The Winning Designs 



mitted by Miss Leonard (of Cambridge, Massachu- 

 setts) for Site No. 3. This is well and practically 

 conceived, like all the plans which Miss Leonard sub- 

 mitted, and the judges would have been able to give 

 a higher award but for the unfortunate position 

 accorded to the practical feature of a drying-yard. 

 In her design this is placed adjoining a road, and with- 

 out anything to screen it from the public. Had it been 

 cut off by a substantial trellis there would have been no 

 objection to this position, as a Grape-vine trellis and 

 pergola screen it quite satisfactorily from the main 

 entrance. It may well be that in the United States 

 there is less squeamishness about the display of drying 

 linen, but it would not be popular in this country. The 

 vegetable garden and the flower garden are both prac- 

 tically conceived, and the lawn, dotted with apple- 

 trees and Red Oaks, would be a very friendly place in 

 which to sit. This design shows a good compromise 

 between the modern demand for rigid formality and the 

 more haphazard disposition of features which makes 

 the charm of so many old gardens." 



In many respects Miss Leonard's plan exhibits a 

 clearer grasp of the real aims of garden design than 

 those of most other competitors, and to anyone who 

 does not wish for a tennis-court, and desires to get 

 away somewhat from the extreme rigidity of geometri- 

 cal developments, I strongly recommend a study of 

 this plan. Omitting the single feature of the drying- 

 yard there is really little in it upon which to offer criti- 

 cism. Each principal window has its studied view, 

 each path offers facile connection with another, so that 

 it is easy to reach any desired point directly. The 



