City Planning in America
JUNE, 1908
BY CLINTON ROGERS WOODRUFF
CITY planning is attaining a wide acceptance and popularity in America, that augurs great things for our cities, if only it is followed up by consecutive and comprehensive execution. Writing in 1902, John De Witt Warner said, “ American cities are rapidly awakening to the many needs of convenience, as well as dignity and beauty, subserved by appropriate civic centres, and in three cases (four, if we include Washington) more or less definite plans have been discussed.”
Those four plans have become fortyfour in the five years that have passed. Discussion has made way for concrete results so rapidly that the mention of Washington and Cleveland sounds almost like ancient history. Two of the plans have been almost forgotten in the more comprehensive ones that have since been undertaken, although we must not fail to give due credit to the pioneer work of Cahill’s plan for a civic centre in San Francisco, and Wight’s plan for the improvement of Chicago’s lake-front.
Chicago, the most recent to undertake a far-reaching and all-embracing scheme, is likely to excel its predecessors, not only because of its ambition, but because it will have the great benefit of their experience. Daniel H. Burnham, whose White City in 1893 set the American people to thinking about the possibilities of civic architecture and effective grouping, will have entire charge of the development of the plan. To his long line of civic services, beginning with the World’s Fair and including Washington, Manila, San Francisco, and Cleveland, he will add his civic pride as a Chicagoan. The result should be, and already, although only partly disclosed, bids fair to be, a worthy magnum opus. This latest “ Burnham plan ” is already emerging from the “ land of dreams and pictures,” giving evidence that it has long been maturing in the master’s mind. Chicago, which is nothing if not aggressive and energetic, has already started in upon its consummation. The desire “ to give back the blue line of Lake Michigan to the people of Chicago ” is making headway (despite some business reactionaries), the Illinois legislature at its last session having passed the needed enabling acts.
In one aspect this part may be said to constitute the keynote of the plan. It involves restoring the lake-front through building up by piling and filling a strip of land parallel with the shore, which is to be built out in the same way, so that an open lagoon will be formed. This is to be bridged, at intervals of a mile, from the shore line to the outer strip or parkway, and further diversified by artificial islands and effective tree-shored planting and shrubbery, recalling the famous Court of Honor of 1893.
The possibilities of this improvement are most striking and endless in their variety. When successfully carried out it should, and I believe it will, create a great dissatisfaction with the present forbidding appearance of the average water-fronts of our American cities, and lead eventually to a repairing of long neglect and abuse of great opportunities.
Some idea of the further improvements contemplated in the water-front, and in the treatment of the Chicago River, may be gathered from the suggestions made by Isham Randolph, the chief engineer of the sanitary district. While these have not been incorporated in the plan, and no recommendations have been made on the subject, they show the drift of thought of those who are giving attention to the question. Mr. Randolph suggests among other things concrete docks, faced with marble, for the river-front, with monumental bridges over important streets; the electrification of the Illinois Central and the Northwestern Suburban lines; the purifying of the Chicago River by means of drainage conduits; and, lastly, small parks for the ends of the unbridged streets.
As in all such plans, a certain coöperation of abutting property owners is contemplated, and it is expected that owners of property along the river will reconstruct their buildings in such a way as to further the accomplishment of the great designs in view; but the experience of other cities shows that something more than individual voluntary coöperation will have to be resorted to, and the chances are that, unless Chicagoans are very different from other people, the strong arm of the law will have to be utilized to bring the recalcitrants into line.
River-front improvement occupies a conspicuous place in the St. Louis city plan also, which by-the-bye is one of the best and most effective thus far published. It owes its origin to the Civic League of that city, which was responsible also for its elaboration and will unquestionably take a conspicuous part in its execution. The committee of the League represented the various interests of the city actively concerned in its welfare and progress, and included merchants, lawyers, public officials and architects, and landscape architects.
