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.

Bicycles: Can we acheive harmony and respect?

The bicycle is a marvel.  A human-powered machine of utmost simplicity. It is often referred to as the most efficient form of transportation around.  Burns calories, not fuel.  The bike is being rediscovered and celebrated around the world, as a cheap form of transportation suitable for young and old alike.

Enabling and supporting bicycling furthers many important public objectives.  More bicycles means fewer cars on the road.  Fewer cars means less congestion, less air pollution,  fewer greenhouse gas emissions and less parking demand.   These benefits accrue to everyone, not just the bicyclists.  More bicyclists means more healthy physical activity, reinforcing Brookline Health Departments' Brookline on the Move initiative.  A bike can be an essential means of transportation for someone who cannot afford or chooses not own a car.   So, in making it safer to ride a bike by providing designated bike lanes and more convenient bike parking, we are supporting many worthy goals.

Improving bike safety will encourage more people to ride and therefore, more benefits will stack up.  Mobility and access are improved for everyone, including those who do not drive.  The air will be cleaner and safer to breath.  People will get healthy exercise.  Being on a bike lets us encounter our surroundings and the world in a more immediate and direct way, maybe even leading to more community involvement.  With the new Hubway bikeshare system, visitors, employees and residents will have easy access to a convenient, healthy way to get around.  Tourists will be able to enjoy more of what Brookline has to offer.  

So, why is there so much animosity and derision hurled at bicyclists?  Why is there so much vocal opposition and obstruction when it comes to improving conditions for biking in Brookline?  We hear over and over how bad bicyclists are at following the rules and that they don't exercise prudent riding styles.  No doubt there are few bad apples out there, for whom some scorn is justified.  But this does not explain the militant anti-bike fervor we see.  After all, there are plenty of motorists and pedestrians who behave badly too, but we never hear a collective call of hostility and degradation for motorists or pedestrians.  The mean spirited disregard for bicyclists' safety is shocking and inappropriate.  And yet, it seems to be accepted and tolerated.  There is something bigger going on here.

For many years (since the 1950's) planning, infrastructure and street design have all catered exclusively to the automobile.  Much of the American landscape has been transformed into a land of roads, parking lots and private garages, dominating both visual and spatial dimensions completely.  Walking or riding a bike became precarious, dangerous and viewed with suspicion, perhaps a sign of social deviance or poverty.  How inhumane those sub-conscious thoughts are, and yet in most places in the US this reality is all there is and going car-less is virtually impossible.  Fortunately, Brookline was settled well before this time.  We are blessed with compact walkable and bikable landscapes.  We can get around to many of our destinations without driving a car.  Trust me, we are envied for this aspect of our lifestyle.   Yes, we have narrow streets.  Yes, Massachusetts breeds a particularly forceful street behavior, pitting ourselves against those impeding our progress.   All of these forces have carried over into the latest form of this conflict, Article 23.

Article 23, which will come before Brookline Town Meeting this spring, began life as a Home Rule Petition that sought to strip our Transportation Board of its authority to approve and implement a certain type of bike lane, called a contra-flow lane.  This type of bike lane is suitable in rare and particular conditions where a short connector is needed to allow bikes to travel a safe and logical route on a street where cars have been limited to one-way travel.  Opposition to the Home rule petition led to a re-working of Article 23.

So now, Article 23 has been amended to be a resolution calling for our T Board to draft criteria, with the explicit input of certain town boards and commissions, which will define when contraflow bike lanes may be appropriate and to describe what factors and relative weights will be given to various perspectives and concerns. In other words, our staff and T Board must justify and defend themselves to the satisfaction of their critics.  These folks don't trust our professional Town engineering staff to utilize appropriate judgement and they don't trust our Transportation Board to be thoughtful and considerate of multiple stakeholders.  This despite the fact that their decisions have not resulted in any safety problems and they hold multiple well-noticed hearings on each decision they make.  It is hard for some to see the validity of doing anything on behalf of the bicyclist, despite the many benefits alluded to earlier. 

It seems that the idea that bikes require any kind of specific treatment or accommodation really doesn't sit well with those opposed to bikes in the first place.  There was a sentiment expressed that if bicyclists can't follow the rules, then we should not make any attempt to accommodate them.  This is a catch-22, as it is the lack of accommodation that can make biking that much more challenging, leading to unorthodox riding behavior.  It was argued that because pedestrians jaywalk and drivers park on the wrong side of the street, we can't legalize a bike route that might conflict with these other illegal behaviors.  What?  Here we see an articulation of a biased preference and unconscious hierarchy that prejudice some persons' world view.  I don't hear bicyclists decry sidewalks and roadways because motorists and pedestrians don't always follow the rules.  Treating bicyclists as a third class citizen is pervasive.  Pitting one "mode" of transportation against the others fosters aggression, animosity and ill will.

We can't afford to think this way.  Being safe and accommodating each mode appropriately is possible and necessary.  What is lacking here is empathy.  This isn't surprising.  If you've never tried to ride a bike in traffic you cannot understand the degree of vulnerability you feel on a bike.  You couldn't possibly understand the intricacies of how difficult it is to safely navigate a left turn on busy multi-lane streets on a bike.  You would not understand why it seems like a bicyclist is swerving randomly, when in fact they are trying to stay erect by dodging debris and potholes at the side of the road.  And yes, it might make sense and be safe for a bike to travel a short way down a road in a direction prohibited to cars.  The adage "Same road, Same rules" is helpful because it establishes that the appropriate place for bikes is in the street and admonishes everyone to think of the bike as a vehicle.  But, it is overly simplistic.  A bike is fundamentally different, and infinitely more vulnerable.  So let's try to be safe, courteous, conscious and empathetic out there.  We don't need to impose more burdens on our Transportation Board.  If someone doesn't like a decision they can appeal it to the Board of Selectmen.  Let's send a message that we support bicycling and bike facilities.  Vote no on Article 23.