OF WAGONS AND PRAIRIES

OF WAGONS AND PRAIRIES: Ecological Historic Landscapes 

 

This paper investigates historic landscape preservation and sustainability as two concurrently rising fields of interest, research and practice within landscape architecture.  Of specific interest relating to the topical focus of this course is how the practice of historic landscape preservation intersects with the equally rapidly emerging notion of sustainability.  While not the milieu for a detailed investigation, the paper first begins the study by broadly tracing the development of the historic preservation movement and the evolution of the study of historic landscape preservation.  The next section of the paper is a case study of Homestead National Monument of America, investigating recent and ongoing historic landscape issues and current planning. Third is a brief discussion of the evolution of the notion of sustainability and how its underpinning influences and concepts relate to the field of historic landscapes.

 

Historical Landscapes?

As one examines landscapes, perhaps two of the largest understatements one could make about landscapes are that: all landscapes have a history and all landscapes change.  Yet it is an increasingly specific and professionalized attention to each subject that is of interest, namely historic and sustainable landscapes.

Obviously all landscapes have a history.  The land has been filled, dredged, piled, plowed, mined, planted and with a host of other activities, shaped to serve the function of culture.  Indeed this act of shaping land is what by definition may shift ‘land’ into ‘landscape”.  This act of creating landscapes and the inherent prescription of value to that landscape whether it is garden, park or otherwise operates upon several sociological levels.  Indeed the value prescribed to a landscape is strongly dependent upon the user and their knowledge and relationship to that landscape and its function. Germane for this discussion, the relationship, knowledge and integrity one prescribes to a landscape might generally be said to have some “historic” value.  In combination of with knowledge and relationship to a historic landscape, to what degree a landscape may be valued can also be influenced by the conditional integrity of the landscape.  Collectively, value, integrity, and knowledge are a function of historic landscapes significance.  The significance of historic landscapes can operate within a varying range of communities, although not all communities may share the significance:

the Personal…  grandmother’s kitchen garden

the Local…        town cemetery or square

the Regional…   Loess Hills, IA or Lancaster County, PA

the National…   Gettysburg Battlefield

the Global…       Grand Canyon, Eiffel Tower

The significance of these historic landscapes, whether they are personal or global, reflects a shared valuation of their significance, while the significance may not all be the same.   In addition, these landscapes can vary in origin, from specific events, ritual practices, or in terms of their origin such as naturally occurring (Grand Canyon), designed or vernacular.

Whether if its an old pair of comfortable shoes or a relative with terminally failing health, seemingly we inherently want to keep something around for a bit longer when its cherished and valued.  The same holds true for significant landscapes.  And, like passing family heirlooms from one generation to the next, the practice of preserving or recreating a lost historically significant architecture and landscapes has been in practice for as long as they have been created (although which and by whom determines them has presumably changed).  In the United States, John D. Rockefeller stimulated the professional practice of restoring or preserving landscapes and his financial support of architects Perry, Shaw & Hepburn and landscape architect Arthur A. Shurcliff during the research and recreation of Williamsburg, Virginia in the late 1920’s.[1]   The success of Williamsburg, while a reconstruction, began to influence the attitudes towards other potentially significant landscapes such as the restoration of Mount Vernon and its grounds in 1931.   Concurrently, the National Park Service established the Historic American Buildings Survey (today’s HABS/ HAER) that explicitly accurately documents restorations.  Interest, this period of the early 20th century is also the period in which much of the preservation vs. conservation debate around natural resources began to gain steam with the establishment of national, state and local park programs.  Three decades later and largely in response to the loss of significant architectural structures during the urban renewal period of the 1950’s and 60’s, the US Congress wrote and passed the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA).