The proper treatment of the river-front of St. Louis would not only make it, as the report outlines, once more of importance in the business life of the community, but would give to St. Louis a natural entrance way unique among American municipalities. At present the river-front is sadly marred by unsightly elevated tracks and disgraceful and dilapidated buildings. In their place it is proposed to establish a broad open plaza from Eads Bridge to the proposed bridge at Poplar Street, on a level with Third Street. The railway tracks and passenger stations, which are recognized as essential to the city’s future prosperity, are to be placed under the plaza. There will be an easy approach from the level, and the warehouses (which must be reconstructed) will front along Second Street, with the Merchants’ Exchange as a central point.
In reinforcing these recommendations the committee declares that “ To show that some such treatment ... is not only desirable but feasible, we need cite only a few of the number of cities which have successfully handled this problem to the great benefit of the city. Algiers has not only provided in the best possible manner for her commercial interests, but by a line of masonry has given the city a majestic and imposing gateway. Budapest on the Danube has preserved much of its riverfront for palatial public buildings, frequent park-spaces, and tree-lined promenades, and at the same time utilized the space beneath the streets and back of the quay for storage purposes. The waterfronts of Hamburg, Antwerp, Stockholm, Rouen, and Berlin have been treated in a somewhat similar manner. In fact, the tendency in all European cities is to take advantage of the river-front opportunities for beautifying purposes.”
Americans are reaching the point where they see and realize that utility and beauty are not antagonists, but handmaids who, when working harmoniously together, produce far greater results than the sum of their separate efforts. Europeans long ago appreciated this great factor in civic progress, but Americans will, judging from present prospects, outstrip them in the practical realization of the highest ideals.
The New York Improvement Commission, of which Francis K. Pendleton is chairman, and which was an official body appointed by Mayor McClellan, while it by no means overlooked water-front improvement, naturally gave the more emphasis to intra-mural communication. This was natural, in view of the great area of the city and the character and location of its several component parts. It heartily indorsed, as was to be expected, the plans of the Dock Department ultimately to complete a marginal street around the entire commercial water-front of Manhattan. Those portions of the water-front not yet utilized for such purposes in the several boroughs should be, it is recommended, reserved for parks.
The Report of the Committee of the Boston Society of Architects dealing with Municipal Improvement, quite recently published, and as yet without the Society’s official endorsement, gives very considerable attention to the improvement of the port of Boston and to the reconstruction of the Charles River basin. The recommendations as to the former are largely utilitarian and include a combination of warehouses, long piers, and new and enlarged docks at South Boston.
The development of the Charles River basin has long been a favorite theme for consideration in Boston, and the present report constitutes an interesting addition to the discussion. The key to the proposal is to be found in the statement that at present the Charles River separates Cambridge from Boston, instead of combining it with the great metropolitan scheme. As the present basin is “ empty, vague and uninteresting,” it is suggested that an island be built up within it, which would serve as a unification of the entire metropolitan district and provide an effective site for the executive and legislative departments of the metropolitan government. The westerly end of the island would form “an ideal location” for the proposed Cathedral of the Episcopal Church. Here also could be built hotels, apartment-houses, churches, charitable and educational institutions, an opera house and theatre, while stores and shops might be provided for along the line of Massachusetts Avenue. If such an elaborate scheme were to be carried out it would unquestionably result in an improvement of the Boston side of the river, now unfortunately and mistakenly given over to the back-yards of the Beacon Street houses.
To revert to the Chicago plan, which will be formulated by Mr. Burnham under the ægis of the public-spirited Commercial Club (with which the Merchants’ Club was merged last year), the river-front plan will not only restore the “ blue line,” but will serve as a part of the great park system which is to be rounded out by a stately outer parkway to engirdle the entire city. This boulevard will extend from Jackson Park to Grant Park, far east of the railroad tracks, and then on to the Lake Shore Drive, swinging west into the proposed outer parkbelt, and completing its circuit through the valleys of the Shokie, Des Plaines, and Calumet.
