PARK UTILITIES 



IF the roof of a man's house continually leaks, of what use is the 

 house to him as a habitation, be it ever so beautiful? 



Beauty presupposes utility, as Van Pelt has said. A broom with a 

 richly carved handle is not more valuable as a broom, although it may be 

 more beautiful. It is of less value, on the contrary, if so much atten- 

 tion has been devoted to enriching the handle that none has been paid 

 to the fastening in of the straws, and they consequently fall out. The 

 " silver handle " shaving brush usually moults after about the second 

 application of hot water, and before New Year's the old hard-rubber 

 handle brush is back in service again. Beauty without utility is vain. 



In the design of anything, the use to which it is to be put should be 

 of first consideration, and this is especially true in the matter of parks. 

 The average person guilelessly believes that parks are more for orna- 

 ment than for use, and therefore that the first consideration should be 

 of art rather than utility. The artistic development of a park, how- 

 ever, cannot be stable unless based upon recognition of the funda- 

 mental principle of utility. As pointed out in Chapter III, on Prin- 

 ciples, strength of park design is always dependent upon utility, and 

 weak design cannot be concealed by any amount of ornamentation. 



A park will depend for enrichment upon the amplification of its 

 facilities upon the number and character of its appurtenances, rather 

 than upon the elaborateness of its design. Useless elaboration of 

 design will be distinctly annoying, if essayed for that purpose alone. 

 What a park is for must always be the governing thought in its de- 

 sign; and the most certain way of jeopardising the beautiful in a 

 park is to forego adequate consideration of its requirements. 



What are the utilitarian features of a park? The answer will be 



2% 



