Landscape History

<< Previous | Table of Contents | Next >>

Design Context

Introduction

The design philosophy espousing a close relationship between man-made structures and the natural environment can be traced to the mid-19th century, when American landscape architects were beginning to influence environmental planning and architectural design and practices. During the decades that followed, these theories and ideas were applied and further refined by the advocates of what became a recognized style of design, one well-suited for national parks. This style was known as the Rustic, and it served as the framework for all design work at Rim Village.

The landscape of Rim Village is the result of two independent factors that were closely interwoven by NPS designers to create an image for the village. The two factors were function and utility, and aesthetics and design. The Park Service recognized that Rim Village needed specific services to accommodate the growing numbers of visitors to the park. Lodging, meals, camping and travel supplies, and general services were among the park visitors' needs. Planners also knew that a site's natural and aesthetic qualities were of equal importance to how it functioned. The Rustic style of design, then, became the "envelope" within which the functional needs of the village were addressed in a manner that was sensitive and appropriate to the natural surroundings.

     Function and Utility

Although the Department of the Interior had jurisdiction over development in the parks, it was the concessioner and railroad companies who first constructed buildings and other facilities in these areas. Some structures were good examples of the evolving Rustic style of design, others were not. Beginning in 1911, a series of National Park Conferences addressing development and design for the national parks were held in Yellowstone and Yosemite National Parks, and in Berkeley, California.[2] A number of professionals in the fields of architecture, landscape architecture, and engineering, as well as Park Service officials, attended these forums to express their goals, desires, and ideas for appropriate ways in which to develop and design for these special areas.[3] It was at one of these forums that Mark Daniels, a landscape engineer serving as the Department of the Interior's General Superintendent of Parks, presented his "campaign plan" for improving the parks.[4] A key component of Daniels' plan was to concentrate visitor services in one place -- a village. In his concept the village would be designed primarily for utility and functional needs of the visitor. Accommodations for every type of individual would be provided, from the visitor who wanted to stay in a hotel and take meals at a lodge, to the visitor who preferred cooking his own meals and sleeping in a tent. In Daniels' plan, individual buildings would be carefully sited and arranged throughout the village, and architectural styles would be thoughtfully considered in order to enhance -- in Daniels' words -- the "picturesqueness" of the site. Since the number of people traveling to the parks was increasing rapidly, Daniels felt the establishment of these villages, complete with their infrastructure of lights, water, utilities, supply stores, and lodging facilities, was inevitable for all the parks including Crater Lake. By 1915, a preliminary plan was in place for a village at Crater Lake, to be sited along the south side of the rim overlooking the lake.[5]

     Design and Naturalistic Style

Early plans for the national parks focused on responding to specific functional needs, such as good roads and accommodations, rather than overall design or formal planning. An "official" design ethic for the parks came in 1918, two years after the National Park Service was established. The Secretary of the Interior wrote to the Director of the NPS, setting down policies and guidelines for the new bureau.

The Secretary's letter covered a number of issues. The influence of design professionals was clearly evident with regard to buildings and their place in the landscape. Secretary Franklin K Lane wrote:

In the construction of roads, trails, buildings, and other improvements, particular attention must be devoted always to the harmonizing of these improvements with the landscape. This is a most important item in our programs of development and requires the employment of trained engineers who either possess a knowledge of landscape architecture or have a proper appreciation of the esthetic value of park lands. All improvements will be carried out in accordance with a preconceived plan developed in special reference to the preservation of the landscape.[6]

In addition, Lane stated that any improvement activities would be undertaken by its "Section of Landscape Engineering," and that each improvement would blend harmoniously into a carefully considered scheme

. . . in order to secure a maximum of beauty and convenience with a minimum of interference with natural conditions. . . . It is an invariable rule that no structure of importance, whether for the Service or the public operators, can be erected until the approval of the Landscape Engineer has been secured, both as to location and design.[7]

These words represent the underlying basis of the distinct style of design that came to be known as NPS Rustic. Over the years Lane's statement became a charter for the NPS' design program, and for the next twenty years this philosophy was faithfully followed in the nation's parks, including Crater Lake.

