm the historic research as well as to discover any undocumented resources. Typically, at this point an evaluation is made to reduce the list of potential resources to only those which demonstrated significant age and adequate historical background data.
This list is then the basis for the next step, evaluating for historic significance. This level of evaluation requires more in-depth research for each resource including both historic research and existing conditions of the resource. A final list and the collected data are the basis for all future decisionmaking .
This final list must now be considered relative to the overall, immediate physical context for developing strategies for preservation. Appropriate management options are weighed against all these factors for final recommendations. These recommendations can then be incorporated into overall planning efforts.
These fundamental similarities point to an important conclusion. From the literature representing the current state of historic preservation planning, there is a single, universally employed process. This broad consensus signifies that the process can be considered a paradigm for historic resource planning with an application in many fields. This concept has not been explicitly acknowledged previously in any of the fields reviewed. This study will ultimately look at applying this approach as a formal model in the case study.
Some of the differences among the studies are - generally a result of fundamental differences to be expected when drawing comparisons in different fields. As mentioned earlier, the definition of the resource is treated in terms specific to its respective field. Rural landscapes are fundamentally different from architecture and thus similarities among the definitions cannot be drawn. However, it is important to note that the definition must be developed to adequately inventory historic resources. In this light, the process differences among the fields identify areas to be dealt with when applying any preservation approach for historic resources in urban parks.
Another area of differences among the studies is the criteria used to evaluate historic significance. The criteria outlined by the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) was the formal basis for evaluation criteria of 3 of the $ studies. The Miner study ysed criteria, although not formally based on the NRHP criteria, addressed the same type of information and the difference was slight. The criteria from the NRHP is listed in figure 6.
16


Figure
National Register of Historic Places
Criteria
‘‘‘The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, and culture is present in districts, sites buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and:
1 Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history or;
2 Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past or;
3 Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose com ponents may lack individual distinction or,
4 Have yielded or likely to yield information important in prehistory or history.”


While this criteria was broadly accepted, it seems moie readily applicable to architecture and less appropriate to landscapes. Even the definition excludes the significance of landscape history; listing only "history, architecture, archeology and culture". This issue is addressed in the study on historic landscapes. O’Donnell modifies the criteria to evaluate integrity on the basis of specific landscape elements such as topography, vegetation and spatial relationships instead of the NRHP criteria components of setting, materials, and workmanship .
The criteria as modified by O'Donnell, however, suffers because it is too specific to be broadly applied. This is also the case in the Savannah study where the criteria is specific to only one type of architectural style.
Finally, the area of management options varied widely among the studies from broad-based planning tools to specific treatments. Miner and Melnick identify broad planning tools such as zoning and easements for protection of resources. Conversely, the Savannah study identified specific treatments such as design guidelines for new construction, retention and removal of existin structures. NPS-28 identified both broad and specific treatments Probably the most helpful management information are the formalized definitions of preservation tools such as restoration, adaptive use, reconstruction, etc. prepared by O'Donnell (see figure 7).
These areas of differences among the studies identify a range of tasks which must be addressed when developing and applying a preservation planning approach. In summary the steps are:
1) Develop a definition of the historic resource
2) Modify the NRHP evaluation criteria for appropriateness to the resource; and,
3) Identify appropriate management options for the scale and type of resource.
APPLICATION FOR PARK PLANNING
To determine the applicability of the preservation planning process identified in the previous discussion to urban park planning, we must consider the park planning process. The diagram in figure 7 illustrates the typical park planning process as derived from the park department survey. (Information was gathered from planning documents solicited from each agency.) Typically, the park department conducts an inventory of existing features and conditions, usually including facilities, activities acreage, equipment, and various other categories. Historic resources could become an additional category for the inventory utilizing the model approach for conducting such an inventory. Recommendations could then be incorporated in final plans.


â–¡ Figure 7
Historic Preservation Treatments
□ Restoration Returns the site to its original • appearance during a selected period. Strict authenticity of overall form, details and materials is required.
â–¡ Rehabilitation Returns a historic site to a useful condition, bringing it to a state of good repair.
â–¡ Adaptive Use Retains and reinforces the original form while accommodating new uses, needs and conteporary conditions.
â–¡ Re-creation Applies to the reproduction of a setting not on an original site.
â–¡ Conservation Protects a historic setting from loss or the infringement of incongruent uses and arresting deterioration with a passive process. it is stewardship of the site.
(0'Donnell, 1983)


Q
PART
II
CASE STUDY


—Q=
Chapter
4
A case study is employed to demonstrate the model planning process based on the previous research information for historic resources in urban parks. The case study incorporates the following:
1. Model Policy for historic resource planning in urban parks.
2. Model Process for historic resource planning in urban parks.
The City of Denver Parks Department and one of its parks, Washington Park were selected for the model application. This park department is an ideal agency for the study. Currently, the department is beginning its first comprehensive park system plan. Previously, the department operated solely on the basis of a capital improvement plan, therefore it has no formal policies or master plan for the system. This is an ideal opportunity to conduct this study and hopefully assist in the initial park planning endeavors. Fi a
o -1 1


POLICY
A formal policy is the most critical factor for an effective historic resource preservation program. The survey demonstrated this fact. One hundred percent of those park departments which had a formal historic resource policy had also done the most significant number of projects involving historic resources. However, as previously discussed, these policies tended to be specific to a single park or type of resource such as historic buildings. The possibility suggested in this study is that these policies could be expanded t'o incorporate all historic resources in the park system. In other words, historic resource policies should be comprehensive.
In addition to a comprehensive approach, historic resource policies should address the overall goals of park planning.
The primary goal in any park plan is to provide recreation. Historic resources enhance opportunities for park recreation by:
1) Providing opportunities to experience historic qualities and values during everyday recreation. Indirectly, historic resources can be perceived by the park user providing continuity and identity in the park environment and,
2) Providing opportunities to experie resources that enhance public unde local history. In other words, di ving the park user through interpr niques.
In summary, the historic resource poli tion in park planning should provide a fram historic resource qualities and values in a maximizing the recreational use of these re
nee historic rstanding of rectly invol etive tech-
cy as a crit ework for pr 11 park land sources.
ical func-eserving while
22


PLANNING APPROACH MODEL
The approach model as identified in the literature review section is summarized in figure 9.
MODEL
6-Phase Approach
â–  2 3 H p
1. Define the Resource
2. Preliminary Inventory of Historic Resources
3. Preliminary Evaluation of Historic Significance
4. Develop a Comprehensive Inventory of Valuable Resources
5. Develop Preservation Alternatives & Actions
6. Incorporporate Findings into Overall Planning
The goals and objectives of the historic resource policy must be considered in all phases of the model process. The model process relates to these goals and objectives by:
1. Identifying historic values and qualities through a systematic and comprehensive research process.
2. Identifying historic themes and patterns required to comprehend local history.
3. Determining which resources are worthy of preservation .
4.. Determining priorities for decision-making.
5. Providing a basis for selecting appropriate preservation treatment which best meets the .needs of the park user and the park planning agency.
The process is also applicable at any phase of park planning. Typically, this would include three levels, park system master planning, individual park master plans and capital improve ment plans.


—=o=
Chapter
5
A Phased Appoach: Washington Park
A case study example was selected to demonstrate the application of the model process. Ideally, the approach should be applied to a park system; however, time and funding limited the case study to a single park. Nevertheless, the same principles would apply at either level.
One of the largest parks in Denver, Washington Park incorporates 163 acres. It is located in one of the older sections of Denver populated by an increasingly upwardly mobile residents. Denver residents are attracted to the park for both its natural features as well as its recreational facilities. It has two lakes and a pond which are favorite areas for fishing as well as cool respites in the summer heat. Its mature trees provide many informal areas for picnicking, reading, or relaxing. The large expanses of lawn are ideal for soccer, croquet and frisbee. Swimming and other indoor activities are located in the relatively new recreation center. It is a favorite jogging and biking spot for local residents and is the site of many foot and bike races. The tennis courts are also popular attractions.
2&


£F
Denver Park System
Figure 11
North
25


Washington Park was chosen for the case study as an excellent example of a historically rich park which is appreciated for its recreational opportunities but has valuable historic resources that are all but forgotten. The Denver resident is more likely to consider Civic Center Park or City Park or even Cheeseman Park as historic. And yet, except for Civic Center Park, Washington is the only park with property listed on the National Register of Historic Places. It would take many return visits or a lucky chance to find the half-hidden markers that are the only indication of historic significance at either of the two properties in Washington Park--the City Ditch and the Eugene Field House. The lack of identification and use of historic features at the park are clearly a missed opportunity to entrance Washington Park’s total resource foundation. As a result of the neglect, these features suffer from increasing deterioration and underuse which is a waste of important resources. Washington Park is formally classified as a neighborhood park but in reality it services nearly a regional level of park users. This combined with the location of increasing multiple family high rises and other dwellings indicates the park faces growing recreational demands. All these factors make thepark an ideal example for applying an approach which is meant to address these issues.
In the following sections, Washington Park will be used to demonstrate the Model Process. For each phase in the process, a background discussion is included followed by a step-by-step procedure using the Washington Park example.
26


PHASE
m
DEFINE THE RESOURCE
This is the first step in the process of identifying and evaluating historic resources. Essentially, the definition provides the framework for the entire planning process. The framework, as proposed in this study, is based on the two landscape studies included in the literature review by O'Donnell and Melnick.
The O'Donnell study defines the historic landscape in terms of "landscape categories". These categories include, "Farm, Cemetery, Fort, Park, etc. They were derived from a survey of historic preservation projects in the United States.
The Melnick study defines the highest rural landscape in terms of "landscape components". These components break down the landscape into various contributing parts including, "Spatial organization, Land-use, Circulation, Boundaries, Vegetation, etc."
These two principles of dividing the landscape into manageable parts can be applied to the park system. In this manner, there are three levels of the park system. At the broadest scale, there is the park system itself. At the next level there are the park categories of the park system, for example these might include:
Parks, regional and neighborhood
Minor Parks
Parkways
Park Facilities (Golf courses, pools, etc.)
Park Buildings and Grounds (Gymnasiums, etc.)
Monuments and Grounds (fountains, statues, etc.)
At the last level, there are the various components which comprise the park category. These include:
Buildings Structures Vegetation Park Furniture Statues
Water Features
Playground and other facilities
Circulation
Views
27


Each level may be inventoried and evaluated for historic significance. In this manner, an entire park system may be determined of historic significance by inventorying its contributing park categories; or, an individual component such as a fountain may be determined historic in an otherwise non-hsitoric park after an inventory and evaluation of each park's components is conducted.
Case Study;
The case study will look at a neighborhood park; and, inventory and evaluate its various park components as listed above.


PHASE
PRELIMINARY INVENTORY OF POTENTIAL RESOURCES
The purpose of the preliminary inventory is twofold. First, much of the historical data is gathered at this stage. This serves to provide the context in which the resources are examined. And, second, potential historic resources are identified at this stage.
The final products of this phase are an organized compilation of historic data and a list of historic features.
Case Study:
Step 1: Compile Historic Data
This is done by conducting research into the history of the area. In this case, the history of Washington Park is investigated. Data was gathered from a variety of sources at the Denver Public Library, the Historical Society of Colorado, the Department of Parks and the Department of Public Works in Denver. Original plans, photos, newspaper clippings, local histories, archival material and general histories were investigated for pertinent data. The data was organized into three parts: A) a narrative history of Washington Park; B) a chronology of development; and,
C) plan drawings supporting the development of the park. These are included as follows:
A. A Narrative History of Washington Park - The development of Washington Park began in 1898. The original development of Washington Park was shaped by two levels of influence. At one level, there were the trends of park design prevailing in the United States at the time. At another level, there were local forces dominating park development.
Washington Park is representative of the "Pleasure Ground" style of park design of the 1850's which continued into the early nineteenth century. The Pleasure Ground style was the first major park form in the United States. The most famous park representing this style is Central Park in New York City. This type of park was built in response to the growing difficulties of city living. Bringing the country into the city was the main thrust of Pleasure Ground development; an attempt by city officials to alleviate the problems of the city.
The Pleasure Ground is characterized by a number of design elements based on, not only the ideals of the picturesque of the Romantic Period in vogue at the time, but also on the naturalness
29


and informality of the American countryside (Cranz, 1982). Many of these elements are exhibited in the original design of Washington Park. The park’s meandering roads, open meadows and gradual grade changes typify the Pleasure Ground ideals.
Artificial lakes are also major features of the Pleasure Ground style. North Lake and South Lake (Grasmere Lake) exemplify the illusion of infinity created by the water merging with the sky so often alluded to in picturesque ideals. The placidity of large water features is another typical characteristic of the style.
Mowed grass is a basic element in the typical Pleasure Ground. It is the antithesis of urban pavement.
The Neo-Classical architectural elements of the Boathouse in Washington Park and the rustic structures such as the Picnic Pavilion are examples of typical architectural styles found in the Pleasure Ground. Buildings were commonly one or two stories, with occasional galleries or balconies (as in the Boathouse) to take advantage of views. They were built for permanence and durability and often sited at the edge of open grounds. The popular rustic style was created by building with small trees with the bark intact. These whimsical structures can still be found in several Denver Parks including Washington Park.
Ornaments, such as statues and fountains were sparingly permitted, symbolically admitting the hand of man into the natural scene. Often these were donated by prominent local citizens. An example of this is the Wynken, Blynken and Nod statue donated to Denver by its well-known sculptor, Mabel Torrey, and located in Washington Park.
Washington Park was developed under the auspices of Robert W. Speer, mayor of Denver from 1904.—1912 and 1916-1918.
His commitment to create a beautiful city was one of the greatest influences on the development of the parks and boulevards in Denver. As a result of his influence, Denver was transformed from a country town to a modern city (McMechan, 1919). Under his administration both as mayor and as Director of Public Works, Denver experienced progressive and intense growth of park lands from 1 894--1918. It was during this period most of Denver’s major parks were established: City Park, Cheeseman, Civic Center and Washington. He was also responsible for many of Denver's smaller neighborhood parks, parkways and amusement parks .
Denver had little direct impact from the major park designer of the time such as Frederick Law Olmstead and George Kessler. However, Speer's activities did have direct impact on the establishment and design of the parks. For example, Speer felt that water features added "life" to the park environment (McMechan, 1919). He directed park designers to incorporate such elements as lily ponds, lakes, fountains, and pools into most of the parks In Washington Park for example, two lakes, a lily pond, and a special fountain created for the Wynken, Blynken and Nod statue were incorporated into the original park plans at Speer's request


Speer considered the mountain view a primary factor in selecting sites for parks. Most of Denver's major parks including Washington Park, have this important feature.
Speer also placed high importance on aesthetics in the parks. Many formal flower gardens were planted in the parks and boulevards to beautify the city. The formal flower beds in Washington Park were created by Saco Rienk DeBoer, a noted local landscape architect.
Speer also recognized the importance' of education and children in parks. He began a campaign to install children's playgrounds in Denver's parks. During his administration, he established an in-house manufacturing plant for safe and innovative play equipment.
The Eugene Field residence, a frame house in downtown Denver, was relocated in Washington Park under Speer's administration. Field, a prominent poet, lived in the house for a few years and wrote many of his famous children's poems there including "Wynken, Blynken and Nod". The location of the house to Washington Park by Speer in 1911 was an early attempt at historic interpretation and preservation for public education.
These two major influences on park development as they apply to Washington Park indicate the park is an important repository for historic information.
The park not only represents the Pleasure Ground style of park design, but also demonstrates the impact Speer had on the Denver landscape.
B. Chronology of Washington Park Development (1891-1921)
1891-1916: Land acquisition
1899: Named Washington Park
Manager's residence acquired
1905: Tool house, wagon sheds and toilets built
Piped City Ditch from Exposition Ave. north Pumphouse built
1906: South Lake built
Shelter house erected at Downing and Louisiana
1907: Ladies toilet installed near North Lake
Pavilion erected New boathouse pavilion erected Water system installed
31


