I used to resent the ethical obligation to continually explain affiliate links. (The idea being transparency: you need to know that the link is effectively a sponsorship, and that I could subconsciously be linking because I want to make money, not because it creates value for you.) But especially with this phrasing, which is sincere, I've realized that this notice isn't just a reminder about the sponsorship, but also a reminder about the primacy of book-reading. Reading books shapes these essays and my life. It can do so for everyone. That's worth continual notices!
I just stumbled on another book about Olmsted and the National Parks, The Power of Scenery by Dennis Drabelle. Only through the first chapter, so no review, yet.
You have prompted a question I never thought about, but upon reflection, I think I've alway seen the functions of parks as on a spectrum. Yellowstone does, after all, have its no longer so secret swimming hole. And while this may be taken as blasphemy by some, my experience as a parent and guide suggests that there ought to be a rustic and educational playground at each VC.
If you take a step down in wildness, most people who visit BIg Horn Canyon NRA (parts of which are, as you know, quite wild) swim and boat. Or how about Cuyahoga, where you ride a train out from downtown Cleveland to take your kids on a bike ride? It could as easily be a city park. Or what about the orchards at Capitol Reef (possibly my second favorite among all the parks). I think Olmsted would love them.
All but the wildest Alaskan parks feature a lot of intentional design that can, at least generically, be traced back to FLOs vision. Think about the carriage roads in Acadia, which the park's website says were laid out in part by John D Rockefeller himself. Was he inspired by FLO?
FLOs city parks include Forest Park in Portland. A very wild place considering its location. The beaver I featured in my last newsletter were thriving within 200 yards of a little league baseball field until spring runoff blew out their dam and they moved farther downstream.
I think FLOs legacy is that you work with what you have (all you have) to create the experience that particular landscape and the people you imagine enjoying it evoke.
Well said! I agree. Drabelle wrote a very thoughtful review of one of my books, so I hope The Power of Scenery is good. I just happened to come across Carr's book first.
I'm not aware of specific connections between Rockefellers and Olmsteds (I believe this would be JDR jr and FLO jr), but it was a small world and probably a more unified vision of parks.
Ooh, fun question! I might argue for the Pinchots, depending on your definition of park. And in the same way that the Curry family dynasty rules the NBA, based almost entirely on Steph, we could argue for the Mather family based entirely on Steve. But Rockefellers and Olmsteds still probably win.
Mather has to have an honorable mention. I don't think of Pinchot in relation to parks per se. But the scale of the Rockefeller contributions and influenc is huge. Setting aside the National Parks, think of the Adirondack Park. It would exist without them, but the present shape and management all date back to Nelson and Lawrence in the early 70s. Then there were the Wirths.
Glad your affiliate link takes you to bookshop.org and not to you know where.
I used to resent the ethical obligation to continually explain affiliate links. (The idea being transparency: you need to know that the link is effectively a sponsorship, and that I could subconsciously be linking because I want to make money, not because it creates value for you.) But especially with this phrasing, which is sincere, I've realized that this notice isn't just a reminder about the sponsorship, but also a reminder about the primacy of book-reading. Reading books shapes these essays and my life. It can do so for everyone. That's worth continual notices!
It was not a good movie.
I just stumbled on another book about Olmsted and the National Parks, The Power of Scenery by Dennis Drabelle. Only through the first chapter, so no review, yet.
You have prompted a question I never thought about, but upon reflection, I think I've alway seen the functions of parks as on a spectrum. Yellowstone does, after all, have its no longer so secret swimming hole. And while this may be taken as blasphemy by some, my experience as a parent and guide suggests that there ought to be a rustic and educational playground at each VC.
If you take a step down in wildness, most people who visit BIg Horn Canyon NRA (parts of which are, as you know, quite wild) swim and boat. Or how about Cuyahoga, where you ride a train out from downtown Cleveland to take your kids on a bike ride? It could as easily be a city park. Or what about the orchards at Capitol Reef (possibly my second favorite among all the parks). I think Olmsted would love them.
All but the wildest Alaskan parks feature a lot of intentional design that can, at least generically, be traced back to FLOs vision. Think about the carriage roads in Acadia, which the park's website says were laid out in part by John D Rockefeller himself. Was he inspired by FLO?
FLOs city parks include Forest Park in Portland. A very wild place considering its location. The beaver I featured in my last newsletter were thriving within 200 yards of a little league baseball field until spring runoff blew out their dam and they moved farther downstream.
I think FLOs legacy is that you work with what you have (all you have) to create the experience that particular landscape and the people you imagine enjoying it evoke.
Well said! I agree. Drabelle wrote a very thoughtful review of one of my books, so I hope The Power of Scenery is good. I just happened to come across Carr's book first.
I'm not aware of specific connections between Rockefellers and Olmsteds (I believe this would be JDR jr and FLO jr), but it was a small world and probably a more unified vision of parks.
I'll let you know about Drabelle's book when I am farther along.
The world was so much smaller then that it certainly seems possible the Rockefellers knew the Olmsteds.
And after a minute's reflection, which two American family dynasties have the most to do with parks?
Ooh, fun question! I might argue for the Pinchots, depending on your definition of park. And in the same way that the Curry family dynasty rules the NBA, based almost entirely on Steph, we could argue for the Mather family based entirely on Steve. But Rockefellers and Olmsteds still probably win.
Mather has to have an honorable mention. I don't think of Pinchot in relation to parks per se. But the scale of the Rockefeller contributions and influenc is huge. Setting aside the National Parks, think of the Adirondack Park. It would exist without them, but the present shape and management all date back to Nelson and Lawrence in the early 70s. Then there were the Wirths.