National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Cultural Landscape Report for

the Frederick Law Olmsted

National Historic Site

Volume II: Existing Conditions, Analysis and Treatment

“What artist so noble as 

he who, with far-reaching 

conception of beauty and 

designing power, sketches the 

outlines, writes the colors, 

and directs the shadows of a 

picture so great that Nature 

shall be employed upon it for 

generations, before the work he 

arranged for her shall realize 

his intentions!”

Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr. 

1852

Cultural Landscape Report

for Frederick Law Olmsted

National Historic Site

Brookline, Massachusetts

Prepared by

Lauren G. Meier, Historical Landscape Architect

Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation

National Park Service, Boston, Massachusetts, 1994 (printed 2017)

Existing Conditions

Analysis

Treatment

Volume II
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

ii

The Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation promotes the stewardship of 

significant landscapes through research, planning, and sustainable preservation 

maintenance. The Center accomplishes its mission in collaboration with a network 

of partners including national parks, universities, government agencies, and private 

nonprofit organizations. Techniques and principles of preservation practice are made 

available through training and publications. The Olmsted Center perpetuates the 

tradition of the Olmsted firms and Frederick Law Olmsted’s lifelong commitment to 

people, parks, and public spaces. 

Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation

Boston National Historical Park

Charlestown Navy Yard, Quarters C

Boston, MA 02129

www.nps.gov/oclp/

National Park Service, Denver Technical Information Center report FRLA 486 135560

Library of Congress Control Number: 97034762

Publication Credits: Graphics from sources other than federal repositories may not 

be reproduced without the permission of the owners noted in the captions. Other 

information in this publication may be copied and used with the condition that full 

credit be given to the authors and publisher. Appropriate citations and bibliographic 

credits should be made for each use. 

Cover photograph: South Lawn at Fairsted, showing the Olmsted Elm, 2000 (HALS).

Title page image: Stairs to the Hollow, 2015 (OCLP).
Table of Contents

iii

Table of Contents

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS v

FOREWORD ix

INTRODUCTION 1

Summary 1

Background 2

CHAPTER I: METHODOLOGY 5

A. Documentation of Existing Conditions 5

B. Analysis of Historic Appearance and Integrity 8

C. Additional Research Testing 21

D. Analysis of the Documentation 22

CHAPTER II: DESCRIPTION OF THE HISTORIC LANDSCAPE 27

A. Existing Conditions 27

B. Description of the Landscape c. 1930 45

C. Nearby/Adjacent Historic Properties 59

CHAPTER III: PROJECT SCOPE 67

A. Project Objectives 67

B. Treatment Alternatives Considered but Rejected 67

C. Treatment Choice: Restoration to c. 1930 72

D. Treatment Plan Phasing 72

E. Project Scope Phase 1 75

F. Project Scope Phase 2 89

CHAPTER IV: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY 117

SOURCES CONSULTED 121

CONTRIBUTORS 123

APPENDICES 125

Appendix A: Memorandum From Regional Director, North 125

Atlantic Region, To Superintendent, Longfellow National 

Historic Site, 1987 and Associated Correspondence Related 

to the Restoration Period Change
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

iv

Appendix B: Numbering System for Woody Plant Material 141

Appendix C: List of Woody Plants, Olmsted National 143

Historic Site

Appendix D: Outline - [draft] Cultural Landscape Report 145

Volume 1: Site History

Appendix E: Results of Tree Coring 149

Appendix F: Summary Results of Archeological Testing 151

Appendix G: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 155

Treatment of Historic Properties, Standards for Restoration

Appendix H: Summary of Tree Work 157

Appendix I: Existing Historic Trees to Remain 161

Appendix J: Existing Historic Trees to be Replaced 163

Appendix K: Nonhistoric Shrubs to be Removed 165
List of Illustrations

v

List of Illustrations

FIGURES

Introduction

0.1 Location of Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site 3

Methodology

1.1 UVA-HABS Survey, 1983 9

1.2 Computer-generated Survey Plan, 1992-93 10

1.3 “Plan of F.L. Olmsted Estate” by White and Wetherbee, 1904 13

1.4 NPS Plan for Parking Lot, 1988 20

Description of the Historic Landscape

2.1 Landscape Zones 27

2.2 Key to the Location of Existing Conditions Photographs 28

2.3 The Fairsted residence and steps to Front Office walkway from the 

Hollow, 1994

29

2.4 View of Front Entrance and Circular Drive from the steps of the 

Hollow, 1994

29

2.5 View of spruce pole arch and Circular Drive from residence, 1994 30

2.6 The Hollow from the Circular Drive, 1994 30

2.7 Spruce pole arch and fence from Warren Street, 1994 31

2.8 View of Fairsted through the spruce pole arch, 1994 31

2.9 The path from the Circular Drive to the Rock Garden, 1994 32

2.10 The path from the South Lawn into the Rock Garden, 1994 32

2.11 Panoramic view of the South Lawn looking east, 1994 33

2.12 Panoramic view of the South Lawn looking toward the Gardner 

property, 1994

33

2.13 View of parking lot and storage shed, 1994 34

2.14 View of the parking lot from the West Slope. 1994 34

2.15 Planting island formed by the Circular Drive, 1994 37

2.16 Spruce pole arch and Carolina Hemlocks along Warren Street, 1994 37

2.17 Panoramic view of the West Slope, taken from the South lawn, 1994 38

2.18 View of the interior courtyard formed by the Fairsted residence, 

office wing and barn, 1994

39

2.19 View of service drive from the interior courtyard, 1994 39

2.20 Rear entrance to Office Wing from the Parking Lot 40

2.21 View of Dudley Street towards Warren Street, 1994 40
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

vi

2.22 1993 Existing Conditions Plan 43

2.23 Key to Historic Views 45

2.24 View of entrance arch and fence after 1935 fence repairs 46

2.25 View of entrance arch covered with Euonymus, 1932 47

2.26 View of the Hollow from the steps, Spring, 1926 48

2.27 View of center bed, ledge and grotto in Hollow, May, 1935 48

2.28 Circular Drive and spruce pole arch from upstairs window, 1900 49

2.29 View of South Lawn and the Olmsted Elm, nd (pre-1903) 51

2.30 View of South Lawn and house after path taken out, nd (after 1926) 52

2.31 View across South Lawn to Gardner property, 1910 52

2.32 View of West Slope from South Lawn, nd (after 1912) 53

2.33 View of Parking Lot, May 1931 54

2.34 View of Rear Entrance Court, nd (circa 1925) 54

2.35 1930 Period Plan 57

2.36 Green Hill Historic District 59

2.37 Town Green Historic District 61

Project Scope

3.1 Trellis Alternatives, 1986 69

3.2 Treatment Plan, 1994 73

3.3 Nonhistoric Tree Removal Plan, 1994 77

3.4 Nonhistoric Shrub Removal Plan, 1994 81

3.5 Treatment Plan, Historic Woody Plants to be Replaced, 1995 105

3.6 Planting Plan, Hollow and Front Drive, 1995 106

3.7 Planting Plan, Front Drive and Rock Garden, 1995 107

3.7 Planting Plan, Parking Lot and Office Court, 1995 108

3.8 Planting Plan, Service Court and Laundry Yard, 1995 109

3.9 Planting Plan, South Lawn, 1995 110

3.10 Planting Plan, Shed Vicinity, 1995 111

3.11 Planting Plan, West Embankment, 1995 112

3.12 Planting Plan, Southwest Corner, 1995 113

3.13 Planting Plan, Hollow and Front Drive Herbaceous Plants, 1995 114

3.14 Treatment Details, 1995 115
List of Illustrations

vii

TABLES

Description of the Historic Landscape

2.1 Properties Included in the Green Hill Historic District 60

2.2 Properties Included in the Town Green Historic District 62

Project Scope

3.1 Summary of Trees to be Removed 79

3.2 Summary of Shrubs to be Removed 84

3.3 Summary of Trees to be Planted 91

3.4 Summary of Shrubs to be Planted 95

3.5 Summary of Herbaceous Materials to be Planted 98

Public Participation Strategy

4.1 Representatives Invited to Public Briefing 118

4.2 Neighbors Who Attended the Second Public Briefing 119
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

viii
Foreword

ix

Foreword

The Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site, known historically as 

“Fairsted,” preserves the home, office, landscape and archival collections 

associated with Frederick Law Olmsted and the Olmsted landscape architectural 

firm. Here at Fairsted, the firm worked on over 5,000 projects, leaving a landscape 

legacy across the country. Fairsted’s landscape, designed by Frederick Law 

Olmsted Sr. and assisted by John Charles Olmsted, offers visitors an opportunity 

to experience intimate examples of the Olmsted’s design aesthetic and principles 

found in the full range of Olmsted’s works. Visitors can also see how Olmsted and 

his family consciously envisioned and shaped their home and work environments 

over time.