Rising Bureaucracy and Professionalization of Historical Landscapes

The passage of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) resulting in the involvement of the federal government in historic resources has had several profound effects on the planning, design and preservation of historic landscapes.  Recognizing the implicit danger in trying to simplify the seemingly impossible, the following is an attempt to distill the beuacratization of historic resources and important for our discussion its fruition in the landscape. The result of the NHPA had three immediate effects.   First was the establishment of a government protective process for historic properties known as Section 106 of NHPA.  Section 106 of NHPA applies when “two thresholds are met: there is a Federal or federally licensed action, including grants, licenses, and permits; and that action has the potential to affect properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places”[2] (see below).  As one can see, the thresholds are not unattainable. In fact, as written, it guarantees that every federal project and every other project using federal funds will be subject to at least preliminary review and regulation of Section 106.  The second effect is a result of the need for administration, review and enforcement of Section 106.  This resulted in the establishment of the independent Federal agency known as The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.  The Council “provides a forum for influencing federal activities, programs, and policies as they effect historic resources.”  The Council, whose members include presidential appointees as well as cabinet secretaries, is the only entity with the legal and regulatory responsibility to balance historic preservation concerns with Federal project requirements, and as directed by NHPA:

– advocates full consideration of historic values in Federal decision-making;

– reviews Federal programs and policies to promote effectiveness, coordination, and consistency with national preservation policies, and

– is the primary Federal policy advisor to the President and Congress and it recommends administrative and legislative improvements for protecting our Nation’s heritage with due recognition of other national needs and priorities; and

– oversees the Section 106 review process and mediates in controversial cases.[3]

The third and perhaps most significant effect of NHPA was the authorization and establishment of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The National Register is “the Nation’s official list of cultural resources worthy of preservation”[4] and is administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior. National Register properties are “distinguished by having been documented and evaluated according to uniform standards. These criteria recognize the accomplishments of all peoples who have contributed to the history and heritage of the United States and are designed to help state and local governments, Federal agencies, and others identify important historic and archeological properties worthy of preservation and of consideration in planning and development decisions.”    As defined by the NRPA and the National Register criteria, to be eligible for the National Register a designed historic landscape must “possess the quality of significance(my emphasis) in American history, architecture (interpreted in the broadest sense to include landscape architecture and planning), archeology, engineering, and culture and integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and:

A. be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or

B. be associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or

C. embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or

D. have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.[5]

Perhaps the most influential result is the establishment of the National Register as the defacto symbol and method of determining and recognizing historic landscapes.  As such, the criteria place a strong emphasis upon determining a historic properties’ existing integrity in relation to its period of significance.  This concept tying the integrity of an existing landscape in relation to a past period of significance is perhaps the single most influential aspect of the National Register and the attitude it reinforces towards historic properties.  As elucidated by Charles Birnbaum, FASLA:

Throughout the preservation planning process, it is important to ensure that existing landscape features are retained. Preservation maintenance is the practice of monitoring and controlling change in the landscape to ensure that its historic integrity is not altered and features are not lost. This is particularly important during the research and long-term treatment planning process. To be effective, the maintenance program must have a guiding philosophy, approach or strategy; an understanding of preservation maintenance techniques; and a system for documenting changes in the landscape.

The philosophical approach to maintenance should coincide with the landscape’s current stage in the preservation planning process…..initial maintenance operations may focus on the stabilization and protection of all landscape features to provide temporary, often emergency measures to prevent deterioration, failure, or loss, without altering the site’s existing character.”

(from NPS Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Management of Historic Landscapes)

As one can easily imagine, the end result of this triad of affect, regulation and definition is an upsurge in the bureaucratic layeringof government over the historic landscape in the form of regulations, bulletins explaining regulations and, in turn, briefs explaining the bulletins. The most significant aspect of this myriad of publications and policies is the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Preservation Projects that were developed in 1976. This policy guidebook focused upon specifically on structures and described seven preferred standards of acquisition, protection, stabilization, preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction of historic buildings. These standards have tried to establish a national standard of consistency for review and management of historic properties that receive federal money or tax benefits.  Throughout the 1980’s, designed and vernacular landscapes also began to be seen for their historical significance and in 1992,  the Secretary of Interior’s Standards were revised so that they could be applied to “all historic resource types included in the National Register of Historic Places–buildings, structures, sites, objects, districts, and landscapes”.[6]

Effectively, the 1992 revision did two things.  First, it broaden the initial scope of concern upon structures to include the landscape.  While a significant extension in terms of recognizing the cultural significance of landscapes, it also hints at the attitudes of the landscape as a historical entity.  The second change from 1992 was the reduction of the seven treatment options (acquisition, protection, stabilization, preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction) into four treatment options:

Preservation is defined as the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of an historic property. Work, including preliminary measures to protect and stabilize the property, generally focuses upon the ongoing maintenance and repair of historic materials and features rather than extensive replacement and new constructions. New additions are not within the scope of this treatment; however, the limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems and other code-required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a preservation project.

