Treatment of Modernist Urban Park Plazas

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Treatment of Modernist Urban Park Plazas Considerations for Adaptation for Contemporary Use
Physical Description:
1 online resource (1 p.)
Language:
english
Creator:
Tolar, Caeli M
Publisher:
University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( M.H.P.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Historic Preservation
Committee Chair:
WILLIAMS,SARA K
Committee Co-Chair:
HYLTON,MORRIS

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
landscape -- modernist -- park -- plaza -- preservation -- rehabilitation -- urban
Historic Preservation -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre:
Historic Preservation thesis, M.H.P.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract:
Many works of modernist landscape architecture are currently threatened by neglect, deterioration, changing uses or contexts, or potential demolition. This research looks at the rehabilitation of significant modernist park plazas in urban settings, the actions and actors involved in the intervention, and the ultimate result of the revisions to the landscape. Modern refers to any work of art, architecture, or landscape architecture influenced by the modern movement of the mid-to-late 20th century. This thesis utilized the case study approach. Three case studies were researched: Kiley Garden, Tampa, FL; Mellon Square, Pittsburgh, PA; and Peavey Plaza, Minneapolis, MN. Data gathered and analyzed included conducting short interviews with city employees, advocacy groups, parks department employees, members of the preservation firm, recognized experts in landscape architecture preservation, and an original designer. The following aspects were considered during compilation of common issues: original design intent versus contemporary use, terminology confusion, public perception, management strategies and priorities, maintenance failure, and rationale for intervention. Major issues found to be recurring throughout the case studies included maintenance failure, communication issues, and the inevitable evolution of public space. These findings generated a set of considerations that invested parties may reference in order to effectively and sensitively perform a historic intervention. The purpose of this research was to determine common issues in interventions at significant modern urban park plazas for contemporary use and generate a set of considerations for future preservationists to follow.
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Caeli M Tolar.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.H.P.)--University of Florida, 2014.
Local:
Adviser: WILLIAMS,SARA K.
Local:
Co-adviser: HYLTON,MORRIS.

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Classification:
lcc - LD1780 2014
System ID:
UFE0046727:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 TREATMENT OF MODERN IST URBAN PARK PLAZAS: CONSIDERATIONS FOR ADAPTATION FOR CONTEMPORARY USE By CAELI TOLAR A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2014

PAGE 2

2 2014 Caeli Tolar

PAGE 3

3 To my family

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my wonderful thesis committee; I could not have accomplished my research without your guidance. I would lik e to expres s my gratitude to my longtime professor and thesis chair Kay Williams, who read countless drafts, allowed me to contact her incessantly with questions (even over the summer) and Ma ny thanks also to committee member and Director of the Historic Preservation Program, Marty Hylton, who managed to provide me with many learning opportunities in the form of independent study research, in addition to generously offering his expertise on mid century modern ism for my thesis In addition, I would like to thank all those who allowed me to interview them regarding their work in the field especially : Susan Rademacher of the Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy who took me on a behind the scenes tour of the Mellon Square rehabilitation project in Pittsburgh; Ron Sill of RS&H, who took me on a tour of Kiley Garden; Charles Birnbaum of The Cultural Landscape Foundation, who gave me valuable insight on modern landscape preservation and whose extensive research and writing greatly assisted my research; and Paul Friedberg, landscape architect of Peav e y Plaza and many other distinguished works, who graciously allowed me to ask him questions about the preser vation and future of modern public spaces. Lastly, I would like to thank my parents, who have supported me both financially and emotionally throughout my academic career Thank you for the opportunity to learn and for fostering in me a thirst for knowle dge.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 8 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTI ON ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 13 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 13 Terminology Used In This Thesis ................................ ................................ ........... 17 Organization of Thesis ................................ ................................ ............................ 19 2 CONTEXT ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 23 The Modern Movement in the United States ................................ ........................... 23 Preservation of Modern Architecture ................................ ................................ ...... 27 The Need for Clear Operational Definitions ................................ ............................ 30 Current Issues in the Preservation of Modern Landscape Architecture .................. 32 Invisible Gardens ................................ ................................ .............................. 32 The Wave Hill Conference and The Cultural Landscape Foundation ............... 37 Summary of Issues ................................ ................................ ........................... 40 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 42 Research Process ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 42 Case Study Selection ................................ ................................ .............................. 43 Data Col lection and Analysis ................................ ................................ .................. 46 Introduction to Case Studies ................................ ................................ ................... 48 4 CASE STUDY #1: KILEY GARDEN ................................ ................................ ....... 51 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 51 Biography of Dan Kiley ................................ ................................ ..................... 51 s Design Philosophy ................................ ................................ ................ 55 History of Kiley Garden ................................ ................................ ........................... 57 History and Description ................................ ................................ .................... 57 Cons truction ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 66 Disrepair and Alterations ................................ ................................ .................. 70 Advocacy ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 75 Treatment ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 79 Summary of Issues ................................ ................................ ................................ 87

PAGE 6

6 5 CASE STUDY #2: MELLON SQUARE ................................ ................................ ... 93 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 93 Biography of John Simonds ................................ ................................ .............. 93 ................................ ................................ ............ 95 History of Mellon Square ................................ ................................ ......................... 97 The Pittsburgh Renaissance ................................ ................................ ............ 97 History and Description ................................ ................................ .................. 100 Cons truction ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 107 Disrepair and Alterations ................................ ................................ ................ 117 Advocacy ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 123 Treatment ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 125 Summary of Issues ................................ ................................ ............................... 134 6 CASE STUDY #3: PEAVEY PLAZA ................................ ................................ ..... 138 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 138 Biography of Paul Friedberg ................................ ................................ ........... 138 ................................ ................................ ....... 140 History of Peave y Plaza ................................ ................................ ........................ 143 History and Description ................................ ................................ .................. 143 Construction ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 153 Disrepair and Alterations ................................ ................................ ................ 155 Advocacy ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 159 Treatment ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 172 Summary of Issues ................................ ................................ ............................... 173 7 ANALYSIS & FINDINGS ................................ ................................ ....................... 176 Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 176 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 176 Maintenance Failure ................................ ................................ ....................... 176 Communic ation Issues ................................ ................................ ................... 180 Inevitable Evolution of Public Space ................................ .............................. 182 Findings ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 186 8 CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 188 Considerations for the Treatment of Modern Urban Landscapes ......................... 188 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 188 Develop a long term management plan ................................ ......................... 188 Ensure clarity of terminology ................................ ................................ .......... 192 Strive for transparency ................................ ................................ ................... 194 Perf orm research and documentation ................................ ............................ 195 Involve the community ................................ ................................ .................... 198 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 200 APPENDIX

PAGE 7

7 A CASE STUDY SELECTION ................................ ................................ .................. 204 B SHORT INTERVIEW FORM ................................ ................................ ................. 210 C DEFENSE PRESENTATION ................................ ................................ ................ 213 D IMAGE USE PERMISSIONS ................................ ................................ ................ 240 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 257 BIOGRAPH ICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 265

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 4 1 Fountain Place in Dallas, TX. ................................ ................................ ............. 53 4 2 Miller House & Garden in Indianapolis, IN. ................................ ......................... 54 4 3 NCNB Plaza in Tampa, FL. ................................ ................................ ................ 54 4 4 The Courtyard of the Lions, Alhambra Palace, Granada, Spain. ........................ 59 4 5 ................................ ................................ .......... 62 4 6 White and pink crape myrtles in NCNB Plaza. ................................ .................... 63 4 7 The paving pattern in the plaza, based on the Fibonacci mathematical sequence. ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 63 4 8 Glass bottomed canal. ................................ ................................ ........................ 64 4 9 One of nine fountains, with runnel ................................ ................................ ..... 65 4 10 ................................ ............................... 65 4 11 Plan of Kiley Garden. ................................ ................................ ......................... 67 4 12 Deterioration in the park right before garage repair construction ....................... 77 4 13 By 2006, most of the grass had died and weeds had taken over the site. .......... 78 4 14 Pavers, shifted out of place by tree roots. ................................ .......................... 78 4 15 Dead grass, disheveled pavers, and dry fountains contributed to the declining image of the plaza. ................................ ................................ ............................. 79 4 16 Kiley Garden, looking southeast, 2010. ................................ .............................. 84 4 17 Kiley Garden, looking west to the Tampa Bay Hot el over the Hillsborough River, 2010. ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 85 4 18 Kiley Garden, looking northwest, 2013. Photograph by the author. .................... 85 4 19 Kiley Garden, looking northeast, 2013. Photograph by the author. .................... 86 4 20 Entrance to Kiley Garden, looking southwest, 2013. Photograph by author. ...... 86 4 21 The evolution of Kiley Garden: before (circa 1950s 60s), during (2009), and after (2010) treatment. ................................ ................................ ........................ 92

PAGE 9

9 4 22 The evolution of Kiley Garden: before (2009) and after (2013) treatment. ......... 92 5 1 The site of Mellon Square, before construction, July 1951. .............................. 112 5 2 Mellon Square, opening day, October 18, 1955. ................................ .............. 113 5 3 Aerial view of Mellon Square, 1961 1963. ................................ ........................ 113 5 4 View of the main fountain, Mellon Square, 1961 1963 ................................ ..... 114 5 5 View of the parking garage entrance and terraced fountain on Oliver & Smithfield, 1961 1963 ................................ ................................ ....................... 114 5 6 View of the parking garage entrance on Sixth, 1961 1963. .............................. 115 5 7 Tile in the main fountain, 1961 1963. ................................ ............................... 115 5 8 Visitors walking through Mellon Square, 1961 1963 ................................ ......... 116 5 9 People lining the benches in Mellon Square, 1961 1963. ................................ 116 5 10 Mellon Square, circa 2010. ................................ ................................ ............... 125 5 11 Watercolor rendering of the Mellon Square restoration by Robert Bowden. ..... 131 5 12 Construction on the cascading fountain, week 3. ................................ ............. 132 5 13 Removal of the bronze basins for refinishing, week 25. ................................ ... 133 5 14 Restoration of the rustic terrazzo, week 43. ................................ ..................... 134 6 1 Main fountain, Peavey Plaza, 2008. ................................ ................................ 149 6 2 Sculptural elements, Peavey Plaza, 2005. ................................ ....................... 150 6 3 Sculptural elements, Peavey Plaza, 2005. ................................ ....................... 151 6 4 Sculptural elements, Peavey Plaza, 2005. ................................ ....................... 152 6 5 Sculptural elements, Peavey Plaza, 2008. ................................ ....................... 153 6 6 Locals sit next to the reflecting pool at Peavey Plaza, 2012. ............................ 168 6 7 Steps down to the plaz a from the Orchestra Hall, 2012 ................................ .. 168 6 8 Visitors rest on the steps, August 2013. ................................ ........................... 169 6 9 A flower pot inconsist ent with the modern theme, 2004 ................................ .. 170 6 10 Peavey Plaza, 2004 ................................ ................................ ......................... 170

PAGE 10

10 6 11 Railroad ties hold back the soil in the original planted berms, 2004. ................ 170 6 12 The juxtaposition of the original concrete stairs with an inconsistent new planter retaining wall, 2004. ................................ ................................ .............. 171 6 13 A garbage can takes the place of an original honeylocust, 2004. .................... 171

PAGE 11

11 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Historic Preservation TREATMENT OF MODERN IST URBAN PARK PLAZAS: CONSIDERATIONS FOR ADAPTATION FOR CONTEMPORARY USE By Ca e li Tolar May 2014 Chair: Sara Ka y Williams Major: Hi storic Preservation Many works of modern ist landscape architecture are currently threatened by neglect, deterioration, changing uses or contexts, or potential demolition. This research looks at the rehabilitation of significant m odern ist park plaza s in urban settings, the actions and actors involved in the intervention and the ultimate result of the revisions to the lan dscape. Modern refer s to any work of art, architecture, or landscape architecture influenced by the modern movement of the mid to late 20th century. This thesis utilized the case study approach. Three case studies were researched: Kiley Garden, Tampa, FL; Mellon Square, Pittsburgh, PA; and Peavey Plaza, Minneapolis, MN. D ata gathered and analyzed included conducti ng short interview s with c ity employees, advocacy groups, parks department employees members of the preservation firm, recognized experts in landscape architecture preservation, and an original designer. The following aspects were considered during compilation of common i ssues : original des ign intent versus contemporary use, terminology confusion, public perception, management strategies and priorities maintenance failure and rat ionale for intervention

PAGE 12

12 Major issues found to be recurring throughout the case studies inclu ded maintenance failure, communication issues, and the inevitable evolution of public space. These f indings generated a se t of considerations that invested parties may reference in order to effectively and sensitively perform a historic intervention The purpose of this research was to determine common issues in interventions at significant m odern urban park plazas for contemporary use and generate a set of considerations for future preservationists to follow

PAGE 13

13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Introduction Modern ist landscapes are among the most endangered historic sites. 1 For the purpose of this thesis, a m odern landscape is a designed landscape constructed during the mid to late 20th century, inspired by the modern movement in art and architecture. These landscapes typically use geometrical forms, turn away from historical influences of neoclassicism, and celebrate innovation through the use of new technologies. Due to their relatively young age, many do not meet the 50 year period set forth by the National Register for Historic Places. Established in 1966 with the National Historic Preservation Act, the National Register of Historic Places allows sites to be nominated and listed, based on criteria established by the U.S. Department of the Interior. 2 The 50 year guideline within the past 50 years; a property of that vintage may be eligible if it is of exceptional 3 Despite the opportunity to designate landscapes from the recent past that are exceptionally significant, many are passed over in favor of older although often less significant, sites 4 Those still extant have often been subjected to unsympathetic modific at ions and additions More still have 1 Preserving Modern Landscape Architecture: Papers from the Wave Hill National Park Service Conference ed. by Charles A. Birnbaum (Cambridge: Spacemaker Press, 1995), 6. 2 Marcella Sherfy and W. Ray Luce, National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Nominating Properties that Have Achieved Significance Within the Past Fifty Years (Washington, DC: United States Department of the In terior, National Park Service, 1998), 5. 3 Ibid., ii. 4 Preserving Modern Landscape Architecture: Papers from the Wave Hill National Park S ervice Conference ed. by Charles A. Birnbaum (Cambridge: Spacemaker Press, 1995), 6.

PAGE 14

14 undergone insensitive adaptations compromising their integrity and rendering them nearly unrecognizable as representations of notable design. Many suffer from original design or construction flaws. Miscommunication s and misunderstandings due to differences in terminology and opinion arise when deciding when, where, and how to treat these landscapes. Few have been effectively preserved or restored. Those that have escaped demolition remain in the hands of private o wners who have the capability to allocate necessary funds for preservation and subsequently high level of maintenance. In addition, these endangered landscapes commonly face negative public perception Oftentimes these historic sites are viewed as outdated dangerous, or aesthetically displeasing 5 Theodore Prudon wrote that modern architecture (and similarly modern landscapes), particularly those designed during the post World War II era, has been in stark terms and, presuma bly, as indifferent to human scale, comfort, or well 6 Especially in an urban context, the combination of failed maintenance and an increase in crime has led to the decline of many m odern urban park plazas. 7 Cities faced with restoration or demoli tion will often choose the latter, citing high maintenance costs, high crime rates, obsolescence, and high cost of restoration. While there are resources available for preservationists such as the U.S. Standards for the Treatmen t of Historic Properties and 5 Theodore H. M. Prudon, Preserving Modern Architecture (Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2008), 25. 6 Ibid. 7 Charles Birnbaum (Founder and President of The Cultural Landscape Foundation), phone interview with the author, September 12, 2013.

PAGE 15

15 Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes by the National Park Service, the se only take into consideration historic or architectural significance. 8 S tandards were primarily developed for structures, not for landscapes, and the Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscape s are difficult to apply to modern park plazas in an urban environment. According to landscape architect Paul Friedberg, c urren tly no effective guidelines exist to evaluate the value of public open spaces 9 Friedberg states that the current guidelines do not take into consideration value as it relates to community pride, use, and overall success of public open spaces, only histor ical or architectural value. 10 Preservation of the recent past is gaining more recognition, but is still a fairly new concept in the field. 11 As m odern sites are disappearing at a rapid rate, it is becoming increasingly important for landscape architects an d preservationists to be able to effectively work together to protect and restore these sites. 12 Conflicts in goals also arise between landscape architects and preservationists. Landscape architects are more likely to focus on users and use patterns, curr ent problems and opportunities maintenance, and budget, oftentimes choosing more financially feasible and schedule 8 United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, accessed February 04, 2014, http://www.nps.gov/hps/tps/standguide/ 9 M. Paul Friedberg, phone interview with the author, January 14, 2014. 10 Ibid. 11 Preserving Modern Landscape Architecture: Papers from the Wave Hill National Park Service Conference ed. Charles Birnbaum (Cambridge: Spacemaker Press, 1995), 7 & 8. 12 Charles A. Birnbaum, "Expanding the Field: Modern Landscape Architecture and Historic Preservation," Forum Journal 27, no. 2 (2013): 3, accessed August 5, 2013, http://tclf.org/sites/default/files/Forum Journal_Winter 2013.pdf

PAGE 16

16 appropriate design solutions over the historically accurate. On the other side, preservationists tend to place more emphasis on detailed hi storical research in developing recommendation s. Many historically accurate solutions proposed do not effectively address user preference and patterns and use materials that require higher construction and maintenance costs. An ongoing debate appears to be occurring between designers and preservationists today. Charles Birnbaum, founder of The Cultural Landscape affecting communication between the two fields. 13 Birnbaum writes for Forum Journal How can we strike a balance between change and continuity? When do we destroy sufficient historic fabric to such an extent that we lose the authentic, character defining features that make a work of landscape architecture distinct or significant? Are there solutions that can be e valuated and endorsed by both the design and historic preservation communities? 14 This thesis attempts to contribute in the bridging of the gap that seems to separate landscape architecture and preservation. Th ere is a lack of research and critically analyzed practice regarding the preservation of modern landscape architecture. 15 Major work has been done by The Cultural Landscape Foundation and DOCOMOMO, specifically, but there is still much to be learned about the preservation of these sites. Modern landscape architecture faces multiple threats in the form of alterations, demolition, and neglect. Landscape architects that are involved in 13 Ibid ., 6. 14 Ibid., 6. 15 Preserving Modern Landscape Architecture: Papers from the Wave Hill National Park Service Conference ed. Charles Birnbaum (Cambridge: Spacemaker Press, 1995), 7 & 8.

PAGE 17

17 intervention projects must be provided with appropriate information on ho w to sensitively intervene at significant sites. Terminology Used In This Thesis The terms modern and modernism can often be confused and misinterpreted, especially in the field of preservation. Since modern can refer to both a specific style (during a sp ecific time period in the 20 th century) and a philosophy of design (that can be relative to multiple different time periods), meaning and usage of the term is dynamic. 16 Peter Walker and Melanie Simo discuss the absence of a scholarly 17 A lack of scholarly architect s while eroding what was once believed to be common ground a core of 18 scape architecture. 19 The Cultural Landscape Foundation provides a comprehensive definition of m odern landscape architecture: A style that arose in Europe as early as the 1920s, as part of an avant g arde response to what artists and designers perceived as the cultural irrelevance of the "styles" as well as the socio political authoritarianism represented in the formal, rigid geometry of Beaux Arts neoclassicism. In the United States, this sense of irr elevance also extended to the 19th 16 Peter Walker and Melanie Simo, Invisible Gardens (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1996): 4. 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid. 19 Peter Walker and Melanie Simo, Invisible Gardens (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1996): 4.

PAGE 18

18 c entury Picturesque, as neither style adequately addressed the massive social and economic changes brought on by urbanization, s uburbanization, and ultimately by the Great Depression. Modernism embraced a diverse palette of contemporary and often experimental materials as well as using familiar materials in unconventional ways, and, in the absence of teams of gardeners, it strived for low maintenance. It e living space outdoors. The modern garden frequently used irregular forms and asymmetry. Japanese gardens provided an inspiration, as did movements such as Dada in painting and sculpture. American practitioners James Rose, Dan Kiley, Garrett Eckbo and oth ers expressed their theories and concerns in articles published in Pencil Points magazine. Although modern design had largely fallen from favor by the Bicentennial, in recent years there has been a significant resurgence. 20 For this thesis, the above defini tion can be refer enced to describe a modern landscape. A modern landscape can be described as a designed landscape constructed during the mid to late 20th century, inspired by the modern movement in art and architecture. Landscapes in the modern style typ ically use geometric forms, turn away from historical influences of neoclassicism, and celebrate innovation through the use of new technologies. 21 Urban will be used to reference a large city, or, as defined by the Census Bureau, will comprise a densely s ettled core of census tracts and/or census b locks that meet minimum population density requirements, along with adjacent territory containing non residential urban land uses as well as territory with low population density included to link outlying densely settled territory with the densely settled core. To qualify as an urban area, the territory 20 The Cultu ral Landscape Foundation accessed September 26, 2013, https://tclf.org/content/modernist 21 Preserving Modern Landscape Architecture: Papers from the Wave Hill National Park Service Conference ed. Charles Birnbaum (Cambridge: Spacemaker Press, 1995), 7 & 8. Preserving Modern Landscape Archi tecture: Papers from the Wave Hill National Park Service Conference ed. Charles Birnbaum (Cambridge: Spacemaker Press, 1995), 134. Peter Walker and Melanie Simo, Invisible Gardens (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1996): 5.

PAGE 19

19 identified according to criteria must encompass at least 2,500 people, at least 1,500 of which reside outside institutional group quarters. 22 The term modern urban park pla za is used to describe the specific type of landscape on which the th esis research is focused. The park plaza (a term credited to landscape architect Paul Friedberg) is a designed space consisting of both hardscape and green space. 23 Organization of Thesis In order to understa nd the process of preserving modern urban park plazas, this thesis will utilize case study analysis. Three sites have been chosen according to a case study matrix, which will be explained in Chapter 2 and can be accessed in Appendix A. The selected case study sites are Kiley Garden in Tampa, Florida Mellon Square in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Peavey Plaza in Minneapolis, Minnesota Kiley Garden, also known as NationsBank Plaza, was designed by Daniel Urban Kiley (191 2 2004) and opened to the public in 1988. It is built over a parking garage fell into decline and was threatened with demolition multiple times. In 2006, the c ity of Tampa hired engineering firm Reynolds, Smith, & Hills (RS & H) to repair the leaks in the garage. Since this involved making alterations to the plaza atop the garage, Ron Sill, 22 United States Census Bureau last modified July 22, 2013, accessed Sep. 24, 2013, http://www.census.gov/geo/reference/ua/urban rural 2010.html 23 2), (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 2006), 2. Charles Birnbaum (Founder and President of The Cultural Landscape Foundation), phone interview with the author, September 12, 2013.

PAGE 20

20 landscape architect with RS&H, provided guidance during the project, which was completed in 2010. 24 Mellon Squ are was designed by landscape architect John O. Simonds (1913 2005) and completed in 1955. The plaza and parking garage below were constructed as a part of the Pittsburgh Renaissance, funded by Richard K. Mellon, a banker int erested war economic status. Although initially highly acclaimed, the park fell into decline during the 1970s and 19 80 s. The park is currently undergoing a restoration led by Heritage Landscapes and the Pittsburgh Parks Cons ervancy with expected completion reached by the end of 2013 25 Peavey Plaza, designed by M. Paul Friedberg (1931 ) was completed in 1975 and is part of Nicollet Mall. Though it has faced threat of demolition and complete redesign, the plaza will remain, due to a recent controversial lawsuit that The Cultural Landscape Foundation brought against the City of Minneapolis. 26 Discussions are ongoing and compromises are currently being made regarding the preservation of significant features while still improvin g accessibility and making other appropriate interventions 27 Through analysis of these three modern urban park plazas, their history, and preservation efforts, the author has determined a list of common problems a ffecting 24 Ronald Sill (landscape architect at RS&H), interview at Kiley Garden with the author, August 17, 2013. 25 ort, Pittsburgh, 2009). 26 D.C., June 28, 2012). 27 Eri Minneapolis StarTribune August 1, 2013.

PAGE 21

21 landscape architect preservationists. Short interviews with city officials and landscape architects involved in the process, archival research, and analysis of books, oral histories, journal articles, and news articles have contributed to analysis of common problems and the subsequent list of considerat ions for landscape architects and preservationists to consider when approaching intervention at these sensitive sites. In additi on to case study research, the author consulted various other precedents in order to add to the res earch of how, when, and why problems occur in modern urban park plazas. Well known examples of other interventions at modern urban park plazas, such as Freeway Park in Seattle and Bryant Park in N ew York City, New York are referenced These parks provide further parallels that help determine probable causes of deterioration and need for treatment Further investigation into similar architectural intervention scenarios have also been helpful in determining common issues and parallels. Through research of similar historic preservation projects and issues in modern architecture, many common problems and solutions can be related to landscape architecture projects. Hopefully the methodology and insight of the research in this thesis can be expanded to the stu dy of a variety of different project types in addition to urban parks and plazas. In addition, it is intended for others to be able to use this method for further study of landscapes at different scales and project types. I t is also hoped that this resea rch should prove to be a worthwhile contribution and a useful resource for professionals, advocacy groups, and city councils. This thesis is comprised of seven chapters. The first chapter is an introduction to the research. The second is an overview, consisting of a brief explanation of the

PAGE 22

22 modern movement, list of operational definitions, current issues in the preservation of modern landscape architecture, description of case study selection, methodology, and short interview formation. The third is the first case study, Kiley Garden. The fourth is the second case study, Mellon Square. The fifth is the third case study, Peave y Plaza. The sixth is the analysis, which is a discussion of common issues found, and findings, which will be set of considerations for the treatment of modern urban park plazas. The seventh and final is the conclusion, which will include a summary and r ecommendations for future research.

PAGE 23

23 CHAPTER 2 CONTEXT The Modern Movement in the United States Although modernism in architecture and landscape architecture is most often associated with the mid 20 th century, the roots of modernism go back to the 19 th century. 1 According to William J. R. Curtis in his book, Modern Architecture Since 1900 nineteenth century theorists as Csar Daly, Eugne Viollet le Duc and Gottfried Semper we re discussing the possibility of a genuine modern style, 2 The Industrial Revolution, according to 3 In addition, it is important t o realize that modernism included a variety of different philosophies and branches 4 In this thesis the author will be focusing on the International Style as it was the primary influence of the three case studies 5 After World War I, out of the Treaty of Versailles, came a new government in Germany: the Weimar Republic. 6 As with many post war nations, Germany struggled to rebuild its economy, suffering high unemployment rates, food shortages, and political uprisings. 7 It was during this period of volatil 1 William J. R. Curtis, Modern Architecture Since 1900 (London: Phaidon Press Limited, 1999), 11. 2 Ibid., 11. 3 Ibid., 22. 4 Ibid., 16. 5 Ibid., 14. 6 Buie Harwood, Bridget May, & Curt Sherman, Architecture and Interior Design: An Integrated History to the Present (Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc./Prentice Hall, 2012), 623. 7 Ibid.

PAGE 24

24 8 Curriculum began with all students taking common preliminary coursework to give them bas ic knowledge of form, color, and basic concepts, then, later in their studies, began to narrow down to their specific field of expertise. 9 Gropius attempted to keep the school in close relations with the existing industry of a variety of different crafts including architecture, painting, sculpture, photography, print & advertising, theater, and landscape architecture. 10 The Bauhaus School boasted several talented designers on its faculty, such as Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Marcel Breuer, and Wassily Kandins ky, however, tensions began rising again in Germany. 11 By 1931, the Nazis regained power over Dessau, Germany, where the Bauhaus School was currently located, and, deeming the school to be anti Nazi, ordered its closure. 12 Many of the faculty members and students emigrated to the U.S., bringing with them their modern principles of design Design philosophies of the Bauhaus School focus ed on honesty of form (form follows function) and a rejection of historical influence and adornment. 13 This focus on functionality and honesty resulted in an architecture that was mainly flat, planar, and asymmetrical. 14 Modern industrial materials such as steel, reinforced concrete, metal 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid., 624. 12 Ibid., 6 24. 13 Ibid., 624. 14 Ibid., 625.

PAGE 25

25 tubing, and glass were heavily used, along with a limi ted color palette of white, black, grey, or primary colors. 15 Designers often used grid patterns or experiment with various geometries, especially squares and rectangles. Solid and void relationships and experiments with mass and spatial relationships wer e also considered important. 16 Meanwhile, in the United States, renowned architect Frank Lloyd Wright was in not only function but also what was described by Kenneth Frampto n as a . 17 Transparency, made possible by innovations in glass technology, allowed seamless integration of the indoor and outdoor environments. 18 This modern concept is said to h 19 Pamela Burton and Marie Botnick, in their book Private Landscapes: M odern Gardens in Southern California convicti on that architects should serve as the mediating force between people and nature was passed on to both [Irving] 20 Post World War II, modern design became the norm rather than the exception in the United States. T he mod ern movement in art and architecture spread throughout the 15 Ibid., 625. 16 Ibid., 625. 17 Modern Landscape Architecture: A Critical Review ed. by Marc Treib (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1993), 25 & 26. 18 Pamela Burton and Marie Botnick, Private Landscapes: Modernist Gardens in Southern California (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2002), 8. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid.

PAGE 26

26 United States and into the field of landscape architecture, beginning at Harvard with students Fletcher Steele, Thomas Church, Garrett Eckbo, James Rose, and Dan Kiley. 21 In 1938, Christopher Tunna rd, a Canadian landscape architect, published Gardens in the Modern Landscape a book which provided three approaches to modern garden design: the functional, the empathic, and the artistic. 22 according to Lance M. Neckar, Associate Profess or of Landscape Architecture at the century canons of the arts and crafts garden and the residual gardenesque in England, and the blast reverberated 23 publication, Tunnard emigrated to the United States to teach at Harvard Graduate School of Design, alongside Walter Gropius. 24 While at Harvard, Tunnard advocated against the classically based approaches taught by Beaux Arts traditionalists, insisting tha twentieth century is no style at all, but a new conception of planning the human 25 Students Fletcher Steele and Thomas Church, the earlier generation of Harvard modernism advocate s, had both travelled in Europe and were also influenced by 21 Modern Landscape Architecture: A Critical Review ed. by Marc Treib (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1993), 221. 22 Modern Landscape Architecture: A Critical Review ed. by Marc Treib (Cambridge : MIT Press, 1993), 144. 23 Ibid. 24 Ibid. 25 Modern Landscape Architecture: A Critical Review ed. by Marc Treib (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1993), 1 62.

