Please note that the following is a digitized version of a selected article from White House History Quarterly, Issue 65, originally released in print form in 2022. Single print copies of the full issue can be purchased online at Shop.WhiteHouseHistory.org No part of this book may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. All photographs contained in this journal unless otherwise noted are copyrighted by the White House Historical Association and may not be reproduced without permission. Requests for reprint permissions should be directed to rights@whha.org. Contact books@whha.org for more information. © 2022 White House Historical Association. All rights reserved under international copyright conventions.
74748_WHHA_Text_X4.indd 62
4/26/22 11:04 AM
REFINED SIMPLICITY: Frederick Law Olmsted Jr.’s Plan for the White House Grounds
BRUCE WHITE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE HISTORICA L A SS OCIATION
ELIZABETH HOPE CUSHING
63
74748_WHHA_Text_X4.indd 63
4/26/22 11:04 AM
previous spread
The White House North Grounds, seen here in 2015, reflect the legacy of Frederick Law Olmsted Jr.’s 1935 plan. left
C O U R T E S Y O F T H E N A T I O N A L PA R K S E R V I C E , F R E D E R I C K L AW O L M S T E D N AT I O N A L H I S T O R I C S I T E
Frederick Law Olmsted Jr., c. 1915.
64
74748_WHHA_Text_X4.indd 64
white house history quarterly
4/26/22 11:04 AM
FREDERICK LAW OLMSTED JR. (1870–1957), son of Frederick Law Olmsted (1822–1903), the renowned American landscape architect whose two hundredth birthday is being celebrated this year, was preordained to landscape architecture from birth. Fortunately, he proved an innovative and talented professional in his own right. While still a young man he was tapped for the 1901 McMillan Commission, created to design and guide the restoration of the National Mall.1 From that time, among his many other projects, and throughout most of his life, Olmsted remained committed to that project, as well as to several other commissions in Washington D.C., including significant design and planning work for the National Cathedral. Olmsted was one of the principal developers of the city planning movement in America and a noteworthy practitioner of community planning. A founding members of the American Society of Landscape Architects (1899), he also helped create numerous city planning organizations, serving terms as president of several, and took part in the founding of the American Academy in Rome, where he served as chief landscape adviser to the fellows there. He was the founder and head of the first four-year school of landscape architecture at Harvard University (1900), where he taught until 1915. From his early years, Olmsted was deeply committed to the preservation and conservation of the natural world, eventually helping to establish the National Park Service in 1916. That commitment is reflected in his extensive work on the West Coast in land preservation, particularly in relation to the Tall Trees of California. His projects included plans for metropolitan park systems, culminating in his 1929 work in establishing the California state park system. He worked ceaselessly with national parks, including Acadia, Everglades, and Yosemite, where he served on the Board of Expert Advisers. Throughout his life, Olmsted adhered to principles he learned at his father’s knee gracefully combining beauty in design with the practical requirements necessary for life in the twentieth century. So Olmsted was no stranger to the Washington, D.C., landscape when in 1934 he was approached to review the state of the White House Grounds by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. His work with the McMillan Commission, whose task had been to reimagine the rapid and chaotic state of development in the nation’s capital through the
lens of its original eighteenth-century designer, Pierre Charles L’Enfant,2 led him to study great swaths of the city, concentrating specifically on the restoration of the National Mall. Later, as a member of the Fine Arts Commission,3 he was called upon to oversee the process as the proposals from the 1902 McMillan report were slowly implemented.4 In fact, when Charles McKim took on the task of completely renovating what was then frequently referred to as the Executive Mansion, the very year the report was published, he requested that his colleague, Olmsted, be retained to review the surrounding Grounds. While fiscal constraints intervened and the reimagining of the White House Grounds was ultimately