This discussion is quite interesting (personal jabs notwithstanding) and it begs a close look at the history and reality of what we are discussing.
To begin with, we must accept that for all its beauty, the Riverside landscape, as created by Olmsted, is artificial. Man made. Riverside was created to provide a habitable alternative to overcrowded, dirty and unhealthy urban living. A pastoral escape in the face of rapid and uncontrolled growth of our city.
To his credit, Olmsted composed a landscape using several techniques that would become the foundation of landscape architecture. The conjoining of rail-line and water-way only complements his genius and understanding of both the civic and cultural needs of his generation.
Olmsted often utilized natural elements to minimize the presence of humans in the environment. Techniques he utilized included a unique lowered, unpaved roadway (to create the sense of unbroken greenspace and facilitate adequate drainage in a wetland), distant setbacks for residences and mandated planting of trees in both the public and private lands. These recommendations can be found in Olmsted's own writings at the Riverside Public Library. Understanding human's constant need to control the environment, the Riverside Improvement Company had many of these environmental guidelines put into documents during the creation of our suburb. A Plan to follow to achieve the desired goal.
As for the trees, Olmsted (a naturalist) held one key requisite for the landscaping of Riverside which included the diverse plantings of native species of varying height (the listing of such plants and the LAC document is contained here: http://www.olmstedsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/landscaping-in-a-landmark-village.pdf)
This document arises from Olmsted & Vaux & Company's "Preliminary Report upon the Proposed Suburban Village of Riverside" (1868 ), "General Plan for Riverside" (1869) and "The Papers of Frederick Law Olmsted, Vol. 6 (Balitmore 1992). This was also summarized by Edward Straka in "The RIverside Landscape" August 31, 1981. These items are for review at the Riverside Public Library.
Together, these elements of the Riverside design are what make the community unique and worthy of designation as a National Historic Landmark.
To live in an NHL brings with it a certain level of responsibility. To live here is to dwell on a small page of history, one which our National Parks Service feels is worthy of being perpetuated. History which is scattered across our country, from Central Park to Yosemite, everywhere Olmsted left his imprint on the way we live and relate to nature. History which can be shared and passed along from one generation to the next.
Over time, Riverside has elected to change its own history. Pave and raise the streets, re-zone setbacks, put in electric lamps, build taller buildings. Each individual act, perhaps done for convenience, perhaps for money reasons, slowly erodes the general plan. Each individual event may have only a small effect, but compounded results leave a more dramatic change. (For some reason, I get this image of Michael Jackson and plastic surgery. He was still Michael Jackson, albeit some strange contortion of the man he would have grown to be otherwise).
For me this of issue of the cultivar becomes philosophical and begs many questions:
Should we preserve a landscape ideal?
Should we perpetuate our local heritage?
Should we adhere to guidelines for planting which patterns our ecological history?
Should we, as individuals, be willing to make donations of trees within those guidelines?
Should we abandon natural mechanisms for reforestation and fighting pestilence (fires/natural selection) for man-made cultivars?
To me, the underlying question is one of stewardship versus economizing.
Certainly not an uncomplicated topic to discuss.
Posted Wednesday Aug 26, 2009 10:04
#