PAGE 27

27 designing according to traditional academic style s 26 During their time at Harvard, influenced by Walter Gropius an architecture, and landscape design, Rose and Eckbo were also prolific writers, submitting articles to the Architectural Record 27 The concept of a modern approach to landscape architecture expanded. Accor ding to Marc Treib, in his book Garrett Eckbo: Modern Landscapes for Living claim a modern, if not always a modern 28 Later, renowned landscape architects Lawrence Halprin, Peter Wal ker, Hideo Sasaki, Richard Haag, John Simonds, and M. Paul Friedberg would continue the modern ideal. Preservation of Modern Architecture Modern landscape architecture stemmed from the movement of modernism in art and architecture, and likewise, the preser vation of modern landscape architecture has followed the initial movement to preserve modern architecture. Christopher Tunnard inseparable from the spirit, technique, and developmen 29 Though the object is different, many of these sites face common issues of inadequate maintenance, obsolescence, and negative public perception. Many structures have been heavily altered, lost their integrity, and do not yet fal l under the fifty year rule, as 26 Modern Landscape Architecture: A Critical Review ed. by Marc Treib (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1993), 32 & 33. 27 Ibid. 28 Marc Treib and Dorothe Imbert, Garrett Eckbo: Modern Landsc apes for Living (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997), 2. 29 Modern Landscape Architecture: A Critical Review ed. by Marc Treib (Camb ridge: MIT Press, 1993), 160.

PAGE 28

28 their landscape counterparts. Therefore, this study benefits from studying preservation efforts in modern architecture, as well. Preservation of Modern Architecture outlined the issues architec ts face, history, and philosophies. First of all, the use of innovative materials, one of the hallmarks of modern designs, has hasten ed the effect of deterioration in many structures. 30 Technical failure in these materials can lead to structural issues in addition to mere decline in aesthetic quality. Similarly, many landscape architects experimented with new technology such as waterproofing that was still untested, which later caused structural issues in parks over parking garages, such as Kiley Garden an d Peavey Plaza. Negative perceptions of modern architecture are also a huge hurdle to overcome. Prudon states, [T] he perception of modern architecture, particularly from the period stark terms and, presumably, as indifferent to human scale, comfort, or well being. 31 Modern architecture is often described as unwelcoming and harsh. Similarly 32 The a esthetic quality of modern urban park plazas are also typically me t with a negative perception A poll by Russian immigrant artists Vitaly Komar and Aleksandr Melamid, 30 Theodore H. M. Prudon, Preserving Modern Architecture (Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2008), 23. 31 Ibid., 25. 32 Ibid., 25.

PAGE 29

29 published in their book Painting by Numbers (1997) found that the majority of Americans 33 Since building uses, along with health, safety, and welfare standards and codes, are dynamic and are constantly being updated, many modern buildings (and landscapes) seem to h ave reached obsolescence at a fairly young age. 34 Consideration of design intent during the preservation process is also a central concept for modern architectural projects: While the emphasis on the viability of both function and design in the preservatio n of buildings is always primary and has been for decades, balancing it with the pivotal importance of the original intent or idea may be far more challenging for modern buildings. 35 For example, accessibility adaptations can pose a challenge to preservationists since the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), was not in effect during the design and construction of structures built in the mid cen t u ry Building codes and energy codes hav also changed significantly. Adapta tion to implement such standards must be sensitive to the original designers intent but also provide the appropriate, up to code health, safety, and welfare accommodations. Charles Birnbaum, President of the Cultural Landscape Foundation, notes a shift in the preservation of modern work. 36 Birnbaum stated that many modern works of 33 Preserving Modern Landscape Architecture: Papers from the Wave Hill National Park Service Conference ed.by Charles A. Birnbaum (Cambridge: Spacemaker Press, 1995), 5. 34 Theodore H. M. Prudon, Preserving Modern Architecture (Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2008), 25. 35 Ibid., 25. 36 Charles Birnbaum (Founder and President of The Cultural Landscape Foundation), phone interview with the author, September 12, 2013.

PAGE 30

30 architecture are beginning to be preserved and recognized as significant, such as Eero and Russel Wright 37 Just as the movement of m odernism began first with architecture and then flowed to landscape architecture, Birnbaum believes that the current increase in preservation of recent architecture is leading to increased preservation of 38 When Kiley turned 100, Birnbaum stated, nothing happened, despite his iconic status as a top tier designer of his time 39 Despite similar time periods, design philosophies, inspiration, and use of similar materials, modern architects have continually received more recognition, support for preservation, and designation than their landscape architect peers. Why should Mies van der Rohe receive so much more recognition than Dan Kiley, Birnbaum asks? 40 Landscape architects need to work to increase education and appreciation for modern works in the community. 41 The Need for Clear Operational Definitions There is much confusion over the terms used in the landscape architecture and historic preservation fields. Non preservationists tend to use the term preservation to refer to any attempt to treat, alter, restore, preserve, rehabilitate, or even reconstruct a historic building o r landscape. This, however, leads to great interdisciplinary 37 Ibid. 38 Ibid. 39 Ibid. 40 Ibid. 41 Ibid.

PAGE 31

31 miscommunication when terms are not correctly defined. Ron Sill, of RS & H, refrained from applying any term to his work on Kiley Garden during an interview on August 17, 2013, due to the fact that so much conflict had arisen when he had referred to the 42 Therefore, an explanation is needed to fully clarify the definition and usage of the evels of treatment of historic properties: preservation, restoration, rehabilitation, and reconstruction : Preservation [T]he act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of an historic property. Wor k, including preliminary measures to protect and stabilize the property, generally focuses upon the ongoing maintenance and repair of historic materials and features rather than extensive replacement and new construction. New exterior additions are not wit hin the scope of this treatment; however, the limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and other code required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a preservation project. 43 Rehabilitation [T]he act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. 44 Restoration [T]he act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period. The limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and 42 Ronald Sill (landscape architect at RS& H), interview at Kiley Garden with the author, August 17, 2013. 43 United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service accessed September 12, 2013, http://www.nps.gov/hps/TPS/standguide/preserve/preserve_index.htm 44 United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service accessed September 12, 2013, http://www.nps.gov/hps/TPS/standguide/preserve/preserve_index.htm

PAGE 32

32 plumbing systems and other code required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a restoration project. 45 Character defining features (landscape) Physical featur es that defin e the character of a landscape, making it unique. These elements can include materials, form, layout, details, or structures. Modern used to refer to any work of art, architec ture, or landscape architecture influenced by the modern movement of the 20 th century. M odern landscape A designed landscape constructed during the mid to late 20th century, inspired by the modern movement in art and architecture. Landscapes in the modern style typically use geometrical forms, turn away from historical influences of neoclassicism, and celebrate innovation through the use of new technologies. Intervention Any treatment applied to a historic property for the sake of adaptation for contemporary use. The case studies researched in this thesis are principally rehabil itation projects. Rarely is a project ever a pure preservation, restoration, or rehabilitation. F or the purpose of the study and ea se of communication ll be used to refer to any type of treatment applied to a historic property, terms. Current Issues in the Preservation of M odern Landscape Architecture Invisible Gardens In the past decade landscape architects began to be concerned at the rapi d rate at which modern designed landscapes were disappearing. By the latter years of the 20 th century many of the landscapes designed a mere 30 or 40 years earlier were already facing threats of demolition, high rates of crime, and decay. Professionals began to pose the question : why are these landscapes so invisible? 45 United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service accessed September 12, 2013, http://www.nps.gov/hps/TPS/standguide/preserve/preserve_index.htm

PAGE 33

33 In 1994, Peter Walker, landscape architect, and Melanie Simo, art historian, wrote a book addressing this topic, entitled, Invisible Gardens Originally, Walker and Simo intended to write a book to enlighten students about the works of landscape architecture during this time period. 46 However, as the authors progressed in their research, they realized their need to delve deeper into the subject of modernism, becoming interested in more spec ific questions. 47 These questions led the authors to reformulate their main purpose for writing Invisible Gardens 48 Throughout the book pers isted Wh Why did modern landscape architecture not receive more criticism and publicity? Why did art historians not consider the movement something to be documented and studied? Why did seemingly ground breaking designs by innovative artists challenging the traditions of the Beaux Arts movement not become iconic? 49 The authors listed several theories. First, the return of soldiers led to an increased demand for housing that could only be s upplied through mass production and environmen 50 Thus, despite the talent and optimism of post artisan work of modern landscape architects could not keep up with the rate of growth of the country. Considering the post World War II 46 Peter Walker and Melanie Simo, Invisible Gardens (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1996), iv. 47 Ibid., iv. 48 Ibid., 2. 49 Ibid., iii. 50 Ibid., 312.

PAGE 34

34 Another reason for invisibility, the authors suggested, could be that the public was not adequately informed about the idea and progress of modern landscape architecture. 51 Despite the prolific wri tings of Eckbo, Church, and others, the public was seemingly not aware of the modern movement in landscape architecture; perhaps this had to do more with a lack of interest rather than lack of awareness. This lack of interest can be attributed to the firs t reason listed, that the mass of Americans simply wanted a house and a yard. Or perhaps, though there was much information available to the public, it was not made easily accessible or publicized effectively. It may be that the writings describing and d iscussing modern landscape architecture remained internal to the design profession and were not promoted by their authors to the external world. This would explain the lack of knowledge about the modern movement that was occurring in the relatively new pr ofession of landscape architecture in America during this time period. Walker and Simo also stated that landscape architects did not effectively define, document, discuss, and criticize modernism. 52 Walker and Simo made the point that landscape architects during this time focused more on the pragmatic than the philosophical during this time period. As a result, Walker and Simo proposed that while eroding what was onc e believed to be common ground a core of common 53 This is interesting when we consider that Walker 51 Ibid., 4. 52 Ibid., 4. 53 Ibid., 4.

PAGE 35

35 himself was in practice during this time period, and was thus admitting that he also, did not effectively define modernism. This seems to be a valid point, as well; many who were misinformed and even opposed modernism had a radically different concept of modernism than designers. Even designers themselves had different opinions, but perh aps did not adequately convey them to others to collaborate and collectively define modernism in landscape architecture. In addition, the authors hypothesized the modern ist 54 However, many of the landscape architects mentioned in the book believed tradition and the pas t contributed positively to ed to people and to Sasaki, 55 The authors also stated that landscape architects were not i nvolved in advocating their values and had become separated from the influential world of land development since the 1960s. 56 This appeared to be a legitimate case, especially when considering the scale of many modern landscape architecture gardens compare d to the scale of urban planning. Now, landscape architects offices are taking a more 54 Ibid., 312. 55 Ibid., 8, 79, 56. 56 Ibid., 314.

PAGE 36

36 interdisciplinary approach to the design process, involving more professions and allowing for an increase in the scope and scale of projects. While t he book seemed to be intended more for an audience already informed about landscape arch itecture, history, and/or art, it was still helpful as a criticism for those in the field to become aware of the disappearance of moder n landscapes. The book provided a fairly detailed ac count of selected modern landscape architects: the factors contributing to their values, what inspired them, the philosophies that supported their work, and why their contributions lacked visibility. It also showed current design professionals how they co uld learn from the failures and missed opportunities of modern landscape architecture in order to avoid repeating mista kes. Design professionals were challenged to write about landscape architecture, to review projects and literature critically, and to be more outspoken in advocating the values of the profession. In that way, Walker and Simo believed the profession of landscape architecture would receive more recognition and its members could increase their diversity and scope of work. Invisible Gardens provided interesting viewpoints on how historical events can act as a catalyst or a hindrance to ideas. M odern landscape architects were eager to resist the Beaux Arts traditions and promoted progress, innovation, and creativity to develop a new way of p hilosophy of design. However, Walker and Simo pointed out, if innovation does not coincide with and incorporate current social, technological, and aesthetic preferences, it is highly likely that the idea, no matter how ingenious, will not succeed. 57 57 Ibid., 312.

PAGE 37

37 Walker stated in the epilogue that he and Simo were optimistic about the outlook for landscape architecture in America. 58 Walker encouraged increased integration of education, teaching both formal and modern design, debate, and critically reviewed work, which he felt would lead to more global interest in the profession of design. 59 Invisible Gardens demonstrated that, by evaluating the errors and missed opportunities of the past, current landscape architects could better understand how to design for the future. T he Wave Hill Conference and The Cultural Landscape Foundation In 1995, a conference was held at Wave Hill, New York to discuss the preservation of post World War II landscape architecture. From the Wave Hill National Park Service Conference came a publica tion: a collection of essays addressing the preservation of modern landscape architecture, edited by Charles Birnbaum, founder and president of The Cultural Landscape Foundation in Washington, D.C. Preserving Modern Landscape Architecture: Papers from the Wave Hill National Park Service Conference listed nine ways that landscape arch itects can continue to preserve the legacy of modern landscape architecture: 1. P ursue nominations to the National Register for recent landscape architecture. 2. Establish a larger (historical) context for contemporary landscape architecture. 3. Document threatened work. 4. Avoid cultural amnesia: Consult with the original designer when possible. 5. Educate owners and public stewards. 58 Ibid., 317. 59 Ibid., 317.

PAGE 38

38 6. Establish creative partnerships. 7. Ensure proper homes for archives. 8. Utilize current standards and guidelines when embarking on project work. 9. Formulate a national strategy. 60 Nearly two decades later, Birnbaum still affirms that these guidelines still hold true. 61 In a phone interview with the author Birnbaum stated that, although things are changing, the suggestions still stand. Birnbaum, lik e other preservationists and landscape architects, is optimistic about the progress in preservation of modern landscape architecture. In the past year, Gasworks Park by Richard Haag, Peavey Plaza by Paul Friedberg, and Ira Keller Fountain by Lawrence Halp rin have all been nominated to the National Register of Historic Places. These major designations mark a huge step forward for preservation in this field says Birnbaum 62 Birnbaum also cites the need for a larger historical context. 63 There are not many resources available that reference the history of modern landscape architecture. However, these resources are increasing, with the work of The Cultural Landscape Foundation (especially Landslide) and DOCOMOMO. Documentation of threatened works and esta blishing safe locations for existing archives is also crucial, especially for works of significance that are deemed iconic. 64 60 Preserving Modern Landscape Architecture: Papers from the Wave Hill National Park Service Conference ed.by Charles A. Birnbaum (Cambridge: Spacemaker Press, 1995), 6 8. 61 Charles Birnbaum (Founder and President of The Cultural Landscape Foundation), phone interview with the author, September 12, 2013. 62 Ibid. 63 Preserving Modern Landscape Architecture: Papers from the Wave Hill National Park Service Conference ed.by C harles A. Birnbaum (Cambridge: Spacemaker Press, 1995), 6 8. 64 Ibid., 7 8.

PAGE 39

39 If possible, Birnbaum suggests consultation with the original designer to attempt to align preservation efforts as closely with t he original plan as possible. For example, in the case of Peavey Plaza, The Cultural Landscape Foundation consulted Paul Friedberg and came up with a plan to rehabilitate the plaza for contemporary use. Educating those responsible for maintenance, manage ment, and ownership on the significance of the site is important to not only establishing a context but also to 65 Gaining support from invested entities, community groups, and other organizations is crucial to the process of preservation. 66 Birnbaum recommends following the National Park Services existing guidelines for historic designation and treatment. 67 Finally, Birnbaum believes the American Society of uld develop a strategy to safegu ard this legacy through a special committee of recognized landscape 68 Birnbaum would go on to found The Cultural Landscape Foundation an organization which attempts to make known landscape architec ts of this period and recognize endangered works a few years after the Wave Hill Conference,. 69 Hill Conference, listed what he believed were the main issues facing preservationists of the recent past. He believed that the modern landscape architecture profession was small 65 Ibid., 7. 66 Ibid., 7. 67 Ibid., 8. 68 Ibid., 8. 69 Ibid., 8.

PAGE 40

40 and not much knowledge of the field existed, even among experts. 70 Walker also stated that, with the increase in societal commercialism, tourism to physical sites has decr eased, negatively impacting recognition of significant works. 71 Walker refers to violently as does society. 72 This aspect of change is also unfavorable for landscapes sin ce they are dynamic and not static; they require time to mature and then constant maintenance and replacement of dying materials. 73 Finally, changes in ownership from private to public, taste, and culture all pose a threat to m odern landscapes. 74 Walker like Birnbaum, was happy with the progress of preservation in the field but also pushed to continue increasing knowledge about these sites. 75 Summary of Issues In summation, the field of landscape architecture preservation of the recent past is fairly ne w, but steadily improving, and still has much room for growth. There is still a lack of literature, tools for landscape architecture preservationists, and recognition of m odern landscape architecture. The next three chapters are case studies of significa nt m odern park plazas. Looking at case studies, in addition to the previous research of existing literature, will provide a basis on which to build a list of common issues and 70 Ibid., 9. 71 Ibid., 9. 72 Ibid., 9. 73 Ibid., 9. 74 Ibid., 9. 75 Ibid., 11.

PAGE 41

41 subsequently form considerations for landscape architects to more effectively t reat historic landscapes of this invisible era.

PAGE 42

42 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Research Process This study utilizes a case study methodology. The c ase study method can be a method of research used esp. in sociology by which accumulated case histories are analyzed with a view toward formulating general principles 1 A simplified outline of the overall research process undertaken includes the following: Initial research question & problem statement development Case study selection Data collect ion Data analysis Development of findings Conclusion First, the initial research question and problem statement were developed. A case study matrix was created ( Appendix A) in order to compare potential case studies. The case study selection process is e Primary data collection took place ove r a three month period in the summer, but information was collected continuously throughout the project. After each case study was sufficiently researched and developed, analysis followed. Analysis consisted of the examination of the three case studies for common themes unique issu es, and comparison and contrast of the designer, history, context, construct, disrepair, alterations, advocacy, and resulting treatment of each plaza. Findings summarized the results discovered from the analysis and developed a set of considerations based on the research that could be used practically by landscape architects undertaking the preservation, restoration, and rehabilitation of a historic 1 http://www.merriam webster.com/dictionary/case%20study%20method

PAGE 43

43 modern landscape. Finally, the conclusion provide s a succinct summary of the study described how the study met its research g oals and how it can be utilized. Case Study Selection T hree case studies were deemed appropriate to effectively explore the topic. Considerations in selection of the case studies included : Location I s there a possibility of a site vis it? Designer I s the designer a significant modern designer? Have they designed similar landscapes? Is information on them o r their firm readily available? Public or Private P ublic may be easier to gather more inf ormation and conduct interviews. Proje ct type I s it Does the character of the site make it comparable to ot her potential case study sites? Opening date W as this constructed during the mid to late 20 th century, therefore fitting into the modern time period of landscape architectural style? Intervention date H as the project undergone or is it in the process of a significant restoration, restoration, or rehabilitation ? Size A re all c ase studies at a similar scale? Original Firm Is the firm still in existence? I f yes, perhaps associates that worked on the project may be av ailable to provide information. Designation D esignation forms could provide much information, redu cing time of archival research. Significance I s this a well known site and was t here much publicity or controversy surroundin g the intervention ? C riteria for selection of the three case studies were developed from these considerations. T he landscape must be : located within the United States considered an example of the modern style d esigned by a well known landscape architect constructed in the mid to late 20th century between 1 5 acres in size a public park or plaza

PAGE 44

44 located within an urban setting (an area encompassing at least 2,500 people, for 2 t he case study must have undergone a rehabilitation or restoration within the past 10 years In additi on, ease of accessibility to the physical site and information was taken into consideration. Research, utilizing Modern landscapes and advice from thesis chair and the proposal jury, produced the following short list of case study candidates : Kaiser Roof Garden, Oakland, California The Lincoln Center Garden, New York City, New York Skyline Park, Denve r, Colorado Kiley Garden, Tampa, Florida Mellon Square, Pittsburgh, P ennsylvania Pea vey Plaza, Minneapolis, Minnesota From this list, a case study selection matrix was created (Appendix A). In this matrix the following information for each of the above plazas was provided: Location Designer Public/ Private Project type Client Opening date Intervention date Size Initial cost Restoration cost Original f irm still in existence ? Designation Site visit possible? Notes (An explanation of the overall positives and negatives of the potential case study). 2 United States Census Bureau last modified July 22, 2013, accessed Sep. 24, 2013, http:/ /www.census.gov/geo/reference/ua/urban rural 2010.html

PAGE 45

45 Once the potential case studies had undergone a critical analysis, candidates were narrowed down to the top three. Therefore, the three case st udies chosen were: Kiley Garden, Tampa, Florida Mellon Square, Pittsburgh, P ennsylvania Pea vey Plaza, Minneapolis, Minnesota Kiley Garden was a top case study for many reasons. It fit the description of a modern urban park or plaza that ha d been rehabilit ated or restored. Information had already been gathered on the park for a previous research paper by the author It was also easy to visit due to its proximity to Gainesville Florida Because Dan Kiley was such a renowned landscape architect publicity surrounding the park and its controversial restoration has made much information about the park available making it easier to gather t o compile data for this case study. Mellon Square fit the description of a modern urban park or plaza that ha s been rehabilitated or restored. In addition, it was similar to Kiley Garden in the fact that it was built over a parking garage. Furthermore its restoration is currently underway and it has recently received National Register of Historic Places design ation Therefore information on this site was assumed to be relatively easy to find Peavey Plaza is listed in a district on the National Register for Historic Places and a restoration was being considered at the time of selection It was built by M. Pau l Friedberg + Partners, a firm still in existence, which was a factor considered to be potentially helpful The site also fit within the category of a modern urban park or plaza that is currently undergoing a restoration. After selection of the case studi es, the next step in the process was to d etermine criteria necessary for analysis of case studies When determining what equivalent data

PAGE 46

46 must be collected from all case studies in order to make comparisons, the following were considered as prospective questions to be answered during research : Was there an original management or maintenance plan instated? How did the park change over time in its function & use, in relation to intended and initial use patterns? How was the park received initially ( marketing, amenities, advertised use, events, press)? How did the public perception of the park change over time? Who was or has been in charge of park maintenance? How did lack of maintenance (if any) e ffect the public perception of the park aesthetic, function, and overall safety? At what point in the lifetime of the park did decline begin to occur? What spurred the advocacy movement for intervention ? Where did the advocac y originate ( was it from the city, community, or local professionals)? What did the firm chosen for the restoration change from the original plan? What did they preserve? Why did the firm decide to change, add, or remove certain materials (hardscape or p lant) or make layout alterations? What were the major contributors to the failure and decrease of public perception of the site? Data Collection and Analysis Data c ollection was the next step in the research process. Compilation of primary case study & ot her thesis related information occurred primarily over the summer of 2013. In order to answer research questions, the following were considered applicable and legitimate sources to each case study during the data collection process: Historic American Land scapes Surve y National Register of Historic Places nomination (if applicable) Plans (original plans, rehabilitation plans, maintenance plans / management guidelines) Newspaper and magazine articles (referring to the opening, planning, maintenance, safety c oncerns, advocacy, finance, and intervention to the parks) Correspondence Photographs of the original park (opening day, if they can be found) Photographs of the park before treatment and after opening Photographs of the park post treatment Construction do cumentation (original and rehabilitated )

PAGE 47

47 Documentation from advocacy groups involved in bringing about the restoration (if applicable) Lawsuits (if applicable) Post occupancy evaluation (original and rehabilitated ) Marketing & advertising sources Financial statements Related theses I nterviews Interviews were considered to be a necessary portion of the research. Potential interviewees included: Designers involved in the original construction Designers involved in the historic treatment Public officials involved in advocacy Public officials involved in the historic treatment The short interview format was determined most appropriate. Several drafts of the interview were developed. After IRB approval, the potential interviewees were contacted. Individua ls from each city parks department, original firms, advocacy groups, and the restoration firms were contacted via email. A log of replies was kept, and the following individuals agreed to answer questions: David Vaughn, D irector of C ontract A dministration City of Tampa, Florida Anonymous city employee City of Minneapolis, Minnesota Chris Vela, Friends of Kiley Garden Charles Birnbaum, founder, The Cultural Landscape Foundation Susan Rademacher, curator, Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy Ron Sill, landscape ar chitect with RS&H, the firm that provided services for the rehabilitation of Kiley Garden M. Paul Friedberg, landscape architect David V aughn, the anonymous city employee of Minneapolis, and Chris Vela responded to the questions via email. A phone intervi ew with Charles Birnbaum was conducted on September 12, 2013. A phone interview with Paul Friedberg took place on January 14, 2014. Site visits to Mellon Square and to Kiley Garden occurred on July 25, 2013 and August 17, 2013 respectively While on si te in Pittsburgh, Susan

PAGE 48

48 Rademacher gave me a tour of the construction underway at Mellon Square, discussed the restoration and rehabilitation, and gave me marketing materials and information on the park. In Tampa, Ron Sill also met me on site, took me on a tour of the repaired garage and rehabilitated rooftop plaza, and gave me a significant amount of information digitally about the park, including documentation, the historic evaluation report completed by Pressley Associates in 2007, PowerPoints, photos o f the before, after, and during construction, and plans. Each site was documented through photographs, on site observation, and no te taking. Once the majority of the data had been collected, the data was compiled in written format, with supporting graph ics as needed The criteria for analysis were developed and the data collected was analyzed in a systematic method. Findings were developed and a conclusion outlining considerations for professionals to refer to while undertaking a restoration or rehabil itation project involving a modern urban park or plaza. Introduction to Case Studies Bryant Park is a well known example of the problems modern urban landscapes face in changing public perception, uses, and context. The park recently underwen t an intervention that was considered by many to be a successful adaptation for current needs while remaining respectful of historic significance S ince the mid 19 th century, Bryant Park served as a place of respite for workers and residents in New York City, N ew York. 3 In 1923, Robert Moses, the developer of future urban renewal fame, began a major redevelopment of the park after he became 3 Mark Francis, Urban Open Spaces: Designing for User Needs (Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2003), 43).

PAGE 49

49 head of the New York City Parks Department. 4 A design competition was held and the winning design chosen was symmetrical and formal, influenced by classicism, and surround by fencing. 5 However, during the 1970s, the park began to decline, eventually becoming a location frequented by drug dealers and their clients. 6 During the 1970s a behavioral analysis study was conducted by Anita Nager and Wally Wentworth in Bryant Park. 7 program. 8 The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces (1980) also performed some sociological studies on Bryant Park. 9 W hyte dubbed the park fences and shrubbery, discouraging entry. 10 There are only a few entry points. This park will be used by people when it is opened 11 Whyte also proposed several specific recommendations for improved visual access from the street to the park, adding acc essibility options for the 4 Ibid., 43. 5 Ibid., 47. 6 Ibid., 43. 7 Ibid., 46. 8 Ibid., 50. 9 William Whyte, The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces (Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation, 1980). 10 Ibid., 58. 11 Ibid., 58.

PAGE 50

50 handicapped, addition of entrances, and restoration of the fountain and historic restrooms. 12 Finally, in 1991, landscape architect Laurie Olin was hired to provide redesign plans for the city. 13 According to Mark Francis in his c multi eduled events program, increased 14 After the $5 million redesign e. 15 prime example of how a declining park can be transformed into a successful urban destination with a few improvements to accessibility, aesthetics, and safety. 16 12 Mark Francis, Urban Open Spaces: Designing for User Needs (Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2003), 50). 13 Ibid., 46. 14 Ibid., 49. 15 Ibid., 53. 16 Ibid., 53.

PAGE 51

51 CHAPTER 4 CASE STUDY #1: KILEY GARDEN Introduction Bio graphy of Dan Kiley Daniel Urban Kiley was born in 1912 in Boston, Massachusetts. 1 After graduating high school, Kiley worked with landscape architect Warren Manning for four years as an apprentice. 2 When his apprenticeship with Manning concluded, Kiley began attending Harvard University for a degree in landscape architecture. 3 While Kiley was attending Harvard, the transition from Beaux Arts based design education to the Bauhaus model and modern de sign was occurring The trio of Dan Kiley, James Rose, and Garrett Eckbo, influenced by Walter Gropius and Christopher Tunnard, fought for the adoption of a modern approach to landscape architecture. 4 As previously discussed, due to the prolific writings of Rose and Eckbo, the idea of modernism began to spread in the field of landscape architecture. 5 While Kiley did not write as did Rose and Eckbo, he embraced the new modernism in his designs. 6 In 1938, Kiley dropped out of Harvard, securing a job wit h the National Park Service for a brief time, then with the United States Public Housing Authority, and finally 1 The Cultural Landscape Foundation August 3, 2005, http://tclf.org/pioneer/dan kiley/biography dan kiley 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid.

PAGE 52

52 served in the Army from 1943 45. 7 During this stint in Europe, Kiley was able to visit a multitude of gardens, both formal and informal, in Eng land, Germany, and France, which heavily influenced his approach to modern design. 8 During the p ostwar housing boom in the 1950 s, Kiley found himself one of the only modern landscape architects on the East coast, and began building professional relationshi ps with many influential modern architects and landscape architects of the period, including Eero Saarinen, I.M. Pei, Louis Kahn, Thomas Church, and Garrett Eckbo. 9 Throughout his career as a landscape architect, Kiley worked on many influential projects, including the following: The St Louis Arch, on a team including Eero Saarinen St. Louis, Missouri (1947) G ardens of the U.S. Airforce Academy Colorado Springs, Colorado (1968) R ooftop gardens Oakland, California (1969) T he Miller House & Gardens with Eero Saarinen Indianapolis, Indiana (1955) The Dallas Museum of Art and Sculpture Garden Dallas, Texas (1983) T he National Museum of Art, Washington, D.C. (1983) Fountain Place, Dallas Texas (1985) NationsBank Plaza in Tampa, F lorida (also known as Kil ey Garden) Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts plaza New York City, New York (1960). 10 Perhaps his most renowned projects were the Miller House Gardens (Fig 4 1), Fountain Place (Fig 4 2), and Kiley Garden (Fig 4 3). Although Kiley Garden was much late r in iconic modern works. In 1997, Kiley was awarded the highest honor in the United 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. 10 Dan Kiley and Jane Amidon, (London: Bulfinch Press, 1999).

