DESIGN OF PARK AND RECREATION AREAS 217 



feet thick to be impenetrable to the eye, while on the other hand through 

 some high-stemmed woodlands the eye can range freely for a quarter of a 

 mile or so and see buildings beyond the trees almost as plainly as if no 

 trees were there. To state in general terms how much space is required for 

 such a screen is therefore much like saying how big is a piece of chalk. 



One can say, however, that to secure a screen really adequate to the 

 purpose of this type of parkway within a space which is not considerably 

 more than a hundred feet wide (without peculiarly favorable topographic 

 conditions) is apt to produce a monotonous effect, especially if the space is 

 uniform in width or nearly so, and still more so if it is also straight for long 

 distances. Where danger of monotony from this source is serious it may be 

 best to make a virtue of necessity and aim deliberately at those qualities 

 which in a formal landscape treatment can lift uniformity and repetition to 

 the plane of dignified impressiveness, as in the great avenues of the Park 

 of Versailles; or else to modify the controlling purpose of the design, and, 

 avoiding an attempt at a type of parkway which cannot be successfully 

 made under the circumstances, aim at the third or fourth type, which can 

 be done to perfection under the existing circumstances. 



But assuming that the type of parkway here under consideration is 

 the aim and can be successfully secured under the actual conditions of the 

 case, what bearing has all of the above on the question of whether or not, 

 in addition to the primary roads and paths within the parkway, to provide 

 also for border roads or streets for the frontage of abutting property? 



The width required for such a border street is apt to be about fifty feet 

 and may sometimes be even less, as there is seldom need for any sidewalk 

 on the side toward the park or parkway. In some cases, on the one hand, 

 the use of street purposes of that amount of the total space which it is 

 practicable to withdraw in one strip from private occupation would so cur- 

 tail the space available for plantations as to make all the difference between 

 success and failure in accomplishing the primary public purpose of the 

 parkway. Where this is the case the argument against a border road is 

 practically conclusive. It would be far better to fence off the private prop- 

 erty from the parkway, plant it out and forget it. Conditions at least closely 

 approaching this extreme case are to be noted on the east side of the Rock 

 Creek Parkway in Washington northward for a few hundred feet from 

 Q Street, where a border road would accomplish little or no good and at 

 enormous cost would work serious injury to the landscape of the parkway 

 by exposing the backs of houses in full view from the main drive. 



On the other hand, in many cases such use of some fifty feet of the 

 total available space would make little or no practical difference in the 

 effectiveness of the landscape enclosure of the essential parts of a park- 