set aside, the two men considered landscape issues at the time. Again in 1928, during Calvin Coolidge’s tenure in the White House, Olmsted was called in to review the Grounds, concentrating his efforts on the plantings on the South Lawn of the mansion. Reiterating the view he had expressed to McKim in 1902, he described the general conditions and the majority of the tree masses to the director of the Department of Public Buildings and Public Parks, Colonel Ulysses S. Grant III, as “emphatically good,” while ultimately declaring the overall appearance of the grounds as “distinctly disappointing.”5 The Executive Mansion, after all, was the home of the first family, and Olmsted clearly thought that the “amenities of family and social life” ought to express “the honor due to the President of the United States, and as an educative example to the less distinguished citizens.” The Grounds, open to automobiles and to observation by the general public, required “a much larger element than now exists of the intimate and essentially domestic kinds of beauty and usefulness that are as much to be desired for a President’s family as for any other.” Privacy, he noted was absent, even though fundamentally essential, and he declared the South Grounds’ public nature “largely wasted” space. The acreage there, the largest portion of the 18.7 acres that made up the property, should be given over to “a high degree of seclusion from the public and almost any desirable degree of perfection of beauty and fitness for personal and social use on a domestic scale and with a domestic intimacy of detail.”6 Olmsted ends his letter by saying that when he had discussed these matters with McKim in 1902, McKim “was in principle completely sympathetic with my views,” although there was not, at that time,
white house history quarterly
74748_WHHA_Text_X4.indd 65
65
4/26/22 11:04 AM
the “energy to grapple broadly and completely with the problem of the grounds as a whole.”7 Charles Moore, the chairman of the Commission of Fine Arts and an old colleague from the McMillan Commission, read the letter to Grant and wrote Olmsted that he concurred, and would do his best to move the matter forward.8 On April 18, 1934, FDR’s secretary, Marvin McIntyre, wrote to Olmsted stating that President Roosevelt would like to have a talk with Olmsted next time he was in Washington.9 In early May, Olmsted wrote McIntyre that the president had given him oral instructions to prepare recommendations for “minor in character, but cumulatively important” improvements to the White House Grounds.10 Because it was the middle of the Great Depression, Roosevelt emphatically eschewed any appearance of untoward spending. As was his custom, Olmsted went immediately to work, requesting access to the White House Grounds and to the chief usher, the maintenance managers, and various men in charge of the police.11 On May 11 and 12 he toured the Grounds and interviewed people associated with their care. One of the issues Olmsted discussed with President Roosevelt was the importance of having a historical context for alterations contemplated for the White House Grounds. By June he had employed Morley Jeffers Williams, a landscape architect and professor in Harvard University’s landscape architecture program.12 In introducing Williams, Olmsted wrote that he would make, “in collaboration with me, a study of the long and somewhat obscure history of developments and changes in the White House Grounds—a thing much needed as a sound basis for guiding any changes and improvements to be made in the future.” Williams’s sources, Olmsted reported, would be any records to be found at the White House, supplemented by the National Capital Parks office of the National Park Service, and the collections at the Library of Congress.13 While this type of research may seem routine by today’s standards, the idea of researching historical context was relatively new at the time. Eventually a list of existing trees, and a separate 1904 inventory of “historic trees” (eminent in their own right or planted by someone of historic significance) on the Grounds were collected and recorded. When Olmsted suffered a near-death rupture of the appendix during the summer of 1934, Henry
66
74748_WHHA_Text_X4.indd 66