Here are some of the other points that will be considered in this effort “ to show how Chicago can be made a better place to live in, not only from the standpoint of civic beauty, but also from the more practical standpoints of commercial advantage, health, comfort and convenience : ” —
To make the Chicago River front a thing of beauty through embankments, driveways, and granite docks. This plan will include small parks along the north and south branches, away from the heart of the city, and will be accomplished with the aid of the drainage board.
To carry out an easily practicable plan for a civic centre by erecting a city hall to match the adjoining county building; and to give dignity to both structures by condemning the half block of property on their east and west facades and making a small park.
To free the downtown district by putting the street cars into the subways proposed in the new traction offer. To include the elevated roads in this scheme and make their trains enter the new subways at Eighteenth Street, Ashland and Chicago Avenues, thereby removing the ugly “ L ” loop.
To concentrate the railroads in the two great terminal centres, making dignified entrances to the city, To make the new Madison Street stations of the Northwestern and the Pennsylvania the centre for the north and west roads, and to establish a similar centre for the south and east lines somewhere on the South Side.
To employ the money which the city, as a “ partner ” in the traction companies, will receive from the new agreement, in repairing, cleaning, and improving the downtown streets, alleys, and sidewalks.
To carry out the present scheme of building the Field Museum and the Crerar Library in Grant Park, and to allow for the eventual erection there of a new and enlarged Art Institute.
On his return from Europe in July Mr. Burnham declared that “ the making of a new and beautiful Chicago will not be the work of a year or two. Chicago’s problems are especially difficult, because the city is all built up, values of land are high, and the city is settled and solid in its present form. But I am confident of success, though it may take a generation or more to make the city what we hope.”
We are prone to speak of city planning as if it were something new, and in a way something peculiarly American. It is true it has reached a wider vogue in a shorter time in this country than in any other, but as far back as 1666 Sir Christopher Wren prepared a plan for the city of London after the great fire. It was never carried out, although some of his recommendations are now being executed under the progressive policy of the modern County Council. In our own country, L’Enfant, over a century ago, prepared a plan not only for our capital city, but also for Buffalo, both of which have been adhered to in the main points. Detroit followed L’Enfant’s ideas, although he did not prepare the plans.
These cities represent deliberate, comprehensive planning from the beginning. Like Dalny in far-away Siberia, they were developed along previously determined lines; but such instances are possible only in new countries, and are exceptional even there. The Chicago, Cleveland, New York, and San Francisco plans represent an entirely different phase of deliberate and comprehensive planning. They are more like the king-made cities of St. Petersburg and Madrid, or the more recent emperor-made Paris. They grew up along lines of least resistance and in obedience to immediate needs, with practically little thought of the future, and none of the æsthetic side. Then came a period of awakening to civic consciousness and pride, leading to a dissatisfaction with existing conditions, and then an earnest desire for improvement. The Cleveland Group Plan had the merit, not only of being one of the earliest of recent American attempts at effective city-building, but of disclosing the great possibilities of effective combination and coöperation. It illustrates in the realm of civic endeavor that two plus two when properly put together may mean something very much greater than four. This is a discovery of great value and has had a great influence on other American communities, fostering to a large extent the growth of public interest in group plans.
The Chicago plan will, of course, be much more comprehensive in its scope than the Cleveland plan, but it must not be forgotten that the latter is very nearly un fait accompli, because all the buildings planned, except the railroad terminal, are provided for, and some are already in course of construction.
The third type of city planning for comprehensive development may be called “ the gradual,” because it represents an effective progress step by step. Philadelphia and Springfield, Massachusetts, are the two most striking instances of this type.