 

Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features that convey its historical or cultural values.

 

Restoration is defined as the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period. The limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems and other code-required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a restoration project.

 

Reconstruction is defined as the act or process of depicting, by means of new construction, the form, features, and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, building, structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic location.[7]

Another change that has occurred since the mid-to late 1980’s is the gradual shift in terminology from “historical landscapes” to “cultural landscapes”.  In 1996, the NPS amended the Secretaries Standards and published “The Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes”.   Combined together, the policies have resulted in a criteria that a) evolves historic landscapes into the province of the professional and federal, b) focuses the definition, criteria, and scope of a landscape’s historic character from the personal/ local in relation to the significance on a meta-/ national scale; c) stresses the importance of a defining a historic period of significance within a landscape; which d) encourages, like a structure and where at all possible, time-stop replication of the historic landscape in relation to the period of significance, reinforced through the landscape maintenance.

 

Case Study:  Homestead National Monument of America

Homestead National Monument of America (HNMA) is located in Gage County, in southeastern Nebraska, approximately 40 miles south of Lincoln, Nebraska. The history of human use of present-day Gage County begins with periodic use approximately 2,000 years ago when Indian tribes engaged in simple agriculture and hunted in the vicinity.  During the eighteenth and early nineteenth-centuries when Euro-Americans began to travel west, traders and trappers were active in the area, land was surveyed, and settlers began to claim land and settle it.  In 1862 a squatter cleared a portion of tallgrass prairie and built a simple log cabin near Cub Creek in the northern-most section of the present HNMA.  Just a few months later in 1862, Daniel Freeman bought the squatter’s interest in the land, and filed a claim under the Homestead Act of 1863, becoming the first Homesteader in Nebraska.  His 160 acre plot was arranged in an inverted T formation, which can be divided into four, approximately 40-acre, square plots of land, referred to as the north, southeast, south, and southwest forties. During his lifetime, Daniel Freeman built a series of structures on his property and exploited the entirety of the 160 acres.  In 1867, he built a log cabin in the north forty of his homestead.  The cabin was associated with a number of traditional farming outbuildings.  He continued to clear the prairie for farming, and he also used the wooded sections of his property as a source for wood and timber as well as grazing land for livestock.  Freeman prospered and was able to build a new two-story, brick house near Cub Creek and to develop a new barnyard, feeder barn, granary, corncrib, windmill, and well. Freeman directed farming and ranching activities on his property, which consisted of approximately 100 acres of grassland and 60 acres of woodland along the banks of Cub Creek, until his death in 1908.  Following Daniel Freeman’s death in 1908, his wife and their children continued to farm and develop the property.  When the Freeman’s brick house burned, it was replaced by a smaller house; at least two other small houses were built on the property for family members.  Daniel Freeman’s heirs continued to farm the land through the 1930s, until 1936 when HNMA was established by Congress “as an appropriate monument to retain for prosperity a proper memorial emblematical of the hardships and the pioneer life through which the early settlers passed in the settlement, cultivation, and civilization of the great West.”[8]

In 1938 the National Park Service (NPS) purchased the Freeman property and officially designated it the Homestead National Monument of America in 1939.  The initial stages of National Park Service ownership of HNMA were characterized by the restoration of the Freeman farmlands to their pre-settlement status as tallgrass prairie and the construction of a NPS headquarters area.  The prairie restoration began in 1939, making it the second oldest restored prairie in the United States.  Additional developments were made in the NPS Mission 66 period, including new roads and trails through the site, expansion of the headquarters area, and the addition of the Freeman schoolhouse parcel to the monument.  HNMA is now composed of two discontinuous units: the primary acreage, containing the original 162.73 acre Daniel Freeman homestead and the Palmer-Epard Cabin, and the 1.5 acre Freeman Schoolhouse site located ½ mile west of the original homestead. Since that time NPS has operated the HNMA as an interpreted site open for public visitation and has developed facilities, including buildings and structures, in support of its mission.  NPS has also undertaken conservation and restoration projects to counteract the effects of decades of poor conservation practices during the years the site was being actively farmed.