V. Hubbard, a partner in the Olmsted Brothers firm and a professor of landscape architecture at Harvard University, stepped in to aid with the physical demands and complicated compensation negotiations involved in the White House work. Hans J. Koehler, a horticultural specialist from the Olmsted firm, had also visited the Grounds for consultation on planting plans. By October 9, 1934, Olmsted was able to deliver to the president a thirteen-page “preliminary report,” with added “explanatory notes” and a map, outlining the work those involved in the project felt was important to consider. In the letter accompanying the report, Olmsted assured the president that he would forgo any remuneration for his services, although expenses incurred required compensation. 14 After endless negotiations concerning payments, later in October Olmsted suggested that a revised general plan report be made, funded through the Public Works Administration so that Congress would not be included in any financial considerations. Any contracts signed could be broken up into discrete projects so that continuing implementation of the overall plan was possible. The final version, Report to the President of the United States on Improvements and Policy of Maintenance for the Executive Mansion Grounds, was presented in October 1935. It was an eighty-two page report, part 1 by Olmsted and part 2 by Williams, with twenty-four pages of “explanatory notes,” and plans and photographic illustrations attached. The notes go into detail about suggestions made within the text of the report.15 Only five copies of the report were created, and these were closely guarded to prevent their becoming public. The final report was a refinement of the plan in the “Preliminary Report,” with the “defects” of the present layout of the Grounds divided into sections, including utilitarian issues, such as road configurations south of the mansion and the question of vehicle access, and practical matters such as the insufficiency of office space and service yard areas and the placement of modern equipment such as communications antennae. Questions of grading, the simplifications of roads in the South Grounds, and the prohibition of most vehicles were significant issues to be addressed. “The areas of circulation within it could be treated in effect as a system of garden paths appropriate” for family use. This would be so desirable for the general amenity of the private pleasure-ground that very serious consideration
This view of the South Portico and surrounding plantings was one of many photographs included with Olmsted’s 1935 Report to the President. Olmsted referred to the distribution, character, and condition of the large trees on the South Grounds as “admirable.” Although he called for the removal of certain minor trees, he advocated for the retention of the large old trees until their natural demise.
white house history quarterly
4/26/22 11:04 AM
white house history quarterly
74748_WHHA_Text_X4.indd 67
67
4/26/22 11:04 AM
C O U R T E S Y O F T H E N A T I O N A L PA R K S E R V I C E , F R E D E R I C K L AW O L M S T E D N AT I O N A L H I S T O R I C S I T E
68
74748_WHHA_Text_X4.indd 68
TOP RIGHT AND LEF T: LIBRARY OF CONGRESS / ALL OTHER IMAGES THIS SPREAD: COURTESY OF THE N A T I O N A L PA R K S E RV I C E , F R E D E R I C K L AW O L M S T E D N AT I O N A L H I S T O R I C S I T E
Olmsted created just five copies of his Report to the President of the United States on Improvements and Policy of Maintenance for the Executive Mansion Grounds. Bound in a three-ring binder (above left), the report was comprised of a typescript (above), supplemented by an album of photographs (left) and diagrams detailing both existing conditions as well as recommended improvements to the Grounds (opposite).
white house history quarterly
4/26/22 11:04 AM
white house history quarterly
74748_WHHA_Text_X4.indd 69
69
4/26/22 11:05 AM
70
74748_WHHA_Text_X4.indd 70
BOTH IMAGES THIS SPREAD: LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Olmsted’s Report to the President of the United States on Improvements and Policy of Maintenance for the Executive Mansion Grounds included the above diagram of conditions as of January 1, 1935, as well as a diagram modified to show his suggested improvements (opposite). Every tree, shrub, and perennial bed within the 18.7 fenced acres is identified. Existing roadways include a curving guitar-shaped drive, that Olmsted advocated be removed, deeming it a “blemish” on the South Lawn.
white house history quarterly
4/26/22 11:05 AM
Olmsted’s General Plan for Improvements includes a simplified system of roadways, the relocation of the circular fountain to an area farther south, and the addition of plantings to enhance privacy and lessen the public’s view of the South Lawn.