It was winter when I arrived at Fairsted to assume my Superintendent’s duties. 

The landscape was locked in cold, the South Lawn a blaze of dangerous ice in the 

sunshine, bounded by a serpentine of “snow bushes.” This was a winter landscape 

that did not welcome physical exploration. One soon found that even in snow, 

each window offered an intriguing prospect, inviting the imagination to enter. The 

large glass windows of Olmsted’s “outdoor apartment” gave a large enough view 

that one could begin to make sense of the whole. By the time the slim fountain 

of forsythia bloomed on the hill in April, I realized that the embracing aesthetic 

qualities of the landscape had been reaching indoors, soothing, comforting and 

beckoning me for months. 

The Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic 

Site, Volume II: Existing Conditions, Analysis and Treatment was prepared by 

Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site in collaboration with the Olmsted 

Center for Landscape Preservation. The report’s core narrative and graphics 

were developed between 1993 and 1995 by project manager Lauren Meier of the 

Olmsted Center for Landscaper Preservation. During this time, the following 

programs and institutions provided important assistance to this effort: the 

Cultural Landscape Program of the North Atlantic Region (NPS), the Arnold 

Arboretum of Harvard University, and the Office of Public Archeology at Boston 

University. Cynthia Zaitzevsky, Ph.D., provided historical research support, and 

archeologists from the Cultural Resources Center of the North Atlantic Region 

(NPS) provided further assistance. Work completed between 1993 and 1995 

yielded the following: documentation of the 1994 conditions of the Olmsted 

site’s landscape and an analysis of its historic appearance, recommendations for 

detailed removal of non-historic vegetation, and recommendations for restoration 
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

x

planting and surface treatments. In 2017, Chris Beagan of the Olmsted Center 

for Landscape Preservation served as project manager to consolidate the work 

completed between 1993 and 1995 under a single cover, and as a result, we now 

have this publication which provides a complete record of landscape treatment 

recommendations for Fairsted’s landscape. 

The Cultural Landscape Report for Fairsted allows us to begin to understand how 

the Olmsteds created this magical place, and infused it with the same healing 

qualities that Olmsted Senior strived for and achieved in his designs for large 

urban parks. 

We are grateful for the outstanding efforts of many individuals, both in and 

outside the National Park Service, who contributed to the prodigious work 

documented in this publication, and who later consolidated this work into a 

single publication. Historic landscape architects, historians, horticulturists, 

archeologists, gardeners, and archivists, among others, all contributed to the 

success of this project. In particular, we thank Lauren Meier who served as project 

manager for the extensive work detailed in this volume, and who prepared the 

volume’s core narrative and graphics, and we thank Chris Beagan and Robert Page 

of the Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation for their later efforts to publish 

this volume. 

Myra Harrison, Superintendent

Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site
Introduction

1

Introduction

The narrative and graphics that follow were developed between 1993 and 1995 to 

guide restoration of the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site landscape 

to its appearance circa 1930. These recommendations were developed in two 

phases. Phase 1 recommendations (1993–94) detailed removal of nonhistoric 

vegetation. Phase 2 recommendations (1995) detailed restoration planting 

and surface treatments. Recommendations for both phases of work, along 

with documentation of the 1994 condition of the landscape and an analysis 

of its historic appearance, were consolidated here, under single cover, at the 

time of printing in 2017 to provide a complete record of landscape treatment 

recommendations for Fairsted.

SUMMARY

The National Park Service intends to restore the grounds of Frederick Law 

Olmsted National Historic Site (Olmsted NHS) in Brookline, Massachusetts to 

better illustrate the landscape design developed by Frederick Law Olmsted and 

managed by his sons John Charles and Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. This project, 

the result of three years of historical research, inventory of existing conditions,

archeological testing, and analysis of integrity and significance, is necessary 

to interpret the landscape principles developed, tested, and implemented by 

Frederick Law Olmsted and his partners. The landscape will be restored to its 

appearance circa 1930. This restoration period was confirmed in an August 31, 

1987 memorandum which amended the 1960 date in the General Management 

Plan in concurrence with the Advisory Council and the State Historic Preservation 

Officer (Appendix A).

This project has been developed by Olmsted NHS in collaboration with North 

Atlantic Region, Cultural Landscape Program; the Arnold Arboretum of Harvard 

University; and the Office of Public Archeology at Boston University. Cynthia 

Zaitzevsky, Ph.D., noted Olmsted scholar, has provided the historical research 

necessary to determine the changes required to restore the landscape to its earlier 

appearance. Additional assistance has been provided by archeologists from 

the North Atlantic Region, Cultural Resource Center. Volume 1 of the Cultural 

Landscape Report (Site History) has been completed in draft; this Volume 2 of 
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

2

the Cultural Landscape Report (Existing Conditions, Analysis, and Treatment) 

combines information pertinent to the first and second phases of restoration 

work on the grounds. 

Landscape restoration treatment has been separated into two phases to ensure 

that contract work can proceed in a timely manner. Phase 1 involves removal of 

nonhistoric trees and shrubs. Information related to Phase 1, provided herein, 

seeks completion of Section 106 compliance for the first phase of treatment, to be 

completed in Fiscal Year 1994. 

Phase 2 involves restoration planting and surface repairs. Phase 2 will re-establish 

the profusion and diversity of shrubs and vines that historically existed at Fairsted, 

a concept that is essential to the understanding and interpretation of Olmstedian 

design. Phase 2 also includes the replacement of missing features, such as a metal 

pipe arbor near the barn, and recommends repair work to deteriorated historic 

features. This work is projected for Fiscal Year 1995.

All proposed work is consistent with the 1987 Amendment to the Olmsted NHS 

General Management Plan, which revised the 1960 preservation date to 1930 in 

order to better illustrate the landscape design created by Frederick Law Olmsted 

and managed by his sons, John Charles and Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. (Appendix 

A).

BACKGROUND

The home and office of Frederick Law Olmsted was designated a National 

Historic Landmark on May 23, 1963 and became a unit of the National Park 

Service in 1979. Frederick Law Olmsted is widely recognized as the founder of the 

profession of landscape architecture in the United States. His accomplishments in 

the fields of park design, conservation, town planning, and landscape architecture 

have national and international significance. As an historic property, Olmsted’s 

suburban home and office, Fairsted, is associated with the life and work of 

Olmsted, his sons, and the successor firms from 1883 to 1979.

Frederick Law Olmsted moved his home and office to Brookline, Massachusetts in 

1883, relatively late in his life. However, this move enabled Olmsted to establish a 

full-scale professional office that expanded and perpetuated his landscape design 

ideals, philosophy, and influence. By the time he died in 1903, he had conceived 

the ideas that helped form the foundation of the national parks movement and 

had firmly established the profession of landscape architecture in America. 

