OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 71 



The whole cost of the landscape development, outside of buildings, amounted to a 

 total of $46,010, which included a 10 per cent professional fee. This sum is about one- 

 half the cost of the buildings. The proportion of one-half the cost of the buildings is, I 

 think, an important matter for discussion and consideration, as upon it may depend 

 the decision of a prospective client as to living out-of-town. One scarcely realizes the 

 difference between the country and the city until taught by experience. It has always 

 seemed to me that people going into the country should contemplate an interest there 

 which would make them independent of the city for amusement. This may, of course, 

 be had in a greater or less degree; but one who goes into the country, and yet looks to 

 the city for his amusement, is taking a great risk. The construction of a house is finished 

 very rapidly, but not so the grounds, which one may say can never be entirely completed, 

 and may afford much pleasure in the development as well as in finished results, if they 

 are planned for an ultimate effect and executed in a substantial manner, and not too fast. 

 The annual cost may thus be distributed over a sufficient period of time so as not to be 

 burdensome, and one may contemplate the expenditure of a large amount with less 

 hesitancy. 



The foregoing figures may seem high in some respects and low in others. Tliis may 

 be accounted for by the local conditions, which, of course, vary with every piece of work; 

 so it might be well to add to the above figures in making estimates, if one wishes to be 

 on the safe side. 



In the event of the work being done at a greater distance from New York, where 

 labor may be secured at lower rates, and less rock encountered, reductions can be made 

 from the costs given. 



These figures are based upon laborers at I1.65 per day; double teams, $4.50 per day; 

 single horse, cart and driver, $3.50; masons, I4.20; foremen, I5; planters, $4, and upon 

 rock amounting to 20 per cent of the excavation. 



The professional compensation would seem fair at 10 per cent for work done within 

 a reasonabfe time. Should the time be extended beyond, say, three years, and a little 

 done each year, a larger commission should be paid. 



In the subsequent discussion Mr. Leavitt said that the whole vegetable-garden was built, drained, 

 and piped for hose for $500. Ejrtra cost was due to the pergola and to fussing with the work after it 

 was finished. The water-supply is an important element of comfort in a country place, and should be 

 included by the landscape man in his work. Mr. Leavitt said that the value of his paper was in the 

 discussion it would elicit. 



Mr. Langton found Mr. Leavitt's paper interesting, but answers the question of cost in a too final 

 way. The cost depends on the character of the work. A scale of local costs is desirable. He found that 

 parks could not be built for $1,000 an acre. The cost of improvements on his own place were about $1,000 

 an acre for 1,000 feet of road and a simple little garden. The cost of Hudson County Parks, New Jersey, 

 was nearer $2,000 than $1,000 an acre. 



Mr. Parsons had found that general landscape work cost about $1,000 an acre. The contract for the 

 first half of a city park of thirty acres was $141,000. Morningside Park cost $250,000 for blasting only. Mr. 

 Parsons considered it better to lose work than give the idea that you would do it cheaply. 



Mr. Vaux found that the cost of work in the Catskills came to very near Mr. Leavitt's figures. He 

 considered work of this kind done to better advantage fay the day. It was too indefinite in character for 

 contracting. 



Mr. Lowrie said that the cost of development depended on the cost and style of the house. The 

 cost per acre for the grounds of a $20,ooo house would probably be much less than for those of a $50,000 

 or $100,000 house. 