white house history quarterly
74748_WHHA_Text_X4.indd 71
71
4/26/22 11:05 AM
should be given to the possibility of bringing it about.”19 One such road, a curving guitar-shaped drive, left over from the Andrew Jackson administration, Olmsted considered a “blemish” to the South Lawn and urged its removal.16 The historian Jonathan Pliska. explains that Olmsted wanted it replaced by a two-road system that “originated at the southeast and southwest corners of the grounds and gently curved up to meet one another before the South Portico.”17 Central to the report, however, was Olmsted’s concern over the lack of privacy in the South Grounds and the refinement of the tree plantings therein. “The outstanding general defect in the landscape condition of the White House is the lack of adequate privacy in the area south of the building,” he wrote, lamenting the general lack of tall, dense hedges to prevent public visual access.18 “At best it is somewhat diaphanous, and in some places full of holes and very shabby because of overshading and root competitions by neighboring trees.” One vista he did consider “vitally important” to preserve: the maintenance, “in perpetuity and unobstructed and satisfying view into the White House grounds on the main axis, for a width of about 150 feet,
72
74748_WHHA_Text_X4.indd 72
commanding the very best views of the building over the long sweep of its axial lawn and between the fine flanking masses of tree foliage.”19 It could be achieved without sacrificing privacy. Although E Street is closed to vehicular traffic today, there is still a view into the White House Grounds from that vantage point. Olmsted considered the distribution, character, and condition of the large trees on the South Grounds “admirable.”20 That said, however, there were more minor trees that needed to be removed because of their density. It was the large old trees that should be retained and cultivated until their natural demise. As they eventually died, mature specimens could replace them. Only in very rare circumstances did Olmsted advise removing an older tree, including an ancient yew (to be moved), and a weeping beech (to be removed) that he found particularly unsatisfactory in their current positions. Open spaces between carefully clustered trees or single specimens were essential; too much encroachment upon that concept would be “destructive, and should not be countenanced on any excuse.”21 While a restrained number of trees might be added to the restored Grounds, Olmsted
C O U R T E S Y O F T H E N A T I O N A L PA R K S E R V I C E , F R E D E R I C K L AW O L M S T E D N AT I O N A L H I S T O R I C S I T E
President Franklin D. Roosevelt was especially interested in improving the formal East and West Gardens near the Residence. Olmsted was critical of the neglected and untidy plantings and called for “a greater richness and perfection of floral display.”
white house history quarterly
4/26/22 11:05 AM
C O U R T E S Y O F T H E N A T I O N A L PA R K S E R V I C E , F R E D E R I C K L AW O L M S T E D N AT I O N A L H I S T O R I C S I T E
Olmsted was not impressed with the circular fountain, neither its condition nor its position on the Grounds. Although he called for its removal, later, bowing to external pressure, he conceded that it could be rebuilt and moved father south.
advised caution in scattered minor plantings of smaller trees and shrubs, considering them potentially “trivial.”22 The formal gardens on the East and West Wings of the mansion—one of the compelling reasons President Roosevelt wanted the Grounds enhanced—were the only place Olmsted felt appropriate for “a greater richness and perfection of floral display.”23 He considered the condition of the two gardens “not nearly good enough.”24 Lack of appropriate choice in plant material in the original design had created a neglected and untidy appearance that could be remedied only by a proper planting scheme and constant, knowledgeable maintenance. The gardens needed to be “embraced by the architectural masses, considerably segregated from the central area, developed at a smaller and more intimate scale, and enriched in a restrained and simple way by flower beds and perhaps other objects designed to be enjoyed at a close range and in considerable seclusion.”25 Olmsted concluded with the admonition that the details of their planting schemes “should be carefully worked out, historically, horticulturally and esthetically, after the main scheme has been determined.”26
The final item to be addressed was the crumbling and leaky circular pool, which Olmsted declared “unfortunate in its detail and none too efficient in its construction,” not to mention its being in the wrong spot.27 There was clearly a good deal of advocacy for the pool to remain, despite Olmsted’s suggestion for its removal. Grudgingly he acquiesced to its being rebuilt and moved farther south. What is apparent in Olmsted’s design for the White House Grounds is its simplicity and restraint. His reverence for the existing trees and his careful stewardship of the old plantings were amply demonstrated in his suggestions for the South Lawn. He found the massing of trees and shrubs both aesthetically pleasing and carefully controlled to provide privacy in a setting of beauty and calm. Significant amounts of planning and consideration went into the simple and refined scheme Olmsted created. Hampered by the constraints of inadequate funding, he sought to create a plan flexible enough to be done sequentially if necessary. One of his guiding principles throughout his career was that all plans must include adaptability to changing times and needs. His report on White House improvements reflects that viewpoint. “The
white house history quarterly
74748_WHHA_Text_X4.indd 73
73
4/26/22 11:05 AM
The plan that Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. created in 1935 continues to guide the development of the White House landscape today. Olmsted’s principles of simplicity and restraint are reflected in this view of the South Grounds captured in 2019.