PAGE 53

53 States an artist can receive, the National Medal of Arts, for his extensive and s ignificant work in the field of landscape architecture. 11 Kiley passed away in 2004, after completing more than 1,000 projects over his prolific career 12 Peter Walker, renowned landscape architect who studied as an apprentice under Kiley, stated that altho ugh Kiley never taught and rarely wrote, he remained one of the most influential landscape architects of his time. 13 Figure 4 1. Fountain Place in Dallas, TX Courtesy of Charles Birnbaum, The Cultural Landscape Foundation Birnbaum, Charles. T he Cultural Landscape Foundation Accessed March 10, 2014. http://tclf.org/landscapes/fountain place 11 Landslide: Spotlight on the Garden last modified 2006, accessed August 15, 2013, http://tclf.org/sites/default/files/landslide/2006/nations_bank/index.htm 12 N.Y. Times February 25, 2004. 13 The Cultural Landscape Foundation August 3, 2005, http://tclf.org/pioneer/dan kiley/biography dan kiley

PAGE 54

54 Figure 4 2. Miller House & Garden in Indianapolis, IN. Walker, Peter and M elanie Simo. Invisible Gardens Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996: Plate 1. Figure 4 3. NCNB Plaza in Tampa, FL Kiley, Dan. Dan Kiley: The Complete Works of America's Master Landscape Architect New York City: Bulfinch Press, 1999 : 107.

PAGE 55

55 osophy Dan Kiley, unlike some of his colleagues, did not eschew historical references, rather, he embraced ideas from the past and reinvented them in his projects. According to Peter Walker, One can clearly see in Kiley's work both the monumental clarity of the French Baroque gardens and the influence of the classical constructivist and spatial elements in the early postwar works of his colleagues, the new generation of American architects. His gardens use hedges and walls in a clearly Meisian manner, and his grids of trees perhaps owe more to the columnar grid of contemporary architecture than to Le Notre. 14 In the early 1980s when Dan Kiley found out University of Florida faculty member Kay Williams was teaching history of landsc ape architecture, he told her LeNotre was all she really needed to teach; a nything a designer needed to know could be found there. 15 modern with classical 16 obituary, . combining modern 17 His designs are primarily geometric and are considered art forms by many. According to Kiley, his 1945 encounter with Le 14 Ibid. 15 Kay Williams, in discussion with the author, October 11, 2013. 16 John Nivala, "Th e Landscape Art of Daniel Urban Kiley," William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review 29, no. 2 (2005): 269. 17 New York Times February 25, 2004.

PAGE 56

56 foot module to start with. . 18 Kiley, in holds us all together. Some form of sacred geometry. Sometimes the prevailing order 19 Kiley was keenly aware of the human impact on the natural environment, and his landscapes reflected this ideal. In his book of complete works, Kiley explains his philosophy, stating, The reliance on functionality produced the purity perceived as art beauty t into the production of powerful experiences if one can see the determining factors clearly and respond with unadorned honesty. Yet it is dangerous to be a slave to rationality. Life is f un and should be celebrated. . When you are passionate, somethi ng is bound to happen. . I am motivated by the adventure inherent in seeking out the possibilities of life, and that includes a sense of lightness and spontaneity that frees one from sterile rules and procedures. 20 Reuben M. Rainey and Marc Treib wrote, for the eye alone but instead dynamic, unfolding, multi sensual spatial acknowledging the role of art in his practic e. 21 Throughout his career, Eero Saarinen, renowned modern architect, would repeatedly include Dan Kiley to plan the surrounding landscapes for his bui ldings. Saarinen believed in a formal, geometric landscape to surround his structures, 18 Ibid., 25. 19 John Nivala, "The Landscape Art of Daniel Urban Kiley," William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review 29, no. 2 (2005): 267. 20 Dan Kiley and Jane Amidon, (London: Bulfinch Press, 1999), 8 9. 21 Reuben M. Rainey and Marc Treib, eds., Dan Kiley landscapes: T he P oetry of S pace (Richmond: William Stout Publishers, 2009), x.

PAGE 57

57 therefore, his partnership with Kiley on many of his major commissions, such as the Miller Garden, was logical. 22 The Miller Garden, completed in 1955, was a transition al project for Dan Kiley. 23 He abandoned the organic forms of his earlier years and turned to a more geometric, horizontal, although still dominantly asymmetrical, design. 24 Gregg Bleam, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture at the University of Vi 25 History of Kiley Garden History and Description Site d on Ashley Drive next to the Hillsborough River waterfront, the North Carolina National Bank tower in Tampa was designed by Harry Wolf of Wolf Associates, based in New York City. 26 The property, first owned by the City of Tampa, included a six story parki ng garage and existing rose garden near the northern end of the parcel. 27 North Carolina National Bank purchased only the footprint of the proposed building from the city, with the agreement that the bank would perform design and construction of the entire site, including 4.5 acres of a public park over the roof of the existing parking 22 Modern Landscape Architecture: A Critical Review ed Marc Treib (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1993), 230. 23 Ibid., 237. 24 Ibid., 237. 25 Ibid., 237. 26 Cambridge, September 2007), 2.1. 27 Ibid.

PAGE 58

58 garage, and the city would be responsible for park maintenance. 28 was a striking 33 story tower and seven story Banking Hall utilizing the Fibonacci seq uence. 29 The mathematical sequence is a doubling formula, leading to exponential growth, and occurs recurrently in art and nature. 30 Dan Kiley, who by that point in time was well into his seventies, was chosen as the landscape architect for the public park. reflected in the adjacent park, to improve conn ections between the structure and its surroundings. 31 Wolf and Kiley worked together to develop a cohesive plan for the park, and Kiley stated later that the partnership was enjoyable and without conflict. 32 The resulting park designed by Kiley relied on th e Fibonacci series and displayed international influences of Persian design and the Alhambra in Spain (Figure 4 4). 33 Pressley & Associates, authors of the NCNB plaza historic evaluation report, compare a and Seville: garden, the most fitting precedents are the 9th century Patio los Naranjos of the Great Mosque in Cordoba and the later courtyard in Seville. In both 28 Ibid. 29 Ibid. 30 Department of Mathematics, Temple University accessed September 27, 2013, https://math.temple.edu/~reich/Fib/fibo.html 31 J ane Amidon and Dan Kiley, (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1999), 106. 32 Landscape Design 76, no. 2 (1992): 34. 33 John Morris Dixon, "Geometer's tower, Progressive Architecture 70, no. 2 (1989): 59, accessed September 19, 2013, http://go.galegroup.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA 7055986&v=2.1&u=gain40375&it=r&p=AO NE&sw=w Cambridge, September 2007), 2.1.

PAGE 59

59 gardens, planting occurs column alignment. Both courtyards include stone lined irrigation channels that circulate water throughout the gardens. The paving of the courtyard in Seville closely resembles the paving pattern at NCNB Plaza. 34 Figure 4 4. The Courtyard of the Lions, Alhambra Palace, Granada, Spain. Gordon, Jim. Wikimedia Commons Wikimedia Commons. Published October 31, 2007. A ccessed February 12, 2014. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alhambra_ _Granada.jpg An elegant and detailed grid of precast concrete pavers and grass was interspersed with a virtual orchard of 800 randomly distributed purple and white crape myrtles, Lagerstroemia indica The major walkways were, in contrast, lined with the 34 Cambridge, September 2007), 2.2.

PAGE 60

60 state tree of Florida, the cabbage palm, Sabal palmetto. 35 In accordance with Harry occurred at seventy eight foot intervals and are fourteen feet wide. 36 An amphitheater, designed by Harry Wolf, sat at the northwestern end of the park, and a ramp led down to the riverfront on the western boundary along the Hillsborough River. 37 Descending from south to north was an emergency vehicle access ramp, originally intended for river access. 38 Lining the western boundary of the park was a large planter, filled with jasmine, azalea, and periwinkle, despite initial concept drawings by Kiley showing a trellis. 39 As with the here reflects, incises, and connects. Our aim was to create dynamic spatial movement, interlacing trees, grass, paving and water. The synthesis, though obviously geometric and man 40 Nine runnels reminiscent of Islamic paradise gardens ran through the site and carried water to nine individual fountains. Kiley designed each fountain to match the architecture of the Tampa Bay Hotel on the other side of the river. 41 According to Kiley, he drew inspiration for the 35 Ibid., 2.8. 36 Ibid., 2.6. 37 Ibid., 2.8. 38 Ibid., 2.8. 39 Ibid., 2.8. 40 Landscape Design 76, no. 2 (1992): 34.

PAGE 61

61 water runnels from the Islamic influenced turreted domes on the hotel. 42 A 400 foot long glass bottomed canal ran north and south across the entire plaza, allowing light to pass through to a tunnel underneath, which allowed vis itors access to the parking garage underneath. 43 On the lower level of the plaza, five reflecting pools (also designed by Harry Wolf) and a row of live oaks ( Quercus virginiana ) with an understory of Ilex vomitoria hley Drive. 44 Each reflecting pool was flush with the pavement and drawings show an inch thick marble veneer at the bottom of the four inch deep pools. 45 The Curtis garden in the northeaste rn portion of the site. The checkerboard pattern of the garden alternated between wetland grass and water filled squares, with a single large tree. 46 The second water garden, located in the northwestern corner of the plaza, was the Museum Pool, named for the Tampa Museum of Art in front of which it was sited. 47 Comprised of a sunken area with planters surrounding a shallow reflecting pool, the contemplative garden reflects the geometries of the adjacent plaza. 48 41 Cambridge, September 2007), 2.11. 42 Ibid., 2.2. 43 Ibid., 2.10. 44 Ibid., 2.10. 45 Ibid., 2.10. 46 Ibid., 2.12. 47 Ibid., 2.12. 48 Ibid., 2.12.

PAGE 62

62 Figure 4 5 Kiley, Dan. Dan Kiley: The Complete Works of America's Master Landscape Architect New York City: Bulfinch Press, 1999 : 106.

PAGE 63

63 Figure 4 6 White and pink crape myrtles in NCNB Plaza Kiley, Dan. Dan Kiley: The Complete Works of America's Master Landscape Architect. New York City: Bulfinch Press, 1999 : 108 Figure 4 7 The paving pattern in the plaza, based on the Fibonacci mathematical sequence Kiley, Dan. Dan Kiley: The Complete Works of America's Master Landscape Architect New York City: Bulfinch Pre ss, 1999 : 106

PAGE 64

64 Figure 4 8 Glass bottomed canal K iley, Dan. Dan Kiley: The Complete Works of America's Master Landscape Architect New York City: Bulfinch Press, 1999 : 109.

PAGE 65

65 Figure 4 9 One of nine fountains, with runnel Kiley, Dan. Dan Kiley: The Complete Works of America's Master Landscape Architect New York City: Bulfinch Press, 1999 : 110 Figure 4 1 0 Kiley, Dan. Dan Kiley: The Complete Works of America's Master Landscape Architect New York City: Bulfin ch Press, 1999 : 110.

PAGE 66

66 Construction As early as August 1984, Kiley Walker, Landscape Architects + Planners began sketching out geometric conceptual drawings for the plaza. 49 Construction was divided into two phases, overseen by separate construction corporat ions: Phase 1 covered the southern half, which included the buildings and Phase 2 covered the northern half, which included the plaza. 50 Kiley Walker was only included in the design development process and was not mentioned on any of the construction docum ents (Figure 4 12 ). 51 49 Ibid., 2.3. 50 Ibid., 2.5. 51 Ibid., 2.5.

PAGE 67

67 Figure 4 1 1 Plan of Kiley Garden Kiley, Dan. Dan Kiley: The Complete Works of America's Master Landscape Architect New York City: Bulfinch Press, 1999 : 107. still a new concept. 52 In his proposal, Kiley specified a mix of one third native topsoil, one third sand or perlite, and one third peat. 53 Construction details state that lightweight soil was intended to be used; however, the supporting detail in which li ghtweight soil should have been specified did not mention lightweight soil, therefore, standard weight soil was 52 Ronald Sill (landscape architect at RS&H), interview at Kiley Garden with the author, August 17, 2013. 53 Cambridge, September 2007), 2.7.

PAGE 68

68 used in all planters. 54 Limitations due to water table levels and structural load restrictions from the garage below led to a soil depth in the roof cells of only four feet. 55 According to early construction documents, the central strip in the main walkways was supposed to be grass, but was later changed to limestone pavers. 56 Despite the Regarding the grass/pavement relationship, he says the grass was intended to grow over the pavers, thus blurring distinctions between walkway and grass. In the areas where people walked, the grass would wear away; the areas ped estrians skirted would stay greener, and visitors would feel unconstrained by walks channeling their movements. He and Kiley wanted to reveal the interface between man and nature, Wolf says, avoiding the sterility of a clipped park and encouraging the park 's use. 57 Kiley would perhaps receive the most criticism from his decision to install 800 crape myrtles in the park. A Landscape Architecture article published soon after Parkinsonia another small flo wering tree, but he could not find an adequate supply to meet the large quantitative demands of his design. 58 Several local newspaper articles stated that Kiley specified dwarf crape myrtles instead of standard crape myrtles, however, this myth was debunke d in my research. 59 Peter Schaudt, who worked on the project, when asked if 54 Ibid., 2.7. 55 Landscape Architecture 94, no. 4 (April 2004): 107. 56 Cambridge, September 2007), 2.7. 57 Landscape Architecture 94, no. 4 (April 2004): 107. 58 Landscape Architecture 78, no. 8 (December 1988): 91. 59 Tampa Tribune March 16, 2006.

PAGE 69

69 Kiley had ever specified dwarf crape myrtles instead of standard, stated in an email, stem crape myrtles. I forgot the exact variety 60 After two years of construction, the plaza was completed in 1988 at a cost of $2.5 million. 61 Kiley would continue working until his death in 2004. 62 The plaza was the recipient of the Florida Association of American 63 64 At the dedication ceremonies, Kiley stated with 65 exemplary of his design style, in addition to being an i conic work of modern landscape architecture. 66 diagrammatic layout, it became renowned and was widely publicized in the field of landscape architecture. As a student of landscape architecture at the University of Richard Danielson, "With City's Help, Fans of Tampa's Kiley Garden Aim for a Comeback," Tampa Bay Times March 8, 2012. 60 Peter Schaudt, in an email to the author, October 1, 2013. 61 Cambridge, September 2007), 2.1. 62 New York Times February 25, 2004. 63 Ibid. 64 St. Petersburg Times June 18, 1988. 65 Ibid. 66 Landslide: Spotlight on the Garden last modified 2006, accessed August 15, 2013.

PAGE 70

70 Florida, the author was taught during the first semester about Kiley Garden in landscape architecture history. Disrepair and Alterations problems began to arise. According to George Hazelrigg, in his April 2004 article for Landscape Architecture : A few weeks after the park was completed, according to city officials, Tampa's mayor, Sandy Freedman, negotiated a new agreement by which the building owners woul d assume responsibility for park maintenance, with the city covering 50 percent of the costs. Thus, private contractors hired by consecutive building owners had responsibility for park maintenance; city crews occasionally cleaned up after special events or responded to electrical or other special problems. But the site remained a city park, and the city did monitor it and was involved in major decisions concerning maintenance, alterations, and safety. 67 In his February 1989 article in Progressive Architectu re John Morris Dixon praised the building and plaza, but noted a lack of gathering or recreational spaces, with the maintenance than city parks departments typically provide. 68 An article as early as May 14, 1989, in the St. Petersburg Times discussed the many emerging issues within the park. 69 Fountains had already begun to leak into the 67 Landscape Architecture 94, no. 4 (April 2004): 107. 68 John Morris Dixon, "Geometer's tower" Progressive Architecture 70, no. 2 (1989): 59, accessed September 19, 2013, http://go.galegroup.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA7055986&v=2.1&u=gain40375&it=r&p=AO NE&sw=w 69 tech d St. Petersburg Times May 14, 1989.

PAGE 71

71 parking garage below, the reflecting pools were unkempt, often empty, and even occasio nally overflowed into the street. 70 In winter of 1988, the pools were rebuilt due to issues with faulty joint sealings. 71 Even after NCNB agreed to split the cost with the city, despite an agreement with previous mayor Bob Martinez that the city would ass ume all park maintenance costs, the park became the most expensive park in the city to maintain costing taxpayers 32 cents a square foot each year 72 James Moore, an architecture professor at the views and access to the river and was unwelcoming to pedestrians. 73 Around 1992 1993, mortar was added to the joints between limestone pavers that comprise the center walkways. 74 Previously grass had filled the joints, however, the pavers had begun to shift noticeably and accessibility had become an issue. 75 The Curtis Hixon Convention Center, part of which had formed t he northern boundary of the plaza, was demolished in 1993, and was replaced by the Tampa Convention Center 70 Ibid. 71 Ibid. 72 Ibid. 73 Ibid. 74 Cambridge, September 2007), 2.15. 75 Ibid.

PAGE 72

72 located a half mile away. 76 The land was later designated Curtis Hixon Waterfront Park in 1995. 77 Society, was so concerned with the garage leakage that it compiled an engineering report in 1999 that estimated garage repair costs at $2.5 million if undertaken. 78 However, by that time, Mayor Dick Greco was already considering the site an opportunity of a cultural arts district with art and history museums. 79 The city, unsure of what future initiatives were in store, determined a complete repair of the garage impractical. 80 By 2000, leakage in the garage was so prevalent that the city turned off the wate r in the runnels, fountains, water gardens, and two of the reflecting pools. 81 parking garage, it was impossible to make any major structural repairs to the garage without removing trees and pavers, completely altering K 82 Plans to fix leaks in the garage and fill in the reflecting pools were slowed due to a drought in 2000, causing repairs planned to last five months to stretch into almost a 76 Ibid. 77 Ibid. 78 Ken Koehn, "Reflecting Pools to be Paved Over," The Tampa Tribune December 13, 1999. 79 Ibid. 80 Ibid. 81 Ibid. 82 Landscape Architecture 94, no. 4 (April 2004): 107. Ronald Sill (landscape at RS&H), interview at Kiley Garden with the author, August 17, 2013. The Tampa Tribune March 16, 2006.

PAGE 73

73 year long process. 83 By the time construction was finish ed in 2000 (the cost was split between the building owner, Equitable Life Assurance Society and the city), many alterations had occurred to the plaza: [T] he removal of three of the five reflecting pools and associated plumbing equipment along North Ashley Drive, removal of the glass bottomed canal, removal of four street trees along North Ashley Drive, addition of the vehicular drop off and turn around, addition of concrete bleachers with painted steel handrails in the place of the glass bottomed canal, add ition of three beds filled with gravel and drained through the existing drainage system in the place of the three removed reflecting pools, addition of new bollard lighting fixtures, and relocation of the concrete benches. 84 In 2000, Colonnade Properties LCC of New York purchased the property, complicating the public/private nature of the park and slowing the construction process while the new owner reviewed and developed plans for the property. 85 However, the new owner, after being notified by Mayor Dick Greco that the park was to be demolished for the new Tampa Museum of Art, halted plans for repairs and paved over the reflecting pools, creating a turnaround space for cars. 86 The 2002 plan by Rafael Vinly Architects, PC for a new Tampa Museum of Art and adjacent waterfront park was developed, located on the site of the existing plaza. 87 If the city had secured the funds for the $40 million loan needed to begin, the NCNB 83 Sarah Gerry, "Drought Slowed Repairs at Ashley Plaza Garage," The Tampa Tribune July 3, 2000. 84 Ken Koehn, "Reflecting Pools to be Paved Over," The Tampa Tribune December 13, 1999. 85 Ibid. 86 Landscape Architecture 94, no. 4 (April 2004): 107. 87 Cambridge, September 2007), 2.16.

PAGE 74

74 plaza would have faced demolition (the building would stay). 88 The city continued att empting to determine how to handle the issue of maintaining the historic, yet quickly deteriorating park, located over a failing garage. In April of 2005, Economic Development Administrator Mark Huey told the Tampa Tribune that the City of Tampa and curre garage. 89 90 By 2005, the park was just a shadow of its former elegant, award winning design. Overgrown and dying crape myrtles crowded out sunlight, killing the grass and growing roots into the structural system of the garage, pavers were cracked and slanted hazardously, runnels and fountains were dry, concrete blea chers had replaced the bold glass bottomed canal, and the entire site was overrun with weeds. 91 George Hazelrigg, in an April 2004 article for Landscape Architecture sen that caused what he 92 Hazelrigg noted the severe year 93 In early 2005, the park was listed on the Florida Trust for Historic Pr 88 Ellen Gedalius, "Preservation Panel Hears Pleas to Save Tiny Downtown Park Decision may be Tied to Fate of Garage," The Tampa Tribune June 15, 2005. 89 Ibid. 90 Ibid. 91 Landscape Architecture 94, no. 4 (April 2004): 107. 92 Ibid. 93 Ibid.

PAGE 75

75 endangered historic resources. 94 The Cultural Landscape Foundation featured Kiley Garden in its 2006 Landslides list of endangered parks. 95 The goal of Landslides is which is achieved through education and publicity, with feature articles online, biographies of the designers, and details of the threat. 96 Advocacy This recognition in publication, combined with increased threats of demolition in the near future, prompted a group of architects, landscape architects, and preservationists to form the Friends of Kiley Gardens. In August 2005, after a visit to twenty architects, landscape architects, and preservationists joined forces with the goal to save Kiley Garden. 97 The group, Friends of Kiley Garden, began attempting to raise aw Sena, who became a major advocate for Kiley Garden, organized a forum comprised of a panel of architects, including architect Harry Wolf, and a public tour of the park. 98 94 Ellen Gedalius, "Preservation Panel Hears Pleas to Save Tiny Downtown Park Decision may be Tied to Fate of Garage," The Tampa Tribune June 15, 2005. 95 The Cu ltural Landscape Foundation last modified 2006, accessed August 15, 2013, http://tclf.org/sites/default/files/landslide/2006/nations_bank/index.htm 96 The Cultural The Cultural Landscape Foundation last modified 2013, accessed October 11, 2013, http://tclf.org/landslide/about 97 "Kiley Park could Get Landmark Status," St. Petersburg Times June 15, 2005. Tampa Bay Times March 3, 2006. 98 Susan Thurston, "A Park Worth Saving," St. Petersburg Times May 6, 2005.

PAGE 76

76 Saul Sena envisioned a volunteer support group that would undertake maintenance for the park. 99 On June 14, 2005, the Friends of Kiley Garden requested the city commission take emergency action to grant Kiley Garden local landmark designation. 100 The commission refused the designation, citing the fact that landmark status could not be granted unless someone had applied for a demolition permit. 101 However, they landmark status. 102 The Friends of Kiley Garden continued advocacy efforts to get the Stanley Saitowitz, Children Thomas Balsley Associates and RS&H. 103 The Friends of Kiley Garden continued to meet monthly to clean up the site and compile suggestions. 104 They advocated the dismantling of the park, repair of the garag e beneath, selling the historic trees from the 99 Ibid. 100 "Kiley Park could Get Landmark Status," St. Petersburg Times June 15, 2005. 101 Ellen Gedalius, "Preservation Panel Hears Pleas to Save Tiny Downtown Park Decision may be Tied to Fate of Garage," The Tampa Tribune June 15, 2005. "Kiley Park could Get Landmark Status," St. Petersburg Times June 1 5, 2005. 102 Ibid. 103 Tampa Bay Times March 3, 2006. Cambridge, September 2007), 2.17. 104 Tampa Bay Times March 3, 2006.

PAGE 77

77 site, and then reinstalling the concrete pavers along with new grass, along with improved waterproofing and lighter stone materials. 105 Figure 4 1 2 Deterioration in the park right before garage repair constru ction. Courtesy of Ron Sill, RS&H. 105 Tampa Bay Times March 3, 2006. Ellen Gedalius, "Preservation Panel Hears Pleas to Save Tiny Downtown Park Decision may be Tied to Fate of Garage," The Tampa Tribune June 15, 2005.

PAGE 78

78 Figure 4 1 3 By 2006, most of the grass had died and weeds had taken over the site. Courtesy of Ron Sill, RS&H. Figure 4 1 4 Pavers, shifted out of place by tree roots. Courtesy of Ron Sill, RS&H.

PAGE 79

79 Figure 4 15 Dead grass, disheveled pavers, and dry fountains contributed to the declining image of the plaza. Courtesy of Ron Sill, RS&H. Treatment In 2006, RS&H began working on plans to repair the roof of the parking garage. 106 Reports compiled by RS&H (project manag ers), Western Water Proofing (waterproofing specialists), and Walter P. Moore Associates (structural conditions garage below NCNB Plaza (due to a failing drainage system) and isolated leaks into the 107 Recommendations included replacement of the existing inefficient 106 C ambridge, September 2007), 2.16. 107 Ibid.

PAGE 80

80 waterproofing material, expansion joints, planting soil, and irrigation system. 108 RS&H, to Ron Sill, whose knowledge of landscape architecture allowed the firm to more sensitively address the leakage problems. 109 original design, hiring a historian to contact Harvard for original pl ans. 110 According to Sill, David Vaughn, Director of Contract Administration for the City of Tampa, asked 111 On March 15, 2006, to the dismay of the Friends of Kiley Garden, hundreds of the origi nal crape myrtles were removed from the plaza, initiati ng repairs on the garage below. 112 According to city administrators, the heavy equipment necessary to relocate the trees would have exceeded weight limitations on the already overloaded structural syste m of the garage. 113 restore Kiley Garden in a way that honors the original architecture while recognizing 114 From late 2007 through early 2010, the site was closed 108 Ibid. 109 Ronald Sill (landscape architect at RS&H), interview at Kiley Garden with the author, August 17, 2013. 110 Jared Leone, "Renowned Architect Restores Tampa's Famed Kiley Gardens," The Tampa Bay Times Oct ober 22, 2010. 111 Ronald Sill (landscape architect at RS&H), interview at Kiley Garden with the author, August 17, 2013. 112 Tampa Bay Times March 16, 2006. 113 s Heard," The Tampa Tribune March 16, 2006. Ronald Sill (landscape architect at RS&H), interview at Kiley Garden with the author, August 17, 2013. Tampa Bay Times March 16, 2006. 114 Ellen Gedaliu The Tampa Tribune March 16, 2006.

PAGE 81

81 while re pairs to the garage and construction was underway. 115 Simultaneously, multiple interlocking projects were underway: the riverwalk, art museum, Kiley Garden and the parking garage, and the Curtis Hixon Waterfront Park. This, along with the fact that literat Landscape Architecture magazine and The Cultural Landslide ), allowed RS&H to quietly and without protest from preservati onist and landscape architect purists, rehabilitate the park, according to Sill. 116 in the project scope were to repair the leaks in the garage and do it in a way that would 117 The entirety of the structural rehabilitation upon completion, cost $4.2 million, almost double the initial construction cost. 118 According to Sill, the runnels are actually the underside of upside down T shaped structural beams form ing the ceiling of the garage. These beams had remained straight despite other failures in the garage. A drainage pipe running from the street to the river through the length of the roof had begun leaking into the dirt filled cells of the plaza. Sill ex plained that, since no bulldozers could be brought up on the roof, workers had to hand dig out the cells. Once the workers reache d they hit water. This weighed down heavily on the roof and caused severe leakage. Sill said the soil should have been regularly replaced to avoid settling and water 115 Chris Vela (member of Friends of Kiley Garden), interview via email with the author, August 3, 2013. 116 Ronald Sill (landscape architect at RS&H), interview at Kiley Garden with the a uthor, August 17, 2013. 117 Ibid. 118 Tampa Bay Times March 8, 2012.

PAGE 82

82 accumulation. Due to new green roof technology and lack of knowledge of green roof soils (standard soil filled the concrete cells), extensive settling had also occurred in the cells. 119 In addition, according to David Vaughn, Director of Contract Administration a cells in the upside down waffle slab construction caused the cells to hold water from the beginning. The cells were filled with lightweight concrete with a lightweight soil media on top to allow for future planting. 120 All of the pavers were removed, docum ented, and if necessary, replaced 121 The pools were waterproofed but were not outfitted with plumbing in order to remain in the project scope. 122 A shifting of transit occurred while the art museum was under construction; transformed into another loading entrance. A bridge was installed between the new Curtis Hixon Riverfront Park and Kiley Garden, requiring the remo val of a section of the northernmost part of the park. 123 The next phase will include the replacement of the crape myrtles and palms on site (currently the site is planted with only grass, with the exception of a clump of surviving crape myrtles located on 119 Ronald Sill (landscape architect at RS& H), interview at Kiley Garden with the author, August 17, 2013. 120 David Vaughn (Director of Contract Administration, City of Tampa), interview via email with the author, August 3, 2013. 121 Jared Leone, "Renowned Architect Restores Tampa's Famed Kiley Gard ens," The Tampa Bay Times October 22, 2010. 122 Ibid. 123 Ronald Sill (landscape architect at RS&H), interview at Kiley Garden with the author, August 17, 2013.

PAGE 83

83 southernmost tip), however, this is dependent upon funding. 124 Replacing the trees and installing them in leak safe planters will cost an estimated $250,000, according to councilwoman Linda Saul Sena. 125 Saul Sena predicted that restoration of water features would add another $180,000 $220,000. 126 The city has not budgeted funds for future rehabilitation or tree installation, but continues to maintain the park. 127 In March 2012, the city council voted on the c ompilation of a staff report on past designation application and a motion was made to ask city park and community redevelopment staff agencies if any additional funds for continued restoration were available. 128 Despite pleas from preservationists of the Fr iends of Kiley Garden, members of the city council continue to refuse local designation (and therefore the possibility of applying for grants), stating that the park has been altered too extensively for designation. 129 Tampa newspapers expressed pleasure an d Charles Birnbaum of The Cultural Landscape Foundation stated that he was pleased to hear about the partial restoration 124 Tampa Bay Times March 8, 2012. 125 Ibid. 126 Ibid. 127 Jared Leone, "Renowned Architect Restores Tampa's Famed Kiley Gardens," The Tampa Bay Times October 22, 2010. 128 The Ta mpa Bay Times March 8, 2012. 129 The Tampa Tribune June 22, 2012.