In America, antecedents of the Rustic style can be traced to the writings of 19th century Landscape Architect Andrew Jackson Downing. Influenced by British landscape traditions and writing in the mid-1800s, Downing espoused rural ideals for landscape gardening and design. By the turn of the century, the fancy gardens of the Victorian era had given way to the simple, economic, "naturalistic" and "informal" gardens championed earlier by Downing. Journals and landscape design books of the day popularized the style that drew its inspiration directly from nature. In their writings, landscape architects and horticulturists, particularly Frederick Law Olmsted, Henry H. Hubbard, and Frank Waugh, set down principles for designing in the naturalistic style. These principles, in turn, set the framework for the design values and philosophy of the Rustic style.

At its best, the Rustic style achieved sympathy with the natural surroundings and with the past. The style became the means in which functional architecture was brought into natural environments in a visually pleasing and nonintrusive manner. Characteristics such as the use of natural materials used in proper scale, the avoidance of rigid, straight lines, and the visual character of a structure that appeared rugged, handcrafted, and built by pioneer craftsmen with limited hand tools, were the essence of the Rustic style. Structures, however, were always intended to be subordinate to their surroundings. The features to be preserved, emphasized, and appreciated in the parks were the site's natural features and not the man-made ones. In the Rustic philosophy, the natural features were the overriding factors in determining the design vocabulary for both individual buildings and entire developments in the national parks. [8]

Over several years of implementing the rustic idiom in the parks, the NPS continually strove to perfect the techniques required to achieve visually appealing and well-proportioned rustic structures. Awkward examples were followed by ever-improving and more eloquent examples. The relationship between landscape architecture and architecture continued to strengthen, and the landscape itself became an integral part of every design.[9]

In 1927 the NPS' Landscape Division was transferred to San Francisco, where a Western Field Office was created, combining landscape design work with the NPS' Civil Engineering Division and the Bureau of Public Roads. This joint office brought together a number of professional disciplines for an era of unparalleled development in the parks. Concurrently, park appropriations significantly increased, leading to an increase in park staff and general development activities. It was during this time that comprehensive planning efforts were formalized, with master plans prepared for each national park. Landscape architect Thomas C. Vint headed up the San Francisco office, becoming the dominant and controlling figure in the implementation of planning in the parks -- planning that was manifested in the Rustic style.

As a culmination of its efforts to introduce and implement design in the national parks that followed the principles of the Rustic style, the NPS printed a book that synthesized information about the style. The NPS commissioned Albert H. Good to create a manual of appropriate park designs. Published in 1935, Park Structures and Facilities was directed at government agencies and professionals charged with designing buildings and structures in natural or recreational areas. It quickly became the foundation for state and national park design. The book included a treatise on appropriate design for these areas. Various features, from buildings to drinking fountains, were described in a text that was heavily illustrated with photographs, plans, and elevations. The NPS was confident that by pulling together a collection of the "best" examples of the Rustic style in one place, an understanding of the style would be enhanced and stimulate further developments and improvements in design. The bureau was correct in its assumption: the book sold out almost immediately and was reprinted as a three-volume set three years later under the title Park and Recreation Structures. It had become an "indispensable architectural pattern book."[10]

Park and Recreation Structures set down several fundamental principles for designing in the Rustic style. Both structures and landscape were addressed. The visual success of the finished structure was directly related to how various native materials were combined, the scale and massing of the structure, its siting on the landscape, the appropriate use of color, and the appearance of craftsmanship in construction. Essentially, park structures that looked as though they had "sprung from the soil" were "of the elect."[11] In addition to guidelines for buildings and structures, Park and Recreation Structures made recommendations for minimizing the visual impact of these features through the use of plant materials. While the goal was to site buildings in a natural setting, this was not always possible. In order to "gracefully obliterate the otherwise unhappy line of demarcation between buildings and ground," it was advised that vegetation be introduced along the structural foundations, to soften the edge between earth and structure. Another recommendation suggested the use of rocks around building foundations, "artfully contrived," to give the impression of natural rock outcroppings occurring next to the building. It is of interest to note that Good, while espousing the use of natural and native materials, also advocated "deception" when necessary in order to attain the desired rustic look. Changing technologies in building methods permitted stone bridges, drinking fountains, and other structures or features to be built using modern materials like concrete. In order to achieve the natural appearance desired, these features -- with their concrete infrastructure -- were sided with a masonry veneer for that "rustic" look.[12]

This publication provided fundamental guidance for those charged with design in the nation's parks. The diverse ideas and principles that had been championed and practiced by the NPS and design professionals over many decades finally came together formally in this sourcebook. Park and Recreation Structures communicated to a broad audience the design context that national parks were following in their structural improvements and developments across the country.