While working in the Brookline office, Frederick Law Olmsted, his partners, and 

the successor firms designed and developed thousands of projects nationwide 

including state and city parks, planned residential communities, college and 

school campuses, arboretums, institutional grounds, and private estates.
Introduction

3

Figure 0.1. Location of Frederick Law Olmsted National HIstoric Site, 1994 (OCLP).
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

4

Endnote

1. The Papers of Frederick Law Olmsted. Charles Capen Mclaughlin, Editor in Chief; 

and Charles E. Beveridge, Series Editor. Volume 1: The Formative Years, 1822-1852; 

Volume 2: Slavery and the South, 1852-1857; Volume 3: Creating Central Park, 

1857-1861; Volume 4: Defending the Union, the Civil War and the U.S. Sanitary 

Commission, 1861-1863; Volume 5: The California Frontier (1863-1865); Volume 6: 

The Years of Olmsted, Vaux and Company, 1865-1874. Baltimore,MD: The Johns 

Hopkins University Press. Zaitzevsky, Cynthia. Frederick Law Olmsted and the Boston 

Park System. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. 1982.

Olmsted NHS is home to a nationally significant archive related to the work of 

the Olmsted firms. The Olmsted Archives houses documents from over 5,000 

design projects undertaken by the firm beginning with the work of Frederick 

Law Olmsted Sr. and continued through the work of his sons, John Charles and

Frederick Law, Jr., and their partners and associates. Researchers from across 

the country frequently use the collection to document the history of significant 

landscapes and to plan for the preservation of Olmsted-designed landscapes. 

The collection has also provided primary research materials for a number of

important scholarly publications including The Papers of Frederick Law Olmsted 

and Frederick Law Olmsted and the Boston Park System.1

Olmsted NHS is located in the Town of Brookline, Massachusetts, a diverse 

and densely populated suburb directly west of Boston (Figure 0.1). Within the 

neighborhood of South Brookline where the property is located are a number of 

open spaces, large estates and the Brookline Reservoir. The Green Hill Historic 

District borders the site to the south and the Town Green Historic District 

borders the site to the north and east (see Chapter II). Fairsted is one of 78 historic 

properties in Brookline independently listed on the National Register of Historic 

Places. 
Methodology

5

Chapter I: Methodology

A. DOCUMENTATION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS

EARLIER PUBLISHED REPORTS AND PLANS

This Treatment Plan is based in large part on a number of projects that have 

been produced since the National Park Service assumed management of 

Olmsted NHS in 1980. In 1982, the NPS published the Historic Grounds Report 

and Management Plan by Lucinda Whitehall. This report contains a concise 

written history of the landscape and provided recommendations for immediate 

stabilization work required after years of inadequate maintenance. The Historic 

Grounds Report was the first document at Olmsted NHS to recognize five 

landscape zones; this organization system has continued throughout several 

subsequent studies.

Several other reports have been prepared by the NPS to assist with the 

management and preservation of Olmsted National Historic Site. They include 

the General Management Plan (1983), a Historic Resource Study (1982), and 

a Historic Structures Report (draft, 1987-1990). In 1982-1983, a landscape 

architecture team from the University of Virginia prepared a detailed set of 

measured drawings of Olmsted NHS including both structures and landscape. 

This 1”-10’ plan documents the configuration of the landscape in 1983 including 

locations of all trees and shrubs. The site plan was incorporated into the 1983 

Historic American Building Survey (HABS) project completed for the property 

(Figure 1.1). This drawing served as the primary site plan for the park until the 

current treatment project was initiated. The following projects describe additional 

work necessary to determine specific actions undertaken to restore the landscape 

to its c. 1930 appearance.

ELECTRONIC SURVEY AND REMOTE SENSING

In 1991, the North Atlantic Region of the National Park Service and the Boston 

University Office of Public Archeology (BU) entered into a cooperative 

agreement (CA 1600-5-0004-19) to conduct a multi-instrument geophysical 

remote sensing and computer mapping project necessary to document the 

existing conditions of the landscape at Olmsted NHS. The BU survey builds 

on earlier work by the NPS, including HABS, to document the site. The 

HABS survey became somewhat obsolete after the swimming pool and herb 

garden were removed in 1985. In 1992, the NPS began a Cultural Landscape 
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

6

Preservation Guide (CLPG), or maintenance plan, for the Fairsted landscape. 

This document developed a numbering system for all woody plant material on 

the site based on a series of zones and subzones (Appendix B).

Computer Mapping

The computer mapping project involved several components performed 

collaboratively by the NPS and Boston University. BU developed the survey 

by identifying data points necessary to accurately map the site with sufficient 

information to accurately present several data layers. Information was collected 

in the field using traditional survey methods, but the data points were recorded 

electronically and processed using SOKKIA mapping software. The resulting 

survey is thus both available in hard copy (Figure 1.2) and retrievable in 

electronic form from a personal computer (PC). The survey information 

collected on plant material relied on the numbering system developed in 

the CLPG which was transferred by the NPS onto metal tags and applied to 

every woody plant on the site. This provided clear direction to BU regarding the 

quantity and location of plant material to be surveyed. To verify the accuracy 

of the survey, several field checks were made to determine missing data points, 

the information was field checked by several individuals from Olmsted NHS. 

This field check led to additional survey work necessary to locate 80 missing 

points- primarily plants- that were not included in the first draft survey. Once the 

additional survey was completed, the information was plotted at both 1”-20’ and 

1”-10’ to provide the base for a new existing conditions plan. The electronic data 

was also converted into Postscript and transferred into the Visual Information 

System at the site which uses Aperture software.

Remote Sensing

The remote sensing project used non-destructive means such as ground 

penetrating radar, electromagnetic conductivity meter, and a proton 

magnetometer to discern evidence of buried landscape features.1 In particular, the 

primary objective of this project was to locate features that had been previously 

mapped in the area of the south lawn, and to provide evidence for any previously 

unrecorded features there. 2 Ten radar transects were employed through the south 

lawn, specifically designed to locate several buried features. The radar survey 

produced results indicating probable buried objects, such as pipes or drains, and 

possible soil anomalies suggesting deep, stratified layers or landscaping fill.3 The 

results of the radar survey provided strong indications of several features such 

as water pipes, drain pipes, tile drains, porous tiles, and several areas suggesting 

deep, sloping soil layers.

An electrical conductivity meter survey used 11 survey blocks with readings 

taken in a grid pattern at 0.5 m intervals. The data from this survey was presented 
Methodology

7

as a series of contour maps, generated using the TOPO routine of SURFER 

4.0 (Golden Software 1989). This information generated 32 anomalies which 

correlated in some cases to the information gathered in the radar survey. This 

method may have revealed evidence of buried paths. 

The magnetic survey was conducted with two Geometries proton magnetometers. 

Magnetic readings were taken at 0.5 m intervals. The information generated by 

this survey was difficult to interpret, due in large part to magnetic interference. To 

solve this problem, the data was analyzed using a series of filters which enhanced 

the information. Taken together, these surveys resulted in the identification of 

numerous anomalies, or potential features occurring throughout the south lawn. 

This information will be incorporated into Phase 2 of the restoration project, 

to ensure that disturbance of known or potential archeological features is 

minimized.

EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN

The HABS plan has served as the existing conditions plan for the site since 1983, 

even though the landscape has changed substantially in the last ten years. While 

the BU electronic survey provided the most accurate and up to date plan of 

existing (1992) features on the landscape, it could not illustrate the size, identity, 

or material of the landscape features. This information was provided by a hand 

drawn survey prepared by Olmsted NHS landscape architects. The new Existing 

Conditions Plan is composed of three overlays, drawn on Mylar at 1”-10’ using 

pin-bar registration. The overlays are: 1) topography, paths and drive, structures; 

2) plant material with accurate canopy symbols; and 3) labels (see Figure 2.1 in 

Chapter II). The graphic symbols used on the existing conditions plan are derived, 

in part, from the HABS survey to provide a point of reference for comparing 

change in the landscape between 1983 and 1993. The same overlay system was 

used later in the project for the Tree Removal Plan and the Shrub Removal Plan 

described in Chapter III.