74
74748_WHHA_Text_X4.indd 74
4/26/22 11:05 AM
Olmsted Plan,” writes Pliska, “remains the baseline document for the use, maintenance, and development of the President’s Grounds to this day.”28 That it is so is a tribute to Olmsted’s patience, experience, skill, and talent.
NOTES 1.
The McMillan Commission, consisting of the architects Daniel Hudson Burnham and Charles Follen McKim, the sculptor Augustus Saint-Gaudens, and Olmsted Jr., created a comprehensive planning proposal for the “monumental core” and the park system of Washington, D.C. The commission’s secretary was Charles Moore, aide to Senator James McMillab.
2. Pierre Charles L’Enfant was chosen by first president, George Washington, to design a plan for the new seat of government sited along the Potomac River, on land drawn from Virginia and Maryland. 3. Theodore Roosevelt first established the United States Commission of Fine Arts in 1909. It was signed into law by William Howard Taft a year later. 4. The report was entitled The Improvement of the Park System of the District of Columbia (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1902). 5. Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. to U. S. Grant, 3rd, January 24, 1928. Olmsted Associates Records, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. All documents are cited in subsequent notes are in this collection. 6. Ibid., 3. 7. Ibid. 8. Charles Moore to Olmsted, February 17, 1928. 9. H. P. Caemmerer to Olmsted, April 18, 1934. Caemmerer wrote for Marvin McIntyre. 10. Olmsted to McIntyre, May 4, 1934. 11. Ibid. 12. Beginning in the 1930s Morely Jeffers Williams took up the practice of research and restoration, later becoming associated with historic research and archaeology at early restoration projects including Mount Vernon and Stratford Hall in Virginia, and Tryon Palace in New Bern, North Carolina. Williams, Olmsted reported, would serve without compensation for his personal time. 13. Olmsted to McIntyre, June 12, 1934.
BRUCE WHITE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE HIS TORICA L ASSOCIATION
14. Report on White House Grounds by Frederick Law Olmsted October 9, 1934.” 15. Olmsted Brothers, Landscape Architects, Brookline, Mass., Report to the President of the United States on Improvements and Policy of Maintenance for the Executive Mansion Grounds (Brookline, Mass.: Olmsted Brothers, October 1935). A copy in Office of the Curator, The White House. 16. Ibid., 6, 44. 17. Jonathan Pliska, A Garden for the President: A History of the White House Grounds (Washington, D.C.: White House Historical Association, 2016), 57. 18. Olmsted Brothers, Report to the President, 7. 19. Ibid., 8. 20. Ibid., 9. 21. Ibid., 11. 22. Ibid., 15. 23. Ibid., 18. Olmsted only fleetingly addressed bedding out on the North Grounds, counseling that any planting there “ought to be simplified into a more dignified and less restless and self-assertive appearance.” Ibid., 16. 24. Ibid., 20. 25. Ibid., 24. 26. Ibid., 28. 27. Ibid. 28. Pliska, Garden for the President, 18.
white house history quarterly
74748_WHHA_Text_X4.indd 75
75
4/26/22 11:05 AM