1 908: Tennis courts built Playground started Pillars at Mississippi donated Bridge at Kentucky entrance donated
1910: Summer house built
1 911 : Field house constructed
1912: Cement bridges built New wing to bathhouse Bathing beach opens
1913: Lily pond and rock garden built
19U: Piers built at beach
1918: Perennial garden planted
1919: Wynken, Blynken & Nod Statue placed
1920: Bandstand built on top of pavilion
1 922: Tennis courts in at south end
1 923: Lawn in at south end
1 924-: Campfire Girl's fireplace donated
(from A History of Denver Parks, n.d. )
C. Plans (see figures 12 and 13)
. 1925 (from Denver Municipal Facts, January/February,
1925 cover aerial photo) Figure 12
. 1985 (from City of Denver, Dept, of Parks and Recreation, files) Figure 13
Step 2: List Historic Features
This is done by comparing historic data and a field investigation of the park. After the field survey, a list of extant and non-extant features is compiled. A simple set of criteria is used for determining inclusion on the preliminary inventory:
1) the resource should be at least 50 years old; and, 2) there should be some historical documentation for the resource. Using this criteria, the following list was compiled:
Preliminary Inventory of Historic Features - (an X indicates the feature no longer exists)
BUILDINGS
Manager's Residence (pre-1899)
Pump House (1905)
Boathouse/Pavilion (1907)
32


Eugene Field House (c. 1888) Boathouse (1912)
STRUCTURES
X Shelter House (1906)
Pillars (1908)
Bridge (1908)
X Summer House (1910)
Bridges (1912)
X Piers (19U)
X Bandstand (1920)
Bowling Green Office (1925)
Log Pavilion (n. d.)
VEGETATION
Rock Garden (1913)
Mount Vernon Garden (1925)
Bowling Green Lawn
X Washington Elm (c. 1909)
DeBoer Garden (1918)
PARK FURNITURE X Flag Pole (1907)
Campfire Girl's Fireplace (192X)
STATUES
Wynken, Blynken and Nod (erected 1919)
WATER FEATURES
North Lake (Smith's Lake) (pre-1899)
South Lake (Grasmere Lake) (1906)
City Ditch (Smith's Ditch) (1905)
Lily Pond
X Wynken, Blynken & Nod Fountain
PLAYGROUNDS & GAME FACILITIES Tennis Courts (1908)
Tennis Courts (1922)
Childern's Playground (1908)
X Beach
CIRCULATION Roads ( c . 1~909)
Paths (c. 1909)
VIEWS
Rocky Mountain Range View
These features are mapped in figure 1*} . This information provides the necessary data for the next phase in the model process: Evaluation.


PHASE
n n m
EVALUATION
The purpose of this step is to determine historic significance and integrity. The evaluation procedure builds the final foundation on which future decision-making can be made.
The criteria for evaluation reflects the important values for determining historic significance in the park environment.
It is based on the criteria used by the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), modified to clarify and specifically address the park environment. For example, the NRHP criteria is specific to architecture, but parks also include the landscape, art forms such as statues, and other features which cannot be evaluated using solely architectural terminology.
The second part of the evaluation measures historic significance. Significance is determined on the basis of historical connections with important events, persons or patterns. Significance is also determined on the basis of physical character. Physical character includes design or aesthetic value; style, period or type of design; association with a well-known designer; craftsmanship; and, unique materials or design.
Accessibility is also considered in the evaluation criteria. This measures the ease of getting to the location of the resource by average people and people with physical disabilities.
Other values included in the evaluation but not in the NRHP criteria, are educational value and a special value for unique resources.
To aid in the evaluation process a weighted value system was devised. The system allows the planner to evaluate the resources ob j ectively.
Also, in this step, the preliminary inventory list is refined and detailed information is collected for each resource to complete the evaluation. Descriptions are developed to aid in the evaluation process. The descriptions, in addition to the quantitative evaluation, create a balanced approach for decisionmaking, based on both subjective and objective factors.
Case Study;
The matrix in figure 15 illustrates the evaluation process. The following is a discussion of each step.
37


00
If



â–  â–  â–  j 111 â–  â–  PULC>t^
â–  â–  j â–  . tmxxup^
â–  â–  â–  â–  â–  â–  ;â–  ! \xaev$a\
J_J 1 â–  etrc FU'Nmjpe
.... i ! 1 â–  M t>psrue
â–  â–  1 1 1 m â–  WAftP- FCATUPe.
â–  !â–  â–  n^i&zcurv/fpciu ty
1 1 â–  â–  CIPUJLATISH
â–  i ! view
ill ; ! t i 1 I 1 Significance >
5 SIS i i i^i Hc+H ccst^N i^uje
Q $ s s 'qi i^l SiS s<5 z>£*Af\r-cr ^rrv^Yf^ccyrrvc
1 SS I 1 J j 1 s | 'KCTX- Of ^TEP-
S ^5 s 115 one ... <5 *3 1 i i I <$ LNU2UE. t-Vne^ALiE^PKtitH-
515 5 $ 5 5 $ '^i SiSiS'SjQ SlS'S 15 o ;o « r> ^MTRO-nt& 1Z? 1 S
5 s Q: ; j ;5 IS sis - fv?cc wi txu-uKCAfrr m==cn
' 1 is 1 i feeaz. wi a 5 s Si'jx, | !S 5 'S'lo IS IMR^WT LAHPHAP^ &-3-o~>
<5 SIS 5 O 5 5 <5 .ISiS1 Is _SL 1 fi 5!cj 5! 5 ?
« ! ! IS; i 1 1 evavpevu- 6o PT5)
| J_J 1 | 1 ^-pTt- '■J' 1 vj\ V3\ \3\ N>\ Vj\ ‘ vjh 5 <5 5 o' '•? UCCAU ffi - to- S pi>= j
5 i Si\!\ \J\ VJV VJ\ \J\'\^ 5 i'3\ S S(\J\j j\ $|m\!<5 O O' V) Accessibility & vJ\ O 5 vj\ * J$ s!§jl{|s|s!§j'J\|si'a!s S O' t) O’ Condition
\s & 5 s *i +■’ \vS w |$u Js 0\ >3\ Education Value
!«i 1 k ' Unique c*=o
^Isis's TOTAL SCORE
Category
£J
•n
H-
iC
C
M
(D
Evaluation Matrix


STEP 1: EVALUATE RESOURCES FOR HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE.
Most of the resources contribute in some way to the historical development of the park. However, some of the resources had associations with historic figures and events. Some examples of historic persons associated with Washington Park include Mayor Speer, Eugene Field, Mabel Torrey (sculptor) and a prominent businessman in Denver who first settled in the vicinity of the park, John W. Smith. Some historical events include water right delegation to the City Ditch and Huck Finn Days, a popular fishing event.
STEP 2: EVALUATE RESOURCES FOR HISTORIC CHARACTER SIGNIFICANCE.
Most of the resources contribute to the historic character of the park. Some feature other significant elements. For example, the lawn represents an example of one of the important characteristics of the Pleasure Ground style of park design; it receives points for representing that style. The matrix outlines the other considerations for this step.
STEP 3: EVALUATE RESOURCES FOR INTEGRITY.
This is accomplished by comparing the historic data for each resource with its current state as documented in the field investigation. Materials, setting, workmanship, feeling and association are considered in this step of the evaluation. A graduated point value is assigned for this set of criteria to determine relative degrees of change and deterioration (See the matrix for these point values). For example, the Washington Elm received a zero value for degree of alteration (on a scale of 0-5-10, from the highest degree of alteration to the least respectively) because it was cut down from its original site. Condition was evaluated in a similar manner. The highest point value was assigned to those resources with the best current condition and lowest point value to the worst condition.
STEP K: EVALUATE RESOURCES FOR SPECIAL VALUES.
Resources received high values if they are unique or have the potential for educational purposes. In addition, values are assigned for accessibility. The highest points are awarded to those resources with handicap accessibility.
STEP 5. FINAL EVALUATION OF RESOURCES.
The total scores are summed to determine relative historic significance. This develops an objective approach for determining significance. Those resources with moderate to high total score values were considered significant.
39


STEP 6: DEVELOP DESCRIPTIONS FOR SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES.
To balance the quantitative evaluation process, descriptions are developed for those resources which had sufficient historic information. This provides subjective material to evaluate the resources. Descriptions included a physical character narrative and a historic significance narrative. These are then incorporated into the comprehensive inventory.
40


PHASE
COMPREHENSIVE INVENTORY
The purpose of this inventory is to organize the results of the evaluation procedure. The organization of the results facilities future decision-making. The inventory is organized into two parts: 1) a priority list of significant historic resources and 2) a collection of descriptions of the significant historic resources.
Case Study:
STEP 1: DEVELOP A PRIORITY LIST OF SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC RESOURCES.
The final scores from the evaluation phase are ranked from the highest scores to the lowest scores. The highest scores are equivalent to the highest priority. The table in figure 16 illustrates the priority list.
STEP 2: COMPILE THE NARRATIVE DESCRIPTIONS OF SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES.
For each of the moderately to highly ranked resources a brief description is included:
1 . City Ditch
Historical Significance. City Ditch was the first water canal constructed in Denver. It was built in 1865 by John W.
Smith and was granted #1 water rights in the district. Historically, the ditch supplied water to most of downtown Denver.
Today, it still supplies water to two major parks, City Park and Washington Park; the City Park Golf Course; and, to a substantial portion of Englewood. The ditch and its water supply were central to the development of Washington Park, and indeed much of Denver. The trees, lawns, and lakes depend on the water supplied by the ditch; it has supreme importance in the park.
Two local fishing events have been held at the ditch on an annual basis, "Huck Finn Days" and "Fishing Derby". Both were sponsored by local papers (NRHP, n.d.).
Historic Character. The 27 mile long ditch was constructed as an open, unlined, 3 foot wide canal. It operated, as it does today, on gravity flow without the use of any pumps. Although much of the ditch has been piped through the city, in Washington Park it remains as it was originally constructed, an open canal.
11


Q
Figure 16
Priority List
1. DITCH
2. FIELD HOUSE
3. SCULPTURE
4. NORTH LAKE
5. DeBOER GARDEN________j
6. LAWN I
SOUTH LAKE
7. LILY POND & ROCK GARDEN f MT VERNON GARDEN
a BOATHOUSE/MAIN PAVILION I BATHHOUSE BOWLING LAWN COTTONWOOD GROVE
9. BOWLING LAWN OFFICE
10. MANAGERS RESIDENCE
11. BRIDGES
12. SUMMER PAVILION
13. PIERS & BEACH ROADS PATHS
TENNIS COURTS WASHINTON ELM
14. GIRLS FIREPLACE
HIGH MEDIUM


Figure 17
2. Eugene Field House
Historical Significance. The Field House was the home of Eugene Field from 1881-1883 while he was editor of the Denver Trihine. Field was a noted writer at the turn-of-the-century, and is famous for his children's poetry.
The house was built in downtown Denver in 1875. In 1927, Molly Brown bought the house and donated it to the City of Denver. At the time, it was one of the last Victorian frame residences remaining in the downtown area. In 1930, it was relocated to Washington Park where it was used as a library until 1969 (NRHP, n. d .) .
Historical Character. The house is a two story frame house typical of the Victorian period.
3. Wynken, Blynken & Nod Statue
Historical Significance. The statue was inspired by the Eugene Field children's poem, "Wynken, Blynken & Nod". It was created in 1917 by Mabel L. Torrey and exhibited at the Chicago Art Institute. The sculptor donated the statue to her native city and it was placed in Washington Park in 1919 (Spring, 1960).
4-3


Historical Character. The statue is representative of the Art Nouveau style typical of the time period. A formal fountain was created for the statue when it was placed in the park. The fountain was evocative of the poem's story telling of the childre sailing into "a sea of tears" (Field, 1883).
Figure 18
1. North Lake (Smith's Lake)
Historical Significance. The lake was originally a buffalo wallow and Indians may have inhabited the area (Denver Post,1937) In 1862, it was known as Smith's Lake named after a prominent Denver businessman and early settler of the area. The park was built around this existing water feature which serves as its focal point. The lake also acts as a water reservoir from its connection to the City Ditch. In 1913, a beach was built at its northern shore. The lake was a popular gathering area for boating, swimming, and skating. The lake was also stocked with bass and perch for fishing.
Historical Character. The lake had, and still retains, a regular shape. It was rimmed with cottonwood trees, and two buildings associated with its recreational development were sited on either side of its shore.


5. r^Boer Perennial Garden.
Historical Significance. The formal flower garden was like a signature for Saco Rienck DeBoer, Eminent local landscape architect. DeBoer was responsible for many local park, residential and urban designs. The large flower garden he designed for Washington Park is typical of his designs. The formal flower garden is also representative of Pleasure Ground characteristics, and representative of Speer's desire for civic beauty.
Historical Character. The original design for the perennial garden can be found in the S.R. DeBoer Document Files at the Denver Public Library, Western History Department. The design called for beds of peonies, roses, phlox, cactus and herbs.
The garden was a prominent showpiece located close to Downing Street where local traffic could enjoy its beauty. The meandering paths guide pleasure-walkers through the colorful, elegant beds.
Figure 19
6. Lawn
Historical Significance. The lawn is one of the most important characteristics of the Pleasure Ground style of park design. Historically, the lawn provided a space to exercise, for parades, concerts and gatherings. On the Fourth of July, patriotic military exercises were held on the lawn (Denver Municipal Facts, 1927).
k 5


Historical Character. The lawn and the two lakes together create three main open spaces in Washington Park. These open spaces effectively provide the essential structure of the entire park. The lawn provides the main green space of the park primarily defined by the tree masses around its edges.
6a. South Lake (Grasmere Lake).
Historical Siznificance. In 1 906, South Lake was one of the first man-made features constructed in Washington Park. The lake contrasts with the North Lake by presenting a natural and passive image. For nearly twenty years since its original construction, it was appreciated for its naturalized state. Histor ically, the lake was used for canoeing and fishing (Denver Public Library, Western History Collection, Files).
Historical Character. From 1906 until 1921 the lake was left in a naturalized state. Photos often depict the lake with the mountains in the background giving the appearance of the countryside in the city (Denver Public Library, Western History Collection, files & Colorado Historical Society, files). In 1921, this scene changed as lawns, gardens and paths were created at its perimeter.
Figure 20


7. Lily Pond and Rock Garden
Historical Significance. The lily pond was created as a unique garden feature in 1913. The pond was remodeled in 1917 by 3.R. DeBoer and the rock garden was added. The original remodeling plans called for an elaborate pedestrian entry into the park incorporating the pond and formal flower gardens (Denver Public Library, Western History Collection, files). Although these plans were never realized, the rock garden DeBoer did add represents a recurring theme in his designs.
His sketchbooks were often filled with studies executed in the mountains. The stream he created for the rock garden represents his consistent inspiration in the mountains.
Historic Character. From photos taken a lily pond offered a picturesque and artistica scene. This area created an impressionistic lily pads and the surrounding trees and shrub
t the time lly render view of wa s .
, the ed
ter,
Figure 21
47