IDENTIFICATION OF PLANT MATERIAL

The Arnold Arboretum of Harvard University provided technical assistance with 

the identification or verification of plant material at Olmsted NHS. This work was 

accomplished through Cooperative Agreement #CA 1600-1-9009, Amendment 2. 

The identification process included several steps:

1. Field identification was done initially by NPS staff during the development of 

the VIS and the CLPG which produced the numbering system described above 

as well as general information on the condition, age, size, and distribution of the 

plant.
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

8

2. Taxonomic verification was done by the Arnold Arboretum’s Taxonomist from 

plant specimens collected in the field. The specimens, which include leaf, flower, 

and fruit, are processed by pressing and drying into herbarium specimens, in 

preparation for labelling and mounting. The herbarium specimens are examined 

by the Taxonomist and compared with representative specimens for the particular 

species, cultivar, or variety. Once verified the specimens are labeled and mounted, 

and become part of the site’s natural history collection.

3. In a few instances, identification by a specialist is required. At Olmsted NHS, 

this is true for a few rhododendron and azalea cultivars. These plants were 

examined in field while in bloom by the Arboretum’s rhododendron specialist.

123 herbarium specimens have been mounted and identified by the Arnold 

Arboretum to date. 61 specimens have been collected and pressed and are 

ready to be sent to the Arboretum for identification. In some cases, such as with 

the Norway Maple volunteers, representative samples were taken since it is 

not necessary to process herbarium specimens for each individual. The entire 

identification process will be completed for all nonhistoric trees and shrubs prior 

to their removal.

B. ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC APPEARANCE AND INTEGRITY

The Historic Grounds Report provides a useful summary of the landscape’s 

history consistent with the preservation maintenance practiced in 1983, but does 

not provide sufficient information to proceed with a more intensive restoration. 

Thus, more detailed historical research was needed to determine more specifically 

the evolution of the landscape at Fairsted with emphasis on its appearance c. 

1930. In addition, the concise nature of the Historic Grounds Report required 

additional review of the primary documentation before a restoration plan could 

be developed.

In 1991-2, Olmsted NHS began a more detailed project to research the history 

of the landscape and prepare a restoration plan as discussed in the 1987 GMP 

amendment. This project, a two-volume Cultural Landscape Report is described 

below.

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT – VOLUME 1: SITE HISTORY

Volume 1 of the Cultural Landscape Report for Olmsted National Historic Site - 

Site History is currently being prepared through the cooperative agreement with 

the Arnold Arboretum of Harvard University. Cynthia Zaitzevsky, Ph.D., noted 

landscape historian and Olmsted scholar has prepared a draft report; Chapters 

I-VI were completed in summer 1993.4 This report includes a detailed account of 
9

Methodology

Figure 1.1. The University of Virginia and Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) Plan showing existing conditions in 1983. Note the presence of the pool and herb garden adjacent to the South Lawn.
10

Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

Figure 1.2. Computer-generated survey plan prepared by the Boston University Office of Public Archeology 1992-3.
Methodology

11

all known documentation relating to the landscape of Fairsted. It is organized by 

historic period, with each period further analyzed by landscape zone. The Table of 

Contents for Volume 1 is included in Appendix D.

The Site History provides a detailed account of all information known about 

the Fairsted landscape during seven historic periods: pre-Olmsted years (pre 

1883), the Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr. era (1883-1904), the Olmsted Brothers era 

part 1 (1904-1920), the Olmsted Brothers era part 2 (1920-1940), the Olmsted 

Brother era part 3 (1941-1962), the Olmsted Associates Era (1963-1979), and the 

National Park Service Ownership (1980-1992). The sources for this work include 

hundreds of historic plans, photographs, and written documents from a number 

of archives including the records of the Olmsted firm contained at Olmsted NHS, 

the john Charles Olmsted collection at the Loeb Library, Harvard University and 

the Manuscription Division of the Library of Congress. This report organizes 

all historic documents into their chronological order by carefully analyzing the 

photos, plans and written materials in relation to each other.

In addition to historical research, Zaitzevsky received technical assistance from 

Peter Del Tredici, Ph.D., Assistant Director for the Living Collection of the 

Arnold Arboretum of Harvard University, who identified plants in many historic 

photographs. This information enhanced the archival research and resulted in the 

most comprehensive chronology of the evolution of the grounds to date.

ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC DOCUMENTATION (PLANS, PHOTOS, PLANT LISTS) 

AND EXISTING CONDITIONS

Despite extensive site history research, additional work was required to make 

informed decisions regarding the retention of existing historic features, the 

removal of nonhistoric features, and the replacement of missing historic features 

consistent with the historic appearance of the landscape during the targeted 

restoration period. Therefore, a more detailed picture of the c. 1930 appearance of 

the landscape was required in order to fully assess the integrity of the landscape. 

To accomplish this task, a 1930 Period Plan was created (see Chapter II). This 

plan is based on the extensive site history prepared by Cynthia Zaitzevsky, along 

with additional analysis of 10 critical historic plans, 5 plant lists, and 50 historic 

photographs pertaining to the landscape between 1904 and 1930. These sources 

are listed below.5

Historic Plans from the Olmsted National Historic Site Archives:6

•	 Plan 673-1; “Plan of F.L. Olmsted Estate.” White and Wetherbee, C.E., 

Boston and Braintree, April 9, 1904.

•	 Plan 673-2; “Planting Plan” by H. Hubbard, May 1904.
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

12

•	 Plan 673-3; “Plan Showing Present Conditions” by H. Hubbard and F. L. 

Olmsted Jr., June 1904.

•	 Plan 673-8; “Planting Study” by H. Koehler, December 16, 1910 [with 

additional notes, 1912, 1923].

•	 Plan 673-26; “Planting Study and Field Notes for the Hollow and Rear 

Courtyard” by Canning, July 1916.

•	 Plan 673-33; “Planting Plan for Hollow” by H. Koehler, October 11, 1923.

•	 Plan 673-39; “Planting Plan for Steps into the Hollow” by H. Koehler, 

December 16, 1924.

•	 Plan 673-40; “Planting Study for Courtyard” by H. Koehler, October 23, 

1925.

•	 Plan 673-46; “Plan for Parking Space” by Head, September 11, 1926.

•	 Plan 673-48; “Rock Garden. Additional Plants Not Shown On Original 

Survey” by Brown and Lavalle, November 22, 1926.

Historic Plant Lists from the Olmsted National Historic Site Archives:

•	 Plant List, April-May, 1904 for Plan 673-2.

•	 Plant List, December, 1910, for Plan 673-8.

•	 Planting for the Hollow, to Accompany Plan 673-33. October 5, 1923.

•	 Plant List to Accompany Plan 673-39 for the Hollow. December 16, 1924.

•	 Plant List for Courtyard. October, 1925.