PAGE 84

84 of the park. 130 Changes and improvements to the park were generally received well by most landscape architects, preservationists, and th e public. 131 Figure 4 1 6 Kiley Garden, looking southeast, 2010. Courtesy of Ron Sill, RS&H. 130 Jared Leone, "Renowned Architect Restores Tampa's Famed Kiley Gardens," The Tampa Bay Times October 22, 2010. 131 Ronald Sill (landscape architect at RS&H), interview at Kiley Garden with the author, August 17, 2013.

PAGE 85

85 Figure 4 1 7 Kiley Garden, looking west to the Tampa Bay Hotel over the Hillsborough River, 2010. Courtesy of Ron Sill, RS&H. Figure 4 1 8 Kiley Garden, looking northwest, 2013. Photograph by the author.

PAGE 86

86 F igure 4 19 Kiley Garden, looking northeast, 2013. Photograph by the author. Figure 4 2 0 Entrance to Kiley Garden, looking southwest, 2013. Photograph by author.

PAGE 87

87 Summary of Issues Perhaps the principal stumbling block at Kiley Garden was the combination of design flaws and maintenance. From the start, individual roles of public and private partners in maintenance and ownership seemed unresolved. Hazelrigg noted that 132 Michael Cole, who worked for Odell Associates on construction documents, stated that city personnel were effectively educated on construction of the pumps, wiring, and other equipment. 133 Peter Lindsay Schaudt, ASL A, a former associate with Kiley who also worked on the 134 Confusion and miscommunication between the city and building ow ners led to a lack of leadership in maintenance that proved devastating to the park. Since the park was initially created for use by workers from the adjacent building, its lack of spaces for a variety of activities can be understood. However, the forest of trees and small, unsuitably sited amphitheater (facing west) prevented the city from holding events, ultimately leading to a park occupied primarily by the homeless, which further discouraged downtown visitors. 135 process may have also led to several faults and miscommunications in the final design that may have been avoided. Had the initial designer been involved through to 132 Ronald Sill (landscape architect at RS&H), interview at Kiley Garden with the author, August 17, 2013. 133 Landscape Architecture 94, no. 4 (April 2004): 107. 134 Ibid. 135 Ibid.

PAGE 88

88 construction to clarify design goals and concepts perhaps some more user friendly changes could have been made while on site. According to Wolf and Kiley, lines between the pavement and grass were 136 plantings was not an exception in Kiley Garden. 137 For example, at Fountain Place in Dallas, the cypresses planted in the cascading fountains shed so many needles that they caused the drain to become clogged. 138 Oakland Museum in Oakland, California. 139 In the same lecture, which he gave at the First Annual Symposium on Landscape Architecture, he showed an image of the ees are what landscape design is all about. This is a road right next to Chateau de Sceaux. 140 Again, in the same presentation, he discussed his design for the Irwin Miller house gard en, saying, 141 In the case of NCNB Plaza, the closely planted trees favored by Kiley proved to be a major long term issue. 136 Ibid. 137 Landscape Architecture 94, no. 4 (April 2004): 107. 138 Kay Williams, in conversation with the author, October 11, 2013. 139 Reuben M. Rainey and Marc Treib, eds., Dan Kiley Landscapes: The Poetry of Space (Richmond: William Stout Publishers, 2009), 28. 140 Ibid., 25. 141 Ibid., 26.

PAGE 89

89 As David Vaughn stated, a flaw in the initial design of the parking garage structure caused a build up of water in the cells over time. 142 The combination of these factors was ultimately destructive to the park, both structurally and aesthetically. The poorly maintained, overgrown, and crowded crape myrtles, combined with substantial soil weights due to saturation and lack of research in green roof technology, caused structural damage in the parking garage below. Chris Vela, a member of the Friends of Kiley Garden, was disappointed at the lack of communicatio n from the city to the Friends group; despite many attempts by the electrical ele ments had been improved, there were still many important elements of the park still missing. 143 Sill himself admitted that the city and RS&H attempted to keep the repairs and partial 144 Miscommunication a nd the subsequent upset surrounding the removal of the crape myrtles in 2006 did nothing to build relationships between the city and preservation group. 145 In 2006, Bill Thompson, Editor of Landscape Architecture magazine, challenged those referring to the p 142 David Vaughn (Director of C ontract Administration, City of Tampa), interview via email with the author, August 3, 2013. 143 Chris Vela (member of Friends of Kiley Garden), interview via email with the author, August 3, 2013. 144 Ronald Sill (landscape architect at RS&H), interview at Kiley Garden with the author, August 17, 2013. 145 The Tampa Tribune March 16, 2006.

PAGE 90

90 146 landscape architects wou ld heap praise on a design that almost everyone shuns except isolation from the sidewalk due to its raised level. 147 Thompson was not the first to at critically, Kiley Garden was indifferent, even unfriendly, to visitors. William Whyte, author of The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces analyzed urban s paces in the 1980 s in New York and came to some conclusions about human activity and preferences in these spaces. Whyte determined that popular plazas tended to have considerably more sitting space than the less well used ones. 148 Kiley Garden despite its relatively large size (for a plaza in a downtown core), had in sufficient comfortable seating. In addition, Whyte found that access to water features is important to the success of a plaza. 149 The deterioration, leakage, and eventual turning off of the water features completely Accordin 150 Whyte also discussed the importance of sightlines in 146 Landscape Architecture (October 2006), 25. 147 Ibid. 148 William Whyte, The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces (Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation, 1980), 27. 149 Ibid., 48. 150 Ibid., 57.

PAGE 91

91 Kansas City is a park just high enough above eye level that most passersby do not 151 According to Whyte, the relatio nship of a space to the street should be seamless. Kiley Garden cannot be seen from the street, due to its raised elevation, and many people, including myself, have passed by without noticing the plaza exists. There is no obvious entryway to provide a se nse of entry. Finally, there is the issue of decline and then the inevitable occupation of the homeless, as referenced by Thompson. Whyte believed 152 The poor condition of Kiley Garden throughout the majority of its existence discouraged the very users for which the park was intended. Despite its many failures, designers appreciate the site for its iconic status as a Kiley design, significance as the f irst park over a parking garage in Tampa, and and beyond [normal levels for a public park]," said Peter Walker in a phone interview with George Hazelrigg in 2004, "Wha t was needed was a strongly committed 153 151 Ibid., 58. 152 Ibid., 63. 153 Landscape Architecture 94, no. 4 (April 2004): 107.

PAGE 92

92 Figure 4 2 1 The evolution of K iley Garden: before (circa 1950 s 60s), during (2009), and after (2010) treatment. Before image: Adapted from Kiley, Dan. Da n Kiley: The Complete Works of America's Master Landscape Architect New York City: Bulfinch Press, 1999 (107) During and after images: Courtesy Ron Sill, RS&H. Figure 4 2 2 The evolution of Kiley Garden: before (2009) and after (2013) treatment. Befor e image: Courtesy Ron Sill, RS&H. After image: Photograph by the author.

PAGE 93

93 CHAPTER 5 CASE STUDY #2: MELLON SQUARE Introduction Biography of John Simonds John Ormsbee Simonds was born in Jamestown, North Dakota in 1913. In 1930, Simonds enrolled at Michigan State University. 1 By the age of twenty Simonds had decided to take a break from school and travel in Asia. 2 In 1935, S imonds graduated with a Bachelor of Science in landscape architecture from Michigan State Unive rsity. 3 After graduation, Simonds worked for Civilian Conservation Corps until 1936, when he began his studies for Master of Landscape Architecture at the Harvard Graduate School of Design. 4 After graduation from Harvard, Simonds again travelled to Asia in 1939 and 1940. 5 As a result of his travels to the far East influenced by the principles of Zen. According to landscape architect Robinson Fisher, tion, Simonds went 6 In 1939, Walter Gropius, Harvard faculty member and founder of the Bauhaus School, recommended that Simonds take a trip to Europe, 1 Educator, and Environmentalist (1913 A. Smathers Libraries, 2005), 5. 2 Ibid., 6. 3 Ibi d., 5. 4 Ibid., 5. 5 Ibid., 5. 6 Ibid., 6.

PAGE 94

94 instead of Asia, where Gropius felt Simonds would gain inspiration. 7 Acc ording to Simonds, Gropius later visited Japan, and agreed with the younger designer: It was a moving experience, for an architect who has spent his life in an unfulfilled search for a dynamic philosophy of a design to find it at last, full blown and at work as a guiding force in the Japanese people. This powerful and creative force I find to be indicated in the teachings of the Zen. 8 Upon returning to the United States in 1940, Simonds began a partnership, Simonds and Simonds, with his brother Phillip in Pittsburgh, which would eventually become q uite prominent during the post World War II boom and the Pittsburgh Renaissance. 9 Major works in Pittsburgh included Mellon Square, Frick Park Playground, Equitable Plaza, and the Pittsburgh Aviary Conservato ry. 10 In 1952, Simonds and Simonds became Collins, Simonds, and Simonds, when Phillip and John joined forces with his former Harvard classmate, Lester A. Collins. 11 Collins, Simonds, and Simonds had offices in Washington, D.C. and in Pittsburgh, and Simond s became increasingly interested in community planning in the rapidly growing areas of south Florida during this time. 12 During the 1960 s, the firm saw a shift in project scale, from urban plazas and parks, schools, and playgrounds to community developme nt and regional planning. 13 7 Ibid., 6. 8 Ibid., 6. 9 Ibid., 5. 10 Ibid., 9. 11 Ibid., 9. 12 Ibid., 9. 13 Ibid., 9.

PAGE 95

95 By 1970, regional planning had become a major focus of the firm, and the firm became The Environmental Planning and Design Partnership (EPD). 14 With offices in Pittsburgh and, now, Miami Lakes, Simonds, serving as senior partner worked on multiple large scale planning projects which would become the most significant works in his career: the new town of Miami Lakes, the Chicago Botanic Garden, the Fort Lauderdale riverfront, Key Island in Collier County, Pelican Bay in Naples, In terstate 66 in Virginia, and multiple urban riverfront projects. 15 at Carnegie Institute of Technology Carnegie Mellon University, the publication of several books, including Environment Landscape Architecture: A Manual of Site Planning and Design and Earthscape: A Manual of Environmental Planning serving as president of the American Society of Landscape Architects, and ea rning the ASLA Medal. 16 Simonds retired from EPD in 1983, but continued working as a partner emeritus until his death in 2005. 17 Simonds, throughout his career, endeavored to integrate planning for human experience with respect f or and intelligent use of the natural environment. 18 approach to all project planning no matter the type or scale is PCD (Preserve, 14 Ibid., 9. 15 Ibid., 9. 16 Ibid., 5. 17 Ibid., 5. 18 John Simonds, Landscape Architecture: A Manual of Site Planning and Design, ( New York, McGraw Hill, 1997).

PAGE 96

96 19 Simonds was particularly interested in the urban environment of cities : We humans need in our cities sources of inspiration, stimulation, refreshment, beauty, and delight. We need and must have, in short, a salubrious, pollution free urban environment conducive to the living of the whole, full life. 20 In Landscape Ar chitecture: A Manual of Site Planning and Design Simonds only city centers, the determination of land use and roadway capacity, varying activity modal transportation systems and integrated open space networks, and acquisition of transportation corridors for future use as public land. 21 He imagined cities with integrated green space nward to traffic 22 Simonds travels to Asia, specifically his exposure to Zen philosophy, would strongly influence his approach to design. Due to the dynamic nature of context Simonds believed planners should accept t he Zen and Taoist ideal that, in the journey to perfection, process is more crucial than the end goal. 23 According to Simonds, rea 19 University of Florida John Ormsbee Simonds Remembered: Visionary Landscape Architect, Planner, Educator, and Environmentalist (1913 of Florida, George A. Smathe rs Libraries, 2005), 16. 20 John Simonds, Landscape Architecture: A Manual of Site Planning and Design, ( New York, McGraw Hill, 1997), 350. 21 Ibid., 350. 22 Ibid., 345. 23 Ibid., 391.

PAGE 97

97 24 definitive style. While Mellon Square is modern in its aesthetic, it is the exception in maxim of Modernism; his concern for the balance of human and nature dictated form. This emphasis on finding optimal solutions for both humans and the natural spaces or things one 25 26 their structures, activities, and communities into harmonious relationship with the living earth with the 27 History of Mellon Square The Pittsburgh Renaissance After World War II, the C ity of Pittsburgh turned its attention t o the declining condition of its downtown. 28 industry and the increasing popularity o f the automobile, by the mid s, the city had developed major traffic congestion, parking shortages, and environmental d egradation 24 Ibid., 391. 25 University of Florida John Ormsbee Simonds Remembered: Visionary Landscape Architect, Planner, Educator, and Environmentalist (1913 of Florida, George A. Smathers Libraries, 2005), 6. 26 Ibid., 391. 27 Environmental Planning & Design. Accessed October 8, 2013, http://www.epd pgh.com 28 Edward K. Muller, "Downtown Pittsburgh : Renaissance and Renewal," in A Geographic Perspective of Pittsburgh and the Alleghenies ed. Kevin J. Patrick and Joseph L. Scarpaci, Jr. (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2006), 7.

PAGE 98

98 issues. 29 Businessmen became concerned about the condition of their city when they began having difficulties drawing potential employees and clients to the city. 30 In 1943, prominent businessman and owner of Mellon National Bank, Richard K. Mell on joined forces with the city mayor, David Lawrence, and the two worked together to lead this group of community leaders in bringing about a renewal of the city known as the 31 Public and private relationships were forged in order to rehabilitate the downtown. 32 Mellon and Lawrence gathered a group of community leaders to develop a renewal plan for the city and generate private sector support. 33 The Allegheny Conference on Community Development plans for renewal had three main goal 34 The Urban Renewal Authority (URA) established in 1946, had complete authority to condemn propert ies the city considered necessary to redevelop. 35 By 1945, the Pittsburgh Regional Planning Association (RPA), had conducted studies demonstrating the need for an increased number of spaces for downtown motorists to park. 36 Mellon 29 Ibid., 8. 30 Ibid., 31 Ibid., 8. 32 National Register of Historic Places, Pittsburgh Central Downtown Historic District, Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, NR #10240018 33 Edward K. Muller, "Downtown Pittsburgh : Renaissance and Renewal," in A Geographic Perspective of Pittsburgh and the Alleghenies ed. Kevin J. Patrick and Joseph L. Scarpaci, Jr. (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2006), 8. 34 Ibid., 7. 35 Peter H all, Cities of Tomorrow (Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2002), 251.

PAGE 99

99 Square was a product of t his effort to lessen downtown traffic congestion. Eventually, the redevelopment of the Golden Triangle would lead to the removal and relocation of over 5,400 low income, primarily African American, residents. 37 a national movement in the 1950s and 1960s 38 Urban renewal many times entire city blocks, and rebuilding new, modern structures in their place. 39 Alison Isenberg, in Downtown America, explains in her chapter about suburban shoppers and the postwar years brought comprehensive, large scale redesigns experimental new formulas for restoring the magnetism of 40 The idea of removing the eyesores, the obsolete, and the areas of town that were inefficient at generating revenue first began as a private ventur e, however, in the 1960s, the federal government began to fund urban renewal projects. 41 Triangle was one of the early, privately funded urban renewal efforts. 42 36 Heritage Landscapes LLC, Pittsburgh, 2009), 2.3. 37 Peter Hall, Cities of Tomorrow (Malden: Blackwell Publis hing, 2002), 252. 38 Alison Isenberg, Downtown America: A History of the Place and the People Who Made It (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2004), 169. 39 Ibid., 167. 40 Ibid., 167. 41 Ibid., 171. 42 Ibid., 171.

PAGE 100

100 History and Description Store renown, as a member of both the Allegheny Conference on Community Development (ACCD) and the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) hired local architecture firm Mitchell & Ritchey to develop a 75 year vision plan for Pittsburgh. 43 Mitchell & Ritchey, partne ring with the landscape architecture firm of Simonds & Simonds, published the plan and exhibit in 1947. 44 The publication, Pittsburgh in Progress identified existing issues and developed decidedly modern almost utopian, suggestions to improve the city ov er the long term. 45 In the 46 By integrating open spaces into the urban fabric, the publication present s an image of an improved business district where shoppers, merchants, and professionals could enjoy lunch breaks in a central green space. 47 In addition, the plan announced a plan from the Pittsburgh Parking Study that would increase the number of parking spaces in the downtown business district by more than double. 48 In the 1940 s, the C ity of Pittsburgh constructed a series of parking studies to research how to alleviate increased downtown congestion. 49 The resulting studies 43 Heritage Landscapes LLC, Mellon Pittsburgh, 2009), 2.4. 44 Ibid., 2.4. 45 Mitchell & Ritchey, Pittsburgh in Progress 46 Ibid., 2. 47 Ibid., 9. 48 Ibid, 13.

PAGE 101

101 indicated a 1.37 acre city bloc k bounded by Smithfield Street, Sixth Avenue, Oliver Avenue, and William Penn Place as the ideal location to site a new parking garage. 50 As a result of their work on the 1947 visionary publication, Mitchell & Ritchey and Simonds & Simonds were enlisted by Richard King Mellon of Mellon National Bank, who was interested in creating a business complex in the downtown district to house expansions of his bank, Alcoa, and steel companies. 51 Mellon envisioned a square that would revitalize the surrounding area an d bring a Renaissance of renewed economic development to the area where many of his office buildings were located. 52 The solution to alleviating city parking problems and providing Mellon with the urban business district and park he envisioned was a combin ed plaza with a parking garage underneath. In 1949, Mellon contributed $4 million from Mellon family foundations and trust funds for land acquisition and construction of the plaza and garage. 53 Mitchell & Ritchey was hired to design the parking structure a nd landscape architect John Simonds of Simonds & Simonds, was hired to design the park. 54 Mellon Square was the first modern landscaped plaza over an underground parking garage. 55 49 Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy, Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy accessed October 7, 2013, http://www.pittsburghparks.org/mellonsquarehistory 50 Ibid. 51 Heritage Landscapes LLC, Mellon Square P Pittsburgh, 2009), 2.5. 52 Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy accessed October 7, 2013, http://www.pittsburghparks.org/mellonsquarehistory 53 Heritage Landscapes LLC, Pittsburgh, 2009), 2.5. 54 Ibid., 2.5.

PAGE 102

102 The City requested a site specific, unique design and no turf grass, since that would attract loiterers. 56 beauty, rest, and relaxation for individuals and small groups, open to the public at all 57 ic patterns of triangles, squares, rectangles, and circles throughout the plaza. Vehicular ingress and egress points to the garage were located on Sixth Avenue and Oliver Avenue; the garage was accessible to pedestrians via both vehicular entrances and th rough an entrance on William Penn Place. 58 A large grade change, decreasing from west to east, left the park level with the street along William Penn Place and raised one story above the street along Smithfield. This allowed a strip of retail spaces along Smithfield and a mid level restaurant. 59 Along Smithfield there was also a planter inaccessible to the pedestrian. 60 The plaza provides a variety of spaces for individual and group activities. imeter, acting as a privacy wall and sound barrier. 61 The plant palette, like the rest of the park, is diverse and multi layered, consisting of a combination of groundcovers, shrubs, and trees. 62 55 National Register of Historic Places, Pittsburgh Central Downtown Historic District, Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, NR #10240018 56 Heritage Landscapes LLC, Pittsburgh, 2009), 3.7. 57 Ibid., 3.12. 58 Ibid., 3.20. 59 Ibid., 3.5. 60 Ibid., 3.11. 61 Ibid., 3.18. 62 Ibid., 3.18.

PAGE 103

103 Groundcovers include Japanese pachysandra and several variet ies of English ivy. 63 Other plant material, included in the planters throughout the site, includes red chokeberry ( Aronia arbutifolia ), Japanese andromeda (Pierus japonica), eleyi crabapple (Malus purpurea eleyi), ibolium privet (Ligustrum ibolium), purple wintercreeper (Euonymus fortunei coloratus), mountain andromeda (Pieris floribunda), Wintergreen barberry (Berberis juliana), azalea (Azalea ledifolia alba), Hicksii Yew (Taxus media hicksii), Mariesii doublefile viburnum (Viburnum tomentosum mariesii), a nd varieties of rhododendron, firethorn, and Japanese holly. 64 Trees include several varieties of linden, sweetbay magnolias (Magnolia virginiana), mountain stewartia (Stewartia ovata grandiflora), franklinia (Franklinia altamaha), European beech (Fagus sy lvatica), honeylocust (Gleditsia triacanthos), dolgo crabapple (Malus dolgo), mugo pine (Pinus mugo), and honeylocust (Gleditsia triacanthos). 65 The honeylocusts were planted in nine square granite planters throughout the park. 66 One of the large planters located to the north of the main fountain contained seven sweetbay magnolia, the largest planting bed in the park contained three mountain stewartia and three mugo pines, and west of the largest bed, another planter contained do lgo crabapple. 67 Littleleaf linden provided 63 Ibid., 3.18. 64 Ibid., 3.18&3.19. 65 Ibid., 3.19. 66 Ibid., 3.19. 67 Ibid., 3.19.

PAGE 104

104 shade along Sixth Avenue, as well as on Oliver Avenue. 68 Two additional planters were planted with various flowers seasonally. 69 Pedestrian traffic was directed through space created by the combination of square and rectangular granite planters throughout the park, which not only formed rooms and divided space, but also provided seating. Pedestrian stairway entrances were located at both ends of the strip of retail at Oliver and Smithfield, and then at Smithfield and Sixth. 70 At the pedestrian entrance to the park on Oliver and Smithfield Street, a staircase with a seven tiered cascading waterfall led up to the raised park. 71 Planters surrounding the terraced fountain overflow with plant material, welcoming the vi sitor up the stairway into the park. 72 The focal point of the plaza was a large rectangular fountain with eleven layered bronze circular basins overflowing into a tiled basin of water, providing ambient noise to drown out the surrounding downtown traffic. 73 The basin was surrounded by four rectangular planters. All of the rectangular benches, built in seating, and planters were granite faced. 74 Although the original design showed rectangular terrazzo paving in the plaza, it was changed to its current distin ctive triangular design during the design development 68 Ibid., 3.19. 69 Ibid., 3.20. 70 Ibid., 3.6. 71 Ibid., 3.6. 72 Ibid., 3.10. 73 Ibid., 3.6. 74 Ibid., 3.11.

PAGE 105

105 stages. Several theories exist as to where the triangular shape originates; some 75 However, Simonds wrote that the triangular pattern came about at the insistence of client Sarah Mellon Scaife. 76 According to Simonds, the client : t urned down his original scheme of fairly large granite rectangles and told wanted smaller paving pieces like those in retail strip and garage entrances had to occupy three of the four edges, which forced the entrances to the corners. 77 Nevertheless, the four ton ed, rustic gray terrazzo became an iconic and character defining feature in the park. In the center of downtown Pittsburgh, Mellon Square offered, as Simonds stated, spl ashing water, flowers and bright color. Like the oasis it is, the urban park must be a place of pure delight 78 Writings provided by John O. Simonds outlined his intent for Mellon Square. Simonds stated that he intended the square to be: A platform A structure An island A space A focal center 75 Charette (December 1955). 76 Heritage Landscapes LLC, Pittsburgh, 2009), 3.6. 77 Ibid., 3.6. 78 Ibid., 14.

PAGE 106

106 A civic monument A gathering place An oasis 79 and enticing landscape to be viewed f rom hotel and office w Simonds saw that the square did more than just increase the value of the surrounding buildings, 80 Mellon Square required demolition of an entire city block, creating views to a rare open green space in the center of downtown. 81 The buildings surrounding the site included the existing Mellon Square Bank and the new office buildings for U.S. Steel and the Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa). 82 Buildings that faced the plaza benefited from th e painting like composition of the park below; businessmen, merchants, and shoppers enjoyed the space during the lunch hours and peak shopping space a common floor that k 83 79 Heritage Landscapes L LC, Pittsburgh, 2009), 2.3. 80 Susan Rademacher, "Reviving the Square in the Heart of the Triangle," Forum Journal 27, no. 2 (2013): 14. 81 Heritage Landscapes LLC, Mellon Square Pr Pittsburgh, 2009), 3.11. 82 Conservancy (blog), January 5, 2009, http://pittsburghparks.wordpress.com/2009/01/05/mellonsquare/ 83 Pittsburgh Quarterly (Fall 2009).

PAGE 107

107 Construction After land acquisition, additional funds needed for construction, and the Mellon family agreed to contribute the necessary money to complete the project. 84 Demolition of existing structures began in the summer of 1952 and was completed by the following summer. 85 The C ity of Pittsburgh leased subsurface parking garage rights to the Public Parking Authority, which then subleased the portion to a private compa ny, which agreed 86 Construction of the garage, and then the park, began in 1954. 87 Both the architects and landscape architects were involved in construction observati on, allowing them to make certain on site adjustments to the plans. 88 The city horticulturalist assisted Simonds with the selection of the plants, which came from various states throughout the northeast. 89 In February, installation of the plant material be gan. 90 rooted linden to deep 91 In 84 Heritage Landscapes LLC, Mellon Square Preservation, Interpreta Pittsburgh, 2009), 3.13. 85 Ibid., 3.13. 86 Ibid., 3.13. 87 Ibid., 3.13. 88 Ibid., 3.14. 89 Ibid., 3.14. 90 Ibid., 3.14. 91 Ibid., 3.14.

PAGE 108

108 plant material, a different species of English ivy than originally specified. 92 Mature plant 93 According to the Mellon Square Management Plan compiled by Heritage Landscapes LLC (the firm that performed the restoration of the park), the park was carefully designed for plant material longevity and soils were chosen to avoid excess weight on the garage: Plant materials were chosen amount of light. Contractors were required to use only those selected plants. The trees were set in steel boxes to prevent root growth fro m penetrating the roof surface below. Planter soil depths ranged from a minimum of 14 inches to a maximum of four feet. Six inches of gravel was provided for drainage, followed by a 4 inch layer of compacted straw and composted mushroom soil. Ericaceous p lants were pocket planted in oversize holes filled with pure Canadian peat moss. 94 For a small park of not even one and a half acres, Mellon Square boasted a large amount of plant material: over 25,000 trees, shrubs, and groundcovers. 95 In addition to the complex planting plan, the main fountain was a feat in itself. The nine bronze basins were considered the largest bronze basins cast in the country, at nine feet in diameter and weighing 3,500 lbs. each. 96 Upon arrival, the basins were inspected and it wa s discovered that pitting and an inconsistent patina had occurred 92 Ibid., 3.14. 93 Ibid., 3.15. 94 Ibid., 3.15. 95 Ibid., 3.15. 96 Pittsburgh Post Gazette October 18, 1955.

PAGE 109

1 09 and the profile was incorrect according to specifications. Adjustments to correct uneven water flow were made during construction. 97 Approximately 23,000 square feet of polished granite, co mposing the majority of the site features, including walls, planters, and benches, was shipped from Cold Springs, Minnesota. 98 Another issue in construction arose when the aluminum handrail did not match specifications and was installed incorrectly in the granite wall. The handrails were reinstalled and the granite was patched. 99 Extensive amounts of waterproofing and an modern snow melting system were installed to ensure structural stability of the garage. 100 The garage opened for limited parking in the beg inning of 1955, fully opened May 1955, and the park was completed by June 1955. 101 Combined, the park and garage cost a total of $7.8 million. 102 The garage was six stories underground and provided space for 1,000 cars. 103 For ease of memory, each level of th e garage was assigned a 97 Heritage Landscapes LLC, Pittsburgh, 2009), 3.15. 98 Pittsburgh Post Gazette October 18, 1955. 99 Heritage Landscapes LLC, Pittsburgh, 2009), 3.15. 100 Pittsburgh Post Gazette October 18, 1955. 101 Heritage Landscapes LLC, Pittsburgh, 2009), 3.13. 102 Ibid., 3.16. 103 Ibid., 3.14.

PAGE 110

110 distinct color. 104 By October 1955, the garage reached full capacity on a daily basis; a newspaper article stated the average for a standard business day was 1,900 cars. 105 The park was dedicated at a highly publicized ceremony on Oc tober 18, 1955. 106 at the dedication ceremony. 107 Many newspapers published detailed reports of the park, details of its construction, and praise for its modern design. 108 According to Susan Rademacher of the Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy, the park was successful in bringing When the Mellon Square project was announced in 1949, there was "not a single blade of grass," in downtown Pittsburgh, as remembered by Robert Pease, former executive director of the Urban Redevelopment Authority. The new park changed all that. When the "Parking Park" opened to great fanfare on October 18, 1955 Mayor Lawrence proclaimed "[W] e are, in a true and real sense, giving Pittsburgh a new symbol of this community's character, its new confidence and its great expectation . this mid city park of beautiful design and of skilled craftsmanship typifies the spirit of the new Pittsburgh." Mell on Square was a vivid icon of an optimistic 109 The Pittsburgh Post Gazette represents the new life that has flowe d into the city at its commercial core the 104 Ibid., 3.14. 105 Pittsburgh Post Gazette October 18, 1955. 106 Pittsburgh Post Gazette October 18, 1955. 107 Ibid. 108 Heritage Landscapes LLC, Pittsburgh, 2009), 3.16. 109 Susan R ademacher, "Reviving the Square in the Heart of the Triangle," Forum Journal 27, no. 2 (2013): 13.