 

 

A National Monument to the Homestead Act?

Today, the HNMA landscape does not reflect to any great extent either the landscape developed and known by Daniel Freeman and his heirs or a typical homestead landscape.  In a 1998 Cultural Landscape Report for Homestead National Monument describes a gross “loss of historic fabric and misrepresentation of the historic landscape.”[9] In response to the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Historic Preservation, the most serious cultural landscape issue associated with the HNMA is the loss of historic features dating from the Freeman period.  The HNMA retains few cultural landscape features from Daniel Freeman’s period of residence nor does it retain cultural landscape features associated with his heirs during the period following his death. This reflects the early NPS attitudes, which persist today, for the inherent need to separate cultural and natural resources. Despite the fact that Freeman occupied the HNMA site and fulfilled the requirements of the Homestead Act, the only major above ground feature associated with Freeman is a Osage orange hedgerow, which is an aging vegetative feature along the south property line.  The only historic building within the NPS boundaries is a cabin which NPS relocated on the site and which has no association with the Freeman family.  Furthermore, the cabin environs do not represent typical homestead environs. Bearing in mind the context of the times, most historic features have been lost due largely to NPS policies effective in the early 20th century.  What resulted however, was a shift in the identity of HMNA from a historical to an ecological resource and interpreation strongly reinforces this.

Despite the lack of any tangible historical structures or land uses from the late 19th century, the HNMA site has unique qualities due to the presence of several elements not typical of many homesteads.  Freeman’s claim was a desirable site that included Cub Creek, a natural source of water, and substantial woodlands, a natural source of lumber and firewood, as well as tallgrass prairie.  The versatility of the site was a favorable factor that contributed to its success as a claim site.  These landscape characteristics—the inherent qualities that made the site desirable enough for Freeman to purchase the squatter’s rights to the property—still exist to a substantial degree and perhaps are the most significant opportuinty for the NPS to approach historical signficance from a landscape perspective.

 

A Focus on Prairie Management

The first NPS preliminary development plan dating from 1937 articulated a goal of attempting to restore the “land to a condition, as nearly as it is possible to do so”[10] to represent its character during the period in which Daniel Freeman homesteaded the area.  Planting much of the core homestead site in native grasses by the NPS in the late 1930’s was intended to impart something of the feeling and appearance of the virgin prairie that homesteaders found in the American west, strongly supplemented by the need to control erosive farm practices of the previous 50 years. Today, the presence of the restored prairie, however, “diverts attention from the cultural associations that are the intentional focus of the park’s mission”.[11]  The prairie restoration has actually created a natural/cultural resource management conflict that is especially difficult to address in the absence of aboveground cultural resources that date from the homestead era.  The original enabling legislation specifically mandated interpretation and preservation of the homesteaders’ interaction with the land.[12]  Indeed, the prairie restoration has gained its own historical significance. The prairie, as it has developed over time and has been interpreted to the public, appears to have more merit for its natural resource value than for its role in interpreting the hardships of pioneer life and the “settlement, cultivation, and civilization of the great west.”[13]  As one of the “oldest ongoing prairie restorations on a human-altered landscape in the United States,”[14] the replanted tallgrass prairie has come to be considered by some as a resource in its own right apart from its associations and interpretive value as part of the homesteading experience.  This is reinforced by the NPS decision to extend the period of significance for HNMA to include the very earliest periods of NPS involvement when the soil stabilization practice of re-establishing prairie was first performed on site.  Although the prairie restoration effort’s long-range objective was “to restore the tallgrass prairie scene” that pioneers confronted when the area was first settled in the mid-1860’s,[15] the 1998 CLR states “it is not clear that this objective is compatible with the park’s mission to commemorate the settlement and cultivation of the American west.  This approach can be interpreted as celebrating the prairie rather than its sodbusters.  It should be remembered that the HNMA was established to tell the story of homesteading, not the management of tallgrass prairie.”