Historic Photographs from the Olmsted National Historic Site Archives from job 

number 673: 

o-e; 9; 15, by JB. Herbst, May 31, 1901; 25, by J.C.O.; 32; 37; 39; 40; 41; 42; 56, by 

H.J.K., April9, 1924; 60 ca. 1904-1920; 70, by H.D. Perkins, Spring 1909; 80; 81; 

82; 99, circa 1911;101 (1914); 104 (1916); 105 (1916); 114, March 1925, by E.C.W.; 

114A, The Hollow, O.B.1926; 115, April, 1925, by H.J.K.; 116, April, 1925, by 

H.J.K.; 122; 123; 124; 130, August, 1930, by P.G.; 131, August, 1930; 132, August, 

1930 by P.G.; 133, May 1931, by Koehler; 135, 1932 by P.G.; 136, 1932 by P.G.; 

137, May 1935; 138, May 1935; 140, by Mr. Perkins; 143, by Mr. Perkins; 144, by 

Mr. Perkins; 148, by Mr. Perkins; 149, by Mr. Perkins; 151; 152; 153; 154; 155;156, 

by Mr. Perkins; 158, (ca. 1925); unnumbered photo in Hollow; unnumbered 
13

Methodology

Figure 1.3. Plan #673-1. “Plan of F.L. Olmsted Estate” by White and Wetherbee, April 9, 1904. This plan is often referred to as the 1904 survey. Courtesy National Park Service, F.L. Olmsted National Historic Site.
14

Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site
Methodology

15

photo with no corresponding historic print (grounds worker); unnumbered snow 

scene in photo album #2 (with pages 78 and 79); unnumbered photos with no 

corresponding prints (of ice storm)

Several of the aforementioned documents were very useful in analyzing the 

historic appearance of the Fairsted landscape. The baseline information for the 

1930 landscape is the 1904 survey by White and Weatherbee (Figure 1.3: Plan 

#673-1). Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr., Henry Hubbard, and Hans Koehler all 

recorded field notes and recommendations for future work on copies of this plan, 

often correcting mistakes on the original survey. These notes in combination with 

the plant lists provide verification of what was actually planted from 1904 through 

1923. The later plans are specific design studies for several zones: the Hollow 

(1916, 1923, 1924), [office] Courtyard (1925), Parking Lot (1926), and the Rock 

Garden (1926). The Hollow plans and Courtyard plan both have corresponding 

plant lists. No plans were found that address planting on the South Lawn/West 

Slope in particular.

The historic plans were evaluated in concert with the plant lists, historic 

photographs, and existing conditions to determine what had actually been 

implemented. Peter Del Tredici provided additional assistance with this work in 

an attempt to identify as many shrubs as possible from the historic photographs. 

This analysis resulted in a clearer picture of exactly which plans had been 

implemented partially or in their entirety, as well as additional information 

regarding the identity and character of historic plants.

In order to make informed decisions for the Period Plan, decisions and 

judgements had to be made regarding the history and implementation of all the 

historic plans by evaluating pertinent historic documents such as photographs and 

plant lists in concert with existing conditions. This rationale, listed below, records 

all conditions encountered in the Analysis, relating to the historic documents and 

established a methodology for both the Period Plan and subsequent Treatment 

Plan:

IMPLEMENTED HISTORIC PLANS

Plan #672-2 (“Planting Plan”- 1904 survey with annotations by Henry Hubbard) 

and #673-3 (“Plan Showing Existing Conditions” by Hubbard and F.L. Olmsted, 

Jr.) correspond with the April/May 1904 Plant List. Expenses for 1904 and 

historic photographs, especially winter scenes of the Rock Garden, existing plants 

such as the Rhododendron in the Hollow and Mountain Laurel in the Rock 

Garden, and notes regarding Ilex (Inkberry) in the Hollow confirm that these 

recommendations were implemented.
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

16

Plan #673-8 (“Planting Study”) contains annotations on the 1904 survey 

made by Hans Koehler and others in 1910, 1912, and 1923. Evidence from 

existing historic plant material- especially the Yew in the Rock Garden, and 

Andromeda, Leucothoe, and Hemlocks along the south border confirm that the 

recommendations made in 1910 were actually implemented. All notes regarding 

the Hollow were incorporated into another study, Plan #673-33 “Planting 

Plan for the Hollow” (1923) by Hans Koehler. The 1910 notes and plant lists 

recommended massings of trees and shrubs along Warren Street, the Rock 

Garden along the south border. Since quantities and locations could not be 

confirmed, these massings are indicated in a dashed line on the Period Plan.

Plan #673-33 and #673-40 are planting plans for the Hollow and steps by Hans 

Koehler (1923 and 1924 respectively). Implementation of these plans has been 

confirmed with expense records, historic photographs, and existing photographs.

Plan #673-40 is a planting study for the office courtyard by Hans Koehler, 

1925. This plan was implemented confirmed through historic photographs and 

corresponding plant list.

Plan #673-46 (“Plan for Parking Space” by Head, 1926) is confirmed in historic 

photographs.

DOCUMENTATION FOR EACH ZONE

Hollow

Information on the historic design and appearance of the Hollow are provided 

in Plans #673-2 (1904), 673-3 (1904), 673-26 (1916), 673-33 (1923), and 673-

39 (1924). Following reconstruction of the Hollow steps, several photographs 

(#673-114A, 115, 116) were taken in 1925 and 1926. They reveal Clethra and 

Rhododendrons at the base of the existing Hickory and Euonymous on the 

retaining wall below the circular drive. Two species of Juniper, five types of 

Yew, two evergreen groundcovers, Firethorn, and ferns in the central bed allow 

wildflowers to creep in below as additional groundcover. The “grotto,” which is 

now obscured by vegetation, is also visible as is the existing Flowering Dogwood.

Front Entry and Circular Drive

Four plans exist for the original construction of the spruce pole arch in 1883, but 

no known plans exist for the spruce pole fence. The fence is well documented 

in photos from several historic periods, including clear views in 1930, 1932, and 

following repair and replanting in 1933. The historic configuration of the circular 

drive is documented in the annotations to the 1904 survey (Plans #673-1, 673-2, 

and 673-3). These suggest slightly different alignment than exists today which 

is very likely since the drive is known to have been altered in the 1960s. Photos 
Methodology

17

#673-114 (1925) show Euonymous on the ledge, the rustic sidewalk and curb, and 

Euonymous on the spruce pole arch. Photo #673-131 taken in August 1930, shows 

stone work and driveway edging, vines on the house, and shrubs at the southeast 

corner of the house and near the front door. The shrubs have been tentatively 

identified as Cotoneaster with Euonymous as a ground cover in the foreground. A 

lilac is evident at the opposite corner of the house.

In the center circle, notes on Plan #673-8 “prune back Rhoda” and “plant Rhoda” 

are thought to refer to the existing Rhodotypos (Jetbead). Photo #673-130 taken 

of the outer edge of the fence in August 1930 shows Euonymous and other shrubs 

in the center bed, with the same shrub (Cotoneaster) visible at the corner of the 

house. The circle is also visible in photos #673-135 and 136 (1932) and in #673-

143 and 144 (1935). Together, these photos indicate ferns in the foreground with 

Euonymous alata and either Berberis or Viburnum behind.

Notes on Plan #673-3 recommend Spirea, Berberis, Deutzia, Xanthorrhiza, 

Cydonia, Viburnum, Euonymous, Rhus aromatica etc. in the area south of the 

arch. Notes on Plan #673-2 indicate that many of these plants were heeled in the 

reserve garden. Photo #673-32 of the outer edge shows Bittersweet. Peter Del 

Tredici has suggested that this could have been planted some 20’ away and simply 

spread on the fence.

Though they are very early photographs, Photos 673-80, 81, and 82 are useful 

for shrub identification. Philadelphus and Euonymous are both evident inside 

the gate. Late views, photos #673-148 (1936) shows shrubs and the missing 

historicCucumber Magnolia. Though the shrub looks like a vine, it may be 

Euonymous or Diervilla.

The Hollow Planting Plan, #673-33 indicates Taxus on either side of door. 

However, this part of the recommendation has not been confirmed. An 

unnumbered photograph shows a shrub tentatively identified as Spirea or 

Cotoneaster; three or four vines are evident on the house. Plans #673-2 and 673-2 

indicate Lilac and Rosa spinossisima at the southeast corner of the house.

Rock Garden and Southeast Corner

Several historic plans provide specific information related to the Rock Garden. 

Specifically, Plan #673-2 and #673-3 contain annotations on the 1904 survey 

by Hubbard and F.L. Olmsted, Jr. respectively. Plan #673-8 contains 3 layers 

of notes (1910, 1912, 1923) on the 1904 survey. Annotations by Koehler (1910) 

provide information on existing plant material, especially Taxus in the Rock 

Garden. One of the most important aspects of Plan #673-3 is the presence of a 

swath of grass extending well into the southeast corner of the site. Plan #673-48, 

completed in November 1926 shows “Additional Plants not Shown on Original 

Survey.” Since this was a survey rather than a design proposal, it is assumed to 
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

18

provide information about existing plants in the Rock Garden. A diagram showing 

Epimedium, 1936, confirms Spiraea x vanhoutteii near the existing Magnolia 

acuminata.