7a
Mount Vernon Garden
Historical Significance. The park was named after George Washington and this garden was named after Washington's estate. However, at first the garden had no resemblance to the real Mount Vernon. In 1927, it was remodeled to replicate a portion of the Mount Vernon estate.
Historical Character. Before the garden was remodeled, it consisted of a small formal lawn surrounded by flower beds with an urn at the center (Denver Public Library, Western History Collection, files). After it was decided to replicate the actual Mount Vernon estate gardens, the site was transformed into many geometrical flower beds. Large upright junipers were used to replace clipped boxwood in the original design among other necessary regional changes.
8. Boathouse/Pavilion
Historical Significance. This building is the architectural focus of the park. It also represents the typical siting and design of buildings of the Pleasure Ground style of park design. It is an important landmark in the park and was often represented in postcards and photos of Washington Park. Therefore it was and still is, a major identifying feature of the park.
Historical Character. The mission-style architecture of the building reflects some neo-classical motifs typical of the era while providing western or regional identity. At one time, a bandstand was added to the roof of the building.
8a. Bathhouse
Historical Significance. The bathhouse was constructed as a major amenity for the park when the beach was added. It served as a favorite gathering area for youth and adults alike. It was the first bathhouse in Denver in 1912 (Denver Municipal Facts. 1912).
Historical Character. The building reflected the Boathouse in character and color scheme. It was also typical of the placement and design of Pleasure Ground architecture.
8b. Bowling Lawn and Office
Historical Significance. Lawn bowling was a popular sport in the 19th and early 20th century. Many bowling clubs were formed to play the game competitively. This was the only sport accommodated in the park with formal facilities other than tennis. Presumably, it was considered fitting for the bowling lawn to be located adjacent to the Mt. Ve'rnon Garden because theWashington estate also included a "bowling lawn."


cHJq
Historical Character. The square manicured lawn conforms to the rules of the game. The wood construction office is hexagonal offering a unique structure in the park.
8c. Cottonwood Grove
Historical Significance. Cottonwoods are the mainstay tree in Denver, often growing naturally along streams and lakes. Thi grove, growing along the City Ditch, represents the original landscape before the park development and its early establishmen when cottonwoods were among the only tree species. This older rove of massive trees is probably the remainder of the original rees planted at the park's beginnings.
Historical Character. The grove provides of an established Pleasure Ground style park, trees represent the regional character of the Ground.
the mature canopy In addition, the Western Pleasure


PHASE
â–¡ â–¡ â–¡ â–¡ rs
PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
The purpose of this phase in the model process is to determine what and how to preserve the significant historic resources.
To do this, first the historic relationships among the features must be determined; and second, these features must be protected and maintained in a reasonable manner consistent with the objectives of the historic preservation policy.
Two steps are included in this phase. First, the data from the comprehensive inventory is analyzed to establish physical relationships and to establish historically thematic relationships. This step results in a physical and thematic framework for subsequent actions. The second step involves selecting the appropriate treatment of resources within the framework. Together, these two steps result in the final recommendations for the area. Ultimately, these recommendations serve to perpetuate the integrity of these resources and provide for the park users.
Case Study:
STEP 1: ANALYZE DATA FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE INVENTORY
The diagram (figure 22) illustrates the physical analysis of the data. From this map, it is apparent that most of the significant resources have one thing in common, proximity to the City Ditch.
50


Tig are 22
ANALYSIS
MOUNTAIN
LEGEND
Ditch
y View
Schematic Plan No Scale 0 N


â–¡
Figure 23
Ditch
DITCH --“HEART” of Washington Park



Figure 24
FRAMEWORK CONCEPT DIAGRAM
Significant ^ctinacT i^ntpical
rafetcnenip wilt) 4 prcyida^ immediate axperierrtial opporTontljj- -(br oeer.
eiaorfbart bi^tme nsfxcoras + indirect pfrUetol relart90&bip vvilt) ciitt? f ptrvida^ vieua-l t^afcgrcond apfcrtoni-h+ "for pati^g-
UfxSC
Siaoificant 'nisftxle rseaxce wittwt ^iract or inaifBar pHpical r^btlor^nip witt) ditct), prrvicbs> opp^rtuOiK -fen adaptive use, nsianve 10 -VYerr^f


After a review of the historical data, it is clear that water issues are a central theme to the development of the park. Many of the significant resources are themselves water features. Also, because of its water supply, the City Ditch is the single feature without which the other features would not exist. Furthermore, water represented one of Mayor Speer's primary concerns, that water provides vitality to the park environment. Finally, water provides a continuum of concern in the park, from establishing a water source and rights, to creating an oasis in the city, to today's concerns for water conservation.
From these ideas, a concept for the management framework can be developed. Water shaped the development of Washington Park. The ditch, providing the "life blood" of the park, also provides the backbone for the management concept (see figure 23).
The diagram and map (figures 2k and 25 ) illustrate the management framework. A historic interpretive pathway is developed along the ditch. The other historic features are incorporated along the path to explain the evolution of the park as it was developed from this water source. These features are incorporated into the pathway based on the objectives of the historic preservation policy: to provide direct and indirect opportunities to experience historic values and qualities in the park environment. The resources are grouped into three categories as they relate to the historic interpretive "backbone", the ditch.
STEP 2: SELECT APPROPRIATE PRESERVATION TREATMENTS
As discussed in the research section, there is no single, systematic process for selecting management options. A simple process is offered in this study as one approach.
The table in figure 27 outlines and defines the six main treatment alternatives. Selection of these treatments may be made on a practical basis. The table in figure 26 shows the relative cost and intensity of research required for each treatment. Using this practical information decisions may be made for selection in conjunction with the management framework objectives. Therefore, for example, the most authentic and costly treatments should be reserved for those resources with significant historic value and a direct opportunity to experience the historic development of the park. Those resources which provide indirect opportunities to experience the park history should be treated with less costly alternatives.
The final decisions for se should also consider the condit other physical problems. For e least amount of intervention, should be reserved for those re tion and do not require interve historic values and qualities.
le cting the a ppropriate treatm ent
ion, degree o f alteration and
xample, conse rvation involves the
This typ e of action, however,
sources which are in good cond i-
ntion to prot ect and maintain its
On the other hand, . a resource
5
vjq




with direct experience opportunity which is in poor condition or severely altered may require treatment such as restoration to preserve its historic identity, and offer the best visitor experience.
Finally, the recommendations established in The Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation. (NPS, 1983 rev.) provide excellent guidelines for any preservation project. These should be a major consideration for selecting proposed actions and should be incorporated into the planning process. These guidelines are listed in Appendix C.
The table and map (figures 27 and 28) list the proposed action and management for each resource based on the above discussions.
57



-1 Proposed Action Figure 27
RESOURCE North Lake FRAMEWORK Indirect PROBLEMS Shore erosion. Some contemporary infringements, e.g. handicap fishing pier. ACTION Rehabilitate shore-line with reinforced stone. Utilize compatible materials and siting for future facilities.
Eugene Field House Direct Historic significance and association not identified for visitor. Restore, continue Parks People, Inc. Cooperation. Relate to statue.
Wynken, Blynken and Nod Statue Direct Lacks former historic fountain and walls. No relationship to Field House. Lacks interpretation . Recreate fountain utilizing photos and remnant form. Interpret relationship to Field House through signage.
City Ditch Direct Historic significance and Create interore-tive pathway for
association not identified for visitor. visitor recreation.
DeBoer Perennial Garden Direct Original bedding species replaced by annuals. Walks in disrepair. Intrusion by unused signage structures. Restore beds to original plan. Replace signage with compatible structures. Replace asphalt paths with gravel.
Lawn Indirect Some encroachment of contemporary facilities. Remains in good condition. Conserve in current state. Arrest further encroachment .
58


â–¡
RESOURCE FRAMEWORK PROBLEMS ACTION
South Lake Direct/ Indirect Shore erosion. Bridge in severe disrepair. Island and lake lack former natural scene. Rehabilitate to naturalized scene. Control shore erosion with indigenous wetland vegetation. Create wildlife habitat on island and shore edge. Recon-struct native land-scape on east shore.
Lily Pond and Rock Garden Indirect Severe maintenance problems. Eutrification. Rock garden severely deteriorated, not recognizable. Adaptive Use Dredge and reshape pond. Replant rock garden with low water demand flowering species. Incorporate contemporary sculpture to emphasize "artistic" scene.
Mount Vernon Garden Direct Original species replaced. Wall and walk deteriorated . Restore to 1925 plan. Replant original species. Repair walk and wall.
Boathouse/ Main Pavilion Direct Vandal and maintenance problems. Facade lacks original paint scheme. Roof deterioration. Interior: inefficient space utilization. Restore facade and second floor pavilion. Vandal proof with compatible raatierals. Re-tile roof. Rehabilitate first floor interior for contemporary use.
Bathhouse Indirect Facade altered, roof deterioration. Rehabilitate. Paint facade to match boathouse. Re-tile roof.
59


RESOURCE FRAMEWORK =Q= PROBLEMS ACTION
Bowling Lawn and Office Direct Some lawn damage. Chain-link fencing detracts from historic scene. Office in disrepair. Conserve lawn. Restore office. Paint and repair structure. Replace in-kind features if necessary.
Cottonwood Grove Direct Potential future tree decline or disease. Conserve grove. Replace dead or diseased tree with same species as needed.
Mountain View Direct Potential future intrusion by high-rise construction in neighborhood . Conserve viewshed through height restrictions. Avoid unplanned tree plantings in corridor.
6C


PHASE
INCORPORATE FINDINGS IHTO OVERALL PLANNING
Planning for historic resources needs-to be undertaken in concert with other planning concerns to have meaningful impact.
As discussed throughout this document, historic resources issues have been neglected in the park planning process resulting in
the loss of many unique and valuable opoortunities for enrichina the park environment. It is only by incorporating the recommendations of the model process into the overall planning process
that parks may fully benefit from these opportunities.
The purpose of this phase is to bring all these concerns together for the, development of fully integrated, balanced and enriched park plans. These plans include system-wide park master plans, individual park master plans and capital improvement plans .
Case Study:
The recommendations from the model process are applied to produce a capital improvement plan as an example of this phase. Several factors are identified and considered to produce the capital improvement plan:
1) a contemporary need in the park
2) the suitability and compatible use of the historic resource for contemporary use or need, and
3) integrating the recommended action for the resource.
From these factors, the design solution is formulated (see figure 29).
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
z |
21
o I ~\
CURRENT
PARK
PLANNING
HISTOWC
RESOURCE
ISSUES
NEED/PROBLEM
SUITABILITY & COMPATIBILITY
'////////S/S/,
RECOMMENDATIONS
DESIGN SOLUTION
Figure 29


STEP 1: IDENTIFY NESD/PROBLEM
Washington Park is undergoing transition from an auto orientation to a pedestrian and bike orientation due to increased demands from joggers and bikers. To accommodate this transition, park planners have virtually eliminated auto traffic by limiting access to exclusively two parking lots and no through traffic along park roads. This alteration requires greater pedestrian facilities as more people are required to access the park on foot. There are only limited park entryways formally designed for the pedestrian. In addition, the limited auto access points are often in conflict with pedestrians who also use these roads for access (see figure 30") . Thus, pedestrian oriented entryways can be identified as a need.
STEP 2: IDENTIFY SUITABLE USE OR COMPATIBLE USE OF THE HISTORIC RESOURCE
The location of the Eugene Field House and the Wynken,
Blynken and Nod Statue is at a park access point with conflicting auto and pedestrian traffic. Here, the development of a pedestrian entryway is an appropriate location. To accomplish this step two questions must be considered:
1) is the resource suitable for this type of development? and,
2) is the proposed use compatible with the historic resource?
The first question recognizes the requirements of the proposed development. For example, the pedestrian entryway should be located on easy grades, it should be visible, and it should facilitate easy access to park destination points.
The photo (figure 31) illustrates the suitability ‘of the vicinity for the proposed development.
The second question addresses the needs of the resource and the protection of its inherent values. Both the statue and the house were relocated to this site. This indicates that this site has been disturbed by these activities. In this case, the proposed entryway will not destroy any valuable historic fabric since the area has already been disturbed.
Also, the proposed use may potentially benefit the resources by providing a basis for associating the two features. Both are historically associated with Eugene Field and Mayor Speer, although currently this association is unclear to the average park visitor. The proposed entryway could be designed to provide a physical connection between the two resources and facilitate greater understanding of historic themes in the park.


*^1
Need/ Problem
LEGEND Schematic Plan
Road Closure ^o Scale Q N
Existing Pedestrian Entry
i
Auto Entry Destination Point


â–¡
Figure 31
Suitability and Compatibility
$>IT£
— P?7rmiAU -p CF-Z/SV£' 6^H3C--rk5H
ip pes^rm^riPH-------
fPIKT^
e^TUe^ PFtoxiHITT 1P ehh^mcps vi^i^prr
£(&> Uf^H ^erf-riH^


STEP 3: INTEGRATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTIONS
Management Framework. Both resources represent significant historic resources with a direct opportunity to experience historic values and qualities during everyday recreation.
Proposed Actions. Re-create fountain and continue restoration of house by private entity. Also, provide interpretive relationship between house and statue.
STEP A: DEVELOP DESIGN SOLUTION
This step represents the blending of contemporary concerns and needs with the needs and issues of historic resources in the creative process. The diagram in figure 32 illustrates the design solution. The solution recognizes the need for sensitively treating these resources by incorporating compatible materials, textures, colors, etc.
This phase demonstrates the benefits of considering all park resources in a comprehensive manner. Not only does the park user benefit from the addition of a pedestrian entryway designed with his needs in mind, but it is that much more endowed by the integration of historic interpretation and preservation of local history and identity. An enriched, diverse and respectful design is the final result.
66




Conclusion
Historic resources in urban parks need to be recognized and dealt with to revive them as vital and integral components of our parks. The basic premise of this study is, as William Faulkner wrote, "The past is not dead; it is not even past."
It is the purpose of preservation planning, not to keep what is "dead" or obsolete, but to keep alive vital memories and origins of the present and future.
The research part of this study has shown that historic resources can become critical elements in urban parks by first, recognizing their benefits; secondly, recognizing our failings toward them; and, finally, recognizing a means for dealing with them in a responsible manner through the model planning approach.
This model approach, as applied to the case study, demonstrates two conclusions. First, the model process can be successfully applied to the standard park planning process.
And secondly, planning for historic resources through the model approach can enhance and enrich the park environment as well as protect and retain a vital park component. The integration of the approach findings and recommendations into a capital improvement plan exemplifies this potential. A pedestrian entryway was conceptualized with the incorporation of a piece of Denver's history; elevating the design concept from the ordinary to the extraordinary. In addition, the historic resources, the Wynken, Blynken and Nod Statue and the Eugene Field House, were protected and brought alive in the design.
This study facts and ideas a single source the future with
is the result of piecing together many scattered to specifically aid the park planner. By creating of information, the park planner can plan for the past.
68


APPENDIX A.
CITY______________
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PARK PLANNERS
1. Department name:
Address:
Phone:
2. Contact Name:
3. Does the Department do Long-Range Planning?
DATE
4. Does the Department have a comprehensive master plan for the park system? (include Date)
5. Does the city have master plans for individual parks in the system?
Which Ones?
Why?
6. Does the city have individual budgets for the parks? Which One?
Why?
69


7. Does the city have a historic structures or historic property inventory or survey for the park system? (if not do any exist at state or national level which include park property?)
8. Do you think historic resources are important for park planning?
Why?
9.
Are historic resources in the city parks considered specifically in long-range planning of the park system?
10. How would you rate the priority of historic resources in park planning in the department?
Hi _____Scale_______ Lo
12 3 4 5
11. Have there been any redevelopment plans prepared for a park where historic resources were an important element? (i.e. restoration or preservation for park or structures).
12. Supply documents relating to discussion. Y N (opt.)
70


APPENDIX C.
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation.
1. Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a property which requires minimal alteration of the building, structure or site and its environment, or to use a property for originally intended purpose.
2. The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure, or site and its environment shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible.
3. All buildings, structures, and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged.
U. Changes which may have taken place in the course of time are evidenced of the history and development of a building, structure, or site and its environment. These changes may have acquired significance in their own right, and this significance shall be recognized and respected.
5. Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship which characterize a building, structure or site shall be treated with sensitivity.
6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced, wherever possible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical, or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different elements from other buildings or structures.
7. The surface cleaning of structures shall be undertaken with the gentlest means possible. Sandblasting and other cleaning methods that will damage the historic building materials shall not be undertaken.
72


8. Every reasonable effort shall be made to protect and preserve archeological resources affected by or adjacent to any project.
9. Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existin properties shall not be discouraged when such alteration and additions do not destroy significant hsitorical, architectural or cultural material, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the property, neighborhood or environment.
10. Wherever possible, new additions or alterations to structure shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations are to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired.


BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Clawson, Marion and Van Doren, eds. Statistics on Outdoor
Recreation: Parts I and II. Washington, D.C.: Resources
for the Future, 1984..
Cranz, Galen. The Politics of Park Design: A History of Urban Parks in America. Cambridge, Mass.; MIT Press, 1982.
Heckscher, August. Open Spaces. New York: Harper & Row, 1977.
A History of Denver's Parks. Denver: The Denver Museum Collection, n.d.
La Page, Wilbur F. "Recreation Resource Management for Visitor Satisfaction." In Recreation Planning and Management, edited by Stanley Lieber and Daniel Fesenmaier. State College: Venture Publishing, 1983.
Lowenthal, David and Binney, Marcus, eds. Our Past Before Us:
Why Do We Save It? London: Temple Smith, 1981.
Lynch, Kevin. What Time Is This Place? Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1972.
Miner, Ralph. Conservation of Historic and Cultural Resources. Chicago: American Association of Planning Officials, 1969.
O'Donnell, Patricia. "Historic Preservation as Applied to Urban Parks." In The Yearbook of Landscape Architecture:
Historic Preservation, edited by Richard L. Austin.
New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1983.
Schroeder, Herbert W. "Measuring Visual Features of Recreation Landscapes." In Recreation Planning and Management, edited by Stanley Lieber and Daniel Fesenmaier. State College: Venture Publishing, 1983.
Spring, Agnes. Denver's Historic Markers, Memorials, Statues
and Parks. Denver: Colorado State Historical Society, 1960.
Worman, Richard S., Levy, Alan and Katz, Joel. The Nature of Recreation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1972.
PERIODICALS
Bohart, Charles V. and Wilson, Ralph C. "Resource-Based Planning and Management." Trends, 21 :2, 1984-, 2-3.
Denver Municipal Facts. 1912, 1925 and 1927.
7A


"Eugene Field House." Prepared for the National Register for Historic Places* On file at the Colorado Preservation Office, Denver, Colorado.
Denver. Denver Public Library, Western History Collection, Photograph files.
O'Donnell, Patricia. "Historic Landscapes Survey." American Society for Landscape Architects, 1984. (Xerox).
INTERVIEWS
Laurie Albano, Landscape Architect, Milwaukee County Park Department, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, January 15, 1985.
John Banks, Park Planner, Department of Parks and Recreation, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Janaury 16, 1985.
Steve Brooks, Park Planner, Parks and Recreation Department, Houston, Texas, March 3, 1985.
Charles Devon, Park Planner, Department of Parks, Recreation
and Cultural Affairs, Atlanta, Georgia, January 31, 1985.
Martha Guavera, Director, Department of Parks and Recreation, Denver, Colorado, March 16, 1985.
Carrie Hansen, Landscape Architect, Department of Park Research and Planning, Cleveland, Ohio, January 16, 1985.
George Hill, Park Planner, Department of Parks and Recreation,
New York, New York, March 11, 1985.
Tom Klaine, Park Engineer, Fairmount Park Commission, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, March 3, 1985.
Debra Lerner, Park Planner, Department of Parks and Recreation,
San Francisco, California, March 11, 1985.
Susan Moore, Park Planner, Department of Parks and Recreation, Chicago, Illinois, March 5, 1985.
Enrique Munez, Landscape Architect, Department of Parks and Recreation, Miami, Florida, March 7, 1985.
Joe Prather, Park Planner, Department of Parks and Recreation,
Los Angeles, California, March 7, 1985.
Harriet Saperstein, Park Planner, Department of Recreation,
Detroit, Michigan, February 1, 1985.
Jim Schoemcher, Park Planner, Department of Parks and Recreation, Kansas City, Missouri, January 31, 1985.
76


Claude Thompson, Park Planner, Department of Park Planning and Research, Dallas, Texas, March 5, 1985-
Rae Tuft, Park Planner, Department of Parks and Recreation, Seattle, Washington, January 31, 1985.
Norman Whitaker, Landscape Architect, Department of Parks and Recreation, Cincinnati, Ohio, March 5, 1985.


Full Text

PAGE 1

.. 1 : . .. . . : . . .. ; , / i .• : . : ... . t ; , : . ... , . .:.-o\ . . pLANNING FOR -, . . ... HISTORIC .... : RESOURCES . IN URBAN PARKS By HELEN STARR ....... . : : :

PAGE 2

LD "CJo THIS THESIS IS SUBMITTED AS PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A i.W.STER OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE DEGREE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER COLLEGE OF DESIGN AND PLANNING GRADUATE PROGRAM OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE -A77 11J' b (Committee Member1s Name & Title) (Committee Member1S Name & Title) DATE 573 i

PAGE 3

PLANNING FOR HISTORIC RESOURCES IN URBAN PARKS By Helen M . Starr December, 1985

PAGE 4

Acknowledgements Among the many individuals to whom I am beholden I would especially like to thank Linda Romola , .who was steadfast to the end, read the manuscript and corrected many errors; to D a n Young , Jerry Shapins and William Wenk for their assistance; and Beverly Ritchey for typing the final manuscript. • ___________________________________________________________________ iii

PAGE 5

Table of Contents List of Figures p.v Introduction P 1 PART I Recreation Trends and Issues p.S A Park Department Survey p.9 Historic Preservation Planning p.12 PART II .,; . The Model p.21 A Phased Appoach: Washington Park p. 2.4 Conclusion p.68 Appendices p.69

PAGE 6

List of Figures 1 . South Lake, Washington Park: Denver , Colorado, 1985 2 . Visits to the National Park System 3 . Survey Results: Historic Resource Policy 4 . DeBoer Perennial Garden, Washington Park : Denver, Colorado, 1985 5 . Literature Review 6 . National Register of Historic Places criteria 7 . Historic Preservation Treatments 8 . Lily Pond, Washington Park: Denver, Colorado, 1985 9 . Model: 6 Phase Approach 10. City Ditch, Washington Park: Denver, Colorado, 1985 11 . Denver Park System 12. Washington Park: 1925 13. Washington Park: 1985 14. Preliminary Inventory M a p 15. Evaluation Matrix 16. Priority List 17. City Ditch, Washington Park: Denver, Col orado, 1865 18. Statue, Washington Park: Denver, Colorado, 1917 19. DeBoer Garden, Washington Park: Denver, Colorado , 1918 20. South Lake, Washington Park: Denver , Col orado, 1906 21. Lily Pond, Washington Park: Denver, Colorado, 1 9 1 3 22. Analysis 23. Ditch = " Heart" of Washington Park 24. Fra mewo r k Concept Diagram 25. Framework Plan 26. Authenticity, Research and Funding for T reatmant Alternatives 27. Proposed Action 28. Management Plan 29. Capital Improvement Process 30. Need/Problem 31. Wynken, Blynken & Nod , Washington Park: Denver, Colorado, 1985, Suitability and Compatibility 32. Capital Improvement Plan: Pedestrian Entry v

PAGE 7

Introduction People who think of parks usually think of baseball fields, picnic areas and expansive lawns. However, parks are also a rich historical repository. Our nation' s urban parks contain important facets of our national, regional and local pasts. Every historic park contributes to urban form and identity. Their layouts determined the location o f roads, the exclusion of buildings and the location of entire neighborhoods (Mumford, 1977). The design of these parks also reflects ?Ur cultural values toward the natural and the built world. The manipulation of trees, topography and building materials are evidence of artistic styles prevalent at the time. Some historic parks are landmarks in the development of the profession of landscape architecture. The roots of the profession are embedded in the origins of urban park design beginning with Olmstead and Central Park in the 1860' s . Last, but not least, these parks are part of the everyday lives o f thousands of people. People of all types have grown up and developed their personal identities on the turf of these parks. And yet, urban parks are taken for granted . Two Olmstead parks illustrate the typical problems faced by historic urban parks in the recent past. Belle Isle Park in Detroit was designed in 1881. It was characteristic of many of Olmstead' s plans with meandering roads, meadows and forests. The park was created on an island with an extensive natural forest preserved by Olmstead, an elaborate water system and a formal area at one end. Over time, the park became a hodgepodge of inharmonious and tasteless structures. An exotic casino from the original design became a shelter for the elderly and a third rate eating place. Much of the Olmstead spirit was effectively lost from the encroachments (Heckscher, 1977). The second park is Delware Park in Buffalo. Olmstead selected the park site in 1868 which he referred to as "almost ready made. " It was laid out with many diverse facilities, incorporated the lakeside and a sheep meadow. In he early 1960' s , the Scafaquada Expressway was constructed and bisected the park into separate areas. Portions of the par k became underused and deteriorated; and other portions became overused. While not the intention of city officials, this major change altered the park forever (Heckscher, 1977). These two examples illustrate the forces of change which do not recognize the inherent values of historic urban parks and their resources. l

PAGE 8

Clearly, we are living in an age o f rapid change. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to put one' s existence in clear perspective with regard to past, p resent and future events. People in the city need to recognize and hold their cultural and physical roots. Saving a city' s historic resources in its parks can satisfy at least a part o f these needs. They are the physical reminders of days gone by. Conflicts between preservation and change must be resolved so that current trends in urban park design are successfully integrated w ith those o f past eras . If not, an important com ponent of our urban heritage will disappear. Figur e l This study is concerned with the recognition and p reserva t ion of valuable historic resources and assets in urban parks especially as they relate to their primary caretakers, the park planning agency. One of the most important means for insuring the protection of historic resources is at the local government level. Park planning agencies should take the leadership role for establishing goals, policies and adm inistrative programs for successful preservation efforts. However, park planners are handicapped by the lack of sources i n thi s area directed specifically to them. It i s to fill this void that this study was undertaken. 2

PAGE 9

The cen tral thesis o f this study is that park planning a gencies must recognize the needs and opportunities of h i s o ric resources in the urban park and integrate historic p reservation planning principle s as a critical component of the park planning process. In this manner, historic resources can contribute to the enrichment of the urban recreational environment, and con tribute to the greater understanding of local history and identity. The study considers three main questions: 1) What a r e the benefits for preserving historic resources in parks--specifically, how can these resources enhance recreational opportunities in parks? 2) Are park planning agencies currently planning for historic resources in the urban park system? If not , why? 3) How should park planning agencies ideally plan for their historic resources? To answer these questions a research agenda was established to investigate recreation trends and issues; t o conduct a survey of park planning agencies; and, to perform a literature review of historic preservation planning studies. From the research findings, a model planning process was established. Finally, a case study was employed to demonstrate the applicat i o n of the mode l process. The result is a single source of information for the park planner and interested individuals. 3

PAGE 10

PART I RESEARCH

PAGE 11

Chapter 1 The historic preservation movement a rapidly expanding field and vet the movement has not fully incorporated landscapes in areas such as urban parks. There are however several trends in recreation which indicate there is a favorable climate for pres erving and developing historic landscapes in our park envi ronments. Before identifying these trends, it is important to recognize that these resources in their neglected state are being wasted. As discussed in the introduction, they are taken for granted. In this manner, these resources are not planned for, not maintained , not even recognized. The results are structures, buildings and gardens nobody want s to use, nobody cares for and this begins a cyclical pattern of underuse and deteriorat ion. In other words, an unnecessary waste of land and facilities. There are a number of poyulation and leisure t rends which suggest that historic resources in urban parks require greater scrutiny and closer management. As urban populations grow, so will the need for recreational opportunities close to home . vhen Central Park was built in New Yor k City i n 1862, 90 percent of the population lived in rural areas. One hundred and eight year s later 80 percen t of the population lives in cities. In order to meet the change in population densities, it is vital to minimize wasted resources withi n urban parks. U rban dwellers also h ave more leisur e time. In the 1870' s the average wor k week was about 53 hours. Toda y , the average number of hours wor ked per week is close to 40 hours (Wurman , Levy , Katz, 1 972). The 40-hour w o r k week represents a g a i n of 675 hours of free time annually over the last century. If vacation time and holidays are added to annual free time gains, the total gain becomes roughly one month out of every twelve since the 1870' s . This indicates even greater need to reduce waste and increase the urban recreation base. Some people consider historic park s worthy of preservation simply as works of art . There is a perception that historic parks are old and therefore obsolete. However , a study by Patricia O 'Donnell, examining past and present recreational pursuits i n urban p a rks, demonstrates that recreational values have not significantly changed overthe p ast centur y . Indeed, the most notable differences are the greater number of users and the increase i n diversity of rec reational pursuits (O'Donnell, 1983). Older , historic urban parks can still play a viable role in providing recreational opportunities in cities today.

PAGE 12

Historic resources also represent an i mportant component of recreational activity. Sightseeing, or visiting historic o r national sites ranks sixth of twenty-five outdoor recreation activities in term s o f participants as a percentage o f population (Statistics on Outdoor Recreation, 1984). Visitation statistics to the National Park System (NPS) also provide figures which demonstrate the popularity of historic resources as recreational resources. The chart in figure 2 shows visits to national, historical, and archeological park areas to be the most visited of all the N PS areas. The chart indicates the rate of g rowth for these areas is among the fastest in the past several years. Given the popularity for historical sites, urban parks with these resources have the opportunity to capitalize on an recreational activity. The previous discussion suggests that integrating historic resources into the park planning process would enhance recreational opportunities, reduce wasted space and facilities and generally assist in meeting the needs of increasing urban populations and increasing leisure time. Several issues and trends in park planning indicate historic resources can and should be included in responsible planning. One such issue facing urban park departments today, is the economi c constraint of decreasing park budget s . In view of smaller budgets, it is even more important that par k departments eliminate waste. Operating existing facilities at full capacity is one prudent approach toward reducing waste. Historic resources are often victims of underuse as a result of poor maintenance and low priority. Rectifying these problems will require greater attention in years to come. In a survey of park departments around thecountry (see chapter 2 for full discussion), one o f the most predominant trends in park planning is the change in focus from park land acquisition and expansion o f park systems to maintenance o f existing facilities. This shift in focus has forced park officials to recognize the growing problems and opportunities surrounding historic resources in urban parks. There is a need to realize the role these resources play in the park environment, and, their suitability or susceptibility for change. As will be discussed later, there are few sources or studies aid the park planner in making critical decisions regarding these resources. Many park planners depend on recreation statistics and standards for making decisions for park development. Increasingly, however, these methods are disputed as inadequate. Th e N ational Academy of Sciences found: "Using population-based standards as a measure of the relative demand for a resource ignores many of the crucial factors affecting demand for recreational opportunities •.. " 6

PAGE 13

Visits to the National Park System 60 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 30 .. . . . . . ... , .. .. ............... . . . . .... ' 10 '11 12 National Historic & Archeology Sites National Parks National Monuments National Parkways National Recreation Areas National Seashores National Capitol 13 ,., ' -----14 15 16 11 18 19 80 year 7

