Community by Design: The Olmsted Firm and the Development of Brookline, MA

Cover Photo by Jack E. Boucher.  Library of Congress

I suspect there will be a great deal of interest in this new book, Community by Design: The Olmsted Firm and The Development of Brookline, Massachusetts, by Keith Morgan, Elizabeth Hope Cushing and Roger Reed.  Published by the Library of American Landscape History, University of Massachusetts Press.  Anyone interested in understanding why Brookline looks the way it does will find plenty of fodder here.  Olmsted enthusiasts will get an in-depth glimpse into the workings of the firm with plenty of real world examples of their design philosophy; first delineated in plan form and then realized in our neighborhoods.  Chock full of details (with hundreds of reproduced photos and plans) and meticulously researched, the book exposes the multiple webs of influence; wealth, social hierarchy, design genius and high-minded ideals that came together to guide the development of Brookline at a time when booming population and streetcars brought rapid change.  The authors trace the relationships among the leading trend-setters in architecture, municipal governance, landscape design, engineering and horticulture as they converge in Brookline at the turn of the 19th century, a time when the professions of landscape architecture and urban planning were being born by these very individuals.   The book sets these events into a broader context, describing the forces that drew these taste-makers to Brookline in the first place and the process by which they came to see their home as a template for an ideal residential setting.  Henry Hobson Richardson, Charles Sprague Sargent, Charles Eliot, Arthur Shurcliff, Frederick Law Olmsted Jr., John Charles Olmsted, Guy Lowell, J. Randolph Coolidge and Robert Swain Peabody are some of the design and horticulture luminaries that circulated within the elder Olmsted's sphere.

Charles Eliot 1882 Courtesy family of Carola Eliot Goriansky

Imagine a world before graduate schools churned out thousands of architects and city planners a year.  This book gives us an inside look at the birth of numerous allied professions. The first American school of architecture was established at MIT in 1867.  Locating a practice, as H.H. Richardson did in 1874 in nearby Brookline, allowed for a symbiotic relationship between mentor and neophyte, his practice blurred home and office, school and work life, much like the Paris atelier he came from.  In late 19th century America there were no professional schools for landscape architects until 1900 when F.L.Olmsted Jr. and Arthur Shurcliff oversaw the creation of a program in landscape architecture at Harvard University.  Prior to that, it was through internship at the Olmsted firm that one gained the necessary skills to practice.  Charles Eliot, was the very first such intern, who later went on to found the Trustees of Reservations, due to his deep understanding and passion for planning on a regional scale.

In these early days, practitioners were free to apply their talents to best advantage, and in some cases, such as when F.L. Olmsted Jr. was asked to assist with the subdivision of "Holm Lea", the Sargent Estate, they conditioned their professional involvement upon being given control over all aspects of a development.  They understood that the outcome would be enhanced if all aspects of site design, architecture, landscaping, road design, etc. were executed from a unified perspective.  In the case of the Sargent Estate, the heirs were reluctant to give such control to the younger Olmsted.  Due in large part to a history of wealth and insular governance, as well as the presence of these civic-minded design professionals, Brookline established one of the first Planning Commissions in Massachusetts, in 1914, with F.L. Olmsted Jr. serving as it's first chair .  We follow the story of the birth of city planning as F.L. Olmsted Jr. , in 1910 founded the first national organization of city planners, the National Conference on City Planning. Brookline was one of the first municipalities to adopt a zoning by-law, doing so in 1922, just two years after state enabling legislation was passed in 1920. 

Plan for Fisher Hill, 1886 FL & JC Olmsted Copy of Lithograph Courtesy Brookline Public Library

Unlike the hyper-specialization in today's professional world, F.L.Olmsted saw the big picture and could envision change well into the future.  Olmsted's skills and practice reached far beyond the limited role landscape architects are forced to inhabit today.  He did not approach his commissions from a purely "aesthetic" point of view, instead he operated more as a problem solver, applying a few key principles consistently.  His understanding of the benefits of working with nature, such as respecting and working with existing topography, and utilizing the natural flows of water are again in vogue today as influential landscape designers champion the use of native plants, minimal soil disruption and existing water supplies instead of the heavy-handed Army Corps of Engineers approach prevalent in the intervening years.  We see in the design for "Brookline Hill", later renamed Fisher Hill, how Olmsted layed out curving roadways to take advantage of views and create a meandering feel.  He also, to achieve his client's goal, created large lots for spacious homes, complete with deed restrictions.