Several historic photos are very helpful for plants in the Rock Garden. For 

example, an unnumbered photo from an ice storm shows the existing Taxus 

repandens, and confirms implementation of the 1910 recommendations by 

Koehler. Photo #673-37 (nd) shows Russian Olive, Vanhoutte Spiraea, Oak, 

and a Crab Apple. Photo #673 (unnumbered), 673-78, and 673-79 show snow 

scenes from the conservatory of the Gardner property. Juniperus virginiana and 

Kalmia confirm 1904 and 1910 recommendations. Photo #673-122 shows Crab 

Apple on south edge of Rock Garden with ivy below, taken after the north section 

of path was taken out by 1912. Historic photos indicate that the Crab Apple is 

probably Malus baccata; the existing Crab Apple at the edge of the Rock Gardens 

is not historic but was moved from the Richardson’s herb garden to replace the 

earlier tree. Photo #673-123 shows a glimpse of the entrance to the Rock Garden 

revealing Taxus and a deciduous shrub. Peter Del Tredici was not able to identify 

shrubs along Warren Street in photo #673-146.

South Lawn

The documentation for the South Lawn and West Slope is much more limited 

than any other part of the landscape due in large part to the complete absence of 

specific design alternatives for this area beyond the annotation on the 1904 survey. 

The area bordering the southwest corner of the house- from the conservatory 

and extending to the barn- was modified several times between 1904 and the 

restoration period.

The path, which historically extended from the Front Drive to the conservatory, 

and from the conservatory around the south and west side of the barn, appears 

to be partially missing by 1926 (Photo #673-o-e). Photo #673-60 (ca. 1904-1920) 

shows the path next to the board fence. The location of the fence is verified in 

the 1923 notations to the survey (Plan #673-8). Cynthia Zaitzevsky has indicated 

that Viburnums were removed for the construction of the pool; they may have 

screened the barn from the lawn. Other plants along the fence are illustrated in 

plans #673-2 and 3: Wiegelia, Hibiscus, and Lilac are shown existing; Syringa 

persica, S. vulgaris var. phileman, and 5 Deutzia are recommended on Plan #673-_. 

Cornus siberica and Stephanandra fluxusa are recommended on the west side of 

the path. Plan #673-8 indicates “move Stephanandra and put in place of rose;” 

at lattice fence: “rearrange Hollyhocks”-20 [Althea] bellamachanda chinensis; 

on slope: Veronica longifolia subsessilis. Photo #673-40, taken after 1912, shows 

Euonymous growing at the base of the conservatory windows and Wisteria at 
Methodology

19

the corner. Also evident in this photo is Spirea or Berberis, Lilac, and Actinidea, 

Wisteria, and another finely-leaved vine (possibly Akebia) on the south facade of 

the house.

The south boundary, bordering the Gardner property is illustrated in several 

plans and their corresponding plant lists: #673-2 and #673-3 (1904), and #673-8 

(1910). Photo #673 (unnumbered) shows Pyracantha during an ice storm. Photo 

#673-9 (1900) also shows the existing Pyracantha. Photos #673-122 through 

124 illustrates plants along the Gardner boundary in late summer - probably Ilex 

crenata, Kalmia and goldenrod. Cynthia Zaitzevsky indicates that the Taxus media 

hatfieldii were purchased in 1953 and that some of these shrubs were planted 

along the south boundary.

The west slope is best described in Plans 673-2 and 3 (1904) which indicate some 

shrubs and designates a “Reserve Garden” near the shed; Plan 672-2 has notes 

about plants heeled in the “Reserve Garden.” Photo #946-159 through 161 (after 

1912) shows Pine in the foreground on the west slope with Pyracantha on South 

Lawn. Photo #673-26 by Olmsted, Jr. shows Sugar Maple seedlings on west 

slope. Photo #673-39 (nd) shows 3 Taxus at the edge of the west slope and lawn 

extending into the corner of the site towards the Clark house. This confirms the 

swath of grass extending into the southwest corner indicated, in part, on Plan 

#673-3. Young hemlocks may be visible in this photo; Leucothoe is clear. A few 

historic photos dated after 1930, taken from Dudley and Fairmount Streets were 

examined because they provided additional information on trees present along 

the west slope visible from the road.

Service Areas

In the Service Courtyard, Plan #673-43 (April 1926) shows peonies, Taxus, 

Philadelphus, Pachysandra and unknown shrubs in the location of the existing 

Taxus. Existing plants confirm that this plan was not implemented. A 1921 photo 

from Volume II of the model book confirms the historic presence of the existing 

False Cypresses and shows Virginia Creeper on the house facade to the left of the 

rear door.

The Office Courtyard is documented in the annotations to the 1904 survey. More 

important, however, is Plan #673-40 (October 23, 1925) and Photo #673-158 (ca. 

1925) which show pyramidal yews, roses, peonies, ferns, violets, and Euonymous 

climbing on vault. Plant list (October 1926) indicates “Additions to Courtyard:” 

Narcissus, Aster, and Aspidium. Photos 673-158 show Dutchman’s Pipe on the 

north wall of the archive and violets below yews. The existing concrete pavers 

are shown in the 1925 plan and in photo #673-158. Notes from H.J.K. [Koehler], 

September 10, 1935, indicate that the Euonymus was planted along the south wall 

of the plan vault, at the arch, and along the Dudley Street fence in spring 1935. 
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

20

A cinder path behind the vault is shown on the 1926 plan. No photos confirm 

the existence of this path and ground was too disturbed for archeologists to 

determine if the path existed.

The parking lot is well documented; Plan #673-8 (1910) indicates 20 Syringa 

vulgaris. Plan #673-46: “Plan for Parking Space,” 1926 shows two Hemlocks, the 

configuration of the parking area, and lilacs. The historic configuration of the 

parking area is confirmed in several historic photos. Photo #673-152 (nd) shows a 

double-trunked Hemlock, Mock Orange, and either very large lilacs or volunteer 

trees. Photos #673-153 and 154 show trees on Fairmount Street - a Tulip tree is 

evident and wild grape or Fox grape is growing on the fence. Undated photos 

taken by Perkins, possibly as late as 1940, show a Magnolia and another large 

tree behind it. In the eastern corner of the parking area, Photo #673-15 (1901) 

shows the existing Quince and Sugar Maple. Plan #673-46 served as the basis for 

the 1988 parking lot restoration. This project is documented in a series of NPS 

drawings (Figure 1.4).

The path from the parking area to the shed appears in the 1910 annotations (Plan 

#673-8), and is confirmed by photo #673-60 (c. 1904-1920). Several photos (#673-

105, 101, 60) show birches next to the shed (c. 1904-1920). By May 1931, Birches 

do not appear (Photo #673-133) and the rose arbor is apparent.

Figure 1.4. “Site Layout, Frederick 

Law Olmsted NHS Parking Area 

Renovation.” Prepared by the NPS, 

July 1988. This sheet is one of a 

set of 7 drawings which document 

the 1988 restoration of the parking 

area to its 1926 configuration.
Methodology

21

C. ADDITIONAL RESEARCH TESTING

Despite the extensive site history research and detailed review of historic 

plans and photos, several questions remained regarding existing or suspected 

historic features, especially the exact age of some plant material. Tree coring and 

archeological testing was undertaken in Fall 1993 to answer the following research 

questions:

•	 the age of many existing trees that could not be documented in historic 

plans or photographs,

•	 the confirmation of a Reserve Garden for “heeling in” plant material,

•	 the surface material of the front drive, and

•	 the condition of archeological resources in the vicinity of the Office path 

and near a suspected historic path north of the Vault.

