April 15, 1891.] 



Garden and Forest. 



169 



GARDEN AND FOREST. 



PUBLISHED WEEKLY BY 



THE GARDEN AND FOREST PUBLISHING CO. 



Office : Tribune Building, New York. 



Conducted by Professor C. S. Sargent. 



ENTERED AS SECOND-CLASS MATTER AT THE POST OFFICE AT NEW YORK, N. Y. 



NEW YORK, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15, 1891. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



Editorial Articles :— A Flower-Garden for New York 169 



The Sugar Maple. (With figure.) 170 



How We Renewed an Old Place. — III Mrs. J. H. Robbins. 170 



The Sap and Sugar of the Maple-tree. — I William D. Ely. 171 



New or Little Known Plants : — Laelia anceps, var. holochila. (With figure.) 



R. A. Rolfe. 172 



Foreign Correspondence : — London Letter W. Watson. 173 



Cultural Department: — Calatheas W.N. Taflin. 174 



The Wild Garden Amy Wightman. 176 



The Spring Garden J. N. Gerard. 176 



Lselia anceps Sanderiana y Weathers. 177 



The Hydrangea Blight Professor Byron D. Halsted. 177 



The Forest: — Prairie Forestry and the Timber Culture Law. — II., 



Professor Charles A. Keffer. 177 

 Correspondence : — Sap-sucking Woodpeckers and Forest- trees.. .Frank Bolles. 177 



Recent Publications 178 



Exhibitions : — The New York Spring Flower Show 179 



Notes 179 



Illustrations: — Lselia anceps, var. holochila, Rolfe, Fig. 31 173 



Sugar Maples in New Hampshire, Fig. 32 175 



A Flower-Garden for New York. 



THE city of New York was startled a few weeks ago 

 by the announcement that a bill had been passed 

 through one House of the Legislature which authorized 

 the covering over of the old reservoir on Fifth Avenue and 

 the creation of a so-called air garden on the spacious floor 

 thus provided. Fortunately this scheme was thwarted by 

 the indignant protest of the people, but it calls attention to 

 the question. What shall be done with this reservoir when 

 the new system of water-supply shall render it no longer 

 needful? In one sense this is a purely local question, but 

 it has aspects which are of interest to all who care for the 

 proper adornment of public grounds in cities. No single 

 style of planning and planting is adapted to areas of all 

 sizes and surroundings, and this space seems to offer an 

 admirable opportunity for a special type of garden design. 



Every New Yorker, and every one who has visited the 

 city, is familiar with the appearance of the reservoir, a 

 substantial stone structure 500 feet square. It has no re- 

 markable features as a work of architecture, and yet there 

 is no excuse for tearing it down for the mere purpose of 

 getting rid it, for it is on the whole a pleasing and rather 

 effective structure in appearance, and it gains interest and 

 value because it is unlike everything in its neighborhood. 

 Its simplicity in line and mass contrasts refreshingly with 

 the elaborateness of the adjacent buildings, and its low 

 sky-line agreeably breaks the long high perspective of the 

 avenue and admits an unwonted amount of light and sun- 

 shine. And then, too, it is bordered by a strip of grass 

 with well-disposed shrubbery and vines, so that it is in 

 summer a truly welcome sight. It is better, therefore, that 

 the reservoir should remain as it is, even if it were entirely 

 useless, than that it should be replaced by another building 

 of any kind. 



Standing as it does between the small area known as 

 Bryant Park and Fifth Avenue, there has been a considera- 

 ble desire expressed to have it demolished for the purpose 

 of extending this park. Of course an increase in the num- 



ber and size of our urban pleasure-grounds is always 

 worth considering, but, after all, the increase in the area of 

 Bryant Park may be too dearly purchased. A mere exten- 

 sion of this park in its present character is hardly desirable. 

 It is not as though this were in a crowded quarter of the 

 city and far removed from Central Park. In such a case 

 the sweeping away of any building for the creation of a 

 park of any kind to enable the thronging population to find 

 a green spot would be desirable. But this park is but a 

 short distance from Central Park, and it is never crowded 

 with the class of persons who throng Tompkins Square 

 and the Battery Park. The only justification for the ex- 

 pense of removing, one of the few structures of an earlier 

 time that are worth preserving would be the assurance that 

 the space it fills could be converted into a garden of 

 genuine beauty that would be an appropriate ornament to 

 our finest thoroughfare. 



A mere duplication of Bryant Park would not accomplish 

 this end. No park could be more deficient in design, dig- 

 nity and charm. It is a commonplace assemblage of 

 asphalt walks, badly shaped grass-plots and a monotonous 

 planting of Silver Maples. It is not a formal park nor yet 

 a bit of landscape, like Mount Morris Park in Harlem, and 

 it is valuable only as an open and shady place and not as 

 a delight to the eye of the passer. But if the reservoir 

 should be removed there would be no need that its area 

 should be treated in the same way as Bryant Park. What 

 we should like to see here would be a great flower-garden, 

 similar to those which ornament many foreign towns. The 

 fact that it is slightly above the level of the street and of 

 Bryant Park would give a better chance for good results 

 in this direction. The space could be laid out with broad, 

 straight main walks, and minor ones, either straight or har- 

 moniously curved, to form grass-plots of graceful outline. 

 Then the main walks might be planted with avenues of 

 small trees of a single kind, and symmetrical groups of 

 shrubs could be formed on the borders which would have 

 a succession of flowers throughout the season. The lawns 

 could be edged with long narrow beds of hardy flowers, 

 which we have often described under the name of French 

 Parterres, and in appropriate situations, such as at the 

 intersections of the paths, could be placed pattern beds of 

 the most brilliant hues. This would make a pleasure- 

 ground unique in this city and admirably adapted as an 

 ornament to the avenue and a delight to the eyes of the 

 public. It is constantly insisted by those who wish some 

 excuse for the intrusion of formal flower-beds into pastoral 

 landscapes that the public like nothing so well as flowers. 

 In one sense this is true, and such a space as this would 

 furnish an excellent opportunity to offer flowers in profu- 

 sion, and also in a most beautiful and appropriate way. 

 Of course, other things would be needed besides the plant- 

 ing of flowers to make the most of this opportunity. The 

 cheap railing on its boundary should be replaced by a 

 handsome stone balustrade, over which the interesting 

 panorama of the avenue could be watched from appropriate 

 seats, and beyond the main central entrance a sculptured 

 fountain could lift its constant streams of water, while 

 minor fountains or beautiful statues could be placed here 

 and there. 



There is no good reason why a garden of this sort could 

 not be made one of the most attractive and artistic spots 

 in the city. Indeed, some surroundings of the character 

 found here are essential to decorative gardening of the best 

 type. The canons of good taste would exclude such rigid 

 and geometrical planting from landscapes like those in 

 Central Park, because it would be impossible to reconcile 

 such an artificial work with the free and natural design of 

 the park. The two motives would inevitably conflict with 

 and contradict each other. A flower-garden in a stretch of 

 greensward would interrupt its unity and rob it of the 

 breadth and repose, which are its highest charm. And, on 

 the other hand, an expanse of turf with an irregular border 

 of shrubs or trees would make a peculiarly inappropriate 

 setting for a formal flower-garden, and neutralize to a great 