Olmsted had a profound insight into what today we call "environmental psychology"  he knew how people responded to certain settings and he knew how to create those settings and experiences.  He could envisage the experience of calm pleasure and peacefulness that ensues from traversing a curvy and tree-lined roadway.  All of his plans, including Central Park, Beacon St. and the Emerald Necklace flowed from first designing appropriate transportation and linkages.  In fact, we would perhaps not be experiencing the levels of traffic congestion present today, had the planning professions absorbed the lessons to be learned from the separation of travel mode which where an innovation inherent in all Olmsted plans.

Sketch of Proposed Brookside Roads in Upper Brookline 1894 Courtesy National Park Service, F.L. Olmsted N.H.S.

Development pressures were great and reading this book we learn how the families of wealth and influence who lived in South Brookline hired the Olmsted firm to help them ward off plans for intensive development.  Rather than a narrowly focused response, the firm took a more comprehensive tact, proposing a network of parkways as an antecedent to future growth.  The plan included a partway linking Jamaica Pond with the Brookline Reservoir.

Community by Design will inform scholarship on a great many subjects, and as a resident of Brookline, I am grateful for the depth of insight to be gained from reading about such a pivotal time in our history and the people who helped shape our landscape.  The Olmsted firm worked on hundreds of projects for the town and the town's land owners, with their keen insight creating much of landscape we enjoy today.

What would Olmsted do?

Once again we have been reminded about the staggering import of the work of F.L.Olmsted, his sons and the landscape architecture firm he established and ran from his home and workshop here in Brookline. Luckily for us, Olmsted's handiwork is abundantly present in our own environment. On Sunday, September 7th the National Park Service and the Organization of American Historians hosted a stimulating panel discussion at the Arnold Arboretum featuring four scholars: Charles Beveridge, Editor of the Olmsted Papers Project; Ethan Carr, Landscape Historian, University of Virginia; Alexander Garvin; Architect and Planner, Yale University and Delores Hayden, Urban Historian and Architect, Yale University.

Their charge had been to discuss ways to better utilize the vast archives of materials currently being cataloged as part of the Fairsted renovation project, as well as envision ways to engage the public both on and off site to engender a better understanding and appreciation for Olmsted's vision, values, skills, and perspective. They had many fascinating ideas. Not surprisingly, a rallying call was raised to digitize the plans and photos, etc. relating to all 6,000 projects. Ethan Carr suggested a Wiki style gathering of feedback on all those projects whose fate or status remain unknown.

Charles Beveridge spoke eloquently about the shear genius of Olmsted's talents. How his attention to detail and understanding of human perception, psychology, everyday life, patterns of behavior and their relation to landscape and spatial relationships all coalesced to help him create not landscapes but rather forms that built a structure for the life of the city to fill in around them. Olmsted's designs incorporate a deep understanding of what humans find beautiful in nature and offer a variety of experiences and views, paced at a perfect rhythm. Even just one of his well thought out ideas, such as the separation of modes when designing pathways, still have lessons for us today.

Delores Hayden wanted to give visitors to Fairsted an understanding that this was the "Place where their place was created" A kind of Meta understanding. Could the site somehow communicate the transformation that occurred as Olmsted's parks were being built? An era that saw our cities go from crowded, dirty, fetid places to more spread out and breathable habitats. Could we explain the massive and cascading impact on the development of the American landscape and our suburbs that Olmsted had. What was the actual site work like while the parks were being created? The hundreds and hundreds of men with shovels it took to move the earth. How about the technologies of the office. The hand drawing and model building, the pace of life, the hand correspondence. All evoke the cultural gestalt and bring to life the realities of Olmsted's achievements.