PAGE 14

In general, this study found tha t very little thought is given to the joint analysis of supply and demand. Too often demand statistics are the sole basis for decisionmaking . With respect to historic resources in parks, there is clearly a demand for their development yet little has been done to ascertain the supply. Deman d studies are rarely a true evaluation o f actual demand, being in most cases a projection of p ast use and population expansion. Planning based solely on standa rds may result in a s e t number of facilities per acre, per park, or per so m any people without regard for the inherent capability of the site to accept them (Bohart & Wilson, 1984) . While park standards are being disputed, there is a growing trend toward decision-making based on the quality o f recreat iona l experience (as opposed to quantity). Many studies and models are being developed . wh ich measur e such values as visitor satisfaction, (LaPage, 1981) visual preferences, (Schroeder, 1981), and recreational opportunities, (Clarke & Stankey, 1979). To achiev e quality, a resource oriented approach is emer ging as a more suitable planning concept. Resource-based planning is the process of letting resources such as soil, vegetation, topography, e t c., play the lead role in determining the kinds of recreat ion facilities and uses which should be developed f o r an area. This planning concept achieves greater quality results because i t allows the resource to provide the greatest possible realizatio n of user s a tisfaction and, development is limited to the capability of the resource to sustain a planned use. While this concept is more frequently applied to natural resources, the.same principle could be practiced w ith regard to man -made historic resources. These issues and trends in park planning indicate a shift in focus towards existing opportunities in urban park systems by developing those opportunities to their best advantage, par k planners can and should achieve excellent results in the responsible man agement of historic resources. 8

PAGE 15

Chapter 2 As explained in Chapter 1, historic resources can be a valuable component in the park r ecreation environment. The r e is an opportunity for considerable enrichment o f urban parks by u tilizing these resources to their best advantag e . The question this section of the study addresses is: A r e par k department s currently considering historic resources in the par k planning process? If so, are those resources being wisely managed? And, if historic resources are not being adequately planned f o r , why not? To answer these questions an informal s urvey was conducted of urban park departments around the country. METHODOLOGY A sample of the larges t citie s in the United States was selected f o r the survey to obtain an objective and representa t ive view o f current park planning practices. E ighteen c ities were selected from the same s a mple used in the National Urban Rec r e a tion Study conducted in 1978 to evaluate the current state of recreation in urban areas . A park planner was contacted at the local park planning agency in each city by telephone. The discussions were formatted by a series of ten questions ranging from general park planning practice, to issues specific t o historic resources (see Appendix A). In addition, planning documents were solicited t o support the discussions for indepth review. RESULTS Results of the survey were determined by comparing planning p ractices to t he number of projects undertaken involving h istoric resources. Those cities w ith greater quantities of projects involving historic resources were judged more favorably than those w i t h fewer p r o jects . The survey was limited to determining success by quantity; quality evaluation was beyond the scope of the research . The most critical factor f o r m anaging h istoric resources in the urban park system is a formal historic resource based policy. A l l of theci t i e s surveyed did some type of long-range park plan n ing; and, the vast majority, 82 percent, did c omprehensive plan n ing. But only 7 o f the 1 8 cities addressed historic resources with a formal policy. O f those 7 c i ties, all had undertaken the greatest quantity of projects involving historic resources than over the other remaining cit ies. Conversely, those c ities w ithout a formal policy o r with an "understood" departmental philosophy had the poorest results (see figur e 3 ) . q

PAGE 16

SURVEY RESULTS : Historic Resource Policy GENERAL PLANNING 100% 82% Long-Comprehensive Range Plans Plans FORMAL POLICY 59% 41% Yes No CITIES WITH POLICY 100% 0% 0% Most Some Least . PRESERVATION PROJECTS

PAGE 17

Further review of the policy statements o f the 7 c ity park departments revealed disappointing factors. For the most part the policies were non-comprehensive. Often policies were directed to an individual historic park or limited to historic buildings. For example, San Francisco's historic resource policy states: "Ensure that the historic elements that give Golden Gate Park its unique landscape character are retained and protected. In other words, these policies did not consider all historic resources in the entire system. The results of the survey also indicate inadequate data gathering for decision-making. Only 2 of the eighteen park departments have conducted an inventory of historic resources in their park systems. This suggests that decisions for historic parks and features are made non-objectively, for such reasons as political goals or personal preferences of park planners or special interest group pressures. Park planners generally consider historic resources an important issue. Seventy-six percent felt these resources should be given moderate to high priority in park planning. Over 1/3 felt they should receive a high priority. However, throughout the survey discussions with the park planners a negative perception of historic resources was detected . _ Often these resources were perceived as burdens to the park department. More seriously, they were seen as conflicting with overall park goals toward providing recreation. They were regarded as obsolete and an expense burden. Clearly there is a need for the academic community to engage in heightening the public sector's awareness for the opportunities and enrichment historic resources can provide in urban parks. Historic resources can be assets to the park system and in harmony with overall park goals f o r providing community recreation. (See Appendix B for complete survey data). The survey results indicate that many urban park departments are not taking full advantage of the opportunities historic resources offer. One reason for this may be inadequate information about dealing with these resources. Perhaps, with greater knowledge and education in this field, positive changes can be made. 1 1

PAGE 18

Chapter 3 Many concerns we r e raised as a result of the park department survey. Foremost among them was the inadequacy of current planning practices concerning historic resources in the park system. The park departments themselves provided few answers toward answering the question, how should park planning agencies ideally plan for their historic resources? Indeed, lack of information sources applicable to planning for historic resources in parks may be a contributing factor toward insufficient use and deve lopment o f these resources. A review of the literature concerning historic resource planning is included here to assist i n providing appropriate answers f o r thi s question. Figure 4 Historic resources i n the landscape have only recently begun to receive attention in the landscape architectur e profession as well as by historic preservation professionals. Lately, there have been attempts to legislate the protection of the Olmstead heritag e in the landscape (H . R . 4356, 1984). Yet little research has been conducted relating to h istoric resource planning in urban parks. The study p repared by Patricia O 'Donnell, "Historic

PAGE 19

Preservation as Applied to Urban Parks", and some of the current published park restoration and rehabilitation projects provide limited information about this subject. These publications account for mostly preservation design concepts and provide only indirect insight into long-range planning practice issues. METHODOLOGY Many other related fields, such as architecture and city planning have begun to address the issues involving historic resources i n their respective fields. To answer the question, "How should parks plan for their historic resources.", these studies were reviewed to broaden the investigative base. The purpose of this review is to: 1) establish current historic preservation planning procedure; and, 2) determine if the procedures are applicable to the park planning process. Five representative studies concerning historic preservation planning were chosen from five related fields for a comparative review. These fields included city planning, rural landscapes, architecture, historic landscapes, and cultural resource planning (see figure 5). ANALYSIS From the comparative review a number of fundamental similarities can be identified. All of the studies expressed similar overall goals to protect, provide "wise stewardship" and select appropr i ate mana gemen t measures for historic resources. The studies r einforced the conclusion made from the telephone survey that policy development is vital to eventual success of planning strategies for the respective fields. For example, Miner writes; "Behind an effective program is found an expression of .•. policy in support of the concept of preservation and an approach to achieve it • II Each study employed a similar process which include several fundamental steps for developing a historic resource or preservation plan. These steps are: 1. Defining the resource. 2. Preliminary inventory of historic resources. 3 . Preliminary evaluation of historic significance. 4 . Develop a comprehensive inventory of valuable resources. 5 . Develop preservation alternatives and actions. 6 . Incorporate finding s into overall planning process. 1 3

PAGE 20

Figure S Literature Review 0 City Planning MINER, RALPH. Conservation of Historic and Cultural Resources. Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials, 1969 0 Rural Landscapes MELNICK, ROBERT Z. Cultural Landscapes: Rural Historic Districts in the National Park System. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1984. 0 Architecture U.S. DEPAKTMENT AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT. Historic Preservation Plan: Savannah, Georgia. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1973. 0 Historic Landscapes O'DONNELL, PATRICIA. Historic Landscapes Survey, American Society of Landscape Architecture, 1984 (unpublished document). 0 Cultural Resouce Planning U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE I N TERIOR. N ATIO NAL PARK SERVICE. Cultural Resources Guidelines. NPS-28. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1980. 1 4

PAGE 21

To illustrate the similarity in procedure consider for example the planning process identified by both Mine r and Melnick: MELNICK 1. Undertake Preliminary Identification 2 . Preliminary Determination of S ignificance 3. Apply Evaluation Criteria 4 . Final Inventory 5 . Select Appropriate Management Options 6 . Prepare Cultural Landscape Report 7. Implement Management Options MINER "Components of a Comprehensive Conservation Prog ram " 1. Preliminary Survey 2 . Comprehensive Inventory & Evaluation 3 . Criteria for Evaluation 4 . Area Analysis 5 . Program Framework • 6 . Tools for Program Implementation: Public Options Their processes focus on the development o f an inventory as well as ultimately management recommendations. They are objective efforts to collect all the facts before making final decisions regarding significant historic resources. The typical process as synthesized from the literatur e analysis include the following: The first step in the process is defining the resource in question. While the step was universal among the studies, the par ticular standards for defining the resource varied according to the respective field. Savannah defined the resource in t erm s o f architectural elements, and the Melnick study defined the resource in terms of landscape components. Nevertheless, in all cases the definition of the resource established the parameters of the survey. 1 5

PAGE 22

In the next step, a preliminary survey is conducted to identify all potential significant resources. This step includes historical research to determine the historical context and a windshield survey of existing field conditions. The windshield survey serves to confirm the historic research as well as to discover any undocumented resources. Typically, at this point an evaluation is made to reduce the list of potential resources to only those which demonstrated significant age and adequate historical b ackground data. This list is then the basis for the next step, evaluating for historic significance. This level of evaluation requires more in-depth research for each resource including both historic research and existing conditions of the resource. A final list and the collected data are the basis for all future decision m akin g . This final list must now be considered relative to the overall, immediate physical context for developing strategies for preservation. Appropriate management options are weighed against all these factors for final recommendations. These recommendations can then be incorporated into overall planning efforts. These fundamental similarities point to an important conclusion. From the literature representing the current state o f historic preservation planning, there is a single, universally employed process. This broad consensus signifies that the process can be considered a paradigm for historic resource planning with an application in many fields. This concept has not been explicitly acknowledged previously in any of the fields reviewed. This study will ultimately look at applying this approach as a formal model in the case study. Some of the differences among the studies are-generally a result of fundamental differences to be expected when drawing comparisons in different fields. As mentioned earlier, the definition of the resource is treated in terms specific to its respective fiel d . Rura l landscapes are fundamentally different from architecture and thus similarities among the definitions cannot be drawn. Howe ver, it is impor t ant to note that the definition must be developed to adequately inventory historic resources. In this light, the process differences among the fields identify areas to be dealt with when applying any preservation approach for historic resources in urban parks. Another area of differences among the studies is the criteria used to evaluate historic significance. The criteria outlined by the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) was the formal basis for evaluation criteria of 3 of the 5 studies. The Miner study ysed c riteria, although not formally based on the NRHP criteria, addressed the same type o f information and the difference was slight. The criteria from the NRHP is liste d in figure 6 . 1 6

PAGE 23

National Register of Historic Criteria Places quality of significance in American history, archi tecture, archeology, and cultur e is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location design, setting, materials , workmanship, feeling , and association, and: 1 A s sociated with events that have made a significan t con to the broad patterns o f our history or; 2 Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past or; 3 Embodythe distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work o f a master, o r that possess high artistic.values, or that r e present a significant and distinguishable entity who s e com ponent s may lack individual distinctio n or, 4 Have yielded or likely t o yield inform a tion important i n prehistory or h istor y."

PAGE 24

While this criteria was b r oadly accepted, i t seems mo1e readily applicable to architectur e and less appropriate to landscapes. Even the definition excludes the s ignificance of landscape histor y ; listing only " histor y , architecture, a rcheology and culture". Th i s issue is addr essed i n the study histori c landscapes. O 'Donnell modifies the criteria to evaluate integrity on the basis of specific landscape elements such as topography, vegeta tion and spatial relationships instead of the NRHP criteria component s of setting , materials, and work mansh i p . The criteria as modified by O 'Donnell, however, suffers because it is too specific to be broadly applied. This is also the case in the Savannah study where the criteria is specific to only one type o f architectural style. Finally, the a rea o f management options varied widely among the studies from broad-based planning tools to specific treat ments. Miner and Melnick identify b road planning tools such as zoning and easements for protection of resources. Conversely, the Savannah study identified specific treatments such as design guidelines for new construction, retention and removal o f exist ing structures. NPS -28 identified both broad and specific treatments. Probably the most helpful management information a r e the formal i zed definitions of preservation tools such as restoration, adaptive use, reconstruction, etc. prepared by O 'Donnell (see_ figure 7). T hese areas of differences a mong the studies identify a range of tasks which must be addressed when developing and applying a p reservat ion planning approach. In summary the steps are : 1) Develop a definition of the historic resource 2) Modify the NRHP evaluation criteria for appropriateness t o the resource; and, 3 ) Identify appropriate management options for the scale and type of resource. APPLICATION FOR PARK PLANNING T o determi n e the applicability of the preservation planning process identified in the p revious discussion to urban park planning , we must consider the park planning process. The diagram in figur e 7 illustrates the typical park planning process as derived from the par k department survey. (Information was gathered from planning documents solicited from each agency. ) Typically, the park department c onducts an inventor y of existing features and conditions, usually including facilities, activities, acreage, equipment, and various other categories. Historic resources c ould become an additional category for the i nventory utili z i n g the model approach f o r conduc ting such an inventory. Recommendations could then be incorporated in final plans .

PAGE 25

Historic Preservation Treatments 0 Restoration Returns the site to its original appearance during a selected period. Strict authenticity of overall form, details and is required. D Rehabilitation Returns a historic site to a useful . condition, bringing it to a state of good repair. 0 Adaptive Use Retains and reinforces the original form. while accommodating new uses, needs and conteporary conditions. 0 Re-creation Applies to the reproduction of a setting not on an original site. 0 Conservation Protects a historic setting from loss or the infringement of incongruent uses and arresting deterioration with a passive process. it is stewardship of the site. (O'Donnell, 1983) 1 9

PAGE 26

PART II CASE STUDY 2 0

PAGE 27

Chapter 4 A case study is employed to demonstrate the model planning process based on the previous research information for historic resourcAs in urban parks. The case study incorporates the following : 1 • Mode l Policy for historic resource planning in urban parks. 2 . Model Process for historic resource planning in urban parks. The City of Denver Parks Department and one of its parks, Washington Park were selected for the model application. This park department is an ideal agency for the study. Currently, the department is beginning its first comprehensive park system plan. Previously, the department operated solely on the basis of a capital improvement plan, therefore it has no formal policies or master plan for the system. This is an ideal opportunity to conduct this study and hopefully assist in the initial park planning endeavors. Figure 8 21

PAGE 28

POLICY A formal policy is the most critical factor for an effective historic resource preservation program. The survey demonstrated this fact. One hundred percent of those park departments which had a formal histori c resource policy had also done the most significant number of projects involving historic resources. However, as previously discussed, these policies tended to be specific to a single park or type of resource such as historic buildings. The possibility suggested in this study is that these policies could be expanded to incorporate all historic resources in the park system. In other words, historic resource policies should be comprehensive. In addition to a comprehensive approach, historic resource policies should address the overall goals of par k planning. The primary goal in any park plan is to provide recreation. Histori c resources enhance opportunities for park recreation by: 1) Providing opportunities to experience h istoric qualities and values during everyday recreation. Indirectly, historic resources can be perceived by the park user providing continuity and identity in the park environment and, 2) Providing opportunities to experience historic resources that enhance public understanding o f local history. In other words, directly involving the park user through interpretive techniques. In summary, the historic resource policy as a critical function in park planning should provide a framework for preserving historic resource qualities and values in all park land while maximizin the recreational use of these resources.