Philadelphia has not in the past been generally associated with far-reaching plans of civic improvement; but it has been making very steady headway, and, as I pointed out a year ago in an article in The Craftsman, it is entitled to be considered among the leaders. Its Fairmount Park has long been famous, but the city has not for years been content to rest on those laurels. It has been extending the park area in various sections, and now it is busily, although quietly, coördinating them and providing for a great outer parkway. Three years ago (in June, 1905), Andrew Wright Crawford, Secretary of the City Parks Association, was able to say, “The park movement in Philadelphia has achieved some signal successes during the past year. In the direction of reserving outlying open spaces for the health and enjoyment of this and coming generations, the most important action by the city was the passage by Councils and approval by the Mayor, March 20, 1905, of an ordinance that will preserve from building encroachments six and one-half miles, covering one thousand acres of the Pennypack Creek.”
In July of last year, the plans for encircling the city with a chain of parks and connecting boulevards and parkways were forwarded by the passage of ordinances providing for the condemnation of five hundred and fifty acres of woodland, valley, and meadows bordering on Pennypack and Cobb’s Creeks. There are four hundred and forty-seven acres embraced in the Pennypack Creek project, on both banks of that stream, extending from Welsh Road to Bustleton Avenue. For beauty of woodland and sylvan scenery, this part of the Pennypack may be said to be a miniature Wissahickon, while the waters of the creek are quite as plentiful as those of its better known rival in Fairmount Park.
These additions are in harmony with the suggestions made by the Allied Organizations of Philadelphia, which, in 1902, published the report on “American Park Systems,” prepared by Frank Miles Day, the President of the American Institute of Architects, and by Mr. Crawford. This is a most comprehensive report, and has had a very considerable share in stimulating public interest, in Philadelphia and throughout the country.
In addition to this park development the city is now opening up a great parkway from City Hall to Fairmount Park, right through a densely built-up and, for part of the way, a slum district. This is a great project, the value of which has been greatly enhanced by the fact that the Pennsylvania Legislature at its recent session passed an Art-Jury Bill, giving the city control over monuments, statues, and public structures generally, and another bill giving the city power to acquire two hundred feet on either side of any boulevard, and to resell it subject to such restrictions as the city may see fit to impose. This gives it absolute control over important diagonal highways and the structures upon them, a most important consideration. It is a step Chicago will have to take if it wishes to carry out its ideas in all their fullness.
The Philadelphia Parkway already under construction will in time be a great permanent Court of Honor. It takes in on its way Logan Square, one of the original four laid out by William Penn, the Roman Catholic Cathedral of SS. Peter and John, and the Academy of Natural Sciences. To these there are to be added the Free Library of Philadelphia, the great two-million-dollar Museum which is to house the Johnson, Widener, and Elkins collections of pictures, and in all likelihood the new building of the Franklin Institute. In time, other important public and semi-public buildings will be added, and another striking addition will have been made to the list of the world’s great avenues.
Philadelphia has other boulevards in course of construction which will serve to modify its time-honored gridiron system of streets, to serve as connecting lines of parks and far-distant sections of the city, and above all to force a far-reaching civic readjustment similar to that which followed the rebuilding of Paris.
Springfield was mentioned as another instance of gradual but effective development. According to Guy Kirkham, a local architect,it is a fortunate thing that the local fire-insurance company, which acquired property adjoining the Church of the Unity, designed by Richardson, on State Street, is constructing a building of moderate height and marked dignity of design, worthy of a place in the group including the Church, the Art Museum, and St. Gaudens’s statue of the Puritan. Business is here associating itself appropriately with religion, art, and education. This constitutes a great advance, and measures Springfield’s progress over the times when the Unitarian meeting-house and the high school were adjoined by the county jail, a succession familiarly denominated Salvation, Education, and Damnation.
Springfield, according to the same authority, is developing another civic group, one which should in time become the true centre. Years ago certain public-spirited citizens gave Court Square to the city as a public common, which has since been extended to the river. On this square will face several important buildings, the city hall, the police building, the Young Men’s Christian Association, the Grand Army of the Republic Memorial, the principal theatre, a grammar school, and the old First Church. A new bridge over the Connecticut and the elimination of the present railroad tracks have likewise been proposed, so as to make beautiful the entire bank of the river as it flows through the city.