PAGE 111

111 110 Upon completion of the park, an advisory committee consisting of members of the representatives from the Pittsburgh Department of Parks ncil, the Law Department, and the ACCD, was set up for the management of uses within the space. 111 The square received much acclaim in local newspapers and would become a popular spot. 112 Mellon Square is a contributing resource of the Pittsburgh Central Dow ntown Historic District, which was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1985 and is also individually eligible. 113 The park was listed as one of 10 American Planning 114 110 Pittsburgh Post Gazette October 18, 1955. 111 Pittsburgh, 2009), 3.17. 112 Ibid., 3.17. 113 Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy last modified 2013, accessed October 7, 2013, http://www.pittsburghparks.org/mellonsquarehistory 114 Ibid.

PAGE 112

112 Figure 5 1 The site of Mellon Square, before construction, July1951 Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy Accessed March 10, 2014. http://www.pittsburghparks.org/mellonsquarehist ory

PAGE 113

113 Figure 5 2 Mellon Square, opening day, October 18, 1955. Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy Accessed March 10, 2014. http://www.pittsburghparks.org/mello nsquarehistory Figure 5 3 Aerial view of Mellon Square, 1961 1963 Courtesy of the University of Florida. John Ormsbee Simonds Collection, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

PAGE 114

114 Figure 5 4 View of the main fountain, Mellon Square, 1961 1963 Courtesy of the University of Florida. John Ormsbee Simonds Collection, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Figure 5 5 View of the parking garage entrance and terraced fountain on Oliver & Smithfield, 1961 1963 Courtesy of the University of Florida. John Ormsbee Simonds Collection, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, Universit y of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

PAGE 115

115 Figure 5 6 View of the parking garage entrance on Sixth, 1961 1963 Courtesy of the University of Florida. John Ormsbee Simonds Collection, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Figure 5 7 Tile in the main fountain, 1961 1963 Courtesy of the University of Florida. John Ormsbee Simonds Collection, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Flo rida, Gainesville, Florida.

PAGE 116

116 Figure 5 8 Visitors walking through Mellon Square, 1961 1963 Courtesy of the University of Florida. John Ormsbee Simonds Collection, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida Gainesville, Florida. Figure 5 9 People lining the benches in Mellon Square, 1961 1963 Courtesy of the University of Florida. John Ormsbee Simonds Collection, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

PAGE 117

117 Disrepair and Alterations Due to its complexity, Mellon Square required some fine tuning directly following its opening. Beginning in the winter of 1955 and continuing into 1957, the ceramic tile in the main fountain experi enced chipping and spalling at an increasing rate, prompting the Tile Institute to determine it faulty. A different tile was specified and installed by the summer of 1958. 115 Due to its location, Mellon Square experienced strong west winds, which necessita ted the replacement of the galvanized steel wires guying the trees with wrought iron rods. 116 In October 1956, Executive Director of the ACCD Park Martin wrote the contractor and listed issues in workmanship and defective materials: deterioration of the cer amic tile in the main fountain, movement of the granite wall and coping, poor drainage at the base of the steps on Smithfield, faults with the snow melting apparatus and cam timer, and water dripping from the cascades. Maintenance of the hydraulics in the fountain proved to be an initial problem, as well; workers were unable to keep the fountains clean for more than two days without draining, scrubbing, and refilling. The solution was to soften and filter the water. 117 In 1959, the Department of Park and R ecreation re evaluated the plant materials in the square, creating the 1959 Period Plan As Built, PP 1959 118 Investigations by the department found that much of the plant material had died due to severe winter 115 Heritage Landscapes LLC, Pittsburgh, 2009), 3.17. 116 Ibid., 3.17. 117 Ibid., 3.18. 118 Ibid., 3.18.

PAGE 118

118 conditions. 119 The plantings were replaced, mos tly with the same species, however, five pines that had died were replaced with Japanese yew. 120 As early as the 1960 s, despite high us age and praise in the 1950 s, Mellon Square began to decline. The Pittsburgh RPA criticized the Golden Triangle redevelopme nt initiatives as being weak compared with Point State Park, stating that the structures and square were poorly related to each other and the surrounding context. 121 The flower beds, which required a high level of maintenance, were considered problematic. Next to the cascading fountain, the planting beds, which were constructed with an inadequate depth, also collected water blown from the fountain. 122 During the latter part of the 20 th century, Pittsburgh lost nearly half of its population, due to the collap se of the steel industry beginning in the 1970 s. 123 Public interest in the park began to decline, as well. In the early 1980s, the City realized that Mellon Square needed some repairs due to aging and high usage over the past 30 years. Environmental Planni ng and Design (EPD), formerly Simonds & Simonds, was asked in 1981 to develop plans for rehabilitation 124 Recommendations by EPD included: Replacement of electrical conduit system Replacement of waterproofing. 119 Ibid., 3.18. 120 Ibid., 3.18. 121 Ibid., 3.2 122 Ibid., 3.22. 123 Ibid., 3.22. 124 Ibid., 4.1.

PAGE 119

119 Cleaning, repointing, and caulking of granite and replacement of benches destroyed by vandalism. Repair, patching, cleaning, and resealing of the rustic terrazzo. Removal of snow melting equipment (in favor of a temporary closure policy during times of high snow accumulation). Cleaning, lining, and, i f necessary, replacement of drainage pipes and trench drains. Replacement of dying or aging plant material, replacement of shaded groundcovers with mulch, Added maintenance center on the first level of the parking garage. Addition of handrails along the s tairs on Smithfield, bollards along William Penn Way, and supplementary trash receptacles. Various lighting improvements throughout the square. Redesign of main fountain for contemporary use and restoration of fountains to working order. Installation of flagpoles displaying local art within the Square, based on original drawings. 125 In the 1980 s, the park suffered a multitude of issues: water leakage into the garage and retail space due to failure of the original waterproof tar paper, electrical fires had o ccurred due to stripped wiring, the bronze bowl fountain and site lighting were not functioning, and vegetation needed replacement. 126 deterioration was so substantial that the City, ACCD, Pittsburgh Parking Authority, the Richard K ing Mellon Foundation, and others donated funds toward the implementation of the EPD recommendations. 127 The Mellon Foundation donated the funds with the 125 Ibid., 4.2. 126 Ibid., 4.3. 127 Ibid., 4.3.

PAGE 120

120 condition that the City agree to increase and improve maintenance efforts in the future. 128 Construction began in April 1988. Improvements to the garage required complete removal of all site features. The bronze fountain basins were sent back to the manufacturer for polishing and refinishing and granite pieces were removed and individually catalogued, howev er, the rest of the Square was completely demolished. 129 Waterproofing was added, drains replaced, wiring systems repaired, handrails added to the staircase on Smithfield, bollards to restrict vehicular access were added on William Penn Place, supplementary trash receptacles were added, additional light fixtures were added to increase nighttime visibility for safety, and the original light fixtures were removed and replaced with rooftop floodlights on top of adjacent buildings. 130 One of the tree planters was removed to make space for the construction of a stage for programmed events. The rustic terrazzo paving was recreated by the original paving company. 131 Irrigation was added to all the planting beds. 132 The biggest chang e that occurred during the se interven tions at the plaza was the rebuilding of the two main fountains. Although the bronze bowls were reinstalled in the main fountain, the seating, basins, and spray rings were redesigned to increase user accessibility to the water. Originally, according to Susan Rad emacher, the director of the Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy, the fountain, before rehabilitation was comprised of 128 Ibid., 4.3. 129 Ibid., 4.3. 130 Ibid., 4.3. 131 Ibid., 4.3. 132 Ibid., 4.3.

PAGE 121

121 a complex system of spray patterns, with one large jet and twelve smal ler jets. However, in the 1980 s, the patterns were simplified down to fi ve jets due to budgetary constraints. The terraced fountain spray pattern was also simplified. 133 Sidewalks along Sixth and Oliver were added in the rehabilitation as well. 134 Most of the replanting followed the original specifications by Simonds & Simonds, with a few exceptions. In 1975, women from the Carnegie Museum planned the Three Snelson, was installed in Mellon Square in the large central planter. The planter was r eplanted with sod, and the sculpture (and grass) remained after the festival ended. 135 Both the sculpture and sod panel were reinstalled after the 1980s overhaul. 136 According to an article in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette dated April 14, 1990, construction on the park lasted much longer than expected and went over budget. The article stated that the park had been closed for improvement for two years and was still under construction, intended to reopen in mid May. 137 City officials and residents both were frustr ated when improvements in the park, which were supposed to take only eight months, stretched to over triple that estimate. 138 The article cited water leakage into the garage as a main concern in the repairs, since the original membrane had eroded. 133 Susan Rademacher (Parks Curator, Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy), interview with the author at Mellon Square, July 25, 2013. 134 Ibid. 135 Ibid. 136 Heritage Landscapes LLC, Pittsburgh, 2 009), 4.3. 137 Pittsburgh Post Gazette April 14, 1990. 138 Ibid.

PAGE 122

122 Wilber D ouglass, a Parking Authority official at the time, was quoted as saying that the 139 D espite the 1980 s improvements, the square continued to decline due dec reasing ma intenance in the 1990 s and 2000s. Between 2004 and 2007, annual expenditures for maintenance decreased from $16,102 to $1,980. During this time, the park suffered from many of the issues it faced before rehabilitation and others. Drains became clogged, leaks reappeared, the terrazzo was cracked and crumbling in places, and leakage had caused the formation of mineral deposits. Furthermore, it became home to smokers, pigeon feeders, skateboarders, the homeless, and pests: rats at night and pigeons during the day. 140 Plant material continued to die and the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems were all broken. 141 According to Rademacher, Marjorie Simonds, wife to John Simonds, stated that Simonds had not approved the EPD addition of the stage and the c hanges to the fountain during the 1980 s construction. In addition, the stage proved to be inadequately lighting that replaced the original on site lighting made the sight se em eerie and unwelcoming. 142 The city received complaints about crime, rats, pigeons, and the dark 139 Ibid. 140 Susan Rademacher, "Reviving the Square in the Heart of the Triangle," Forum Journal 27, no. 2 (2013): 16. 141 Ibid. 142 Susan Rademacher (Parks Curator, Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy), interview with the author at Mellon Square, July 25, 2013.

PAGE 123

123 facades of the retail frontage along Smithfield. 143 Water leakage caused mineral deposits on the stairs, drains became clogged, and the granite needed retoolin g. 144 Despite its deteriorating condition, the plaza was still utilized by Pittsburgh residents and city officials for events, concerts, rallies, and other public gatherings. Advocacy In 1985, Mellon Square was included in the National Register of Historic Places under the listing for the Pittsburgh Downtown Historic District. 145 In 1996, the non profit organization Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy (PPC) was formed by citizens concerned 146 The Conservancy was originally the the purpose of restoring Schenley Park in Pittsburgh. 147 By 1998, the responsibility of the PPC included Schenley, Frick, Highland, Riverview, and Schenley. 148 The PPC has, stewarded over 1,700+ acres, sometimes extending past their main parks when resources permit. 149 143 Ibid. 144 Ibid. 145 National Register of Historic Places, Pittsburgh Central Downtown Historic District, Pittsburgh, Allegheny Count y, Pennsylvania, NR #10240018 146 Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy accessed October 18, 2013, http://www.pittsburghparks.org/the conservancy 147 Pittsburgh Quarterly (Fall 2009): 3. 148 Ibid. 149 Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy accessed October 18, 2013, http://www.pittsburghp arks.org/the conservancy

PAGE 124

124 In 2007, the City of Pittsburgh realized that action needed to be taken at Mellon Square. Members of The Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation, the Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership, and the Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy invited Charles Birnbaum, head of The Cultural Landscape Foundation, to visit Pittsburgh and deliver a lecture on Simonds and Mellon Square to inform the community and city on the historic value and significance of the plaza. 150 During his visit, Birnbaum suggested the restoration and nomination of Mellon Square for National Historic Landmark designation. Me g Cheever, president and CEO of the PPC, agreed, that a restoration apart from its historic design significance, just as a piece of open space, it seems like a really sounds economic idea to restore it. [Downtown] is an area i 151 Birnbaum spoke highly of John Simonds and the touched so many lives his name has enormous cac het in Pittsburgh. . Mellon 152 Richard K Mellon Foundation and the BNY Mellon Charitable Foundation allowed the Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy to partner with Heritage Landscapes LLC, a landscape 150 Susan Rademacher, "Reviving the Square in the Heart of the Triangle," Forum Journal 27, no. 2 (2013): 17. 151 Pittsburgh Quarterly (Fall 2009): 3. 152 Ibid.

PAGE 125

125 architecture and historic preservation firm based in Vermont, to prepare a restoration and management plan for Mellon Square. 153 Figure 5 10 Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy Blog June 3, 2010. http://pittsburghparks.wordpress.com/2010/06/03/the parks conservancy is headed downtown/ Treatment Heritage Landscapes LLC, in 2009, prepared a detailed interpretation and management plan. The document included a structur al assessment and recommendations, which was developed by Heritage Landscapes with the expertise of 153 Susan Rademacher, "Revivi ng the Square in the Heart of the Triangle," Forum Journal 27, no. 2 (2013): 17.

PAGE 126

126 structural engineering firm Robert Silman Associates. 154 Through their evaluation of the the outside surfaces of the park (pavement, fountains, copingstones) are damaged, there are very few 155 They suggested repairs and if necessary, replacement of damaged pavement, drainage systems, and concrete. O riginally, Mellon Square was outfitted with an extensive lighting system, including multi colored lighting in the main fountain, demonstrating the park was intended for use after dark. 156 An assessment of the lighting in the square and historical research w as undertaken by Heritage Landscapes with Grenald Waldron, lighting expert. Recommendations included removal of the moonlighting, refocusing the lighting upgrading of perimeter and garage lighting, rehabilitation of the existing inset wall lighting along the staircases, addition of more weatherproof electrical receptacles. 157 They also suggested improving the lighting not just in the square, but in the surrounding buildi ngs, as well, to enhance the image of Mellon Square as a destination. 158 Interpretation expert Neil Silberman and Heritage Landscapes developed an interpretation plan based on various target groups, including school groups, historical 154 Heritage Landscapes LLC, Pittsburgh, 2009), 6.8. 155 Ibid., 6.8. 156 Ibid., 7.1. 157 Ibid., 7.4. 158 Ibid., 7.4.

PAGE 127

127 societies, stakeholders local business owners, and more. 159 Utilizing interpretation as a fundraising, lobbying, and management tool, a public information tool, for the enhancement of visitor/user experience, and as an educational tool, they hoped to increase awareness and educa te visitors and stakeholders about the significance of Mellon Square, the history of Pittsburgh and its Renaissance, and Modern landscape architecture. 160 Through advertising techniques such as print materials, PowerPoint presentations, public information me etings, and multimedia and through interactive activities such as walking tours, field trips for local schools, collection of oral histories, temporary exhibits, historical commissions, and possibly even a visitor center, people could receive information a bout the square. 161 Suggested interpretive activities included on site interpretive signage, downloadable MP3 tours, educational workbooks and exhibitions. 162 Finally, an analysis of c ontinuity and change in the square since 1955 addressed the changes in circulation, vegetation, site features, and paving, and determined character defining features. 163 Heritage Landscapes determined that Mellon Square 164 The existing site features and plant material were 159 Ibid., 8.4. 160 Ibid., 8.4. 161 Ibid., 8.5. 162 Ibid., 8.7. 163 Ibid., 9.12. 164 Ibid., 9.12.

PAGE 128

128 carefully documented. As a contributing member to 1985 National Register of Historic was eligible individually and could fit under Criterion A, B, and C. 165 They also evaluated the four options set forth by the U.S. Secretary of the Standards for the T reatment of H istoric P roperties and determined appropriate. 166 The final recommended treatment concluded: Restoring Mellon Square to its 1950 s design is proposed, with contemporary innovations to a chieve sustainability, durability and functional problem solving, while fostering an appropriate range of uses that will be valued by the people of Pittsburgh. 167 In June 13, 2011, first phase construction began in Mellon Square. 168 One of the major issues ad dressed in the rehabilitation portion of the first phase was the terrace on Smithfield Street. Originally, the terrace had contained plantings and was inaccessible. 169 It had recently suffered leakage and was planted with unsustainable vegetation. Herita ge Landscapes and the Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy decided to add an inhabitable terrace along Smithfield, increasing useable space in the park by 15%. Discovery of the original concept drawings by Simonds showed an open air terrace with people. The terr ace was transformed into a green roof, a space capable of 165 Ibid., 10.2. 166 Ibid., 11.4. 167 Ibid., 11.5. 168 Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy Blog June 17, 2011, accessed October 19, 2013, https://pittsburghparks.wordpress.com/2011/06/17/mellon square groundbreaking june 132011/ 169 Susan Rade macher (Parks Curator, Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy), interview with the author at Mellon Square, July 25, 2013.

PAGE 129

129 event programming. Symmetrical entry ramps make the terrace accessible to visitors from the street. 170 According to Parks Curator Susan Rademacher, a rehabilitation approach was taken in regards to the terrace; the rest of the park is a restoration. 171 Everything was waterproofed, the drains were cleaned out, and new drains installed where needed. Mineral deposits had developed on the stairs from the water draining down through the slightly porous pa vement to the steps, so a sand layer was installed below the pavement. 172 The granite is being resurfaced using a bush hammering technique. The fountains are going to be rebuilt so that they are functioning again. Both the fountains and benches have been constructed with diagonal vertical supports for ease of access. New trash receptacles have been chosen to match existing site features. Originally, round trash receptacles were located in the corners of the planters and had to be pulled out every time tr ash was removed. For ease of access, the new trash receptacles will be located outside the planters. Otherwise, a door in the granite planters would have had to be cut and the original granite compromised. 173 Many of the trees are being treated with a grow th retardant to keep them at a 170 Susan Rademacher, "Reviving the Square in the Heart of the Triangle," Forum Journal 27, no. 2 (2013): 17. 171 Susan Rademacher (Parks Curator Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy), interview with the author at Mellon Square, July 25, 2013. 172 Ibid. 173 Ibid.

PAGE 130

130 too large for their planters. For shallow beds, new plant material that grows on rocky outcroppings was chosen, and bulbs will be planted in the spring. 174 All new trench drains were installed. Pressure washing and caulking has taken place throughout the site. Heavy duty concrete cleaner was used to clean the granite. The terrace basins in the corner fountain have been recreated from new on site poured conc rete terrace basins. Originally the basins had been concrete, then granite, then glasscrete (which was rejected because it leaked), then finally poured concrete, which was closest to original. Skateboard deterrents have been added to the benches. New LED lighting is being installed, but in the same locations as the original lighting. 175 According to Rademacher, an economic impact analysis projected increased real estate value $70 100 million for the surrounding buildings. 176 Construction is expected to be c omplete by the end of 2013, at which point the city will continue to provide basic 177 174 Ibid. 175 Ibid. 176 Ibid. 177 Susan Rademacher, "Reviving the Square in the Heart of the Triangle," Forum Journal 27, no. 2 (2013): 17.

PAGE 131

131 Figure 5 11 Watercolor render ing of the Mellon Square restoration by Robert Bowden. Pit tsburgh Parks Conservancy Blog July 6, 2012. https://pittsburghparks.word press.com/category/mellon square parks/

PAGE 132

132 Figure 5 1 2 Construction on the cascading fountain, week 3. Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy Flickr Accessed March 10, 2014. http://www.flickr.com/photos/pghparks/sets/72157627225408993/

PAGE 133

133 Figure 5 13 Removal of the bronze basins for refinishing, week 25. Pittsb urgh Parks Conservancy Flickr Accessed March 10, 2014. http://www.flickr.com/photos/pghparks/sets/72157627225408993/

PAGE 134

134 Figure 5 14 Restoration of the rustic terrazzo, week 43. Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy Flickr Accessed March 10, 2014. http://www.flickr.com/photos/ pghparks/sets/72157627225408993/ Summary of Issues The primary issue for decline in Mellon Square appears to be lack of maintenance as a result of limited funding and a high level of required maintenance. With the formation of the Pittsburgh Parks Conser vancy, a steward with additional funding was able to raise awareness and raise proper funds for the square. Since the square is considered high design, it naturally required more maintenance than the typical urban open space. Upkeep of plant material is a crucial portion of overall park city had a difficult time continuing to provide the necessary maintenance required for a space of that complexity. Therefore, plants died or became overgrown.

PAGE 135

135 In addition, the initial design did not take into consideration the heavy winds that would occur, and inappropriate plant material not hardy enough to sustain high winds died immediately. Finally, the snow melting equipment installe d in the beginning did not perform as expected and was not effective over the long term. Therefore, snow caused cracking pipes and required the park to be closed for long periods of time during the winter. All of these factors contributed to the decline of the park. Another issue was some of the change s that occurred during the 1980 s restoration. While EPD did consult the original plans, several aspects of their alterations proved to be unhelpful in revitalizing Mellon Square to its former use. While the addition of a stage may have been helpful in programming events and publicizing the square, EPD did not consider the correct sizing and location of the stage, making it unsuccessful. By simplifying the jets and altering the main fountains, EPD strayed from the original design intent. Alteration of a major character defining feature caused the park Fountain is the focal point. It is essential to restore these qualities whi ch are so key to 178 The removal of on site lighting in place of moonlighting led to perceptions that the es 178 Open This Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy, The Voice (Spring 2012): 1.

PAGE 136

136 one that appears dark and lifeless. The ability to feel good about one's environment is 179 The initial design of th e park entrances are somewhat difficult for pedestrians to understand. As discussed in Chapter 4, William Whyte suggests a minimum of one step up into a park. 180 Since only one edge of Mellon Square is level with the street, the blocky granite surrounding the rest of the perimeter makes Mellon Square seem inaccessible. Whyte, in his discussion regarding raised parks, refers to Bryant Park in New York, explaining that it is dangerous and has become home to undesirables he street by walls, fences, and shrubbery. You 181 Although Mellon According to Whyte, retailing i 182 While Mellon Square included a strip of retail intended to attract downtown shoppers, over time vacancies and the recessed nature of the shops turned people away. Eventually, many people complained about the d ark and uninviting faade of the shops on Smithfield. 183 This line of retail turned into a deterrent to those on the lower street level. As Rademacher stated, 179 CrimeWise.com last modified 1995, accessed October 22, 2013, http://www.crimewise.com/library/cpted.html 180 William Whyte, The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces (Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation, 1980), 58. 181 Ibid. 182 Ibid., 57. 183 Susan Rademacher (Parks Curator, Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy), interview with the author at Mellon Square, July 25, 2013.

PAGE 137

137 for. You can see t people still use the square they need the oasis. I t unique work of art, but also as a place of occupancy in Downtown for meeting very simple social and human needs. 184 With time a nd funding, hopefully the square can be rehabilitated effectively for future use. 184 Pittsburgh Quarterly (Fall 2009): 4.

PAGE 138

138 C HAPTER 6 CASE STUDY #3: PEAVEY PLAZA Introduction Biography of Paul Friedberg Born in 1931, M. Paul Friedberg spent most of his childhood in rural Pennsylvania and New York. 1 Friedberg assisted his father in his nursery throughout his teenage years. 2 While studying at Cornell University, Friedberg majored in ornamental horticulture. 3 After graduation, Friedber g moved to New York City to pursue work, ending up working for architecture and landscape architecture firms. 4 Friedberg also served a brie f stint in the army in the 1950 s, traveling to Korea and Japan. 5 When he came back, he continued to work various dr afting jobs until, i n 1958, Friedberg decided to create his own firm, M. Paul Friedberg and Associates. 6 public space and plaza design, completing projects primarily in New York, but also elsewhere in the United States. 7 1 Chad Randal, "M. Paul F riedberg," in Shaping the American Landscape: New Profiles from the Pioneers of the American Landscape Design Project edited by Charles A. Birnbaum and Stephanie S. Foell, (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2009), 103. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. 4 Ib id. 5 M. Paul Friedberg (landscape architect), interview by Charles Birnbaum, The Cultural Landscape Foundation 2009. 6 Chad Randal, "M. Paul Friedberg," in Shaping the American Landscape: New Profiles from the Pioneers of the American Landscape Design Project edited by Charles A. Birnbaum and Stephanie S. Foell, (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2009), 103. 7 Ibid., 103.

PAGE 139

139 Du Friedberg began to make his name as the expert on creative playground design. 8 This role was solidified in 1965 when Friedberg design ed Jacob Ri is Houses 9 Riis Plaza was a watershed event. It was widely publicized (even appearing in Life magazine) and made the thirty four year old Friedberg an instant expert. Riis Plaza and his other playground designs were distinct from other play spaces because they were not composed of isolated play features that could only be used in one way, by one child, from one age group, at a time. His playgrounds and their linked experiences, shifting grades and points of prominence and seclusion, provided opportunities for discovery, experimentation, exploration, creativity, and cooperation. Friedberg's empir ical approach studying his past work to identify successful and failed elements, and observing how landscapes are used gave voice to the user and enabled him to design play places that met the needs of those users With these projects on as a preeminent designer of urban play areas was firmly established 10 Riis Plaza served as a catalyst for bringing other projects into the Friedberg office. 70s and 80s, Friedberg became well known for his revolutionar y interactive playgro und design, plazas, vest pock et parks, and pedestrian malls. 11 Significant works would include the Carver Houses Riis Plaza & Roberto Clemente State Park the 67 th Street Playground Central Park, and Battery Park in New York City A.C. Nielsen headquarte rs in Chicago, Loring Park and Peavey Plaza in Minneapolis, Fulton County Government Plaza in Atlanta, Pershing Park in D.C., Olympic Plaza in Calgary, T ranspotomac Canal C enter Alexandria 8 Ibid., 104. 9 Ibid., 104. 10 Ibid., 104. 11 Ibid., 105.

PAGE 140

140 University and rooftop playgr Residence in Greenwich, Connecticut, the Promenade Classique in Alexandra, and La Jolla Commons in San Diego 12 Friedberg was heavily involved in academics, serving as faculty at Harvard University, Colu mbia University, and the Pratt Institute 13 He was also the founder of the Urban Landscape Architecture Program at the City College of New York in 1970. 14 Friedberg wrote about his work as well, and his published books include: Play and Interplay (1970) and Handcrafted Playground: Designs You Can Build Yourself (1975). 15 Friedberg has received much acclaim for his work, and is the recipient of many aw ards and honorary degrees. In 1979, he was made a Fellow of the American Society of Landscape Arc hitects, in 1978 he received the AIA Medal from the American Institute of the highest honor from the organization, was awarded to him. 16 have received a total of eighty five national and international awards. 17 Friedberg is still involved in his firm M. Paul Friedberg and Associates. Friedberg, unlike many of his time, embraced the city along with all its diversity. Accor ding to Friedberg in an interview with Charles Birnbaum in 2006, 12 Ibid., 106. 13 Ibid., 107. 14 Ibid., 107. 15 Ibid., 107. 16 Ibid., 107. 17 Ibid., 107.

PAGE 141

141 the preconceived notion that the city is a hostile place. And, to me the city is where we are, the salvation. landscape, the city is the only way. Density is the only way. 18 He was interested in the dynamics of a space, and in the people that interacted within that space. He felt that design should be dictated by intended us e and experience: I feel that people orchestrate the space, and it's not a space without people. 19 revolutionized playground design and changed how designers approached planning Through observation and research into developmental psychology, Friedberg learned about play a 20 Friedberg saw playgrounds as important centers for the facilitation of interactions between children, 21 Friedberg believed that the landscape could be used as a communicative device and is a vehicle to expand the palette giving it an intellectual overl 22 His use of wooden sculptural forms in the landscape was also reflected in his playground design, which resulted in the creation of the first modular wooden playground equipment 18 M. Paul Friedberg (landscape architect), interview by Charles Birnbaum, The Cultural Landscape Foundation 2009. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid.

PAGE 142

142 company, Timberform 23 favorite material, is water water . [in] different ways, said Friedberg. 24 it does not conform to the typical modern aesthetic According to Friedberg, I really think if you were to defi ne the modern movement without looking . . It was the denial that landscape architecture was only valid if it imitated of replicated nature or natural forms. And therefore the straight line was unnatural in nature. And when landscape architecture broke with this axiom and tried to use geometric and pure geometries that were clearly originated by man and or u nderstandable, such as modern forms of architecture such as the rectangle, the square, the cone you have a shift into a different interpretation of landscape that we label modernistic 25 Friedberg stated he did not think he considered landscape architecture in terms of architectural modernism: a lack of decorative elements and volumetric geometry. 26 However, his designs incorporated much functionality with his focus on the human aspect of space, and his use of experimental materials in his parks, plazas, and playgrounds shows he had a modern mentality, however subconscious. 27 Alison Dalton writes in His playgrounds appeal to the adult eye as much as to the childhood imagination, reflecting his predilection for sculpted landscapes defined by dramatic grade changes and powerful g eometrical forms unified by a strong sense of procession 28 23 Ibid. 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid. 26 Ibid. 27 Ibid.

PAGE 143

143 Friedberg, through his playground designs and Peavey Plaza, was consistently concerned and working to accommodate the users of a space. His site specific and human scaled designs contributed to his status as one of the noteworthy landscape architects working the latter part of the 20 th century. History of Peavey Plaza History and Description Peavey Plaza is a multi level plaza located in the downtown core of Minneapolis, Minnesota. The modern p laza was constructed in 1975 and was designed by M. Paul Friedberg, who was hired by the City of Minneapolis at the peak of a renaissance that occurred during the late s. 29 With the onslaught of suburbanism in the United States in the mid ce ntury, many people were moving away from the urban cores plagued by pollution, congestion, and crime. In downtown Minneapolis, this same phenomenon was occurring, and, along with the relocation of residents, companies were also moving their headquarters o ut of the downtowns. 30 By the 1950 s, General Mills had already announced plans to transfer its headquarters to a more suburban location, and the Pillsbury Company intended to do the same. 31 In an attempt to maintain the downtown core of their city, civil a nd corporate leaders persuaded Pillsbury to stay, and the planning department of Minneapolis developed an organization on 28 Preserving Modern Landscape Architecture: Papers from the Wave Hill National Park Service Conference ed.by Charles A. Birnbaum (Cambridge: Spacemaker Press, 1995), 57. 29 National Register of Historic Places, Peavey Plaza, Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Minnesota, NR #12001173 6. 30 Ibid. 31 Ibid.