PAGE 29

PLANNING APPROACH !ODEL The approach mode l as identified in the literature review section is summarized in figure 9 . MODEL 6-Phase 1\pproach • • • • • 1 . Define the Resource 2. Preliminary Inventory of Historic Resources 3. Preliminary Evaluation of Historic Significance 4. Develop a Comprehensive Inventory of Valuable Resources 5. Develop Preservation 1\lternatives & Actions 6. Incorporporate Findings into Overall Planning The goals and objectives of the historic resource policy must be considered in all phases of the model process. The model process relates to these goals and objectives by: 1 . Identifying historic values and qualities through a systematic and comprehensive research process. 2 . Identifying historic themes and patterns required to local history. 3 . Determining which resources are worthy of preservation. 4 . Determining priorities for decision-making. 5 . Providing a basis for selecting appropriate preservation treatment which best meets the .needs of the park user and the park planning agency. The process is also applicable at any phase of park planning. Typically, this would three levels, park system master planning, individual park master plans and capital improvement plans . 2 3

PAGE 30

Chapter 5 A case study example was selected to demonstrate the appli cation of the model process. Ideally, the approach should be applied to a park system; however, time and funding limited the case study to a single park. Nevertheless, the s ame principles would apply at either level. One of the largest parks in Denver, Washington Par k incorporates 163 acres. It is located in one of the older sections of Denver populated by an increasingly upwardly mobile residents. Denver residents are attracted to the park for both its natural features as well as its recreational facilities. It has two lakes and a pond which a r e favorite areas for fishing as well as cool respites in the summer heat. Its mature trees provide many informal areas for picnicking, reading, or relaxing. The large expanses of lawn are ideal for soccer, croquet and frisbee. Swimming and other indoor activities are located in the relatively new recreation center. It is a favorite jogging and biking spot for local residents and is the site of many foot and bike races. The tennis courts are also popular attractions. F i gure 10 ' ' j •

PAGE 31

Denver Park System eNorth 25

PAGE 32

Washington Park was chosen for the case study as an excellent example of a historically rich park which is appreciated for its recreational opportunities but has valuable historic resources that are all but forgotten. The Denver resident is more likely to consider Civic Center Park or City Park or even Cheeseman Park as historic. And yet, except for Civic Center Park, Washington is the only park with property listed on the National Register of Historic Places. It would take many return visits or a lucky chance to find the half-hidden markers that are the only indication of historic significance at either of the two properties in Washington Park-the City Ditch and the Eugene Field House. The lack of identification and use of historic features at the park are clearly a missed opportunity to entrance Washington Park' s total resource foundation. As a result of the neglect, these features suffer from increasing deterioration and underuse which is a waste of important resources. Washington Park is formally classified as a neighborhood park but in reality it services nearly a regional level of park users. This combined with the location of increasing multiple family high rises and other dwellings indicates the park faces growing recreational demands. All these factors make thepark an ideal example for applying an approach which is meant to address these issues. In the following sections, Washington Park will be used to demonstrate the Model Process. For each phase in the process, a background discussion is included followed by a step-by-step procedure using the Washington Park example. 26

PAGE 33

PHASE D D D D D DEFINE THE RESOURCE This is the first step in the process of identifying and evaluating historic resources. Essentially, the definition the framework for the entire planning process. The framework, as proposed in this study, is based on the two landscape studies included in the literature review by O 'Donnell and Melnick. The O 'Donnell study defines the historic landscape i n terms of "landscape categories". These categories include, "Farm, Cemetery, Fort, Park, etc. They were derived from a survey of historic preservation projects in the United States. The Melnick study defines the highest rural landscape in terms of "landscape components" . These components break down the landscape into various contributing parts including , "Spatial organization, Land-use, Circulation, Boundaries, Vegetation, etc." These two principles of dividing the landscape into manageable parts can be applied to the park system. In thi s manner, there are three levels of the park system. At the broadest scale, there is the park system itself. At the next level there are the park categories o f the park system, for example these might include: Parks, regional and neighborhood Minor Parks Parkways Park Facilities (Golf courses, pools, etc. ) Park Buildings and Grounds (Gymnasiums, etc. ) Monuments and Grounds (fountains, statues, etc. ) At the last level, there are the various components which com prise the park category. These include: Buildings Structures Vegetation Park Furniture Statues \va ter Features Playground and other facilities Circulation Views 27

PAGE 34

Each level may be inventoried and evaluated for historic significance. In this manner, an entire park system may be determined of historic significance by inventorying its contributing park categories; or, an individual component such as a fountain may be determined historic in an otherwise nonhsitoric park after an inventory and evaluation of each park' s components is conducted. Case Study: The case study will look at a neighborhood park; and, inventory and evaluate its various park components as listed above. 2 8

PAGE 35

PHASE D D D D D PRELIMINARY INVENTORY OF POTENTIAL RESOURCES The purpose of the preliminary inventory is twofold. First, much of the historical data is gathered at this stage. This serves to provide the context in which the resources are examined. And , second, potential h istoric resources are identified at this stage. The final products of this phase are an organized compilation of historic data and a list of historic features. Case Study: Step 1 : Compile Historic Data This is done by conducting research into the history of the area. In this case, the history of Washington Park is investi gated. Data was gathered from a variety of sources at the Denver Public Library, the Historical Society of Colorado, the Department of Parks and the Department of Public Works in Denver . Original plans, photos, newspaper clippings, local histories, archival material and general histories were investigated for pertinent data. The data was o rganized into three parts: A) a narrative history of Washington Park; B) a chronology of development; and, C) plan drawings supporting the development of the park. These are included as follows: A . A Narrative History of Washington Park -The development of Washington Par k began in 1898. The original development o f Washington Park was shaped by two levels of influence. At one level, there were the trends o f park design prevailing in the United States at the time. At another level, ther e were local forces dominating park development. Washington Park is representative of the "Pleasure Ground" style of park design of the 1850' s which continued into the early nineteenth century. The Pleasure Ground style was the first major park form in the United States. The most famous park representing this style is Central Park in New York City. This type of park was built in response to the growing difficulties of city living . Bringing the country into the city was the main thrust o f Pleasure Ground development; an attempt by c ity officials to alleviate the problems of the city. The Pleasure Ground is characterized by a number o f design elements based on, not only the ideals of the picturesque of the Romantic Period in vogue at the time, but also on the naturalness 29

PAGE 36

and informality of the American countryside (Cranz, 1982). Many of these elements are exhibited in the original design of Washington Park. The park' s meandering roads, open meadows and gradual grade changes typify the Pleasure Ground ideals. Artificial lakes are also major features of the Pleasure Ground style. North Lake and South Lake (Grasmere Lake) exemplify the illusion of infinity created by the water merging with the sky so often alluded to in picturesque ideals. The placidity of large water features is another typical characteristic of the style. Mowed grass is a basic element in the typical Pleasure Ground. It is the antithesis of urban pavement. The Neo -Classical architectural elements of the Boathouse in Washington Park and the rustic structures such as the Picnic Pavilion are examples of typical architectural styles found in the Pleasure Ground. Buildings were commonly one or two stories, with occasional galleries or balconies (as in the Boathouse) to take advantage of views. They were built for permanence and durability and often sited at the edge of open grounds. The popular rustic style was created by building with small trees with the bark intact . These whimsical structures can still be found in several Denver Parks including Washington Park. Ornaments, such as statues and fountains were sparingly permitted, symbolically admitting the hand of man into the natural scene. Often these were donated by prominent local citizens. An example of this is the Wynken, Blynken and Nod statue donated to Denver by its well-known sculptor, Mabel Torrey, and located in Washington Park. Washington Park was developed under the auspices of Robert W . Speer, mayor of Denver from 1904-1912 and 1916-1918. His commitment to create a beautiful city was one of the greatest influences on the development of the parks and boulevards in Denver. As a result of his influence, Denver was transformed from a country town to a modern city (McMechan, 1919). Under his administration both as mayor and as Director of Public Works, Denver experienced progressive and intense growth of park lands from 1894-1918. It was during this period most of Denver' s major parks were established: City Park, Cheeseman, Civic Center and Washington. He was also responsible for many of Denver' s smaller neighborhood parks, parkways and amusement parks. Denver had little direct impact from the major park designers of the time such as Frederick Law Olmstead and George Kessler. However, Speer' s activities did have direct impact on the establishment and design of the parks. For example, Speer felt that water features added "life" to the park environment (McMechan, 1919). He directed park designers to incorporate such elements as lily ponds, lakes, fountains, and pools into most of the parks. In Washington Park for example, two lakes, a lily pond, and a special fountain created for the Wynken, Blynken and Nod statue were incorporated into the original park plans at Speer' s request. 30

PAGE 37

Speer considered the mountain view a primary factor in selecting sites for parks. Most of Denver's major parks including Washington Park, have this important feature. Speer also placed high importance on aesthetics in the parks. Many formal flower gardens were planted in the parks and boulevards to beautify the city. The formal flower beds in Washington Park were created by Saco Rienk DeBoer, a noted local landscape architect. Speer also recognized the importance of education and children in parks. He began a campaign to install children's playgrounds in Denver' s parks. During his administration, he established an in-house manufacturing plant for safe and innovative play equipment. The Eugene Field residence, a frame house in downtown Denver, was relocated in Washington Park under Speer's administration. Field, a prominent poet, lived in the house for a few years and wrote many of his famous children' s poems there including "Wynken, Blynken and Nod'' The location of the house to Washington Park by Speer in 1911 was an early attempt at historic interpretation and preservation for public education. These two major influences on park development as they apply to Washington Park indicate the park is an important repository for historic information. The park not only represents the Pleasure Ground style of park design, but also demonstrates the impact Speer had on the Denver landscape. B . Chronology of Washington Park Development ( 1891-1924) 1891-1916: Land acquisition 1899: Named Washington Park Manager's residence acquired 1905: Tool house, wagon sheds and toilets built Piped City Ditch from Exposition Ave. north Pumphouse buil t 1906: South Lake built Shelter house erected at Downing and Louisiana 1907: Ladies toilet installed near North Lake Pavilion erected New boathouse pavilion erected Water system installed 31

PAGE 38

1908: Tennis courts built Playground started Pillars at Mississippi donated Bridge at Kentucky entrance donated 1910: Summer house built 1 911 : Field house constructed 1912: Cement bridges built New wing to bathhouse Bathing beach opens 1913: Lily pond and rock garden built 1914: Piers built at beach 1918: Perennial garden planted 191 9 : Wynken, Blynken & Nod Statue placed 1920: Bandstand built on top of pavilion 1922: Tennis courts in at south end 1923: Lawn in at south end 1924: Campfire Girl' s fireplace donated (from A History of Denver Parks, n . d . ) C . Plans (see figures 12 and 13) . 1925 (from Denver Municipal Facts, January/February, 1925 cover aerial photo) Figure 1 2 . 1985 (from City of Den ver, Dept. of Parks and Recreation, files) Fiaure 13 0 Step 2 : List Historic Features This is done by comparing historic data and a field investigation of the park. After the field survey, a list of extant and non-extant features is compiled. A simple set of criteria is used for determining inclusion on the preliminary inventory: 1) the resource should be at least 50 years old; and, 2) there should be some historical documentation for the resource. Using this criteria, the following list was compiled: Preliminar Inventor of H istoric Features -(an X indicates the feature no longer exists BUILDINGS Manager' s Residence (pre-1899) Pump House (1905) Boathouse/Pavilion (1907) 3 2

PAGE 39

Eugene Field House (c. 1888) Boathouse (1912) STRUCTURES X Shelter House (1906) Pillars (1908) Bridge (1908) X Summer House (1910) Bridges (1912) X Piers (1914) X Bandstand (1920) Bowling Green Office (1925) Log Pavilion (n. d . ) VEGETATION Rock Garden (1913) Mount Vernon Garden (1925) Bowling Green Lawn X Washington Elm ( c . 1909) DeBoer Garden (1918) PARK FURNITURE X Flag Pole (1907) Campfire Girl' s Fireplace (1924) STATUES Wynken , Blynken and Nod (erected 1919) WATER FEATURES North Lake (Smith' s Lake) South Lake (Grasmere Lake ) (1906) C ity Ditch (Smith' s Ditch) (1905) Lily Pond X Wynken , Blynken & Nod Fountain PLAYGROUNDS & GAME FACILITIES Tennis Courts (1908) Tennis Courts (1922) Childern' s Playground (1908) X Beach CIRCULATION Roads (c. 1 909) Paths (c. 1909) V IEWS Rocky Mountain Range View These features are mapped in figure 11. This information provides the necessary data for the next phase in the model process: Evaluation. 33

PAGE 40

PHASE DD • D D D EVALUATIO The purpose of this step is to determine historic significance and integrity. The evaluation procedure builds the final foundation on which future decision-making can be made. The criteria for evaluation reflects the important values for determining historic significance in the park environment. It is based on the criteria used by the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) , modified to clarify and specifically address the park environment. For example, the NRHP criteria is specific to architecture, but parks also include the landscape, art forms such as statues, and other features which cannot be evaluated using solely architectural terminology. The second part of the evaluation measures historic significance. Significance is determined on the basis of historical connections with important events, persons or patterns. Significance is also determined on the basis of physical character. Physical character includes design or aesthetic value; style, period or type of design; association with a well-known designer ; craftsmanship; and, unique materials or design. Accessibility is also considered in the evaluation criteria. This measures the ease of getting to the location of the resource by average people and people with physical disabilities. Other values included in the evaluation but not in the NRHP criteria, are educational value and a special value for unique resources. To aid in the evaluation process a weighted value system was devise d . Th e system allows the planner to evaluate the resources objectively. Also, in this step, the preliminary inventory list is refined and detailed information is collected for each resource to com plete the evaluation. Descriptions are developed to aid in the evaluation process. The descriptions, in addition to the quantitative evaluation, create a balanced approach for decisionmaking, based on both subjective and objective factors. Case Study : The matrix in figure 15 illustrates the evaluation process. The following is a discussion of each step. 37

PAGE 41

Figure 1.) Evaluation Matrix --1-1iSi'Of-""( L.CYe:.L.-/"'\ 1 Ill -Q i f' /"'1 ! i 1"'1 9 ,.... " ;!. 9 1/\ t ...._, t 111 A. I I Q) !I :t: /"'l l(l II\ ::::s w '-' /"'1 I v a: ::J t g . i ; Q) >. v " 0 -(J I () >. c: I It' c: :o c: c: (/) n '-. Q .Q . Q (J ii tn Q) _J tn ::::s Q) "'C (J Q) c: Q) c: .2" .21 J (J ::::s 1 2 :: (J 0 "'C c: \S> (/) =r N::: 'fZ-H t L-.A-1"'-E.-I • 1 0 !C 10 1 0 10 I'? 5 10 ? .!..:7 r-1-----• 10 I O 10 ,., 0 .:J 0 "' ".t:) f?l,VILIOti-• 10 1 0 10 '5 5 <;; "' eL' 7 1 1--1 -r--!!!I_ 1 0 10 '7 tO '0 10 '5 1-? .. 1--'II -1-10 10 10 10 10 10 toto 1':5 0 10 10 w zo , ... 5 r--PL..A YC--lreou ND • 1 0 10 10 '5 10 !7 k:J --1 -• '--1 --1-6 1 0 . 10 ?o -!---':;-TI---1 0 ro --I 10 " ? IP --r---• '10 10 1 0 19 tO !OZO 1'5 1.0 z.o zo fGlCJ I -------P .t..J1f? • 10 10 tO 1 0 1 0 -1--f-----t---6 '---CDUIZ=f 1-::-I--UL-Y FVND • • 10 1 0 1.? I C 10 6 '5 1 0 10 eo --• 10 10 10 10 1 0 10 w , IX' -;o . ret:elot::N:::-t:-• 1.? f O ' 10 1.? '? 10 1 1--'iP r---f'--1 -r-,0 -6 ? --LPIXIN Cf'f'tc.e. • 10 10 7 10 f:X./ L-1 r-A L-AWt+ • 10 101.? 10 " ,o "" !0 !0 U? : I"';L.A.ND --• 1010 1) 10 '!> '7 '5 7.0 1"' fVtl • '--1-? ? 101 0 1 0 0 10 10 '10 c;,,RL-;. --" 5 ---=--• 1 0 1 0 ? "10 • 1---.., ?5 100 10 10 & '5 c. RcVt:. w --z;:> --• ! I t:' 10 s 1 0 '"' e ? 38