Yet the NPS desires to maintain the restored tallgrass prairie with the goal of “portraying a typical homestead”.    However, to qualify for land ownership under the Homestead Act of 1862, at least “ten acres of a homestead needed to be put into agricultural use to qualify as a claim”, which the current HNMA landscape does not represent.  Aside from the prairie reconstruction, HNMA’s best-documented historic vegetation is its Osage orange hedgerow that dates from the homestead era of Daniel Freeman and that delineates the south boundary of HNMA.  Although the hedgerow is in good condition, the majority of the trees are quite mature and nearing the end of their life expectancy maintenance is needed toensure the of the Osage orange hedgerow.  The irony of this landscape is that within its surrounding context of rolling farmland and rural ag-related industries, it is the uncanny anomaly.

 

Relationship to Sustainability

Historical landscapes have emerged in the past 2 decades as a significant arena for the practice, research and discussion of the landscape architectural profession (and others).  Perhaps the only other issue topical issue that parallels or exceeds historic landscapes is that of sustainable landscapes.  Frequently one hears reference to how the project is either an example of or striving towards sustainability, or how a project restored or rehabilitated the heritage and history of the landscape .  Yet rarely are both sustainability and historical landscapes referred to together on the same project.

The theory of sustainability is rooted a paradigm shift in societal attitudes[16] found in our emerging post-industrial or neo-technic period.[17] Whether it is social sustainability, economic sustainability or environmental sustainability, all are fundamentally rooted in the principle of sustaining current equity and benefit without jeopardizing future social or environmental or economic equities and processes.  The most frequently cited definition of sustainability is that of the UN’s World Commission on the Environment and Development:

A sustainable condition for this planet is one in which there is stability for both social and physical systems, achieved through meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.[18]

While one can begin to wonder how a current generation has the clairvoyance to assume the needs of future generations and thus not “compromising the abilities of future generations”, several important features of the definition stand out.  First, is the reference to both social and physical systems and the second is time.  A wealth of analysis exists that describes how society is unsustainable, yet this analysis is often criticized as mere rhetoric of vague policy at best, without visible efficacy or tangible solutions at worst.   This criticism is correct for solutions do not lie within the theory alone- they must be melded to practice, and thus at least the criticism has the opportunity to spur physical and tangible results. To this end several leading designers and planners of landscapes such as John Lyle, Sim van der Ryn, William McDonough,, Jim Patchett, William Todd,  have began to tease out what this paradigm shift means in landscape planning and design. In the final portion of Land Mosaics, Richard Forman discusses the arising need to creating sustainable environments though landscape planning and design.  Forman suggests that two central components of sustainability are the “time frame over generations” and the “equal emphasis on human and environmental dimensions”.  He argues that the primary characteristic that separates typical land planning from that of sustainable land planning is this difference in time scale across human generations.[19]  While this statement does not lend itself to off the shelf, quantifiable answers, it relies on translation and interpretation through individual strategies responding to the peculiar nuances of regions and sites.  Yet at its core, a sustainable strategy is flexible so as it may adapt to both change through time and the changing nuances of place.

  [lyle1]

Lyle’s diagram describing the traditional degenerative pattern of flow in landscapes[20]

  [lyle2]

Lyle’s diagram describing the a regenerative or sustainable pattern of flow in landscapes[21]

Up to this point, perhaps one could see how historic landscapes could fit within a definition of sustainability, particularly the idea off transcending through time as well as supporting the needs of both social and physical systems.  However, the manner in which historic landscapes have been conceptualized and codified is at odds with the notion of sustainability.  Sustainability doesn’t resist change, but rather embraces it; is defined by it.  And perhaps this provides an opportunity to contemporary design and planning of historic landscapes.  While certainly not all contemporary landscape design could be described as post-modern in its theoretical sense, landscape planning and design has certainly begun to embrace some of its theoretical qualities, such as the rejection of meta-narratives of style and formulae, embracing and working with social and ecological complexity, embracing change and process as a determinant in design form, etc.  In contrast, traditional historic landscape preservation policy set itself at odds with this movement as it is still firmly entrenched in the modernist attitude (theory) of landscapes where simplicity rather than complexity is favored, where formula is more reliable than creative exploration and the like.  Whose history? Whose significance?  What value?   Issues that I described at the start of this paper regarding how one values the landscape and its history are amplified to the point that they in effect marginalized their condition of existence.  To this end, Laurie Olin, in a lengthy response to Charles Birnbaum’s review of Olin’s work and monograph of Bryant Park, states,