PAGE 144

144 urban renewal: the Downtown Council. 32 The Downtown Council decided to focus on Nicollet Avenue, which was also bordered by the entertainment and financial districts. 33 Designed by renowned landscape architect Lawrence Halprin from 1958 1962, Nicollet Mall was the firs t transit mall in the nation. 34 The mall revitalized a n eight block curved stretch of historic downtown retail space. 35 With its trees, fountains, and sculpture, the pedestrian mall quickly became the primary open s pace in downtown Minneapolis. 36 In fact, Nicollet Mall was such an immediate success that, by 1 972, the city agreed to incorporate a four comprehensive plan due to crowding from events. 37 In 1972, the Minnesota Orchestral Association announced plans to purchase the Lyceum Theater on Nicollet and 11 th Stre et, demolish the old theater, and replace it with a new orchestra hall with an outdoor event space. 38 The National Register nomination form for Peavey Plaza, compiled by Charlene K. Roise and Elizabeth A. Gales describes the details of the public private partnership that undertook the project: The association [Minneapolis Orchestral Association] which owned or had options on the entire block, would clear the land and deed the half block 32 Ibid. 33 Ibid. 34 Inland Architecture (March/April 1991): 30. 35 Ibid. 36 Ibid. 37 National Register of Historic Places, Peavey Plaza, Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Minnesota, NR #12001173 6. 38 Ibid., 8.

PAGE 145

145 for the park back to the Minneapolis Park Board, an independent agenc y, in exchange for about $1 million from the board. The association would land it stands on, to the City at applicable cost, presently estimated at $9,200,000, and immediately lease it back from the City for 30 years at a flat annual rental of $598,473, the exact sum needed by the City to cover back arran gement is somewhat complicated but has a number of very real advantages and, after considering many other alternatives, appears to be the most package approved by the Minneapolis City Council and Mayor Charles Stenvig. The package also included funding for a $4.9 million parking ramp that, fortuitously, the city had already been planning to build just across Marquette Avenue from the Orchestra Hall site. In addition, the package contai ned $500,000 for development of the park. 39 By the time the Orchestra Hall was completed in 1974, construction of the plaza was lagging due to a lack in funding. 40 Fortunately, due to a $600,000 contribution by the Peavey Company, a local grain business, th e $2.5 million budget was finally achieved. 41 M. Paul Friedberg was hired in December to design the plaza; he had previously been hired by the city to perform a study of the Loring Park area for potential redevelopment and mall expansion options. 42 Friedbe rg stated that one of the reasons the city because of his background in New York and experience designing to prevent crime. 43 The plaza, located at the southern terminus of Nicollet Mall, served as a link to 39 Ibid., 9. 40 Ibid., 10. 41 Ibid., 10. 42 Ibid., 10. 43 M. Paul Friedberg (landscape architect), interview by Charles Birnbaum, The Cultural Landscape Foundation 2009.

PAGE 146

146 the future Loring Greenway (also designed by Friedberg), which connected Loring Park, the oldest park in Minneapolis with the downtown. 44 Peavey Plaza was located on a city block contained by 11 th Street, 12 th Street, Nicollet Avenue, and Marquette Avenue. The site for the plaza was sunken down due to the fact that the architect of the orchestra hall had exposed the basement floor. 45 The Minnesota Orchestra Hall designed by New York architecture firm Hardy Holtzman Pfeiffer and built in 1974, wa s sited on the southeastern half of the block while Pe avey Plaza occupie d the northwestern portion. 46 Landscaped terraces comprise d a multi level site which feature d a 140 foot by 200 foot pool that could be drained to provide space for events. 47 Two distinct types of custom light pole fixtures were featured at the site, and 18 inch high concrete bollards define d the perimeters. 48 City sidewalks surround ed all but the southeast side of the plaza. 49 The primary entrance locations from the street level were located at the northern and southern ends of the plaza. 50 A large stainless steel and concrete fountain at street level in the southwestern portion of the plaza cascade d water through a series of rectilinear basins deep recessed pool while another, smaller fountain in the western portio n of the site also fed 44 National Register of Historic Places, Peavey Plaza, Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Minnesota, NR #12001173 10. 45 Ibid., 3. 46 Ibid., 9. 47 Ibid., 3. 48 Ibid., 3. 49 Ibid., 3. 50 Ibid., 3.

PAGE 147

147 into the main pool. 51 Concrete steps led down gradually into the recessed area and served as seating. 52 The large amphitheater like space allowed ice skating in the winter, a reflection pool in the summer, and provided a venue for events year round. On the corner of Nicollet and 12 th vertical cylindrical stainless steel sculptural 53 Freestanding and wall mounted wo oden benches provided additio nal seating options and planters, walls, and trash receptacles were all constructed from poured concrete. 54 Along the 11 th Street border on the north side of the plaza, a strip of honeylocust trees provide d shade. 55 Additional honeylocust trees were located in large terraces on the upper and lower levels to the west. 56 Sloped planting beds are positioned on the east, west, and south sides of the space. 57 At the northeast corner of the plaza next to the Orchestra Hall a n entrance was left unfinished; according to Friedberg, a connection had been planned for a restaurant. 58 However, the restaurant owner across the street intended to inhabit the 51 Ibid., 3. 52 Ibid., 3. 53 M. Paul Friedberg (landscape architect), interview by Charles Birnbaum, The Cultural Landscape Foundation 2009. 54 National Register of Historic Places, Peavey Plaza, Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Minnesota, NR #12001173 3. 55 Ibid., 3. 56 Ibid., 3. 57 Ibid., 3. 58 M. Paul Friedberg (landscape architect), interview by Charles Birnbaum, The Cultural Landscape Foundation 2009.

PAGE 148

148 space did not want to be on city property 59 Despite the fact that the city offe red to lease the space to the owner, the restaurant owner caused the city to abandon the idea of a connecting restaurant, leaving an unfinished space. 60 Friedberg was hired by the city in 1979 to create a landscaped area to fill the gap 61 The Na tional Register In forming his plans for Peavey Plaza, Friedberg called on the design vocabulary that he had used so masterfully at Riis Plaza: an angular composition; a ground plan dominated by carefully detailed concrete, brick, and tile; a recessed area approached by stepped terraces, creating an informal amphitheater; fountains, pools, and falling water, which introduced an auditory el could accommodate a range of uses by individuals and groups; built in benches forming small seating areas; a lacy canopy of trees. 62 59 Ibid. 60 Ibid. 61 National Register of Historic Places, Peavey Plaza, Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Minnesota, NR #12001173 8. 62 Ibid., 12.

PAGE 149

149 Figure 6 1 Main fountain Peavey Plaza, 200 8 Courtesy of Charles Birnbaum, The Cultural Landscape Foundation Pickett, Keri The Cultural Landscape Foundation 200 8 http://tclf.org/landscapes/peavey plaza

PAGE 150

150 Figure 6 2 Sculptural elements Peavey Plaza, 2005 Courtesy of Charles Birnbaum, The Cultural Landscape Foundation The Cultural Landscape Foundation 2005. http://tclf.org/landscapes/peavey plaza

PAGE 151

151 Figure 6 3 Sculptural elements Peavey Plaza, 2005 Courtesy of Charles Birnbaum, The Cultural Landscape Foundation The Cultural Landscape Foundation 2005. http://tclf.o rg/landscapes/peavey plaza

PAGE 152

152 Figure 6 4 Sculptural elements Peavey Plaza, 2005 Courtesy of Charles Birnbaum, The Cultural Landscape Foundation The Cultural Landscape Foundation 2005. http://tclf.org/landscapes/peavey plaza

PAGE 153

153 Figure 6 5 Sculptural elements Peavey Plaza, 200 8 Courtesy of Charles Birnbaum, The Cultural Landscape Foundation Pickett, Keri The Cul tural Landscape Foundation 200 8 http://tclf.org/landscapes/peavey plaza Construction Formal groundbreaking for the plaza took place August 1, 1974. 63 A band of windows in the building looked into the depression caused by excavation for the orchestra hall. 64 The city offered to level the bowl, but Friedberg told them to leave it as a bowl. 65 Friedberg explained the ideation of the park plaza in an interview at Peavey Plaza with Charles Birnbaum in 20 06: 63 Ibid., 12. 64 Ibid., 12.

PAGE 154

154 pool that could be easily dr ained. We carried that same idea to Olympic Plaza in Calgary [Canada], as well. And it works beautifully in both cases. So when you want the space, the water just drains into a sump and its put We call it a park plaza. 66 By June 1975, the plaza was completed for a total cost of $3 million. 67 According to an article on the dedication, the Minneapolis Tribune described the new plaza, Peavey Plaza is described variously as a link between downtown a nd Loring Park, a charming complement to Orchestra Hall, a new attraction for visitors and an oasis amid the big city bustle. It is all of those, and more. The plaza . is a graceful and pleasant place for relaxation, entertainment and community events. Its size . and design enable it to accommodate both those who are there for activities and those there for inactivity. 68 Peavey Plaza was programmatically very successful during its first decade. Due to its sunken elevation, the plaza was helpful in b locking city noise from the streets, making it a prime location for concerts, shows, art installations, festivals, and individuals looking for a quiet place to rest or eat lunch. 69 Although the plaza featured a complex layout, it was a flexible space that offered a variety of possible activities 70 65 M. Paul Friedberg (landscape architect), interview by Charles Birnbaum, The Cultural Landscape Foundation 2009. 66 Ibid. 67 National Register of Historic Places, Peavey Plaza, Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Mi nnesota, NR #12001173 12. 68 Minneapolis Star Tribune June 11, 1975. 69 Historic American Landscapes Survey (HALS NO. MN 2), (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 2000), 7. 70 Ibid.

PAGE 155

155 In 1979, the space where the restaurant was intended to be placed was converted into a landscaped plaza space, also designed by Friedberg. 71 Beginning in July 1980, the Minnesota Orchestra began holding an annual event, Sommerfest, which featured food, drinks, and a variety of concerts held in the plaza over several weeks during the summer. 72 Sommerfest was a hit, and brought large crowds of music lovers and people watchers to Peavey Plaza every year. 73 For three weeks in July (and later, four) the Hall and Peavey Plaza were simply the place to be. The Plaza was renamed the Marktplatz, and quickly nicknamed the Platz. It swarmed with people buying brats and beer at the vendor stands while others took a break from the sun by ducking under the red and white table umbrellas for an ice cream cone. An endless stream of ensembles kept oom pah, barbershop, mariachi, jazz, klezmer, you name it, wafting over the best people wat ching spot in the entire city. milies enjoying music on the Plaza has been repeated over and over through the years. 74 Disrepair and Alterations In 1978, Peavey Plaza was awarded the ASLA Award for Professional Design. 75 The following year, Friedberg was made a Fellow of ASLA. 76 Friedberg, upon visiting the park in the 1980s, was pleased to see how the community had embraced and 71 M. Paul Friedberg (landscape architect), interview by Charles Birnbaum, The Cultural Landscape Foundation, 2009. 72 National Register of Historic Places, Peavey Plaza, Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Minnesota, NR #12001173 13. 73 Ibid., 13. 74 Minnesota Orchestra at One Hundred: A Collection of Essays and Images (Minneapo lis: Minnesota Orchestral Association, 2002), 131 145. 75 National Register of Historic Places, Peavey Plaza, Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Minnesota, NR #12001173 15. 76 Ibid., 15.

PAGE 156

156 utilized the plaza. 77 In 1999, the American Society of Landscape Architects awarded ogram. 78 By the early 2000s Peavey Plaza was beginning to suffer from heavy usage and lack of maintenance 79 According to the Historic American Landscapes Survey report several alterations occurred over the course of time. In 1997, new precast concrete r etaining walls were added along 12 th Street, replacing the original sloped beds with forsythia, barberry, and hosta plantings not included in original planning documents. 80 The following year, a similar concrete modular wall and plantings replaced the berm along Nicollet Mall. 81 In 1998, the replaced the existing concrete paver sidewalks, which matched the rest of the plaza, with generic gray poured concrete. 82 Wood edging was added to the planted areas. 83 In 2004, four of the honeylocust trees were removed by the Parks and Forestry Department, which had been responsible for tree care since about 1995. 84 The four trees, along with 85 77 Ibid., 15. 78 Ibid., 15. 79 Ibid., 15. 80 Historic American Landscapes Survey (HALS NO. MN 2), (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 2006), 2. 81 Ibid. 82 Ibid. 83 Ibid. 84 Ibid. 85 Ibid.

PAGE 157

157 In 2004, Charlen e Roise wrote an article for Landscape Architecture magazine. 86 Roise argued in her article that, at that point in the life of Peavey Plaza, the menace of 87 concrete block and railroad tie hard edged retaining walls. 88 A homeless presence was also growing in the plaza. 89 Several of th e honey locusts had been removed or had succumbed to disease. 90 Areas that pink 91 Despite the planting of 5,000 plants by schoolchildren earlier that year, the gesture the maintenance they required. 92 Planters inconsistent with the geometric, hard edged, modern character of the plaza had been placed throughout the site in an effort to revitali ze the space. 93 86 Landscape Architecture (2004): 30. 87 Ibid., 30. 88 Ibid., 30. 89 Ibid., 32. 90 Ibid., 32. 91 Ibid., 32. 92 Ibid., 32. 93 Ibid., 32.

PAGE 158

158 According to Roise, concrete had been insufficiently patched with material that did not match the original 94 Other areas of cracked concrete or pebble aggregate had not been patched at all. 95 The north end, where Friedberg had originally in tended to place the restaurant was 96 Since it was designed as an afterthought and on a limited budget, the space lacked the cohesiveness of the rest of the site and the connection remained unresolved 97 Although mostly inacti ve during the snowy winter months and the skating rink had not been used for many years, the plaza was still heavily used during the summer. 98 faulted with high maintenance, but Roise also charged the organization responsibl e for maintenance with inadequately stewarding the park. 99 Roise suggested that maintenance authority may have been better allocated to the Minnesota Parks and Recreation Board rather than the Minnesota Department of Public Works : While the department is relatively diligent, the loss of the berms, the decimation of the groves, indifferent repairs, and the insertion of flowerpot tchotchkes signal that the department can have the wrong instincts whe n . oration of light boxy bronze poles with exposed bulbs, a classic 1970s design proves that the Department of Public Works is capable of doing it right. 100 94 Ibid., 32. 95 Ibid., 32. 96 Ibid., 34. 97 Ibid., 34. 98 Ibid., 36. 99 Ibid., 36.

PAGE 159

159 With the openness of the Minnesota Orchestral Associa tion to discuss historic designation opportunities with the local ASLA chapter, Roise believed Peavey Plaza could potentially be preserved and serve as a case study for the treatment of post Wor l d War II properties. 101 By 2012, the fountains were no longer functioning, the concrete was crumbling and rebar exposed, and the reflecting pool was dried up. 102 Between 2004 and 2011, maintenance costs ranged between $176,000 to $284,000. 103 In spring 2012, the Orchestra Hall closed for a n extensive $45 million renova tion and members of the Minnesota Orchestral Association began to feel pressure to update the adjacent plaza, as well 104 Advocacy After the publication of Peavey Plaza in Landscape Architecture magazine in 2004, the local chapter of ASLA joined forces to g et the plaza listed on the Historic American Landscapes Survey (HALS). 105 The Minnesota chapter also attempted was abandoned after it became clear that powerful fact ions within the city government 100 Ibid., 36. 101 Ibid., 36. 102 New York Times May 16, 2012. 103 Minneapolis StarTribune April 18, 2012. 104 National Register of Historic Places, Peavey Plaza, Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Minnesota, NR #12001173 14. 105 Ibid., 14.

PAGE 160

160 106 In 2008, Peavey Plaza was listed on the 107 In November 2010, a public meeting was held to discuss the rehabilitation of Peavey Plaza. 108 At this meeting, t he city which owned 75% of the Friedberg designed plaza, formed a team to oversee the development of a plan for rehabilitation entitled the Com munity Engagement Committee 109 Head of the committee was Tom Oslund, a local landscape architect, principal of Oslund and Associates Paul Frie dberg, and Charles Birnbaum, of The Cultural Landscape Foundation. 110 On October 19, 2011, the new design concepts for Peavey Plaza were presented to the committee for selection. 111 Four concepts were developed: and a new ADA ramp on 12th Street, on of the large fountain at 12th Street and Nicollet Mall and other new design components, 106 Ibid., 14 107 Charlene Roise, "The Unfinished Saga of Peavey Plaza," Forum Journal 27, no. 2 (2013): 23 & 24, accessed November 7, 2013, http://tclf.org/sites/default/files/Forum Jour nal_Winter 2013.pdf 108 Huffington Post October 24, 2011, 2. 109 Huffington Post October 24, 2011, 2. New York Times May 16, 2012. 110 Huffington Post October 24, 2011, 2. 111 Ibid., 1.

PAGE 161

161 An alternative commons multi grade concept. 112 In a scenario that, according to Birnbaum, two are adve the discussion came down to restoration or redesign (which would require dem olition of the existing plaza) 113 The committee chose the new design. 114 Friedberg, Birnbaum, preservationists, landscape architects, and community member s were shocked 115 In an open letter to the citizens of Minneapolis on October 17 2011 Friedberg and Birnbaum stated: We agree that Peavey requires revitalization, however we do not advocate or support any scheme that destroys signature and key defining elements of the original design such an approach would be irresponsible. Where is the revitalization solution that builds on the creative and inventive aspects of the original? 116 Birnbaum stated that since the spring, he and Friedberg had been from the design process and only saw the proposed redesign the same day as the general and that the decision making had changed from a seemingly inclusive, community engaging process to a discussion between only the Minnesota Orchestral Association and the City of Minneapolis. 117 112 Planning Division Demolition of a Historic Resource, BZH 27287 113 Huffington Post October 24, 2011, 1. 114 Ibid., 1. 115 Ibid., 2. 116 Ibid., 2. 117 Ibid., 2.

PAGE 162

162 In an article in the Huffington Post on October 24, 2011, Charles Birnbaum outlined how he thought Minneapolis could right the wrongs that had occurred and start the planning process anew: So, with Peavey Plaza about to effec tively be bulldozed, what should be done? The City needs to reopen the design decisionmaking and insure transparency in the process. About 80% of the funds for the redesign will have to come from private sources and the most logical donor is Peavey's other neighbor, Target. Yes, that "big box" retailer. 118 Birnbaum cited the fact that Target was opening more urban stores (including a location in a Louis Sullivan designed building in Chicago), were generous sponsors of several design awards, and had recently o pened the Target Studio at the Weisman Art Museum. 119 With the sponsorship of Target, the City of Minneapolis could acquire the private funding necessary for a restoration. 120 In March 30, 2012, the City of Minneapolis applied for a demolition permit stating that Peavey Plaza was considered to be an impor tan t public space historically and: The Applicant does not contend that the demolition of the subject property is necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition. However, the Applicant states that the plaza is in poor condition and needs a substantial amount of repairs to allow it to function as it originally did. 121 Under the has proposed the rebuilding of a plaza a s a public gathering space. 122 The 118 Huffington Post October 24, 2011, 3. 119 Ibid., 3. 120 Ibid., 3. 121 Planning Division Demolition of a Historic Resource, BZH 27287 122 Ibid., 8.

PAGE 163

163 form stated that the pipes in the main fountains ha d become clogged and rusted and, in order to make repairs, much of the concrete would need to be removed. 123 Grosen stated that the disassembling of the fountain would mak e it difficult to replace the damaged or removed concrete with a consistent material to match the original. 124 Grosen also writes that renovating Peavey Plaza would require the addition of a 200 foot long accessibility ramp in order to bring the plaza up to current ADA standards, which would affect the integrity of the plaza. 125 The city also pointed out that Peavey Plaza did not meet ADA standards, did not utilize sustainable water use standards, was outdated and unsafe due to its sunken nature, and lacked adequate electrical supplies for large events. 126 Furthermore, they argued : [E] ven if it were a historic resource, there are no reasonable alternatives to the demolition of Peavey Plaza due to the great impact restoration work would have on the original materials of the Plaza, the high projected capital costs for renovation/replacement and the economic value and usefulness of the existing facility. 127 In addition, the city stated that potential contri butors would not want to fund a project that restored the park to its original design. 128 In April 17, 2012, members of the Preserve Minneapolis board, Bonnie McDonald, Executive Director of the Preservation Alliance of Minnesota, Christina 123 Ibid., 9 124 Ibid., 9. 125 Ibid., 9. 126 New York Times May 16, 2012. 127 form, Minneapolis, 2012), 2. 128 Ibid.

PAGE 164

164 Morris, Senior Fi eld Officer for The National Trust for Historic Preservation, Charles Birnbaum, Founder and President of The Cultural Landscape Foundation, and members of The Minnesota Chapter of DOCOMOMO US board combined their thoughts in a letter to the members of the Minneapolis Historic Preservation Commission. 129 (which called for the replacement of the two fountains) presented was the most expensive, at $8.7 million. 130 However, An n Calvert, principal project coordinator with the Minneapolis Community Planning and Economic Development agency, was quoted as stating that new construction would cost an estimated $8 million plus an additional $2 million, for a total of $10 million. 131 Th e letter also pointed out discrepancies in the proposed budget that the writers felt were unsubstantiated listings, such as a $1.8 granite in place at the plaza. 132 Th e demolition permit was denied with the Historic Preservation Commission voting 8 1 to delay demolition of Peavey Plaza, finding fault with the c replacement of Peavey and lack of transparency for not publicly presenting any of the alternative plans developed for the plaza. 133 The vote included 180 days of interim 129 Preserve Peavey et al., in a letter to the Minneapolis Historic Preservation Commission, April 17, 2012. 130 Ibid. 131 Ibid. 132 Ibid. 133 Landslid e: Spotlight on the Garden, last modified April 19, 2012, accessed November 7, 2013, http://tclf.org/landslides/Peavey Plaza Heritage Preservation %20 Commission Delays Demolition

PAGE 165

165 protection for the plaza and an order for the city to perform a study to consider the site for de signation as a local landmark. 134 Minneapolis statutes specified that the only way the commission could approve demolition was if there were no reasonable alternatives to demolition. 135 The writers requested that the demolition request by the city be denied interim protection for a period of 180 days to explore alternatives to demolition. 136 On April 26, 2012, the city submitted an appeal to the Historic Preservation Commission. 137 During the hearing, the city council ov erturned the Historic provisions for a designation study and interim protection period. 138 The Cultural Landscape Foundation and the Preservation Alliance of Minnesota, on May 16, 2012, presented a new concept for Peavey Plaza, designed by original designer, Friedberg. 139 while maintaining its signature and defining elements. 140 The new concept by 134 Charlene Roise, "The Unfinished Saga of Peavey Plaza," Forum Journal 27, no. 2 (2013): 25, accessed November 7, 2013, http://tclf.org/sit es/default/files/Forum Journal_Winter 2013.pdf 135 Preserve Peavey et al., in a letter to the Minneapolis Historic Preservation Commission, April 17, 2012. 136 Ibid. 137 Ibid. 138 Charlene Roise, "The Unfinished Saga of Peavey Plaza," Forum Journal 27, no. 2 (2013): 25, accessed November 7, 2013, http://tclf.org/sites/default/files/Forum Journal_Winter 2013.pdf 139 New York Times May 16, 2012. 140 Landslide: Spotlight on the Garden, last modified May 16, 2012, accessed November 8, 2013, http://tclf.org/landslides/m paul friedberg creates new concept for peavey plaza

PAGE 166

166 Fried berg was estimated to be equal or less than the proposed plan by the city. 141 On June 28, 2012, Birnbaum and Friedberg released a statement announcing that The Cultural Landscape Foundation and the Preservation Alliance of Minnesota were filing suit against the City of Minneapolis to protect Peavey Plaza. 142 Birnbaum explained, he City has forced us to take. City officials are possessed with the notion that Peavey must condition justifies demoliti on. In essence, they admit that they broke it and then c 143 The group argued that Peavey Plaza was protected under the Minnesota Environmental Right Act (MERA), allowing The Cultural Landscape Foundation and the Preservation Al right to ask a court to enjoin the City of Minneapolis from demolishing historic resources and to force the City to consider reasonable alternatives to demolition. 144 In their complaint, the groups stated that the City of Minneap olis 141 Landslide: Spotlight on the Garden, last modified May 16, 2012, accessed November 8, 2013, http://tclf.org/landslides/m paul friedberg creates new concept for peavey plaza 142 D.C., June 28, 2012). 143 Ibid. 144 Ibid.

PAGE 167

167 most expensive, yet refused to release full cost estimate information and plan details for all concepts explored. 145 During the extended discussions Peavey Plaza was listed on the National Register of Historic Places on January 14, 2013. 146 permit expired in June 2013. 147 Finally, after months of debate, the two parties reached a settlement agreement on October 4, 2013. 148 145 Minneapolis, Minnesota, 27 CV 12 146 scape Foundation v. City of Minneapolis, Minnesota, 27 CV 12 147 Minneapolis StarTribune September 8, 2013. 148 Minneapolis StarTribune October 4, 2013.

PAGE 168

168 Figure 6 6 Locals sit next to the reflecting pool at Peavey Plaza, 2012 Sennott, Richard Minnesota StarTribune Heritage Preservation Commission torpedoes Peavey Plaza plan April 18, 2012. http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/148027845.html Figure 6 7 Steps down to the plaza from the Orchestra Hall, 2012 Sennott, Richard Minnesota StarTribune Heritage P reservation Commission torpedoes Peavey Plaza plan http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/148027845.html

PAGE 169

169 Figure 6 8 Visitors rest on the steps, August 2013 Pinkley, Jenni Minnesota StarTribune Fight over Peavey Plaza settled: it will be rehabbed August 1, 2013. http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/226542671.html

PAGE 170

170 Figure 6 9 A flower pot inconsistent with the modern theme 2004 Roise, Charlene K. Landscape Architecture (2004): 32 Figure 6 10 Peavey Plaza, 2004 Landscape Architecture (2004): 3 4 Figure 6 11 Railroad ties hold back the soil in the original planted berms, 2004 Roise, housand Patches: Shoddy maintenance nibbles Landscape Architecture (2004): 35

PAGE 171

171 Figure 6 12 The juxtaposition of the original concrete stairs with an inconsistent new planter retaining wall, 2004 a Thousand Landscape Architecture (2004): 36 Figure 6 13 A garbage can takes the place of an original honeylocust, 2004 Roise, nibbles Landscape Architecture (2004): 37

PAGE 172

172 Treatment In the settlement agreement, both parties agreed on the rehabilitation approach, S tandards for the T reatment of H istoric P roperties and G uidelines for the T reatment of C ultural L andscapes by the National Park Service. 149 The City agreed that, for three years after the agreement, it would send two 150 Acco integrates design features and elements that reflect the interests of the City as owner 151 Th e City requested that the rehabilitation design include necessary repairs to damaged paved surfaces, stairs, and other concrete site elements, retrofit ting the existing ramp to function as a service ramp, modification of the existing light poles for ease o f access, consideration of the use of railings for accessibility, additional ADA accessibility options to the reflecting basin, grouting or covering with a metal plate a cavity beneath stair treads, and consider ing relocation of the set of stairs parallel to 11 th Street a few feet to the southwest to allow space for vendor accommodations. 152 The scheme by Oslund and Associates currently in place will replace damaged surface paving, remove and replant several walls on the north end of the site, raise the ba sin two feet to meet the existing lower plaza level, add an accessibility ramp and a 149 Minneapolis, Minnesota, 27 CV 12 agreement, Minneapolis, 2013), 4. 150 Ibid., 6. 151 Ibid., 7. 152 Ibid., 8.

PAGE 173

173 sidewalk to the south for egress. 153 Construction is slated to begin in the summer of 2015 and the budget is at $2.3 million. 154 Summary of Issues In the case of Peavey Plaza declining maintenance and some initial flaws in the design resulted in considerable miscommunication leading to a battle over restoration Information and False Choice Huffington Post on April 11, 2012, discusse d the role of politics in the destruction of the historic landscapes built in the recent past. 155 156 planning process and that the only people stating that complete restoration was an option were city officials. 157 Friedberg and Birnbaum were not arguing for a accessib 158 According to Birnbaum, the arguments from the city were flawed For example, Birnbaum state d that the Department of Community Planning and Economic 153 Ibid., 9. 154 Ibid., 10. 155 Huffington Post April 11, 2012. 156 Ibid. 157 Ibid. 158 Ibid.

PAGE 174

174 Development wrote in a recent report that adding an accessibility ramp to Peavey Plaza solution was demolition. 159 In addition, another reason for demolition was the poor condition of Peave y Plaza. 160 However, the city admitted to cutting back on maintenance because they expected a redesign or demolition in the near future. 161 Finally, Birnbaum suggested that the city was not being appropriately transparent with their numbers and needed to fur ther explain and clarify how their estimates were generated. 162 Birnbaum believed that funding opportunities were available through organizations that served on the Minneapolis Orchestra Hall board such a s Wells Fargo, U.S. Bancorp, General Mills, RBC Wealt h management, or the adjacent Target 163 Birnbaum addresse d contribute funds to restoration of Peavey Plaza, A couple of problems here: 1. There's the circular logic of that complete restoration false option again (does anyone else feel like they're watching a cat chase its tail?) 2. It's sounds like the city has already poisoned the well for any options other than destruction. Once Rybak gets his big hole in the ground, funders will miraculously come tumbling of the sky like so many putti from the clouds in an Italian Baroque painting to pay for the new park. 164 Friedberg, in his 2006 on site interview with The Cultural Landscape Foundation, admitted there were some portions of the site that he would change. He suggested the 159 Ibid. 160 Ibid. 161 Ibid. 162 Ibid. 163 Ibid. 164 Ibid.