PAGE 42

STEP 1 : EVALUATE RESOURCES FOR HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE. Most of the resources contribute in some way to the historical development of the park. However, some of the resources had associations with historic figures and events. Some examples of historic persons associated with Washington Park include Mayor Speer, Eugene Field, Mabel Torrey (sculptor ) and a prominent businessman in Denver who first settled in the vicinity of the park, John W . Smith. Some historical events include water right delegation to the City Ditch and Huck Finn Days, a popular fishing event. STEP 2 : EVALUATE RESOURCES FOR HISTOR I C CHARACTER SIGNIFICANCE . Most of the resources contribute to the historic character of the park. Some feature other significant elements. For example, the lawn represents an example of one of the important characteristics of the Pleasure Ground style of park design; it receives points for representing that style. The matrix outlines the other considerations for this step. STEP 3 : EVALUATE RESOURCES FOR INTEGRITY . This is accomplished by comparing the historic data for each resource with its current state as documented in the field investigation. Materials, setting, workmanship, feeling and association are considered in this step of the evaluation. A graduated point value is assigned for this set of criteria to determine relative degrees of change and deterioration (See the matrix for these point values). For example, the Washington Elm received a zero value for degree of alteration (on a scale of 0 5 -10, from the highest degree of alteration to the least respectively) because it was cut down from its original site. Condition was evaluated in a similar manner. The highest point value was assigned to those resources with the best current condition and lowest point value to the worst condition. STEP 4 : EVALUATE RESOURCES FOR SPECIAL VALUES. Resources received high values if they are unique or have the potential for educational pur2oses. In addition, values are assigned for accessibility. The highest points are awarded to those resources with handicap accessibility. STEP 5 . FINAL EVALUATION OF RESOURCES . The total scores are summed to determine relative historic significance. This develops an objective approach for determining significance. Those resources with moderate to high total score values were considered significant. 39

PAGE 43

STEP 6 : DEVELOP DESCRIPTIONS FOR SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES. To balance the quantitative evaluation p rocess, descriptions are developed for those resources which had sufficient historic information. This provides subjective material to evaluate the resources. Descriptions included a physical character narrative and a historic significance narrative. These are then incorporated into the comprehensive inventory. 40

PAGE 44

PHASE D D D D D COMPREHENSIVE INVENTORY The purpose of this inventory is to organize the results of the evaluation procedure. The organization of the results facilities future decisionmaking. The inventory is organized into two parts: 1) a priority list of significant historic resources and 2) a collection of descriptions of the significant historic resources. Case Study: STEP 1: DEVELOP A PRIORITY LIST OF SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC RESOURCES. The final scores from the e valuation phase are ranked from the highest scores t o the lowest scores. The highest scores are equivalent to the highest priority. The table in figure 1 6 illustrates the priority list. STEP 2 : COMPILE THE ARRATIVE DESCRIPTIONS OF SIGNIFICA T RESOURCES . For each of the moderately to highly ranked resources a brief description is included: 1 . City Ditch Historical Significance. City Ditch was the first water canal constructed in Denver. It was built in 1865 by John W . Smith and was g ranted # 1 water rights in the district. Historically , the ditch supplied water to most of downtown Denver . Today, it still supplies water to two major parks, City Park and washington Park; the City Park Golf Course; and, to a substantial portion of Englewood. The ditch and its water supply were cen tral to the development of Washington Park, and indeed much of Denver. The trees, lawns, and lakes depend on the water supplied by the ditch; it has supreme importance in the park. Two local fishing events have been held at the ditch on an annual basis, "Huck Finn Days" and "Fishing Derby". Both were sponsored by local papers (NRHP , n . d . ) . Historic Character. The 27 mile long ditch was constructed as an open, unlined, 3 foot wide canal. It operated, as it does today, on gravity flow without the use of any pumps. Although much of the ditch has been piped through the city, in Washington Park it remains as it was originally constructed, an open canal. 41

PAGE 45

Priority List I 1. DITCH 2. FIELD HOUSE 3. SCULPTURE 4 . NORTH LAKE 5. DeBOER GARDEN 6. LAWN W 7. GARDEN i 3: MT. VERNON GARDEN m ::::::::c 8 . BOATHOUSE/MAIN PAVILION .II-BATHHOUSE ::::::::: C BOWLING LAWN 3: COTTONWOOD GROVE l\ljljlll 9 . BOWLING LAWN OFFICE 10. MANAGERS RESIDENCE 11.BRIDGES 12. SUMMER PAVILION 13. PIERS & BEACH ROADS PATHS TENNIS COURTS WASHINTON ELM 14. GIRLS FIREPLACE ::::::;:

PAGE 46

Figure 17 2 . Eugene Field House Historical Significance. The Field House was the home of Eugene Field from 1881-1883 while he was editor of the Denver Tri rune. Field was a noted writer at the turn-of-the-century, and is famous for his children' s poetry. The house was built in downtown Denver in 1 875. In 1927, Molly Brown bought the house and donated it to the City of Denver. At the time, it was one of the last Victorian frame residences remaining in the downtown area. In 1930, it was relocated to Washington Park where it was used as a library until 1969 (NRHP , n . d . ) . Historica l Character. The house i s a two story frame house typical of the Victorian period. 3 . Wynken, Blynken & Nod Statue Historical Significance. The statue was inspired by the Eugene Field children' s poem , "Wynken, Blynken & Nod". It was created in 191 7 by Mabel L . Torrey and exhibited at the Chicago Art Institute. The sculptor donated the statue to her native c ity and it was placed in Washington Park in 1919 (Spring , 1960). 43

PAGE 47

Historical Character. The statue is representative of the Art Nouveau style typical of the time period. A formal fountain was created for the statue when it was placed in the park. Th e fountain was evocative of the foem' s story telling of the children sailing into " a sea of tears" Field, 1883). Figure 18 ,,,'•, . . .. . ........ ' ... . , . . ' ' . ' .... . . ' . \ : . . ' . . ' 4 . North Lak e (Smith' s Lake) Historical Significance. The lake was originally a buffalo wallow and Indians may have inhabited the area (Denver Post, 1937). In 1862, it w a s known a s Smith' s Lake named after a prominent Denver businessman and early settler of the area. The park was built around this existing water feature which serves as its focal point. The lake also acts as a water reservoir from its connection to the City Ditch. In 1913, a beach was built at its northern shore. The lake was a popular gathering area for boating, swimming, and skating. The lake was also stocked with bass and perch for f ishing. Historical Character. The lake had, and still retains, a regular shape. It was rimmed with cottonwood t rees, and two buildings associated with its recreational development were sited on either side of its shore. 44

PAGE 48

5 . Perennial Garden. Historical Significance. The formal flower garden was like a signature for Saco Rienck DeBoer, eminent local landscape architect. DeBoer was responsible for many local park, residential and urban designs. The large flower garden he designed for Washington Park is typical of his designs. Th e formal flower garden is also representative of Pleasure Ground characteristics, and representative of Speer's desire for civic beauty. Historical Character. The original design for the perennial garden can be found in the S . R . DeBoer Document Files at the Denver Public Library, Western History Department. The design called for beds of peonies, roses, phlox, cactus and herbs. The garden was a prominent showpiece located close to Downing Street where local traffic could enjoy its beauty. The meandering paths guide pleasure-walkers through the colorful, elegant beds. Figure 1 9 6 . Lawn Historical Significance. The lawn is one of the most important characteristics of the Pleasure Ground style of park design. Historically, the lawn provided a space to exercise, for parades, concerts and gatherings. On the Fourth of July, patriotic military exercises were held on the lawn (Denver Municioal Facts, 1927). 45

PAGE 49

Historical Character. The lawn and the two lakes to_ether c reate three main open s paces in Park . These open spaces effectively provid e the essential structure o f the en ire park . The lawn p r ovides the main green space o f the park pri marily defined b y the tree masses around its edges. 6a. South L aKe (Grasmere LaKe) . Historical Significance. In 1 906 , South La k e was one of the first manmade features constructed in washington Par k . The lake contrasts with the North Lake by presenting a natural and passive i m a g e . Fo r nearly twenty years since its original construction, it was appreciated for its naturalized state. Histor ically, the lake was used for canoeing and fishin (Denver Public Library, Western History Collection, Files;. Historical Character. From 1906 until 19 24 the lake was left in a naturalized state. Photo s often depict the lake with the mountains in the background g iving the appearance o f the countryside in t h e city (Denver Public Library, Western History Collection, files & Colorado Historical Society, files) . In 1924, this scene changed as lawns, gardens and paths were created at its perimeter. Figure 20

PAGE 50

7. Lily Pond and Rock G a rden Historical Significance. The lily pond was created as a unique garden feature in 19 1 3 . The pond was remodeled in 1917 by S . R . eBoer and the r ocK garden was added. The original remodeling plans called for an elaborate pedestrian entry into the park incorporating the pond and formal flower gardens (Denver Public Librar y , Western History Collection, files). Although these plans were never realized, the rock garden DeBoer did add represents a recurring theme in his gis sketchbooks were often filled with studies executed i n the mountains. The stream he created for the rock garden represents his consistent inspiration i n the mountains. Historic Character. From photos taken at the t ime , the lily pond offered a picturesque and artistically rendered scene. This area created an impressionistic view of water, lily pads and the surrounding trees and shrubs. Figure 21 -------------------------------------------------------------47

PAGE 51

?a. Mount Vernon Ga rden Historical Significance. The park was named after Geo rae 0 Washington and this garden was n a med after Washington' s estate. H owever, a t first the garden had no resemblance t o the real Mount Vernon. In 1927, i t was remodeled t o replicate a portion of the aunt Vernon estate. Historical Character. Before the garden was remodeled, it consisted of a s mall formal lawn surrounded by flower beds with an urn at the center (Denver Public Library , Western History Collection, files). After it was decided t o replicat e the actual aunt Vernon estate gardens, the site was transformed into m any geometrical flower beds. Large upright junipers were used to replace clipped boxwood in the original desig n among other necessary regional changes. 8 . B oathouse/Pavilion Historical Significance. This building is the arch itec tural f ocus of the par k . It also represents the typical sit ing and design of building s o f the Pleasure Ground style of par k design. It is an important landmark in the park and was often represented in postcards and photos of W ashington Park. There f ore it was and still is, a major identifying feature of the par k . Historical Character. The mission-style architectur e o f the building reflects some neo-classical motifs typi cal of the era while p roviding western or regional identity. At one time, a bandstand was added to the roof of the building . 8 a . Bathhouse H istorical Significance. Th e bathhouse was constructed as a major a menity for the park when the beach was added. It served as a favorite gathering area for youth and adults alike. I t was the first bathhouse in Denver in 1912 (Denver Facts, 1 912). Historical Character. The building reflected the Boathouse i n cha racter and color scheme. I t was also typical of the placement and desig n of P l easure Ground architecture. 8 b . Bowling L awn and Office Historical Significance. Lawn bowling was a popular spor t in the 19th and early 20th century. bowling clubs wer e for med to play the g ame competitively. This wa s the only sport accommodated in the park with formal facilities other than tennis. Presumably, .it was considered fitting for-the bowling lawn to be located adjacent to the Mt. Garden because theHashington estate also included a "bowling lawn." 4 8

PAGE 52

Historical Cha racter. The sauare manicured lawn conform s to the rules of the game. The wood construction office is hexagonal offering a unique structure in the park. 8c. Cottonwood Grove Historical Significance. Cottonwoods are the mainstay tree in Denve r , often growing naturally along streams and lakes. This grove, growing along the City Ditch, represents the original landscape before the par k development and its early establishment when cottonwoods were a mong the only tree species. This older grove of massive trees is probably the remainder of the original trees planted at the park' s beginnings. Historical Character. The grove provides the mature canopy of an established Pleasure Ground style park. In addition, the trees represent the regional character o f the Western Pleasure Ground.

PAGE 53

PHASE D O D D D PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS The purpose of thi s phase in the model process is to determine what and how to p reserve the significant historic resources. To do this, first the historic relationships amo n g the features must be determined; and second, these features m ust be protected and maintained i n a reasonable manner consistent with the objectives of the h istoric preservation policy. Two steps are included in this phase. First, the data from the comprehensive inventory is analyzed to establish physical relationships and to establish historically thematic relationships. This step results in a physical and thematic framework for subsequent actions. The second step involves selecting t h e appropriate treatment of resources within the framework. To gether, these two steps result in the final recommendations for the are a . Ultimately, these recommendations serve to perpetuate the integrity of these resources and provide for the park users. Case Study: STEP 1 : ANALYZE DATA FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE JNVENTORY The diagram (figure 22) illustrates the physical analysis of the data. From thi s map , it is apparent that most of the significant resources have one thing in common , proximity to the City Ditch. 50

PAGE 54

ANALYSIS HOUSE --------_ .... _---1 UILYPOND .. . I LAWN SOUTH LAKE-I L BATH HOUSE HOUSE ----C ONWOOD GROVE LEGEND * H;gh HistOric Value Medium Historic Value Ditch . --) View Schematic Plan No Scale eN 51

PAGE 55

I Recreation I I I I I Pleasure Ground I I I I I Ditch DITCH ="HEART" of "Washington Park 52

PAGE 56

FRAMEWORK CONCEPT DIAGRAM 0 0--------0 0--------0 , ____ f. Si9tnif.icon-r With Lii"t:h 't-e.x.p:x-ietifu\ h-o:;er. 0 .irdira::r ..vith ,. prvllcia? -fa-ueer. hi'$)(i6 dif"a:j\-cr re'otion?nip wim d.ith, . cn:;pnve 10 53

PAGE 57

After a review of the historical data, i t is clear tnat water issues are a central theme to the development of the park . Many of the significant resources are themselves water features. Also, because of its w ater supply, the City Ditch is the single featur e w ithout which the other features would not exist. Furthermore , water represented one of M a yo r Speer' s primary concerns, that water provides vitality t o the park environment. Finally , water provides a continuum of concern in the park, from establish ing a water source and rights, to creating an oasis in the city, to today's concerns for water conservation. From these ideas, a concept for the management framework can be developed. Water shaped the development of dashington Park. The ditch, providing the ' 'life blood" of the park, also provides the backbone for the management concept (see figure 23) . T h e diagram and map (figures 24 and 25) i l l u strate the management framework. A historic interpretive pathway i s developed along the ditch. The other historic features are incorporated the path to explain the evolution of the park as i t was developed from this water source. These features are incorporated into the pathway based on the objectives of the historic preservation policy: to provide direct and indirect opportuni ties to experience historic values and qualities in the park environment. The resources are grouped into three categories as they relate to the historic interpretive "backbone", the ditch . STEP 2 : APPROPRIATE PRESERVATION TREATMENTS As discussed in the research section, there is no single, systematic process for selecting manag emen t options. A simple p rocess is offered in this study as one approach. The table in fig u r e 2 7 outlines and defines the six main treatment alternatives. Selection of these treatments m a y be m ade on a practical basis. The table in figure 26 shows the relative cost and intensity o f research required f o r each treatment. Using this practical inform a tion decisions may be made for selection in conjunction tvith the mana gement framework objectives. Therefore, for example, the most authentic and costly treatments should be reserved for those resources with s i gnificant historic value and a direct opportunity to experience the historic development of the park. Those resources which provide indirect opporturiities to experience the park h istor y should be treated w ith less costly alternatives. The final decisions for selecting the appropriate t reatment should also consider the condition, degree of alteration and other physical problems. Fo r example, conservation involves the least amount of intervention . This type of action, however, should be reserved for those resources which are i n good condi tion and do not require intervention to protect and maintain its historic values and qualities . On the other hand , a resource 55

