277 
PARK AND 
CEMETERY. 
PUBLIC BUILDINGS IN PUBLIC PARKS 
Opinions of some leading park men on the advisability of allowing build- 
ings in parks; written for the Audubon Park Association of New Orleans. 
As a g-eneral proposition, buildings 
are undesirable intrusions in a park. 
Certain buildings are necessary for 
sanitation and comfort of the people 
who come to parks for pleasure and 
recreation, such as shelters and toi- 
let rooms. Other buildings are desir- 
able for meeting the physical de- 
mands of the people, such as refresh- 
ments and for accommodation of 
those who indulge in certain sports, 
as refectory buildings, gymnasiums, 
locker rooms, boat houses and land- 
ings, etc. 
Another class of buildings in a park 
that would perhaps be permissible are 
libraries, museums, etc. The adinis- 
sion of these last-named buildings into 
any park is usually decided upon after 
a careful consideration of all the fea- 
tures governing the matter in each 
particular case. The first answer to 
the question is that these buildings 
should not be in a park, but there are 
conditions where the character of the 
park, being somewhat monumental 
and architectural in its designs when 
the introduction of such a building 
would not be objectionable and per- 
haps the location of the park is such 
in a city, that the museum in the 
park would better serve the public 
than if placed anywhere else, and a 
sacrifice of park area for that purpose 
might be fully justifed if a greater 
advantage to the public be derived 
from the location of the building 
therein. 
There are many instances, both in 
Europe and America, where such 
buildings are placed in parks. As 
you know, in Grant Park the great 
Field Columbian Museum is to be lo- 
cated, which is now in Jackson Park. 
Central Park in New York has its 
great museum and the Academy of 
Sciences is in Lincoln Park in Chi- 
cago. There are many museums and 
art galleries in the cities of Europe 
in parks. On the whole, I feel that 
such a building in any park of any 
size is an intrusion and should be 
avoided if possible to do so, provided 
it is not the intention of the designers 
of such a park to make it a monu- 
mental and architectural feature of 
the city. 
As to Audubon Park, it seems to 
me, considering its peculiar dimen- 
sions and its character, as so far de- 
veloped, it would be a great pity to 
introduce such a building, for ^ it 
would practically mean the cutting 
out of a large park territory out of 
an area which is none too large for 
the purposes for which you have pre- 
pared it for use by the people. 
Your park, it would seem to me as 
I remember its dimensions, would not 
permit of a large museum building 
being placed in its center and still 
have anything in the way of a park 
on either side of it; such being the 
case, the whole territory immediately 
about the building would immediately 
cease to be a park at all, and I should 
feel strongly like urging the acquire- 
ment of property immediately adjoin- 
ing the park perhaps for a museum 
instead of appropriating territory of 
your present park for the purpose. 
J. Frank Foster. 
General Superintendent South Park 
System of Chicago. 
* * * 
Answering the letter of May 24th, 
the ground that you take in opposi- 
tion to an aft museum in Audubon 
Park represents the attitude of the 
most far sighted people who have the 
best interests of their city at heart. 
You probably are familiar with the 
attempts that are constantly being 
made in cities on the part of groups 
of generally well-meaning citizens to 
appropriate land set apart for park 
purposes for some object that they 
and their friends and associates are 
particularly interested in — a speedway 
— a municipal building — a natural his- 
tory museum — an art museum — a me- 
morial to some event or to some de- 
parted individual. Usually the ground 
taken is that it is for the public inter- 
est, but an analysis of this plea will 
show that the public interest is not 
sufficient to contribute by popular 
subscription or to appropriate by pop- 
ular vote a sufficient sum to provide 
a site or erect a building for the ob- 
ject in view. 
Public parks are acquired and main- 
tained by popular vote in order that 
all the' people can at all times have 
open air recreation and attractive nat- 
ural or garden-like surroundings. 
'When special interests are able 
through specious arguments or in 
other ways to gain even a place for 
one small building or memorial in a 
public park, then the way is opened 
for an encroachment that will deprive 
a majority of the people of the out- 
door recreation that they so much 
need and appreciate. 
Take the Natural History Museum 
in Central Park, New York. The pub- 
lic and the majority of the petition- 
ers did not realize that it would be 
possible for so large an area to be 
covered with buildings as is now cov- 
ered when permit for the first build- 
ing was given. Recently a strongly 
supported petition for an hrt museum 
on the site of the Armory was pre- 
sented. The public was given to un- 
derstand that this building was sim- 
ply to replace the Armory, an exist- 
ing building, but the projectors knew 
that it would ultimately occupy a 
vastly larger area of park ground. 
The public opposition to this art mu- 
seum is very strong, and- I believe 
it will not find a place on this park 
ground. 
In Chicago where the Field Museum 
was left in Jackson Park as a relic 
of the World’s Columbian Exposi- 
tion, land has been made for a new 
site by filling in to the lake opposite 
the Lake Front Park, but not in it, 
and the old building will be removed 
so that its area may be used for legit- 
imate park purposes. Here again it 
was believed in 1885 that the old 
building was sufficient for its purpose. 
If now this old building in Jackson 
Park were to be increased to the 
size of the new building, the most 
important sections of this park would 
be ruined for out-door recreation pur- 
poses. I could multiply similar ex- 
amples, but this is sufficient. 
As valuable as art and natural his- 
tory museums are for education of 
the public, it should be borne in mind 
that they are visited by a small pro- 
portion of those who visit the park. 
The park is primarily for the health 
of the community. 
In city planning it is coming to be 
generally recognized that the place 
for public buildings is about a civic 
center, for which an area should be 
reserved at the present or future cen- 
ter of the city that will be adequate 
to provide for such buildings and 
their future extensions about an open 
space to give them a suitable setting 
and abundance of light and air. Such 
a plan is being executed at Cleveland, 
Ohio. 
I can conceive in the city plan that 
New Orleans ought to develop that 
some of the open spaces represented 
by its very broad main avenues would 