TREE CORING

All trees greater than 12” in diameter, and for which the historical information 

was unclear were cored to determine their exact age. This was done before 

the final decision was made to remove or retain the trees in question. A total 

of 20 trees were tested; the complete results of the tree coring are listed in 

Appendix E. In general, the results were not surprising. Sycamore Maples and 

Norway Maples, both species that are fast growing and invasive and which 

ranged in size from 14 to 25” dbh all tested less than 40 years old. Of all the 

maples cored, only two were determined to be historic. They include the Red 

Norway Maple (Acer platanoides ‘Schwedleri’) at 30” dbh and a Sugar Maple 

(Acer saccharum) at 21” dbh. Two other trees which are slower growing at 

Olmsted NHS - a Sweet Birch (Betula lenta) 23” dbh and a Green Ash (Fraxinus 

americana) 23” dbh were determined to be 60+ and 78 years of age.

ARCHEOLOGY

The following text is paraphrased from a summary report by Steven Pendry 

of the NARO Cultural Resources Center (CRC). See Appendix F for the entire 

summary:

In September and October, 1993 the Archeology Branch of the CRC conducted 

archeological testing to answer specific research questions about existing or 

suspected historic landscape features. Four test pits, in various locations, were 

excavated at the site. Test pit #1 was located on the west slope, near the shed, 

in area described as a “Reserve Garden” on plan #673-2, for which no photo 

documentation has been found. Test pit #2 occurred in the circular drive to 
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

22

evaluate historic surface materials. Test pit #3 was excavated south of the office 

entrance to evaluate the impact of construction of the accessible ramp. Test Pit 

#4 was located north of the vault to test the location of a historic path.

The first research area, the Reserve Garden consisted of four test pits along a 

transect running northeast to southwest across the central part of the garden. 

Each pit measured .5m x 1.0m in size, excavated to the natural subsoil, about 

1.0m below the surface. The eastern pits revealed evidence of a planting hole, a 

possible path connecting the south lawn with the parking area, and the edge of a 

planting bed. The central two test pits revealed a prepared bed containing artifacts 

contemporary with the Olmsted firm’s occupation of the site. These test pits also 

exposed portions of a tile drain system roughly parallel to the slope. This indicates 

a deliberate intent to improve drainage for the Reserve Garden. No other garden 

features were identified in the Reserve Garden area. Based on this research, it is 

apparent that the Reserve Garden did in fact exist and that it appears to date from 

the period of the site used by F.L. Olmsted and the Olmsted Brothers.

Test Pit #2 revealed a prepared bed of Roxbury Puddingstone extending 80 cm 

down from the surface. Under this were two artifact-bearing deposits which 

appeared to predate the Olmsted tenure - probably early 19 century artifacts 

corresponding to the Boylston and Clark residency. No clear information has yet 

revealed regarding the historic surface material - only the subsurface bedding 

material was apparent.

The two test pits which evaluated paths did not reveal any significant information. 

However Test Pit #3 at the Office entrance did expose a drainage feature and 

relatively low archeological integrity to the top 77 cm. The subsurface materials 

appear to be much less disturbed below 77 cm. Test #4, north of the Vault revealed 

substantial surface disturbance, probably from the vault rehabilitation.

D. ANALYSIS OF THE DOCUMENTATION

Despite the wealth of historic documentation in the form of historic plans, 

photographs, plant lists, and other records, none of the documentation 

provided a simple, clear picture of the landscape in 1930. Cynthia Zaitzevsky 

created a chronology of historic plans, photographs, and other key documents 

that was especially helpful in using the historic materials - especially for 

undated documents. The historic plans and annotations were analyzed in 

concert with photographs, existing landscape features, and the additional testing 

to determine which existing landscape features were historic or nonhistoric, 

and which historic features were missing. This information was critical to 

the preparation of a 1930 Period Plan (see Chapter II) from which treatment 

decisions are made.
Methodology

23

The 1930 Period Plan was created by recording the evolution of the landscape 

from 1904 to 1930, since the 1904 survey (Figure 1.3: Plan #673-1) provides 

a general description of the organization of the grounds at that time. Since 

information was recorded chronologically, it was possible to document when 

changes or recommendations superseded earlier work. This was especially 

important in the case of features or areas that changed during the period 1904-

1930 such as the path on the South Lawn or the parking area.

In some cases, only photo documentation informed the 1930 Period Plan. 

However, by and large, photo documentation was not complete for the entire site 

and the entire history of the property. Similarly, plant lists confirming what was 

actually ordered and received do not exist for every historic plan. The additional 

testing, specifically tree coring and archeology, was used to augment information 

found in historic documents.

RATIONALE FOR DECISION-MAKING

A 1930 Period Plan was developed by carefully analyzing all relevant historic 

documentation, in concert with the additional testing and existing conditions. To 

do so with a minimum amount of speculation, a series of rationale were developed 

in order make consistent decisions regarding which features existed in 1930. They 

include the following:

1. Historic Plans

a. Annotations to the 1904 Survey

Three important plans exist for the period immediately following the death of 

Olmsted Sr., all annotations to the 1904 survey. Since it was unclear whether or 

not these annotations were corrections or annotations, they were checked against 

historic photos and plant lists to the greatest extent possible to determine whether 

or not the notations were actually implemented. All annotations from these three 

plans were transferred in chronological order to a 1”-10’ plan to begin piece 

together the 1930 landscape.

Issues: Changes were noted chronologically so that later additions or deletions 

modified earlier recommendations on the Period Plan. Plant material noted as 

massings, for which exact locations could not be determined is indicated as such 

on the Period Plan with quantities noted.
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

24

b. Small Design Studies

The same system was applied to the later design studies for areas such as the 

Hollow, Rock Garden, Parking Area, and Courtyards. In all cases, evidence 

from photographs, existing features, or plant lists provided strong indications of 

whether or not the plan was implemented in full, part, or not at all.

Issues: A few studies were not used in the Period Plan (e.g. 1926 Plan #673-43 for 

the Service courtyard and the 1924 Plan #673-36 for the Rock Garden) because 

photo evidence was contradictory or non-existent. In the case of the Hollow 

plan #673-33, this plan was determined to have been implemented in large part, 

with a few exceptions noted in photos. Therefore, plan was assumed to have been 

implemented, with exceptions taken from historic photographs.

2. Historic Photographs

Approximately 50 key photographs provided the most definitive information 

related to the landscape. These photographs have been extensively analyzed by 

Cynthia Zaitzevsky and landscape architects at the Olmsted Center with critical 

assistance from Peter Del Tredici, who identified plant material.

Issues: In some cases, plant material could not be identified- and could only be 

deciphered by general character- e.g. as a deciduous tree or shrub. Plant material 

that could be positively identified was noted on the Period Plan. A few post 1930 

photos were used, such as the fence series shot by P. Gallagher in 193? because 

they provided key information regarding the repair or retention of earlier historic 

features.

3. Plant Lists

Information contained in the plant lists was correlated with historic plans. 

Quantities of plants on Period Plan were modified to correspond to information 

on plant lists.

Issues: Plant lists are helpful for sources of plant quantities and species only. In 

some cases, they provide clear indication of which plants were planted and which 

were “heeled in,” such as those put into the Reserve Garden.

4. Tree Coring

Tree coring provided additional, valuable information regarding the age of trees 

that were 12” or greater and of unclear status. Trees that were determined to be 

historic as a result of the tree coring were indicated as such on the Period Plan.
Methodology

25

Issues: Tree coring provided estimated ages of the trees based on visible or 

discernible growth rings. Only slight variations (± 5 years) were found depending 

on who analyzed the cores. Unfortunately, this method could not be used to 

provide definitive ages for shrubs in question.

5. Archeology

Archeological testing produced limited results related to Olmsted period surface 

materials on the drive, though strong evidence was found for the “Reserve 

Garden” on the west slope.