PAGE 58

Restoration • Reconstruction Rehabilitation Adaptive Use Re-creation Conservation KEY: high • moderate W low O • • 0 0 5c

PAGE 59

with direct experience opportunity which is in poor condition or severely altered may require treatment such as restoration to preserve its historic identity, and offer the best visitor experience. Finally, the recommendations established in The Secretary o f the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitati on . ( PS, 1983 rev. ) provide excellent guidelines for any preservation project. These should be a major consideration for selecting proposed actions and should be incorporated into the planning process. These guidelines are listed in Appendix C . The table and map (figures 27 and 28) list the proposed action and management for each resource based on the above discussions. 5 7

PAGE 60

Proposed Action RSSOU!?.CE North Lake Eugene Field House \vynken, Blynken and N od Statue City Ditch DeBoer Perennial Garden Lawn FRAdE,vORK Indirect Direct Direct Direct Direct Indirect PROBLEM S Shore erosion. Some contemporary infringements, e . g . handicap fishing pier. Historic significance and association not identified for visitor. Lacks former historic fountain and walls. No relationship to Field House. Lacks interpretation. Historic significance and association not identified for visitor. Original bedding species replaced by annuals. Walks in disrepair. Intrusion by unused signage structures. Some encroachment of contemporary facilities. Remains in good condition. ACTIOJ Rehabilitate shoreline with reinforced stone. Utilize com patible materials and siting for future facilities. Restore, continue Parks People, Inc. Cooperation. Relate to statue. Recreate fountain utilizing photos and remnant form. Interpret relationship to Field House through signage. Create interoret i ve pa th1.vay f o r visitor recreat i on . Restore beds to original plan. Replace signag e with compatible structures. Replace asphalt paths with ravel. Conserve in current state. Arrest further encroachment. 58

PAGE 61

RESOURCE South Lake Lily Pond and Rock Garden ount Vernon Garden Boathouse/ Main Pavilion Bathhouse FRA1EHOR.K Direct/ I ndirect Indirect Direct Direct Indirect PROBLEM S Shore erosion. Bridg e in severe disrepair. Island and lake lack former natural scene. Severe maintenance problems. Eutrification. Rock garden severely deteriorated, not recognizable. Original species replaced. Hall and walk deter iorated. Vandal and maintenance problems. Facade lacks original paint scheme. Roo f deterioration. Interior: inefficient space utilization. Facade altered, roof deterioration. ACTIOiT Rehabilitate t o naturalized scene. Control shore erosion with indigenous wetland vegetation . Create wildlife habitat on island and shore edge. Reconstruct native landscape on east shore. Adaptive Use Dredge and reshape pond. rock garden iH th low water demand flowering species. Incorporate contemporary sculpture to emphasize "artis tic" scene. Restore t o 1 925 plan . Replant original species. Repair walk and wall . Restore facade and second floor pavilion. Vandal proof with compatible matierals. Retile roof. Rehabilit a e first floor interior for contemporary use. Rehabilitate. Paint facade t o match boathouse. Retile roof. 59

PAGE 62

RESOURCS Bowling Lawn and Office Cottonwood Grove Mountain Viei.J FRA1 E!IORK Direct Direct Direct PROBLEMS Some lawn d a m a ge . Chain link fencins detracts from historic scene. Office in disrepair. Potential future tree decline or disease. Potential future intrusion by h igh-rise construction in neighborhood . ACTIO N Conserve la'tln . . Restore office. Paint and renair structure. i n kind features if necessary . Conserve grove. Replace dead o r diseased tree w ith same s pe c i e s as needed. Conserve viewshed through height restrictions. Avoid unplanned tree plantings in corridor. 6C

PAGE 63

PHASE DD D D D INCORPORATE FINDI GS INTO OVERALL PLANNING Planning for historic resources needs to be undertaken in concert with other concerns to have meaningful impact . As d iscussed throughout this document, historic resources issues have been neglected in the park planning process resulting in the loss of many unique and valuable opuortunities for enriching the park environment. It is only by incorporating the recommendations of t h e m odel proces s intw the overall planning process that parks may fully benefit from these opportunities. Th e purpose of this phase i s to bring all these concerns together for the. development of fully integrated, balanced and enriche d park plans. These plans include system-wide par k master plans, individual park master plans and capital improvement plans. Case Study: The recommendations from the mode l process are applied to produce a capital improvement plan as an example of this phase. Several factors are identified and considered to produce the capital improvement plan: 1) a contemporary need in the park 2) the suitability and compatible use of the historic resource for contemporary use or need, and 3) integrating the recommended action for the resource. From these factor s , the design solution is formulated (see figure 29). z 0 a: (.!) w 1z CURRENT B PARK PLANNING ffiSTOI\IC RESOURCE ISSUES CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT I NEED I PROBLEM I SUITABILITY & COMPATIBILITY 4 @ DESIGN SOLUTION I RECOMMENDATIONS I Figur e 29 6 2

PAGE 64

STEP 1: IDENTIFY .EED/PR O BLEM Washington Park is undergoing transition from an auto orientation to a pedestrian and bike orientation due to increased demands from joggers and bikers. To accommodate this transition, park planners have virtually eliminated auto traffic by limiting access to exclusively two parking lots and no throug h traffic along par k roads. This alteration requires greater pedestrian facilities as more people are required to access the park on foot. There are only limited park entryways formally designed for the pedestrian. In addition, the limited auto access points are often in conflict with pedestrians who also use these roads for access (see figure 30). Thus, pedestrian oriented entryways can be identified as a need. STEP 2: IDENTIFY SUITABLE USE OR COMPATIBL E USE OF THE HISTORIC RESOURCE The location of the Eugene Field House and the Wynken, Blynken and Nod Statue i3 at a park access point with conflicting auto and pedestrian traffic. Here, the development of a pedes trian entryway is an appropriate location. T o accomplish this step two questions must be considered: 1) is the resource suitable for this type of development? and, 2) is the proposed use compatible with the historic resource? The first question recognizes the requirements of the proposed development. For example, the pedestrian entryway should be located on easy grades, it should be visible, and it should facilitate easy access to park destination points. The phot o (figure 31) illustrates the suitability the vicinity for the proposed development. The second question addresses the need s of the resource and the protection of its inherent values. Both the statue and the house were relocated to this site. This indicates that this site has been disturbed by these activities. In this case, the proposed entryway will not destroy any valuable historic fabric since the area has already been.disturbed. Also, the proposed use may potentially benefit the resources by providing a basis for associating the two features. Both are historically associated with Eugene Field and Mayor Speer, currently this association is unclear to the average park visitor. The proposed entryway could be designed to provide a physical connection between the two resources and facilitate greater under-standing of historic themes in the park. 63

PAGE 65

Need/ Problem AREA OF CONFLICT LEGEND -Road Closure P Existing Pedestrian Entry Entry * Destination Point Schematic Plan No Scale eN ' I o ....

PAGE 66

Suitability and Compatibility 11:> Dl$fiH"'fiOH tt'!Hf? .____ -rv Vl'7lf'!I,JiY ...__ ____ • I 65

PAGE 67

STEP 3 : IrTEGRATE HISTO RIC PRESERVATION R ECOMMENDATIONS A N D ACTIONS Management Framework. Both resources represent significant historic resources with a direct opportunity to experience historic values and qualities during everyday recreation. Proposed Actions. Re-create fountain and continue restoration of house by private entity. Also, provide interpretive relationship between house and statue. STEP 4 : DEVELOP DESIGN SOLUTION This step represents the blending of contemporary concerns and needs with the needs and issues of historic resources in the creative process. The diagram in figure 32 illustrates the desig n solution. The solution recognizes the need for sensitively treating these resources by incorporating compatible materials, textures, colors, etc. This phase demonstrates the benefits of considering all park resources in a comprehensive manner. Not only does the park user benefit from the addition of a pedestrian entryway designed with his needs in mind, but it is that much more endowed by the integration of historic interpretation and preservation of local history and identity. An enriched, diverse and respectful desig n is the final result. 6 6

PAGE 68

Capital Improvement Plan: PEDESTRIAN ENTRY ...---l.P}y' rr.Dv1r:::e. t---6 7

PAGE 69

Conclusion Historic resources in urban parks need to be recognized and dealt with to revive them as vital and integral components of our parks. The basic premise of this study is, as William Faulkner wrote, "The past is not dead; it is not even past." It is the purpose of preservation planning, not to keep what is "dead" or obsolete, but to keep alive vital memories and origins of the present and future. The research part of this study has shown that historic resources can become critical elements in urban parks by first , recognizing their benefits; secondly, recognizing our failings toward them; and, finally, recognizing a means for dealing with them in a responsible manner through the model planning approach. This model approach, as applied to the case study, demonstrates two conclusions. First, the model process can be successfully applied to the standard park planning process. And secondly, planning for historic resources throug h the model approach can enhance and enrich the park environment as well as protect and retain a vital park component. Th e integration of the a pproach findings and recommendations into a capital improvement plan exemplifies this potential. A pedestrian entryway was conceptualized with the incorporation of a piece of Denver' s history; elevating the design concept from the ordinary to the extraordinary. In addition, the historic resources, the Wynken, Blynken and Nod Statue and the E ugene Field House, were protected and brought alive in the desig n . This study is the result of piecing together many scattered facts and ideas to specifically aid the park planner . By creating a single source of information, the park planner can plan for the future with the past. • 68

PAGE 70

APPENDIX A . DATE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PARK PLANNERS 1 . Department name: Address: Phone: 2. Contact Name: 3. Does the Department do Long-Range Planning? 4 . Does the Department have a comprehensive master plan for the park system? Date) 5. Does the city have master plans for individual parks in the system? Which Ones? Why? 6 . Does the city have individual budgets for the parks? Which One? Why? 69

PAGE 71

7. Does the city have a histori c structures or historic property inventory or survey for the park system? (If not d o any exist at state o r national level which include park property?) 8 . Do you think historic resources are i mpo r tant for park planning? Why? 9 . Are historic resources in the city parks considered specifically in long-range planning of the park system? 10. How would you rate the priority of historic resources i n park planning in the department? H i 1 2 Scale 3 Lo 4 5 11 . Have there been any redevelopment plans prepared for a park where historic resources wer e an important element? {i. e . restoration or preservation for par k or structures). 12. Supply documents relating t o discussion . y N (opt. ) 7 0

PAGE 72

APPENDJX C . The Secretary of the Interior' s Standards for Rehabilitation. 1 • Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a property which requires minimal alteration of the building, structure or site and its environment, or to use a property for originally intended purpose. 2 . The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure, or site and its environment shall not be destroyed. The removal o r alteration o f any historic material or distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible . 3 . All buildings, structures, and sites shall be reco g n ized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall b e discouraged. 4 . Changes vrhich may have taken place in t h e course of tim e are evidenced of the histor y and development of a building , structure, or site and its environment. These changes may have acquired significance in their own right, and this significance shall be recognized and respected. 5 . Dist inctive stylistic features or examples of skilled crafts manship which characterize a structure or site shall be treated with sensitivity. 6 . Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather tha n replaced, wherever possible. In the event replacement i s necessary , the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture, and other visua l q ualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by h istoric, physical, or evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different elements from other buildings or structures. 7 . The surface cleaning of structures shall be unde rtaken with the gentlest means possible. Sandblasting and other cleaning m ethods that will damage the historic building m aterials shall not b e undertaken. 7 2

PAGE 73

8 . Every reasonable effort shall be made to p rotect and preserve archeological resources affected by or adjacent to any project. 9. Contemporary desig n for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alteration and J additions do not destroy significant hsitorical, a rchitectural or cultural material, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the property, neighborhood or environment. 10. Wherever possible, new additions or alterations to structures shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations are tcr be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. 7 3

PAGE 74

BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Clawson, Marion and Van Doren, eds. Statistics o n Outdoor Recreation: Parts I and II. Washington, D . C.: Resources for the Future, 1984. Cranz, Galen. The Politics of Park Design: A History of Urban Parks in America. Cambridg e , Mass.; MIT Press, 1 9 82. Heckscher, August. Open Spaces. New York: Harper & Row, 1 977. A History of Denver' s Parks. Denver: The Denver M useum Collection, n . d . La Page, Wilbur F . "Recreation Resource Management for Visitor Satisfaction." In Recreation Planning and Management, edited by Stanley Lieber and Daniel Fesenmaier. State College: Venture Publishing , 1983. Lowenthal, David and Binney, Marcus, eds. Our Past Before Us: Why Do We Save It? London: Temple Smith, 1981. L ynch, Kevin. What Time Is This Place? Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1972. 1iner, Ralph. Chicago: Conservatio n of Historic and Cultural Resources. American Association of Planning Officials, 1 9 6 9 . O'Donnell, Patricia. "Historic Preservation as Applied to Urban Parks." In The Yearbook of Landscape Architecture: Historic Preservation, edited by Richard L . Austin. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1983. Sc hroeder, Herbert W . "Measuring Visual Features of Recreation Landscapes." In Recreation Planning and Management, edited by Stanley Lieber and Daniel Fesenmaier. State College: Venture Publishing, 1983 . Spring, Agnes. and Parks. Denver' s Historic Markers, 4emorials, Statues Denver: Colorado State Historical Society , 1 960 . Worman, RichardS., Levy, Alan and Katz, Joel. The Nature o f Recreation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1972 . PERIODICALS Bohart, Charles V. and Wilson, Ralph C. "Resource-Based Planning and Management." Trends, 21: 2 , 1984, 2-3. Denver Municipal Facts. 1912, 1925 and 1927. 74

PAGE 75

"Eugene Field House." Prepared for the lational Reg ister for Historic On file at the Colorado Preservation Office, Denver, Colorado. Denver. Denver Public Library, Western History Collection, Photograph files. O 'Donnell, Patricia. "Historic Landscapes Survey .. " American Society for Landscape Architects, 1 984 (Xerox). INTERVIE\vS Laurie Albano, Landscape Architect, Milwauke e County Park Department, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, January 15, 1985 . John Banks, Park Planner, Department of Parks and Recreati on , Minneapolis, Minnesota, Janaury 16, 1985. Steve Brooks, Park Planner, Parks and Recreation Department, Houston , Texas, March 3, 1985. Charles Devon, Park Planner, Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Affairs, Atlanta, Georgia, January 31, 1985. Martha Guavera, Director, Department of Parks and Recreation , Denver, Colorado, March 1 6 , 1985. Carrie H ansen, Landscape A rchitect, Department of Pa r k Research and Planning , Cleveland, Ohio, January 16, 1 985 . George Hill, Pa r k Planner, Dep artment of Parks and Recreation, New York, New York, March 11, 1985. Tom Klaine, Park Engineer, Fairmount Park Commission, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, March 3, 1 985 . Debra Lerner, Park Planner, Department of Parks and Recreation, Sa n F rancisco, California, March 11, 1985. Susan Moore, Park Planner , Department of Parks and Recreation, Chicag o , Illinois, March 5, 1985. Enrique Munez, Landscape Architect, Department of Parks and Recreation, Miami, Florida, March 7 , 1985. Joe Prather, Park Planner, Department of Parks and Rec r e ation, Los Angeles, C a lifornia, March 7 , 1985. Harriet Saperstein, Park Planner, Department of Recreation, Detroit, Michigan, February 1 , 1985. Jim Schoemcher, Pa r k Planner, Department of Pa rks and Recreation, C ity, M issouri , January 31, 1985. 7 6

PAGE 76

Claude Thompson, Park Planner, Department of Park Planning and Research, Dallas, Texas, March 5 , 1985. Rae Tuft, Park Planner, Department o f Parks and Recreation, Seattle, Washington, January 31, 1985 . N orman whitaker, Landscape Architect, Department of Parks and Recreation, Cincinnati, Ohio, March 5, 1985. 77