PAGE 175

175 addition of a temporary structure that could be used as an event pavilion in the summer, 165 He noted that some of the planting needed to be replaced and trees pruned, and expressed disappointment in th e awkward connection that occurred where the restaurant was intended to be located. 166 Friedberg noted that some repointing was needed and that, while the hanging lights Minneap olis harsh climate. 167 Friedberg, Birnbaum, and others in the community believed that Peavey Plaza was a valuable historic resource and that the City of Minneapolis and the Minnesota vely shutting 168 The City of Minneapolis and the Minneapolis Orchestral Association did not believe restoration was financially or physically feasible and desired a new and modern, accessible, sustainable, crime free plaza. With a new settlement agreement in place, it will be interesting to see what the future holds for Peavey Plaza and what lessons can be learned from this process. 165 M. Paul Friedberg (landscape architect), interview by Charles Birnbaum, The Cultural Landscape Foundation, 2009. 166 Ibid. 167 Ibid. 168 Minnesota StarTribune October 27, 2011.

PAGE 176

176 CHAPTER 7 ANALYSIS & FINDINGS Analysis Introduction The objective of t his thesis is to determine the main issues that caused the park to decline, what brought about advocacy efforts, how did preservation plans originate, and h ow those plans were carried out. From this analysis of common themes can be generated a model that will educate professionals and city officials undertaking a similar project. Examination of the case studie s has resulted in the discovery of commonalities. In this analysis portion, a discussion of the most common themes will occur Main themes address ed are maintenance failure communication, and the inevitable evolution of public space research will assist professionals to learn from historical mistakes and improve preservation of modern urban park plazas. Maintenan ce Failure Lack of maintenance appears to be the primary root of many preservation challenges The decline of many modern landscape s is often based on maintenance failure. Why are modern landscapes so susceptible to failed maintenance? Four main reasons exist: They are often expensive to maintain due to the fact that t hey are often high designs intended as showcases and city centers, requir ing a certain level of expertise to ma intain Management priorities and resources can change over time, leading to neglect or decreased funds allocated to maintenance. Modern landscapes were often constructed using innovative materials that sometimes decline at a faster rate than time tested classic materials due to their experimental nature Occasionally original design flaws lead to an increased rate of deterioration

PAGE 177

177 As was the case in all three of the case studies presented, modern landscapes, due to their design, tend to require more maintenance t han a typical urban park plaza. Many modern plazas were built as public showcases of modernism and progress. They are therefore oftentimes considered high design and typically incorporate innovative materia ls and technologies (such as non traditional fountains or parks over parking garages ), which require ad ditional cost to maintain properly over the years. 1 Iain Robertson, in his article on the replanting of Freeway Park in Seattle, explains the importance of management in the preservation of a historic landscape: The question of the "ownership" of iconic p arks is not trivial and is particularly complex and pertinent when we consider their living plant components. Day to day maintenance decisions about the upkeep and preferred character of plants have cumulative long term effects on the form and character of living landscapes. They are a form of design. In other words, management decisions about caring for plants, such as what is removed and what is added, are a form of ongoing design. Who makes these kinds of design decisions? On what basis are they made? H as the original designer left guidelines for making such decisions? When we began our work, the park's condition was a product of plant growth from the original design which had subsequently been modified, augmented, reinforced, and overlaid by the cumulat ive effects of maintenance and management decisions. The effects of these latter decisions have a relevance that should be considered alongside the original intent in the replanting. 2 Without proper funding, maintenance cannot be executed adequately Ken Smith, a landscape ar chitect in New York, in an essay 1 John Morris Dixon, "Geometer's tower" Progressive Architecture 70, no. 2 (1989): 59, accesse d September 19, 2013, http://go.galegroup.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA7055986&v=2.1&u=gain40375&it=r&p=AO NE&sw=w 2 Landscape Journal 31, 1 2 (2012): 94 95.

PAGE 178

178 a lack of 3 C hanges in man agement priorities over time can often lead to neglect If a ndscape as a drain on resources, obsolete, a center for crime, inaccessible, or just visually displeasing, a shift in the budget will often occur. Birnbaum, in a pho ne interview, said that t here is often a knee jerk reaction for change when a park has not been maintained and is in decline ; s ometimes site events and crimes cause negative reactions. 4 Often the knee jerk react ion to crime is to start over instead of fi xing the problem, removing everything without thought to preserving significant characteristics or original design intent. For example, according to Birnbaum, much of original understory plant materials were removed in the 19 60 s and 19 70s to improve sight lines. 5 Birnbaum explain s Very often during the modern era, there was experimentation with new materials, and many times it failed. It is difficult to preserve a modern era landscape following the standards from NPS because they say to preserve as many original materials as possible. People feel safe in well maintained environments, when f ountains are functioning and the plant material is healthy. 6 3 Ken Smith, in Preserving Modern Landscape Architecture: Papers from th e Wave Hill National Park Service Conference ed.by Charles A. Birnbaum (Cambridge: Spacemaker Press, 1995), 50 52. 4 Charles Birnbaum (Founder and President of The Cultural Landscape Foundation), phone interview with the author, September 12, 2013. 5 Ib id. 6 Ibid.

PAGE 179

179 According to Charles modern designs [are] now reaching 50 years of age and qualified for designation, while simultaneously their preservation is threatened 7 The use of innova tive material, one of the distinctive qualities of modern design, also tends to be a catalyst for deterioration and material failure. 8 M odernism was a period of experimentation and pushing limits. New materials w ere utilized and, as is the nature of expe riments, some failed and some succeeded. However, the materials that failed (e.g., spalling tiles and leaking roofs) caused extensive problems for management over time, making costly repairs necessary. O ccasionally, a flaw in the o riginal design will lead to material failures or a ct as a catalyst increasing the rate of deterioration. In addition, due to the innovative nature of modern design in landscape architecture, technical failures are bound to happen. As can be seen in the rooftop Kiley Garden and Mellon Square, since roof garden technology was an innovative concept and designers were testing new ideas, structural issues arose (although more in Kiley Garden than in Mellon Square) because the methods for roof garden construction had not yet been prov en. Contractor flaws in installation or original product defects can also cause issues from construction such as s main fountain and incorrectly installed aluminum handrails and defective waffle slabs that held water at Kiley Garden 9 7 Charles A. Birnbaum, "Expanding the Field: Modern Landscape Architecture and Historic Preservation," Forum Journal 27, no. 2 (2013): 3, accessed August 5, 2013, http://tclf.org/sites/default/files/Forum Journal_Winter 2013.pdf 8 Theodore H. M. Prudon, Preserving Modern Architecture (Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2008), 23. 9 Pittsburgh Post Gazette October 18, 1955.

PAGE 180

180 C ommunication Issues Major i ssues that occur in communication can include : M isunderstandings of terminology due to insufficie nt definition Lack of transparency C onfusion ove r stewardship responsibilities M iscommunication be tween various i nvolved parties. Ron Sill referred to preservation field could refer to any somewhat historically referential intervention that was not technically a restoration in Landscapes. 10 In the case of Peavey Plaza, city officials misinterpreted the suggestions from Birnbaum and Friedberg to mean a strict restoration, wh en instead what the two were proposing was an adaptation. Birnbaum writes in his book Making Educated Decisions : Beyond these specific publications, readers are often challenged by conflicting approaches in landscape preservation literature, practice poli cy, example, in Pacific Horticulture, a regional journal which focuses on California gardens and landscapes, the use of treatment terminology (e.g. restoration) is often ambiguous, leav in g the reader to wonder if the Standards and Guidelines were, in fact, followed. 11 Inconsistency in operational definitions can lead to a false misconception about the end product in a preservation project. Many times, Birnbaum states, this leads to the David Vaughn (Director of Contract Administration, City of Tampa), interview via email with the author, August 3, 2013. 10 Ronald Sill (landscape architect at RS&H), interview at Kiley Garden with the author, August 17, 2013. 11 Charles A. Birnbaum a nd Heather L. Barrett, eds., Making Educated Decisions: a landscape preservation bibliography (Washington, D.C.: Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Historic Landscape Initiative, 2000), ii.

PAGE 181

181 m isconception that new design and restoration are mutually exclusive. 12 However, of design and restoration . forcefully demonstrates what can be accom plished when the two are paired, such as: Bryant Park, Columbus Circle, and Madison Green in New York City; Daley Plaza, Federal Center Plaza, and the Lily Pool in Chicago; Logan Square and the Rodin Museum in Philadelphia . ; and, Mellon Square and Allegheny Commons in Pittsburgh. 13 Lack of transparency can also lead to issues in the preservation process. Members of the community can be forgotten in the discussion between a city and the firm hired to repair or make alterations to a site. In the situation of P eavey Plaza, Friedberg, Birnbaum, and community members were not adequately informed about the project the city had undertaken. 14 Likewise, the Friends of Kiley Garden group and other preservation advocates were upset when the City of Tampa and RS&H were q uiet about the changes to Kiley Garden. 15 Many modern plazas suffer as a result of confusion over stewardship roles and responsibility Private/public partnerships can be useful for generating funding for construction, however, if there is miscommunicatio n over which party will be providing park maintenance, a landscape will quickly deteriorate as in the case of Kiley Garden 16 12 Huffington Post October 24 ,2011. 13 Ibid. 14 Huffington Post October 24, 2011, 1. 15 Tampa Bay Times March 16, 2006. Chris Vela (member of Friends of Kiley Garden), interview via email with the author, August 3, 2013.

PAGE 182

182 There are many different scenarios where m isunderstanding and miscommunication between individuals or groups can take place during the preservation process. Disagreements can arise between the community that uses the park regularly the community that appreciates the park for its historical value, investors or other parties with vested interest s private business owners in the commu nity surrounding the park, the city, the preservation firm, the original designer(s), the contractors, and the advocates to name a few. Therefore, there are many parties that can end up being dissatisfied or even upset about preservation efforts if appro priate communication is not maintained Inevitable Evolution of Public Space Another major cause of decline in m odern landscape park plazas is changing external factors. These changes or events can alter the way a park is used or perceived: Changes in use Changes in c ontext Changes in public perception and opinion Changes in media coverage portrayal Changes in use can occur due to physical changes to the environment of the park plaza (e.g. the removal of water fountains or plant material), which can nega tively affect esthetic value. Changes in use can also occur due to lack of programming, causing the park to become less of a destination for events and gatherings. 16 Landscape Architecture 94, no. 4 (April 2004): 107.

PAGE 183

183 Changes in context can also deeply effect an urban park or pla za. A downturn in the local, national, or international economies closes businesses, which, in turn, causes gaps to appear in the urban fabric in the form of vacant buildings. Similarly, a boom in the economy can cause structures to emerge. Visitation t o a park is dependent on its physical surroundings. In the case of Kiley Garden, the plaza. 17 Mellon Square, conversely, is currently undergoing a restoration in the middle of a block of buildings in which the majority have recently been filled with new tenants bring ing large numbers of business people and shoppers to the square. 18 Innovation and change in transportation methods can also affect how visitors travel to a downto wn park or plaza. Finally, changes in social dynamics ca especially during the s and 70s. 19 Alison Isenberg, in her book Downtown America: A History of the Place and the People Who Made It attempt ed to debunk the myth that the deterioration of downtown Main Street is due to uncontrollable economic forces. Instead, Isenberg argues, downtown has consistently faced a roller coaster of booms and busts, deterioration and rebuilding, throughout the past f ew centuries. 20 Isenburg suggest ed that the fate of downtown Main Street has changed significantly due to decisions and actions by city officials, citizens, businessmen, investors, 17 Cambridge, September 2007), 2.16. 18 Susan Rademacher (Parks Curator, Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy), interview with the author at Mellon Square, July 25, 2013. 19 Alison Isenberg, Downtown America: A History of the Place and the People Who Made It (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2004), 169. 20 Ibid., 3.

PAGE 184

184 preservationists, developers, and advocacy groups. 21 Isenberg discusses the role of women as advocates for civic responsibility during the City Beautiful Movement during the turn of the century and the change in the portrayal of women shoppers that occurred in the 1920s, causing developers to realize that women were, in fact, rat ional shoppers whose decision making process may be useful to track. 22 During the Depression Era, business owners found that, due to cheap labor and material costs, upgrading and modernizing a building improved business and cost less than building a new st ructure reducing new construction 23 The impact of both world wars had a great impact on downtown environments and social dynamics. The huge influx of World War II soldiers returning to America created a n increased demand for housing, and suburban develop ments became the modern way to live, away from the urban cores. 24 During the mid century urban renewal would, with the same goal of modernization as in the Depression Era completely eliminate entire blocks of historic structures in the hopes of revitali zing polluted and crowded downtowns 25 The national Civil Rights movement also dramatically affected urban areas. Downtown became the seat of social unrest, and picketing added a new dimension to the downtown economic. 26 Many business owners downtown were afraid of violence during protests and moved. 27 Today, t he 21 Ibid., 6. 22 Ibid., 29 & 78. 23 Ibid., 147. 24 Ibid., 169. 25 Ibid., 170. 26 Ibid., 222. 27 Ibid., 240.

PAGE 185

185 current sweep of sustainability has also had a huge impact on change in the way that architects, planners, and landscape architects approach design projects P rogressive cities are increasingly s earching for more ways to reuse, recycle, and utilize resources in a way that is more maintainable and cost effective plans incorporate sustainable measures or guidelines into their long term goals. This increased awareness has also led to much building reuse, especially downtown. 28 Lack of proper maintenance in a park can cause plants to become overgrown, pavement to crack and rise, and primary utilities to be shut down, such as lighting and water. This leads to an unkempt appearance, causing users to perceive the area as unused, therefore undesirable, unsafe, and inaccessible. 29 Public perception and opinion of a park can turn negative if the public believes a park is outdated. A common feature in many modern plazas (including the case studies presented) is concealment from street view, with the space being either raised or sunken. While this creates a sense of arrival, it can also be perceived as dangerous, since people cannot be see n from the street. 30 Lawrence Halpr for example, has become the site of multiple murders, robberies, and other crimes due to its terraced concrete features, reducing visibility and allowing criminals to escape 31 In 28 Ibid., 285. 29 CrimeWise.com last modified 1995, accessed October 22, 2013, http://www.crimewise.com/library/cpted.html 30 William Whyte, The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces (Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation 1980), 58. 31 The Stranger August 22 August 28, 2002, http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=11685

PAGE 186

186 other cases, a raised or sunken park may even be completely overlooked. 32 L ack of visibility can cause the park to be forgotten over time. According to Walker and Simo in Invisible Gardens dscape architecture, and among those who were aware, attitudes have changed over the past 33 Oftentimes, misrepresentation in the press can perpetuate a false image of the park. Politics and t he press can do much to affect public perception, according to Charles Birnbaum. 34 During the Peavey Plaza debate, the media displayed limited options for restoration, citing it as too expensive. However, the entirety of the design process and all possibl e design options were not represented in the Minneapolis press. 35 Disparity may also exist in the representation of the park in the media and the park in reality. While Kiley Garden was lauded with much praise and many design awards from the design commun ity, the park was never heavily used by the Tampa Findings From analysis of the case studies, three main themes have emerged, which have been broken down into specific points: Mainten ance Failure 32 William Whyte, The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces (Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation, 1980), 58. 33 Peter Walker and Melanie Simo, Invisible Gardens (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1996): 313. 34 Charles Birnbaum (Founder and President of The Cultural Landscape Foundation), phone interview with the author, September 12, 2013. 35 Huffington Post October 24, 2011, 1. Charles Birnbaum (Founder and President of The Cultural Landscape Foundation), phone interview with the author, September 12, 2013.

PAGE 187

187 Lack of funds Changing management priorities Quickly deteriorating innovative materials Original design flaws Communication Issues Inconsistency in operational definitions and terminology Lack of transparency in public planning procedure Confu sion over stewardship responsibilities Miscommunication between involved parties Inevitable Evolution of Public Space Changes in use Changes in context Changes in public perception and opinion Change s in media coverage portrayal These were the primary contributing issues that lead to the gradual deterioration of the se modern urban park plazas studied an d hinder ed preservation efforts in the case of these spaces In the following chapter, considerations for the treatment of modern urban lan dscapes are discussed. These considerations have been developed to assist city employees, landscape architects, and preservationists in this process.

PAGE 188

188 CHAPTER 8 CONCLUSION Consideration s for the Treatment of Modern Urban Landscapes Introduction M od ern ur ban landscapes are becoming an endangered species, facing threats of insensitive adaptations neglect, and demolition. C onsiderations were determined based on the analysis and findings presented A fter careful study of the case studies presented in this paper a list of common issues that cause initial failure and encumber the effective preservation of modern urban landscapes was compiled A step by step examination of each issue on this list resulted in the development of solutions in response to each individual problem presented in the findings. B y no means is this list comprehensive Hopefully these considerations will provide a preliminary framework on which a future, more in depth, list of considerations may be produced The list of considerations includes: Develep a long term management plan Ensure clarity of terminology Involve the community Strive for transparency Perform research and documentation Develop a long term management plan Since plants are a dynamic and li ving material, landscapes have an added level of complexity, requiring continuous and consistent maintenance. By outlining a plan that can be followed, stability in landscape management of a modern urban park plaza can be ensured A long term management plan will prevent neglect and inappropriate maintenance procedures and will streamline the maintenance process, avoiding costly

PAGE 189

189 ineffectiveness. 1 Michael Van Valkenburgh, FASLA, writing for Landscape Architecture Magazine argues for landscape architects to become more involved in the post construction life of their projects. 2 Van V alkenburgh explains that designers (in these case s preservationists as well ) must discuss with clients (in these case s the city) how 3 Oftentim es modern park plazas require additional maintenance expertise due to their complex nature and experimental materials For example, Kiley Garden cannot be successfully maintained by a regular city maintenance process. Preservationists should either make certain that the staff responsible for maintenance is adequately trained or re design aspects of the park for lower maintenance standards. In order to formulate a long term management plan, p reservationists and landscape architects charged with developing a long term management plan can consult various case studies such as Mellon Square, Central Park, or Freeway Park In addition, the National Park Service report Developing a Preservation Maintenance Plan for a Histo ric Landscape, may be a source to refer to, however, it may not be a completely accurate document for modern urban park plaza rehabilitation projects. 4 The principal reason for a lack of maintenance is lack of funding. Changin g management prioriti es are characteristically a res ult of tightened budgets. When 1 Landscape Architecture Magazine March 2013, http://landscapearchitecturemagazine.org/2013/03/14/landscapes over time/ 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. 4 Preservation Maintenance Plan for a Historic Landscap Preservation, National Park Service, Boston, 1998).

PAGE 190

190 funding for park maintenance is inadequate a cycle of negle c t deterioration, and negative public perception begins. 5 Confusion over stewardship responsibilities should be resolved during the treatment planning process before the intervention construction begins Ambiguity over these responsibilities can cause many headaches in the long run. While public properties are typically maintained by the city, in the case of a landscape requiring hi gh maintenance, such as a modern park plaza, stewardship may be more effectively carried out under the care of a non profit group. As can be seen in the case of the Miller House and Gardens, which has been well maintained by the Miller family, modern resi dential landscapes typically receive better care than their publically owned counterparts. 6 Ideally responsibility for maintenance should go to a group dedicated to the beautification and maintenance of the park. A group responsible for the care of maintenance can be a non profit organization specifically formed for that purpose, or a volunteer group Bryant Park, in Washington, D.C., is maintained by the Bryant Park not for profit, private management company and a cooperating busine ss improvement district of neighboring property owners contributors Daniel A. Biederman and Andrew Heiskell, with assistance from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund 7 Care and restoration of Mellon Square is the responsibility of the Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy, with funding and grants provided by various local foundations, including the Colcom Foundation, the Richard King Mellon Foundation, and 5 Charles Birnbaum (Founder and President of The Cultural Landscape Foundation), phone interview with the author, September 12, 2013. 6 Ibid. 7 Bryant Park accessed December 19, 2013, http://www.bryantpark.org/about us/management.html

PAGE 191

191 the BNY Mellon Charitable Foundation. 8 It may prove difficult to recruit and rely on a v olunteer group to claim full responsibility for the care of the park, therefore, if adequate sponsorship is available, formation of a non profit organization for the care of the landscape (and possibly other proximate urban parks and plazas) is recommended While t he city should contribute financial support other funding is necessary to properly maintain a modern park plaza Public /private partnerships, vendor rentals, volunteer groups, fundraising campaigns, and grants are all viable options for raising additional maintenance funds. 9 While the initial construction of a park may have been well financed, most private donors did not take into consideration the routine maintenance costs required to keep the innovative modern park plazas functioning. Buildin g partnerships with local business owners, especially those with adjacencies to the park plaza, may be the most beneficial in terms of generating sponsorships from private stakeholders. 10 As Van Valkenburgh says, Maintenance is one of the easiest budget l ine items to cut, and the people have forgotten that cuts had been made. People put their energy into the good deed of creating public parks; keeping them in good shape is much les s sexy, requiring patient, routine, never ending labor. 11 8 Susan Rademacher, "Reviving the Square in the Heart of the Triangle," Forum Journal 27, no. 2 (2013): 13 & 18. 9 Landscape Journal 17, no. 1 (Spring 1998): 9. 10 Charles Birnbaum (Founder and President of The Cultural Landscape Foundation), interview with the author, September 12, 2013. 11 Landscape Architecture Magazine March 2013, http://landscapearchitectur emagazine.org/2013/03/14/landscapes over time/

PAGE 192

192 Ensure clarity of termino logy Inconsistency in terminology can lead to multiple problems and much misunderstanding during the preservation process. T erms should be defined, and explained to all invo lved members, at the beginning of a project. Confusion over terminology led many involved in the Peavey Plaza project to be confused, thinking The Cultural Landscape Foundation and Paul Friedberg only desired a restoration, when in actuality they were proprosing rehabilitation. The scope of the project should also be clearly defined and subsequently observed. In addition, all members involved in the sense of connecti on of the site in stakeholders and other involved parties will foster a cooperative working environment for the duration of the project. When approaching the planning process, u Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural L andscapes Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties for consistency Although these documents focus mainly on the preservation of historic landscapes and structures and are not completely applicable to modern l andscape architecture they are still the primary sources for treatment of historic properties. Hopefully in the future, a revised set of guidelines will be generated that is more conducive to the preservation of specific eras and styles of landscapes i Quickly deteriorating innovative materials can be difficult to address, since many times they are character defining features. However, if replacement is necessary, b ased on the Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes a nd materials research, determine a compatible substitute. If original plans are available, c onsult

PAGE 193

193 original construction documents to see if modern materials can be replaced with an appropriate substitute. Similarly, o riginal design flaws are unavoidable and, unfortunately, are not always easy to resolve. Because of the sensitive nature of modern landscapes, it is important to carefully determine the appropriate treatment in order to maintain the original character of the site. Refer to the Guidelines fo r Treatment of Cultural Landscapes If possible, c onsult the original construction documents as builts, site visit reports, and other documents available from construction to ensure accurate fabrication and placement of replaced features. Inevitably, plant material will age over time and eventually need to be replaced. When replacing these plants, it is important to substitute with the same species. However, s ometimes the originally specified plants are unsuitable for the site. In these cases, if it is absolutely necessary to replace with a different species, appropriate substitute plants must be researched to ensure the new plant material is compatible in size, maintenance requirements, appearance, and will not otherwise affect the chara cteristic of the landscape Replacement during a preservation treatment, however, is limited to only extensively deteriorated plants, so be knowledgeable of the constraints of choosing a preservation treatment. 12 12 National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior accessed December 19, 2013, http://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/four treatments/landscape guidelines/preserve/vegetation.htm

PAGE 194

19 4 As Charles Birnbaum wrote in his suggestion s for preserving contemporary landscape architecture: if possible, consult with the original designer. 13 This can greatly assist in achieving accuracy and ensuring continuation of the original design intent. Sometimes, in the case of M. Paul Friedberg and his plan for Peavey Plaza, the original designer may even generate an improved treatment plan for increased access, use, and interest. 14 Strive for transparency Lack of transparency in public planning procedure can create serious issues in the planning pro cess, leading to major conflict and even lawsuits in local, regional, or even national preservation groups, architects, landscape architects, and members of the community, as can be seen in the cases of Kiley Garden and Peavey Plaza. Cities should increa se their level of transparency through public participation meetings, discussion forums, and openness, presenting all feasible options for the future of the park. Terminology should be stated outright at the origin of the project, to avoid confusion. If possible, contact the original designer or design firm and utilize their advice on modifying the park for contemporary use. 15 Debate and miscommunication are to be expected when parties involved in a project have different motives. Meetings should be held often to ensure that everyone is concurring. If there is major disagreement or ambiguity, it is not advisable to proceed. 13 Change Itself?, Preserving Modern Landscape Architecture: Papers from the Wave Hill National Park Service Conference ed.by Charles A. Birnbaum (Cambridge: Spacemaker Press, 1995), 7. 14 Charles Birnbaum (Founder and President of The Cultural Landscape Foundation), phone interview with the author, September 12, 2013. 15 Preser ving Modern Landscape Architecture: Papers from the Wave Hill National Park Service Conference ed.by Charles A. Birnbaum (Cambridge: Spacemaker Press, 1995), 7.

PAGE 195

195 Most likely, all parties will have to make some concessions, however, it is ideal if all individuals are united in their vision for compromise will sabotage the success of a project. First and foremost, appropriate and accurate information must be provid ed to the media. Complete transparency and access to all necessary facts, figures, press releases, meeting minutes, and documents will give the press less impetus to invent or misinterpret information. In addition, finding a cooperative newspaper to util ize as a medium to effectively communicate the intentions of the planners and the park can be advantageous. 16 It is impossible, however, to be in control all possible media outputs. Transparency and provision of accessible public information is the best m ethod to avoid misrepresentation. 17 Perform research and documentation First, thorough historical and contextual research should be undertaken. City significance, cha racter, and designer. Without this historical research, there is no accurate foundation to build upon. Original documents, master plans, planting palettes, construction documents, multimedia, correspondence, newspaper articles, oral histories, and photog raphs, should be carefully recorded, gathered, and kept in a safe space, if they are not already. 18 Although finding a home for collections and a 16 Charles Birnbaum (Founder and President of The Cultural Landscape Foundation), phone intervi ew with the author, September 12, 2013. 17 Ibid. 18 Preserving Modern Landscape Architecture: Papers from the Wave Hill National Park Service C onference ed.by Charles A. Birnbaum (Cambridge: Spacemaker Press, 1995), 8.

PAGE 196

196 landscape architect willing to donate to an archive can be difficult, Charles Birnbaum 19 The work of influential landscape architects should be preserved for the education and enjoyment of future generations. If a landscape is found to be eligible for local designation, the National Registe r of Historic Places, or the National Historic Landmarks, nomination should be pursued. National Historic Landmarks were established as a part of the Historic Sites Act of 1935. 20 The National Register of Historic Places was established as a part of the N ational Historic Preservation Act of 1966, which a uthorized the Secretary of Interior to 21 Designation to the National Register of Historic Places, while it does not guarantee against demolition or alteration. However, listing in the NRHP does raise awareness of the significance of a site, increase documentation, include the site in considerations in planning for federal projects through the provisions in Section 106, provide potential qualifica tion opportunities for tax provisions, and provide potential qualification for federal grants for preservation (to eligible sites). 22 The National Register does not generally make exceptions for properties that have achieved significance in the past 50 yea rs, however, many properties that are considered modern are now crossing that line and may be eligible. Birnbaum encourages nomination, stating that, while it is difficult to get a 19 Ibid. 20 National Park Service accessed December 20, 2013, http://www.n ps.gov/archeology/tools/Laws/NHPA.htm 21 Ibid. 22 National Park Service accessed December 20, 2013, http://www.nps.gov /nr/faq.htm#benefits

PAGE 197

197 recent work of landscape architecture designated, there are many significa nt sites that 23 Nomination to the National Register of Historic Places should be one of the initial steps taken in the preservation process. Any landscape is in constant fluctuation due the vast number of con tributors to its character. Research has proven that promoting human health, safety, and welfare and providing a positive experience for the user determines a successful landscape. 24 orms. What 25 Research studying users and uses of the park and surrounding buildings, rest areas, plazas, and green spaces can yield useful information on patterns and preferences and reveal potential areas for alt erations or improvements. A study such as William Whyte conducted in The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces might be adequate, on a lower scale. Addition of more seating or shade may be necessary, or perhaps a shift in demographics has caused the activiti es and level of visitation to the park to vacillate. A user study will determine what level of action needs to be taken. Changes in context are predominantly unavoidable. However, building partnerships with local business owners adjacent the park will be helpful. Before 23 Preserving Modern Landscape Architecture: Papers from the Wave Hill National Park Service Conference ed.by Charles A. Birnbaum (Cambridge: Spacemaker Press, 1995), 8. 24 Rachel Kaplan, Stephen Kaplan, and Robert L. Ryan, With People in Mind: Design and Management of Everyday Nature (Washington, DC: Island Press, 1998). John Simonds, Landscape Architecture: A Manual o f Site Planning and Design, ( New York: McGraw Hill, 1997). William Whyte, The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces (Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation, 1980). 25 John Simonds, Landscape Architecture: A Manual of Site Planning and Design, ( New York: McGraw Hill, 1997), 387.

PAGE 198

198 planning the treatment of the property, research the context and how it is changing: economy, demographics, and other current trends locally, regionally, and nationally. Proximity to green space has been proven to raise property values. This fact can be utilized in soliciting local businesses for their verbal and financial support. 26 An economic impact study conducted for the Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy showed an increase in surrounding property values by $71 million to $106 million, wi th an estimated $2.5 million in consumer expenditures generated as a result of the Mellon Square restoration project. 27 Involve the community Most professionals in the landscape architecture and preservation fields today will agree that involving the commu nity is key to a successful project. 28 Community involvement can be facilitated through education, programming, marketing, and involvement in the planning process. Educating the community on the history and significance of the park and modernism as a wh ole will get members interested, and hopefully invested in the park 29 Educ ational initiatives, many of which are listed in the Mellon Square Management Plan may include: Walking tours (led by either a volunteer or audio download) School field trips Interpretive signage, both on and off the site 26 Journal of Leisure Research 33, no. 1 (2001): 1 31. 27 Susan Rademacher, "Reviving the Square in the Heart of the Triangle," Forum Journal 27, no. 2 (2013): 17. 28 Ibid. 29 Ibid.

