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 
76 