It must not be assumed that city planning concerns itself only with the big features of the city, such as we have been writing about. While these are important and are most likely to attract public attention, men like Olmsted, Burnham, Carrere, are too great as artists to overlook the fine points, to omit the details of a piece of work. They realize that “a city beautiful involves not only a welldesigned plan, a civic centre, a park, and a show boulevard, but also an artistic treatment of its bridges, street-signs, lamp-posts, fire-hydrants, and mailboxes, as well as of its fountains, monuments, statuary, and other confessedly ornamental features.” They realize that when one fills a city with striking statuary and fountains, he has but filled it with beautiful objects. What they and others who have been so busily occupied during the passing decade aim at is to make the city itself beautiful. Consequently we find, for instance, the New York Report considering appropriate house-numbers, gas and electric fixtures, the manner of indicating streets, bridle-paths, the location of statues and monuments, railroad crossings, the pavement of streets, treeplanting, cab service. The St. Louis Plan does likewise.
In the matter of tree-planting, the latter emphasizes its vital relations to a System of street improvements. No city street is complete without a row of welldeveloped and properly cared-for trees on both sides of the roadway. The city has a city forester, whose duties are to superintend, regulate, and encourage the planting, culture, and preservation of shade and ornamental trees. The ordinance provides that the property owners on any three or more contiguous blocks, by a majority vote, shall determine the variety of trees to be planted on that street. This gives uniformity without rigidity, adds much to the beauty and comfort of the streets and homes, and greatly enhances the value of abutting property.
Mr. Burnham’s points for consideration in connection with the San Francisco plans cover four printed pages, and will certainly repay the thoughtful attention of those who are thinking of giving consideration to complicated questions involved in the phrase,” A City Plan.”
Nor are the big metropolitan centres of population, like New York, Chicago, and Philadelphia, the only ones that have taken up the subject. In the list of forty-four cities which I have tabulated as being concerned about city plans, either in the way of actually formulating them or as preparing to devise them, are Columbia and Greenville, South Carolina; Atlantic City, — where the proposals involve the expenditure of ten million dollars, to make that place the greatest of pleasure resorts; Oakland, California; Hartford, Essex County, New Jersey; Milwaukee, Walla Walla, Seattle, Montreal, Honolulu, Pittsburg, Detroit, St. Paul, Denver, Colorado Springs, Manila, Providence, Buffalo, Baltimore, Harrisburg, — and this is but a partial list. Kansas City has made giant strides within the decade. Its park and boulevard systems are worthy of study by city-makers everywhere, and its public spirit is worthy of general emulation. The Paseo is one of the civic achievements of the country.
Some idea of the pace of improvement at which our cities move may be gathered from the following interview with Mayor Speer, of Denver: —
“There are n’t enough teams and men to do all the work. For the next year we have more than we can accomplish in the way of public improvements that have been already undertaken. Until recently every proposed scheme for the beautifying or betterment of any portion of the city met with its certain proportion of protest. But now there are not only no protests, but in every part of the city the householders seem to be greedy for more.
“What I intend to do is to see that each separate improvement in turn is rushed with the largest force possible, so that each one can be finished and then progress made with the next. We shall soon have the South Side improvement district completed, and shall turn our attention to the East Side.
“It is the first time that such a state of affairs has occurred in the history of Denver. It is a gratifying sign that every section of the inhabitants is equally and strongly imbued with the spirit of progress. But just at present we can’t cope with it, if we would.”
Such is the state of affairs in Colorado’s capital, and substantially in every important community. If properly controlled and guided, this spirit, accompanied by a realization that we cannot have a city beautiful until we have eliminated civic ugliness in all its forms, will give to American cities an eminence among the municipalities of the world, which it will be difficult to excel and impossible to overtake.