THE PARKS OF SYDNEY. 29 



through before the sacredness of the public parks is 

 respected. Following are some pertinent extracts from 

 "The Garden and Forest " of New York, Vol. x. (1897), 

 which are worthy of perusual. 



" What we wish now to point out is that it seems probable that more 

 and more schemes to further definitely intellectual or aesthetic ends will 

 be prosecuted without due regard to the integrity and beauty of our parks 

 as works of landscape art, and that the patrons of science and literature 

 and of art of other kinds are likely to try to injure our great artistic 

 creations like Central and Prospect Parks. And this is, of course, a very 

 insidious danger, as the schemes may be worthy in themselves, and the 

 people who urge them are those whom the public has been told it should 

 trust most implicitly in intellectual and artistic matters. . . . 



" These few instances illustrate one phase of apprehension, — the danger 

 that buildings for public purposes will more and more absorb the narrow 

 and precious spaces set apart for the people's refreshment and enjoyment. 

 Each such instance is deplorable in itself, and as a precedent for future 

 enterprises of similar kind. Nor is New York the only city which needs 

 to be warned along these lines. The beautiful park which Mr. Olmsted 

 laid out in Buffalo is threatened with the erection of buildings which 

 would be public benefits if placed elsewhere, but public misfortunes as 

 features in a naturalistic park. Even the small and incomparably preci- 

 ous State Reservation at Niagara Falls has had to be defended against a 

 misfortune of a like sort ; and there is no town in the United States whose 

 parks are safe in this respect. It is high time that the public should 

 awaken to the fact that no buildings whatsoever, except those absolutely 

 required for park purposes proper, should be allowed within a park, and 

 that the projectors of all others should buy their own sites or, if these 

 must be purchased with public money, that they should be placed out- 

 side of park limits. 



" This is not merely because every foot of open public land is precious 

 as such, and should be held sacred to serve the health, the refreshment, 

 and the outdoor pleasures of the people. It is also because, almost with- 

 out exception, our pleasure-grounds are works of lanscape-art in the exact 

 sense — naturalistic parks — and are necessarily injured in their artistic 

 character by the intrusion of buildings even of the most beautiful kinds. 

 This is the point which many artists do not understand, and, therefore as 

 they are naturally regarded as the highest authorities in artistic matters, 

 the damage which may be done to our parks by those whe have not a 

 true comprehension of them is, perhaps, more to be dreaded than that 

 from any other class of men." — (p. 439). 



And again : — 