 “This is where my real quarrel with many in the preservation field is founded, on matters of judgment, assessment of quality, and creative intervention…I believe that landscapes, like cities, are at their best when they are complex, layered accretions.  I am suspect of simplistic, purist versions-and of cookbooks of rules in art and especially of reductive “cleansing” operations, whether they are directed towards nations or people, music and art, or history and landscape.”[22]

And thus returning to the case study of Homestead National Monument.  While the landscape presents little, if any, visible historic features such as structures, circulation routes, etc. it does still exist largely in it original form with some of its original boundary demarcations (fencerows, hedgerows.)  The creek and woodland are still there, although the channel has been deepened due to surrounding land use impacts within the watershed.  In essence the place still retains its regional quality, due in large part as to how it sits in an uncanny contrast to the surrounding rural context, especially when viewed in terms of its establishment as a national monument landscape.  Yet, perhaps this provides an opportunity for a merging of sustainability and historic landscape.  The erasure of these traditional qualities associated with landscape preservation, the structures, the specific planting arrangements, the circulation patterns, etc. provides an opportunity that is not as easily conceptualizedas one whose visible historical features remain intact, preserved and seemingly scripted.

What it calls for is a shift in how historic landscapes are strategized, perhaps one that doesn’t rely upon pickling and preserving a landscapes, but rather, allowing a landscape to change as all landscapes do. To recognize that this change is as much the significance of the landscape as the idealized historical memory of freeze-dried commemoration.  In the instance of HNMA, it forces the hand of the NPS to begin thinking of methods of conveying historical significance in a manner that transcends signboards describing a historic view of a landscape or structure.  It requires a strategy that takes the landscape out of a stop-frame notion of landscape maintenance reliant upon an abstraction and interpretation of a “period of significance” and places the landscape into a context of today. What is striking about HMNA is that it has stumbled backwards into physical systems sustainability, but has left its social sustainability unregistered and unsupported. It his here, in this erased slate that the history could be built up in relation to the site’s existing condition and rural context.

At the start of this paper I stated “As one examines landscapes, perhaps two of the largest understatements one could make about landscapes are that: all landscapes have a history and all landscapes change.”  Historical landscape preservation efforts has seemed to forget these important hallmark characteristics of landscape.   Constancy is not the goal of sustainability, but rather external and internal changes are the norm of sustainable and functioning landscapes.  The capacity of a landscape to respond to change or disturbance is a function of landscapes is the capacity for adaptability.  Does the landscape have a flexible capacity for change?  And if so, how regular is that change?  Do historical landscapes change and adapt?  Constantly.  Do policies and strategies of historical landscape preservation adapt for change?  They must, for the policies and the landscapes that they are there to serve must adapt and change or they will decompose and fail to be sustained through time, much like they landscapes they seek to preserve.

 

Works Cited

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. http://www.achp.gov/

Batzer, John F., and Rebecca Dahle Lacome.  Into the Twenty-First Century: Homestead National Monument Prairie Management Action Plan, 1993-2002. National Park Service. 1993.

Birnbaum, Charles A. with Christine Capella Peters (eds.).  The Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes.  Washington D.C.: National Park Service, Heritage Preservation Services, Historic Landscape Initiative. 1996.

Birnbaum, Charles A.  Preservation Brief 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Management of Historic Landscapes. Washington D.C.: National Park Service, Preservation Assistance Division. 1994. http://www2.cr.nps.gov/tps/briefs/brief36.htm (December 2000)

 

Cultural Landscape Report: Homestead National Monumnet of America (Phase I, 95% Draft).  Prepared by Quinn Evans/ Architects and Land and Community Associates for Midwest Systems Support Office, National Park Service, Omaha, NE.  1998.

Division of Interpretive Planning. A Plan for Interpretation of Homestead National Monument of America National Park Service, Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, 1990.

Forman, Richard T.T.  Land Mosaics: The Ecology,of Landscapes and RegionNew York, NY: Cambridge University Press,. 1995.