PAGE 199

199 Oral history collection Photography exhibitions Archival collections exhibitions Exhibition on modernism in art, architecture, and landscape architecture Exhibition honoring the original designer Educational w orkbooks and programs Memory website Presentations to the community 30 31 In this way, many different aspects of the park, its h istory, and preservation can be conveyed to users of varying interests. For example, interpretive themes may portray the park as an ar chitecturally significant space, historical artifact, cultural resource, ecological system, social/economic center, or se nsory experience. 32 P rogramming is crucial to attracting visitors to the site. Increased numbers of used 33 There are a multitude of low cost progr am opportunities to bring communities together. Revitalizing a park plaza may involve booking artists, bringing in food vendors, or holding an art fair. Ideas for programming include: Art s how Arts & crafts festival Food truck rally 30 Heritage Landscapes LLC, Pittsburgh, 2009), 8.5 8.7. 31 Ibid., 8.3. 32 Ibid., 8.3 & 8.4. 33 William Whyte, The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces (Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation, 1980), 17.

PAGE 200

200 Food vendors Outdoor chess or checkers Interactive water features Light shows Interactive art Street entertainers Concerts Outdoor movie nights Theatrical performances The C ity of Pittsburgh features Cinema in the Park, ARTWorks (the National Arts Program in Pittsburgh), a Roving Art Cart, annual runs and fitness walks, farmers markets, and various events and festivals each month. 34 A well formulated effective assist in con structing a positive and memorable image in the minds of the public. procedures. 35 Presenting concepts, facilitating discussion, and gathering input can be be treated. Public meetings, forums, and brainstorming sessions will inform the public and a llow them to participate and become invested in the project. There are many different techniques available to be employed. 36 Conclusion In order for us to be able to preserve significant modern urban landscapes we must first determine how to define value. Valuation of landscape significance is 34 City of Pittsburgh accessed December 20, 2013, http://pittsburghpa.gov/citiparks/ 35 Back in Public Values Research: Designing Participation to Identify Public Administration Review 72, no.5 (2012), 699. 36 Ibid.

PAGE 201

201 currently left up to individual judgment. 37 Presently, evaluation of individual sites takes place at a local level. Larger questions still exist regarding our process of evaluating these sites and will most likely be the source of future research in the field We may determine common issues for disintegration and generate solutions for successful rehabilitation as this thesis research and hopefully further research, will address. However, landscape architect Paul Friedberg believes it is necessary to take a step further back in the process. In an interview with Friedberg on January 14, 2014, the designer stated his belief that the field is in need of a criteria with which to evaluate a public open space. Friedbe rg believes there should be a national committee historians, architects, landscape architects, artists, and civic leaders criteria, the value of a public open space 38 The criteria on which this evaluative process is based must take into account original design intent, local value, regional value, and historical value. 39 In addition, Friedberg says we need to look at a space critically: D esign is a subjective evaluatio n. We need a unique criteria . Public space attends to the needs of a public audience, right? And you need to identify what are their needs ? I s it for social interaction, is it f or the display of beauty? . Does it work? Have they been using it for such and such? Has i t served its purpose ? Do es the disintegration, or the deterio ration of its materials, does that take away fro m its purpose and its value, or no? . D oes the new design improve upon it? Would changing it improve upon take Central Park at the turn of the century [Look how] it ended up appealing to the 37 M. Paul Friedberg (landscape architect), phone interview with the author, January 14, 2014. 38 M. Paul Friedberg (landscape architect), phone interview with the author, January 14, 2014. 39 Ibid.

PAGE 202

202 wealthy and the well off and then how it [is today] one of the most beautiful spaces we have in the city of New York and its use is dramatic, the number of people that occupy this after work and on the weekends and s just filling a role, a significant role that people are defining by the fact and the way that they use it. An ough discretion and preference. 40 Public spaces, modern landscape park plazas included, should serve their intended purpose. If they do not, then comes the need f or adaptation, states Friedberg, contemp orary need overshadows the value of restoring, then you really have to 41 In the situations we have seen occur in the case studies, many times modern urban park plazas have failed to continue ful filling their original purpose. Therefore, perhaps the way to save these endangered landscapes is not through strict preservation, but instead we should evaluate and determine treatment levels based on user needs. If this approach is taken, then adaptati ons can be made for contemporary use and the original design intent, which is, according to Friedberg, the most important aspect to preserve, can still be maintained. 42 Preservation is a subjective process, and everyone has a different opinion of what shou ld and should not be saved, Friedberg states. He believes there determine whether or not public spaces that are threatened should have t 43 Paul Friedberg points out the need for a broader view of these landscapes on a larger scale than the local level at which they are evaluated currently. 40 Ibid. 41 Ibid. 42 Ibid. 43 Ibid.

PAGE 203

203 There exists much room for growth in the field of modern landscape preservation. With the work of organizations such as The Cultural Landscape F oundation, visibility and education about these historic landscapes continues to become more widespread. Hopefully, with future research, education, and a structure for evaluating public open spaces, we can continue to develop consistent and effective meth ods to preserve threatened significant modern urban spaces.

PAGE 204

204 APPENDIX A CASE STUDY SELECTION Name: Kiley Garden Location: Tampa, FL Designer: Dan Kiley Public/Private: Public Project type: Urban park plaza Client: City of Tampa, FL Opening date: 1988 Intervention date: 2006 2013 Size: 4.5 acres Initial cost: $ 2.5 million Restoration cost: $4.4 million Original firm still in existence: N o Designation: x Site visit possible: Y es Notes: This park is a top case study for many reasons. It fits the description of a modern urban park or plaza that has been rehabilitated or restored. I have already gathered information on the park for a previous paper. It is also easy to visit due to its pr oximity to Gainesville. Because Dan Kiley was such a well known designer, the controversy surrounding this park has provided much public information about the park, making it easier to gather information to compile this case study. Valid Case Study: Y es

PAGE 205

205 Name: Mellon Square Location: Pittsburgh, PA Designer: John Simonds Public/Private: Public Project type: Urban park plaza Client: City of Pittsburgh, PA Opening date: 19 55 Intervention date: 20 11 2013 Size: 1.37 acres Initial cost: $8 million Restoration cost: $ 1 million Original firm still in existence: No Designation: NRHP Site visit possible: Maybe Notes: Mellon Square fits the description of a modern urban park or plaza that has been rehabilitated or restored. In addition, it is similar to Kiley Garden in the fact that it is built over a parking garage. In addition, its restoration was fairly recent and it has recently received an NHRP designation Therefore it should be relatively e asy to find information on this site. Valid Case Study: Y es

PAGE 206

206 Name: Kaiser Roof Garden Location: Oakland, CA Designer: Theodore Osmundson Public/Private: P rivate Project type: Roof garden Client: Henry Kaiser Opening date: 1 960 Intervention date: N/A Size: 3 acres Initial cost: $260,000 Restoration cost: N/A Original firm still in existence: No Designation: x Site visit possible: No Notes: Since this site is a roof garden it does not technically fit the def inition of modern urban park or plaza. I have not found any information that has led me to believe that there has been a rehabilitation or restoration of this site. Valid Case Study: No

PAGE 207

207 Name: Peavey Plaza Location: Minneapolis, MN Designer: M. Paul Friedberg Public/Private: P ublic Project type: Urban park/plaza Client: City of Minneapolis, MN Opening date: 1976 Intervention date: N/A Size: 2 acres Initial cost: $1 million Restoration cost: $8 10 million Original firm still in existence: Yes Designation: NHRP Site visit possible: No Notes: Peavey Plaza has very recently undergone a multi million dolla r restoration and is also on the NHRP. It was built by M. Paul Friedberg + Partners, a firm still in existence, which might be of help. The site fits within the category of a modern urban park or plaza that has been rehabilitated or restored. Valid Case Study: Yes

PAGE 208

208 Name: The Lincoln Center Plaza Location: New York, NY Designer: Dan Kiley Public/Private: Private Project type: Urban plaza Client: The Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts Opening date: 1969 Intervention date: 2012 Size: >1 acre Initial cost: N/A Restoration cost: N/A Original firm still in existence: N Designation: x Site visit possible: No Notes: This site does fit the categorical description of a modern urban park or plaza that has been rehabilitated or restored. It has, however, been more rehabilitated than restored. There has bee n much controversy over the changes to this site, possibly making it easier to find information on the site. However, it may be difficult to find original information because there was no defined intervention point; it was a more gradual process over time It has been difficult thus far to find information on the site. Valid Case Study: No

PAGE 209

209 Name: Skyline Park Location: Denver, CO Designer: Lawrence Halprin Public/Private: Public Project type: Urban park Client: City of Denve r, CO Opening date: 1973 Intervention date: 2004 Size: 3.2 acres Initial cost: N/A Restoration cost: N/A Original firm still in existence: No Designation: x Site visit possible: No Notes: Skyline Park fits the description of a modern urban park or plaza that has been rehabilitated or restored It has not been designated. The park underwent an extensive rede s i gn in 2004 by the City of Denver. This might not entirely fit my focus on rehabilitation or restoration, this was clearly a c omplete redesign. Valid Case Study: No

PAGE 210

210 APPENDIX B SHORT INTERVIEW FORM Informed Consent Protocol Title: Renovations in modern Urban Park Plazas: Determining common issues in the renovations of historically significant modern urban park plazas for contemporary use. Please read this consent document carefully before you decide to participate in this study. Purpose of the research study: My research will look at the events leading up to the decision to renovate significant Modern parks in urban settings, the actions and actors involved in the renovation, and the ultimate result of the revisions to the landscape. Through case s tudies, I will develop a set of considerations that landscape architects, preservationists, city council members, historic preservation boards, architects, and other invested parties may follow in order to effectively renovate a Modern urban landscape for contemporary use. Using the data collected, I will analyze common issues that arise during the renovation process, including: original design intent vs. contemporary use & issues marketing strategies vs. public perception & opinions (historical & current) management strategies and subsequent success or failure of maintenance rationale or impetus for renovation (i.e. material failure, not user friendly, disliked by the community, etc.) The purpose of this research is to determine common iss ues in the renovations of historically significant modern urban park plazas for contemporary use. What you will be asked to do in the study: Provide answers to a set of questions on this topic via phone, email, or in person (depending on participant prefer ence and availability). Time required: 1 2 hours Risks and Benefits: There are no direct benefits or risks to you for participating in the study. Compensation: There is no compensation to you for participating in the study. Confidentiality: If you wish for your response to remain confidential, the answers you provide will be presented anonymously if used in my thesis. Voluntary participation:

PAGE 211

211 Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. Right to withdr aw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from the study at any time without consequence. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Principal Investigator: Caeli Tolar, 352 317 4914 or cmt@ufl.edu Supervisor: Sara Katherine Williams, 352 392 6098 x 326 or willsk@ufl.edu Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: IRB02 Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 3261 1 2250; phone 392 0433.

PAGE 212

212 Interview Questions 1) What has been the most challenging aspect of the planning, design, and construction process? 2) In the planning and design phases, and during construction, were there any conflicts or problems that had to be resolved? 3) How do you see u sers experiencing this site? 4) What do you think is the main reason this park has received funding to be restored as opposed to demolished? 5) What did you determine to be the character defining features of this park / plaza? 6) How were these features determined to be significant and character defining? 7) What attempts were made to preserve these features during the renovation process?

PAGE 213

213 APPENDIX C DEFENSE PRESENTATION The following are slides from my thesis defens e, presented on February 26, 2014.

PAGE 214

214

PAGE 215

215

PAGE 216

216

PAGE 217

217

PAGE 218

218

PAGE 219

219

PAGE 220

220

PAGE 221

221

PAGE 222

222

PAGE 223

223

PAGE 224

224

PAGE 225

225

PAGE 226

226

PAGE 227

227

PAGE 228

228

PAGE 229

229

PAGE 230

230

PAGE 231

231

PAGE 232

232

PAGE 233

233

PAGE 234

234

PAGE 235

235

PAGE 236

236

PAGE 237

237

PAGE 238

238

PAGE 239

239

PAGE 240

240 APPENDIX D IMAGE USE PERMISSIONS Figure # Copyright Holder Permission Form 4 1 The Cultural Landscape Foundation 1 4 2 MIT Press 2 4 3 Aaron Kiley 3 4 4 Wikimedia Commons N/A 4 5 Aaron Kiley 3 4 6 Aaron Kiley 3 4 7 Aaron Kiley 3 4 8 Aaron Kiley 3 4 9 Aaron Kiley 3 4 10 Aaron Kiley 3 4 1 1 Aaron Kiley 3 4 1 2 Ron Sill, RS&H 4 4 1 3 Ron Sill, RS& H 4 4 1 4 Ron Sill, RS&H 4 4 1 5 Ron Sill, RS&H 4 4 1 6 Ron Sill, RS&H 4 4 1 7 Ron Sill, RS&H 4 4 1 8 Author N/A 4 19 Author N/A 4 2 0 Author N/A 4 2 1 Aaron Kiley Ron Sill, RS&H 3 4 4 2 2 Ron Sill Author 4 N/A 5 1 Heinz History Center 8 5 2 Heinz History Center 8 5 3 U niversity of Florida Special Collections 5 5 4 University of Florida Special Collections 5 5 5 University of Florida Special Collections 5 5 6 University of F lorida Special Collections 5 5 7 University of Florida Special Collections 5 5 8 University of Florida Special Collections 5 5 9 University of Florida Special Collections 5 5 10 University of Florida Special Collections 5 5 11 Pittsburgh Par ks Conservancy 6 5 12 Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy 6 5 13 Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy 6 5 14 Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy 6 6 1 The Cultural Landscape Foundation 1 6 2 The Cultural Landscape Foundation 1 6 3 The Cultural Landscape Foundation 1 6 4 The Cultural Landscape Foundation 1 6 5 The Cultural Landscape Foundation 1 6 6 Minnesota StarTribune N/A ** 6 7 Minnesota StarTribune N/A

PAGE 241

241 6 8 Minnesota StarTribune N/A 6 9 Charlene Roise 7 6 10 Charlene Roise 7 6 11 Charlene Roise 7 6 12 Charlene Roise 7 6 13 Charlene Roise 7 Image s from Wikimedia Commons are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license. According to the Wikimedia Commons site, t o share to copy, distribute and transmit the work to remix to adapt the work Under the following conditions: attribution You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). See: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alhambra_ _Granada.jpg#filelinks ** According to the Minnesota StarTribune Permission to License Star Tribune Content page, images may be used if for the purpose of research. Material published in the Star Tribune or on StarTribune.com, including articles, graphics, photographs, videos and other content is copyrighted by the Star Tribune Media Company LLC and other information providers who have licensed their content to the Star Tribune. Copyright law forbids reuse of copyrighted material without permission other than for personal or research purposes. See: http://www.startribune.com/help/246166341.html

PAGE 242

242 Caeli Tolar 1015 SW 81 Drive Gainesville, FL 32607 March 12,2014 Charles Birnbaum The Cultural Landscape Foundation 1711 Connecticut Avenue NW Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20009 Dear Mr. Birnbaum, I am writing to request permission to use the following images from The Cultural Landscape Considerations for Adaptation for Contemporary Us Figure 4 1 Fountain Place in Dallas, Texas, Photo by Charles Birnbaum http://tclf.org/sites/default/files/flickr/4575121152_fcb847b21b_o.jpg Figure 6 1 Main fo untain, Peavey Plaza, Photo by Keri Pickett, 2008 http://tclf.org/sites/default/files/flickr/5364606862_f2e9cce611_o.jpg Figure 6 2 Sculptural elements, Peavey Plaza, Photo by Charles Birnbaum, 2005 http://tclf.org/sites/default/files/flickr/5364606730_8cc122ac84_o.jpg Figure 6 3 Sculptural elements, Peavey Plaza, Photo by Charles Birnbaum, 2005 http://tclf.org/sites/default/files/flickr/5363995563_f5dd86669e_o.jpg Figure 6 4 Sculptural elements, Peavey Plaza, Photo by Charles Birnbaum, 2005 http://tclf.org/sites/default/files/flickr/5363995605_f5e5cdb582_o.jpg Figure 6 5 Sculptural elements, Peavey Plaza, Photo by Keri Pickett, 2008 http://tclf.org/sites/default/files/flickr/5364606896_31c82ec461_o.jpg

PAGE 243

243 In reference to the above images, I, ____________________________________, as copyright holder or lic ensee with the authority to grant copyright permissions for the aforementioned title(s), hereby authorize the University of Florida, acting on behalf of the State of Florida, to digitize and distribute the title(s) for nonprofit, educational purposes via t he Internet or successive technologies. This is a non exclusive grant of permissions for on line and off line use for an indefinite term. Off line uses shall be consistent either, for educational uses, with the terms of U.S. copyright legislation's "fair use" provisions or, by the University of Florida, with the maintenance and preservation of an archival copy. Digitization allows the University of Florida to generate image and text based versions as appropriate and to provide and enhance access using sea rch software. This grant of permissions prohibits use of the digitized versions for commercial use or profit. ______________________________________ Signature of Copyright Holder ______________________________________ Printed or Typed Name of Copyright Holder

PAGE 244

244

PAGE 245

245

PAGE 246

246

PAGE 247

247

PAGE 248

248

PAGE 249

249

PAGE 250

250

PAGE 251

251

PAGE 252

252

PAGE 253

253

PAGE 254

254

PAGE 255

255

PAGE 256

256

PAGE 257

257 LIST OF REFERENCES Appeal fo rm, Minneapolis, 2012. Pittsburgh Post Gazette April 14, 1990. Preserving Modern Landscape Architecture: Papers from the Wave Hill National Park Service Conference edited by Charles A. Birnbaum, 1 5. Cambridge: Spacemaker Press, 1995. Birnbaum, Charles A. "Expanding the Field: Modern Landscape Architecture and Historic Preservation." Forum Journal 27, no. 2 (2013): 3. Accessed August 5, 2013. http://tclf.org/sites/default/files/Forum Journal_Winter 2013.pdf Preserving Modern Landscape Architecture: Papers from the Wave Hill Nation al Park Service Conference e dited by Charles A. Birnbaum, 6 8. Cambridge: Spacemaker Press, 1995. Huffington Post October 24, 2011. Birnbaum, Charles A. and Heath er L. Barrett, eds. Making Educated Decisions: a landscape preservation bibliography. W ashington, D.C.: Department of the Interior, National Park Service Historic Landscape Initiative, 2000. Modern Landscape Architecture: A Critical Review, edited by Marc Treib, 220 249. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1993. Burton, Pamela and Marie Botnick. Private Landscapes : modern Gardens in Southern California New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2 002. Inland Architecture (March/April 1991): 30. http://pittsburghpa.gov/citiparks/ Minneapolis Star Tribune June 11, 1975. Bryant Park A ccessed December 19, 2013 http://www.bryantpark.org/about us/man agement.html Journal of Leisure Research 33, no. 1 (2001): 1 31.

PAGE 258

258 In Preserving Modern Landscape Arc hitecture: Papers from the Wave Hill National Park Service Conference e dited by Charles A. Birnbaum, 6 8. Cambridge: Spacemaker Press, 1995. Danielson, Richard. "With City's Help, Fans of Tampa's Kiley Garden Aim for a Comeback." T ampa Bay Times, March 8, 2012. Shaping the American Landscape: New Profiles from the Pioneers of American Landscape Design Project edited by Charles A. Birnbaum & Stephanie S. Foell, 171 174. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2009. Dixon, John Morris. "Geometer's tower." Progressive Architecture 70, no. 2 (1989). Accessed September 19, 2013. http://go.galegroup.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA7055986&v=2.1&u =gain40375&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w Friedberg, M. Paul. The Cultural Landscape Foundation By Charles Birnbaum. 2009. ine: Landscape Architecture News Digest Last modified March 6, 2006. Accessed October 4, 2013. http://landarchives.asla.org/landsearch/archive/2006/0306/kiley.html "Fun ding Sought to Restore Dan Kiley Masterwork at NationsBank Plaza." The Cultural Landscape Foundation Last modified March 19, 2012. Accessed November 14, 2012. h ttp://tclf.org/landslides/funding sought restore kiley masterwork GAI Consultants, Inc Results from the Cursory Structural Assessment of the Mellon Engineering report, Pittsburgh, 2010. CrimeWise.com Last modified 1995. Accessed October 22, 2013. http://www.crimewise.com/library/cpted.html Gedalius, Ellen. "Cra Tampa Tribune, March 16, 2006. Gedalius, Ellen. "Preservation Panel Hears Pleas to Save Tiny Downtown Park Decision may be Tied to Fate of Garage." Tampa Tribune, June 15, 2005. Gerry, Sarah. "Drought Slowed Repairs at Ashley Plaza Garage." Tampa Tribune, July 3, 2000. Planning Division Demolition of a Historic Resource, BZH 27287 Peavey

PAGE 259

259 National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior accessed December 19, 2013, http://www.nps.gov/t ps/standards/four treatments/landscape guidelines/preserve/vegetation.htm Harwood, Buie, Bridget May, & Curt Sherman. Architect ure and Interio r Design: An Intergrated History to the Present Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc./Prentice Hall, 2012. Hazelrigg, George. "The Life and Death of a Masterpiece." Landscape Architecture April 2004. Heritage Landscapes LLC Mellon Square Preservation, Interpretation, & Management Plan Pittsburgh Quarterly (Fall 2009). In Preserving Modern Landscape Architecture: Papers from the Wave Hill National Park Service Conference e dited by Charles A. Birnbaum, 18 35. Cambridge, MA: Spacemaker Press, 1995. Modern Landscape Architecture: A Crit ical Review, edited by Marc Treib, 134 143. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1993. Isenberg, Alison. Downtown America: A History of the Place and the People Who Made It Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2004. Shaping the American Landscape: New Profiles from the Pioneers of American Landscape Design Project edited by Charles A. Birnbaum & Stephanie S. Foell. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2009. St. Petersburg Times June 18, 1988. Kaplan, Rachel Stephen Kaplan, and Robert L. Ryan With People in Mind: Design and Management of Everyday Nature Wash ington, DC: Island Press, 1998. Landscape Architecture 78, no. 8 (December 1988). Kiley, Dan. Dan Kiley: The Complete Works of America's Master Landscape Architect New York City: Bulfinch Press, 1999. "Kiley Park could Get Landmark Status." St. Petersburg Times, June 15, 2005. Koehn, Ken. "Reflecting Pools to be Paved Over." Tampa Tribune, December 13, 1999.

PAGE 260

260 Leone, Jared. "Renowned Architect Restores Tampa's Famed Kiley Gardens." Tampa Bay Times, October 22, 2010. New York Times February 25, 2004. Pittburgh Parks Conservancy Blog June 17, 2011. Accessed October 19, 2013. https://pittsburghparks.wordpress.com/2011/06/17/mellon square groundbreaking june 132011/ "Mellon Square." Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy Accessed February 11, 2013. http://www.pittsburghparks.org/mellonsquareproject Tampa Bay Times March 3, 2006. Mitchell & Ritchey. Pittsburgh in Progress 1947. Carnegie Mellon University Architecture Archives, http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/ma1f/PittsburghinProgress.pdf Modern The Cultural Landscape Foundation Accessed Septem ber 26, 2013. https://tclf.org/content/ modern The Stranger August 22 August 28, 2002, http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=11685 Muller, Edward K. "Downtown Pittsburgh : Renaissance and Renewal." In A Geographic Perspective of Pittsburgh and the Alleghenies edited by Kevin J. Patrick and Joseph L. Scarpaci, Jr., 7 20. Pittsburgh : University of Pittsburgh Press, 2006. Nabatchi, Tina. Participation to Identify and Respond to Values. Public Administration Review 72, no.5 (2012), 699 708 o National Park Service Accessed December 20, 2013. http://www.nps.gov/archeology/tools/Laws/NHPA.htm . National Park Service Accessed December 20, 2013. http://www.nps.gov/nr/faq.htm#benefits National Register of Historic Places. Peavey Plaza, Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Minnesota, NR #12001173 National Register of Historic Places. Pittsburgh Central Downtown Historic District, Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, NR # 13000251

PAGE 261

261 Modern Landscape Archit ecture: A Critical Review, edited by Marc Treib, 144. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1993. Minnesota Orchestra at One Hundred: A Collection of Essays and Images Minneapolis: Minnesota Orchestral Association, 2002. Nivala, Jo hn. "The Landscape Art of Daniel Urban Kiley." William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review 29, no. 2 (2005). Peavey Park Plaza Historic American Landscapes Survey (HALS NO. MN 2). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Se rvice, 200 6 Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy Accessed October 7, 2013. http://www.pittsburghparks.org/mellonsquarehistory Preserve Peavey, Bonnie McDonald, Christina Morris, Charles A. Birnbaum, & The Minneapolis Chapter of DOCOMOMO US, in a letter to the Minneapolis Historic Preservation Commission, April 17, 2012. United States Department of the Interior, National Par k Service Accessed September 12, 2013. http://www.nps.gov/hps/TPS/standguide/preserve/preserve_index.htm toric Evaluation Prudon, Theodore H. M. Preserving Modern Architecture Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2008. Rademacher, Susan. Reviving the Square in the Heart of the Triangle ." Forum Journal 27 2 (2013): 1 2 18. Oasis in the City: Mellon Square is an Icon of Modernism Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy (blog) Last modified January 5, 2009 http://pittsburghpa rks.wordpress.com/2009/01/05/mellonsquare/ Rainey, Reuben M., and Marc Treib, eds. Dan Kiley Landscapes: The Poetry of Space Richmond: William Stout Publishers, 2009. Randal, Chad. "M. Paul Friedberg." In Shaping the American Landscape: New Profiles from the Pioneers of the American Landscape Design Project edited by Charles A. Birnbaum and Stephanie S. Foell, 103 107. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2009.

PAGE 262

262 Minnea polis StarTribune April 18, 2012. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service A ccessed September 12, 2013. http://www.nps.gov/hps/TPS/ standguide/preserve/preserve_index.htm United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service accessed September 12, 2013. http://www.nps.gov/hps/TPS /standguide/preserve/preserve_index.htm Robertson Landscape Journal 31, 1 2 (2012): 77 99. Minneapolis StarTribune Augus t 1, 2013. Roise, Charlene K Landscape Architecture (2004): 30 37. Roise, Charlene K. "The Unfinished Saga of Peavey Plaza." Forum Journal 27, no. 2 (2013): 19 27. Accessed November 7, 2013. http://tclf.org/sites/default/files/Forum Journal_Winter 2013.pdf New York Times May 16, 2012. Sherfy, Marcella and W. Ray Luce. National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Nominating Properties that Have Achieved Significance Within the Past Fifty Years Washington, DC: United States Department of t he Interior, National Park Service, 1998. Simonds, John. Garden Cities 21: Creating a Livable Urban Environment New York, NY: McGraw Hill, 1994. Simonds, John. Landscape Architecture: A Manual of Site Planning and Design New York, McGraw Hill, 1997. Sim onds, John. Landscape Architecture: The Shaping of Man's Natural Environment New York : McGraw Hill, 1961. Smith, Ken. The Challenge of Preserving Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts Preserving Modern Landscape Architecture: Papers from the Wave H ill National Park Service Conference edited by Charles A. Birnbaum, 50 52 Cambridge: Spacemaker Press, 1995. tech design puts burden on St. Petersburg Times May 14, 1989.

PAGE 263

263 Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy Accessed October 18, 2013. http://www.pittsburghparks.org/the conservancy Landslide: Spotlight on the Garden. Last modified 2006. Accessed August 15, 2013. http://tclf.org/sites/default/files/landslide/2006/nations_bank/index.htm Landslide: Spotlight on the Garden Last modified May 16, 2012, Accessed Novem ber 8, 2013. http://tclf.org/landslides/m paul friedberg creates new concept for peavey plaza Peavey Plaza: Heritage Prese rvation Commission Delays Demolition Landslide: Spotlight on the Garden. Last modified April 19, 2012 Accessed November 7 2013. http://tclf.or g/landslides/Peavey Plaza Heritage Preservation%20 Commission Delays Demolition Preservation Alliance of Minnesota File Suit Against City of Minneapolis to ess release, Washington, D C June 28, 2012. of Minneapolis, Minnesota, 27 CV 12 Minneapolis, 2013. Minnesota and The Cultural Landscape Foundation v. City of Minneapolis, Minnesota, 27 CV 12 2013. United States Department of th e Interior National Park Service A ccessed February 04, 2014 http://www.nps.gov/hps/tps/standguide/ Landscape Architecture October 2006. Thurston, Susan. "A Park Wor th Saving." St. Petersburg Times, May 6, 2005. Treib, Marc and Dorothe Imbert. Garrett Eckbo: Modern Landscapes for Living Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997. Tr Modern Landscape Architecture: A Critical Review, edited by Marc Treib, 162. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1993. United States Census Bureau La st modified July 22, 2013. Accessed Sep. 24, 2013. http://www.census.gov/geo/reference/ua/urban rural 2010.html

PAGE 264

264 University of Florida. John Ormsbee Simonds Remembered: Visionary Landscape Architect, Planner, Educator, and Environmentalist (1913 2005). Special collections pamphlet, University of Florida, George A. Smathers Libraries, 2005. Van Valkenburgh, Michael and Landscape Archite cture Magazine March 2013 http://landscapearchitecturemagazine.org/2013/03/14/landscapes over time/ Vasconi, Sarah. "Fluid Applied Waterproofing Systems: A Case St udy of Kiley Walker, Peter and Melanie Simo. Invisible Gardens Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996. Walker, Peter. "Biography of Dan Kiley." The Cultural Landscape Foundation Last modified August 3, 2005. http://tclf.org/pioneer/dan kiley/biography dan kiley Ward Thompson Catherine . Landscape Journal 17, no. 1 (Spring 1998): 1 25 Whyte, William. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation, 1980. Tampa Tribune June 22, 2012. Tampa Bay Times March 16, 2006.

PAGE 265

265 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Caeli Tolar received her Bachelor of Landscape Architecture with a minor in Business from the University of Florida in spring 2012 and her Master of Historic Preservation in spring 2014. She has been a longtime res ident of Gainesville, Florida.



PAGE 1

This thesis was prepared using the Chicago Manual of Style, 16 th edition.