But Delores really grabbed my imagination when she raised the challenge of finding ways to interpret and communicate Olmsted's work in both the political and social context of its day and to encourage visitors to consider how current day political attitudes and realities differ. What do these differences say about us as a people and our views about public benefit vs. private gain? While there seems to be universal admiration, gratitude and enjoyment of Olmsted's parks, why is it so hard to make public investments today?

Ethan Carr spoke about Olmsted's ideological legacy and also called for interpretation. Our modern world is much more crowded. It is not necessarily a given that green space or access to nature is a necessity. Is there a "Public" for which to speak and plan for in the same way it was conceived of in Olmsted's time? He opined that government could no longer be counted on to provide parks or maintain them, thus the rise of multitudinous "Friends of " groups and stellar groups like the Central Park Conservancy.

There seems to be a lack of understanding in the fact that, when done well, public projects such as parks, civic spaces, public transportation, art, infrastructure, civic buildings of grand eloquence, and a cohesive well designed public realm, elevate the culture, spirit, energy and economy of the entire enterprise of the city. Despite the fact that over and over again we see the beneficial effects, in both direct (escalating property values near new transit lines or parks, etc.) and less direct ways (increased cultural activities, in-migration of young new talent, attraction of more creative property developers and employers, etc.).

Coincidentally enough, an intriguing article appeared in the Ideas section of Sunday's Boston Globe, entitled "Growth Factor: How Big Government Helps the Economy Take Off". A carefully documented presentation of the evidence that, despite the commonly held belief to the contrary, the size of government and high taxes do not slow a nation's economic growth. In depth study of other rich, high-tax countries revealed a higher standard of living as well as robust and growing economies. A cursory reflection on our health care crisis and lack of affordable day care to take two items will illustrate why this might be so. In fact, the article states that, "contrary to the romantic claims about the nation's laissez-faire past, American history is a story of government intervening, time and again, to support growth." But I digress.

After the panelists made their presentations members of the audience were invited to respond, making comments or asking questions. A lively flow of ideas followed. When I spoke, I first described my personal experience of being a researcher at the archives and what a thrill it was to view the actual plans in the very place they were created by the Olmsted firm. The totality of the experience was truly awe inspiring. It was a privilege. Then, I stated my interest in the challenge of interpreting Olmsted's legacy in a wider context of landscape history and planning, politics and public policy. I suggested that as we face planning and design questions we should ask ourselves, "What would Olmsted do?"

I am quite sure that his thinking would have evolved and he would have new and ingenious solutions to the modern concerns of climate change and non-renewable energy dependence. Of course we can't really know what he would do today, it's a bit like speculating on what Jimi Hendrix's music might sound like today had he lived. We know it would have been original and musical, but what would it sound like?

I do know that had Olmsted not grown disillusioned or cynical, he would still believe in the benefits of access to nature and the cultural benefits of public gathering places. He would have advanced his thinking in terms of environmentally sensitive site design. Transportation would have become more of an issue. The devastating environmental, social, health and economic impacts of suburban sprawl were not something Olmsted foresaw. How would his designs have evolved to adapt? His was a holistic perspective and I am sure he would have sought ways to engender life that better integrated people with their environment and each other along with ways to meet their daily mobility needs without automobile dependency.

In the current era, public investment for the civitas is made evident in those places that respond to the challenge of climate change by adopting innovative policies to encourage/mandate energy efficient building and design, alternative transportation, support for renewable energy, etc. will be the places that prosper. It is a feedback mechanism. These types of initiatives insure the ability to adapt and survive into the future and offer a roost for those looking for an optimistic place to pursue their own contribution to society.

To begin the process of interpretation of the archives, I asked the panelists if Olmsted every expressed concern or dissatisfaction with the shift of his work from large scale public projects to wealthy private estates. Their answers differed. Charles Beveridge talked about the purity of Olmsted's design objectives and his belief that they were worth doing as examples of "good design and techniques" for their illustrative status which could be adapted and copied by homeowners across the country. Delores Hayden said that Olmsted definitely had regrets and was greatly concerned about the shift in focus of his work, preferring instead to see a broader public have access to the product of his efforts.

In speaking to Delores Hayden afterwards, I was able to convey my admiration for her work to her. She told me she wanted to get a tee-shirt that said "What would Olmsted do?"


[where: 02446]