Historic Landscape Initiative, National Park Service. http://www2.cr.nps.gov/hli/  (December 2000)

Institute for Cultural Landscape Studies, Harvard University. http://www.icls.harvard.edu/language/whatare.htm (Jan2001).

Keller, J. Timothy and Genevieve P. Keller. How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, Interagency Resources Branch, U.S. Government Printing Office.

Lyle, John T.  Regenerative Design for Sustainable Development.  New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. 1994.

McClelland, Linda Flint, J. Timothy Keller, Genevieve P. Keller, and Robert Z. Melnick.  National Register Bulletin 30: Guidelines for Documenting Rural Historic Landscapes.  Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, Interagency Resources Branch, U.S. Government Printing Office.

National Register of Historic Places, National park Service. http://www.cr.nps.gov/NR/about.htm (Jan 2001)

Newton, Norman T.  Design on the Land.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1971

Olin, Laurie.  “Landscape Transformation”. Land Forum Vol. 5 (2000)

Public Law 480, 74th Congress, 2d Sess. (March 19, 1936), “An Act to establish the Homestead National Monument of America”.

Stubbendieck, James, and Gary D. Wilson. “Prairie Restoration/Management at Homestead:  A History,” Park Science Vol. 7, No. 4 (Summer 1987).

Sutton, Richard K., J. Stubbendieck, and Jayne Traeger.  Vegetation Survey and Management Recommendations for Homestead National Monument of America.  Lincoln, Nebraska:  Natural Resources Enterprises, Inc., December, 1984.

Thayer, Robert L.  “The Experience of Sustainable Landscapes”. Landscape Journal.  Vol. 8, No. 2 (Fall 1989).

Thayer, Robert L.  Gray World, Green Heart: Technology, Nature and the Sustainable Landscape.  New York, NY:  John Wiley and Sons. 1994.

Thompson, Ian H.  “Environmental Ethics and the Development of Landscape Architecture Theory”. Landscape Research. Vol. 23, No. 8 (1998).

[1] Norman Newton, Design on the Land.  P646.

[2] http://www.achp.gov/regs.html

[3] ibid.

[4]  http://www.cr.nps.gov/NR/about.htm. As of now, there are 71,000 listings on the National Register.

[5] Keller, J. Timothy and Genevieve P. Keller. How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes.

[6]  http://www2.cr.nps.gov/hli/

[7] Birnbaum, Charles A. with Christine Capella Peters (eds.).  The Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes.

[8]“A Plan for the Interpretation of Homestead National Monument of America,” May 11, 1990.  p. 3.

[9] Cultural Landscape Report: Homestead National Monumnet of America (Phase I, 95% Draft).

[10] Cultural Landscape Report: Homestead National Monumnet of America (Phase I, 95% Draft).

[11] Ibid.

[12] Division of Interpretive Planning, “A Plan for Interpretation of Homestead National Monument of America,” Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, 1990.

[13] Public Law 480, 74th Congress, 2d Sess. (March 19, 1936), “An Act to establish the Homestead National Monument of America”

[14] Stubbendieck and Wilson, 1987.  “Prairie Restoration/Management at Homestead: A History” Park Science, Vol. 7, no.4, Summer 1987.

[15] Batzer and Lacome, p. 1.

[16] For a recent, strongly argued and succinct discussion of how sustainability as an ideology has arisen from the concurrent development of ecological sciences along with the social reforms, see Sue Thering and Cheryl Doble, “Theory and Practice in Sustainability:  Building a Ladder of Community Focused Education and Outreach”, Fall 2000 Landscape Journal.

[17] See Patrick Geddes “Cities in Evolution” (1915) for his postulation of the “neotechnic age” and the emergence of organic-centered methods of regional planning.  See Daniel Bell “The Coming of the Post-Industrial Age” for a discussion of the shift from production to service economies and the shift in emphasis from practical knowledge to theoretical knowledge.

[18] Quoted in Forman, Richard T.T.  Land Mosaics: The Ecology,of Landscapes and Region

[19] , Richard T.T.  Land Mosaics: The Ecology,of Landscapes and Region

[20] Lyle, John T.  Regenerative Design for Sustainable Development.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Olin, Laurie.  “Landscape Transformation”. Land Forum