Issues: Archeological testing revealed several areas which are significantly 

disturbed, contain important Olmsted-period remains, or contain important early 

19th century/late 18th century remains. This will information has been factored 

into the proposed treatment work. 
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

26

Endnotes

1. Baugh, Timothy G., Ricardo J. Elia, and Thomas F. Tartaron. “Geophysical Remote 

Sensing Survey at Fairsted, the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site in 

Brookline, Massachusetts.” Office of Public Archeology Report of Investigations No. 

116. Boston, MA: Boston University, May 1993.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid, p. 8-9.

4. The remaining work includes a description of NPS management 1980-1993, due 

June 30, 1994.

5. Note that this discussion of documentation is only a partial list of the plans, 

photographs, and plant lists pertaining to the Fairsted grounds. It represents the 

sources that were used extensively for the 1930 Period Plan.

6. The majority of the historic plans, photographs and plant lists that pertain to 

Olmsted NHS are contained within job #673 - plans specifically relating to the house 

and office. A few additional sources, such as a student project found at the Loeb 

Library, as well as photos from other jobs did contain information which informed 

Cynthia Zaitzevsky’s research. We have only listed those sources that were used 

specifically for the 1930 Period Plan and subsequent treatment recommendations.
Description of the Historic Landscape

27

Chapter II: Description of the

Historic Landscape

A. EXISTING CONDITIONS

The landscape of Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic, or Fairsted, is 

composed of five zones that correspond to distinct functional areas, each with 

its own character and history. These zones were identified by Lucinda Whitehill 

in the 1983 Historic Grounds Report and reinforced in the numbering system 

developed in the draft Cultural Landscape Preservation Guide (CLPG). Today, they 

form the backbone for our analysis and interpretation of the landscape (Figure 

2.1).

Figure 2.1. Landscape Zones: the 

Hollow, Front Entry, Rock Garden, 

South Lawn, and Service Areas. 

Prepared by Olmsted Center for 

Landscape Preservation, 1994.
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

28

EVOLUTION OF THE LANDSCAPE

By 1900, the overall structure of the Fairsted landscape was largely what we see 

today. This included the five zones: the hollow, front drive, rock garden, south 

lawn and west slope, and service areas. The Hollow is a natural depression - when 

Olmsted arrived in 1883 it was simply a rocky basin with a few fruit trees. In the 

course of 15 years, the Hollow changed considerably, due in large part to the 

construction of the office wing and a retaining wall necessary to support a new 

entry drive. Despite these changes, the stone outcroppings and rustic character 

of the hollow was retained as it was heavily planted with Taxus, Rhododendron 

maximum, Euonymous, Mountain Laurel, Hemlock, and Flowering Dogwood. 

Stone steps lead from the office walkway just off the circular drive. A small path 

circles the bottom of the Hollow defining a center planting bed. At the top of 

the Hollow, a concrete aggregate path leads from the circular drive to the office 

entrance (Figures 2.3 and 2.4). Nonhistoric alterations have added several 

Rhododendrons in the center bed. Hurricane “Bob” in September 1990 caused 

the loss of two important trees in the Hollow: a Red Oak and Tuliptree along the 

northern fence parallel to Dudley Street.

Figure 2.2. Key to the Location of 

Existing Conditions Photographs. 

Prepared by Olmsted Center for 

Landscape Preservation, 1994.
Description of the Historic Landscape

29

Figure 2.3. Photograph 3: The 

Fairsted residence and steps to 

Front Office walkway from the

Hollow, 1994 (OCLP).

Figure 2.4. Photograph 6: View of 

Front Entrance and Circular Drive 

from the steps of the Hollow, 1994 

(OCLP).
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

30

The Front Drive or turn-around was added in 1884 in order to create a new 

entrance to the property (Figure 2.5). A puddingstone retaining wall on the 

south edge of the Hollow made a sufficiently flat area to allow for carriage 

access from Warren Street (Figure 2.6). The drive enters through a spruce pole 

arch, historically covered with Euonymous fortunei radicans, circling a center 

planting bed dominated by a large Canadian Hemlock (Figures 2.7 and 2.8). The 

puddingstone wall borders the north edge of the drive with a rustic stone walk 

Figure 2.6 (below). Photograph 4: 

The Hollow from the Circular Drive. 

Note the rubble masonry

walkway and retaining wall along 

drive, 1994 (OCLP).

Figure 2.5 (right). Photograph 

5: View of spruce pole arch and 

Circular Drive from residence, 1994 

(OCLP).
Description of the Historic Landscape

31

entering from Warren Street. The south edge of the drive was historically bordered 

by shrubs and large trees including the existing Cucumber Magnolia as well as a 

second Magnolia and two American Elm trees which are no longer extant. During 

the 1960s, the drive was reconfigured slightly and parking spaces added.

The Rock Garden, like the Hollow, was originally an enhancement of an existing 

natural feature - namely a rock outcropping that existed on the site. Here, the 

outcropping was heavily planted with Rhododendron, Taxus, Andromeda, 

Buckthorn, Mountain laurel, Viburnum, and Mock Orange. A small path lined 

with local Roxbury puddingstone winds through the rock garden and it is 

Figure 2.7 (above). Photograph 1: 

Spruce pole arch and fence from 

Warren Street, 1994 (OCLP).

Figure 2.8 (right). Photograph 

2: View of Fairsted through the 

spruce pole arch, 1994 (OCLP).
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

32

bordered on the west by the lawn (Figures 2.9 and 2.10). The biggest change to this 

area of the property has occurred in the northeast corner, where plant succession 

and shade have resulted in the loss of a swath of lawn which originally extended 

into the corner.

The South Lawn is the most photogenic part of the landscape, due in large part 

to a tremendous American Elm which stands as a striking visual object in the 

lawn (Figure 2.11). This Elm is unmistakably the most important characterdefining feature of the landscape. Many historic photographs of the vinecovered house were taken from the South Lawn. The lawn is bordered on the 

south by a vernacular stone wall that predates Olmsted, and dense plantings of 

Canadian Hemlock, White Pine, Yew, Leucothoe, and Mt. Pieris. A “borrowed 

view” extends through a break in this dense planting provides glimpses into 

Figure 2.10. Photograph 10: The 

path from the South Lawn into the 

Rock Garden. Note Roxbury

Puddingstone along the edge of 

the path, 1994 (OCLP).

Figure 2.9. Photograph 9: The path 

from the Circular Drive to the Rock 

Garden, 1994 (OCLP).
Description of the Historic Landscape

33

the sweeping lawn of the Gardner property to the south, though it is somewhat 

obscured by volunteer growth today (Figure 2.12). The western boundary of 

the lawn is a slope extending approximately fifteen feet upward to the Clark 

sisters (now Nicrenz) house. This slope was historically planted with Pine, 

Linden, Larch, Hemlock, and Yew, but has changed significantly due to the 

growth of volunteer Norway and Japanese Maples. It is now heavily vegetated 

slope composed of a few large deciduous trees and many seedlings. In winter, 

it provides a translucent screen to the neighboring house, but in summer the 

Clark Sisters house is virtually invisible. Historically, a small “Reserve Garden” 

immediately south of the shed and out of view of the lawn, was used to heel in 

excess plant material. Today, this area is overgrown with Ostrich Ferns and other 

herbaceous and shrub material.

Figure 2.11. Photograph 12: 

Panoramic view of the South Lawn 

looking east. Note the nonhistoric 

path on left, the Olmsted Elm at 

center, and the Hemlocks at edge 

of Gardner property at right, 1994 

(OCLP).

Figure 2.12. Photograph 11: 

Panoramic view of the South 

Lawn looking toward the Gardner 

property. Note the entrance to the 

Rock Garden on left, 1994 (OCLP).
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

34

Several Service Areas form the fifth landscape zone. They include a courtyard 

entrance to the office wing, service entrance to the house, and a small parking 

area constructed in 1926 (Figures 2.13 and 2.14). These areas are delineated by the 

spruce pole fence and a painted board fence. The aggregate concrete pavers which 

form the entrance court to the office wing are severely deteriorated.

The sensibilities and feelings of enclosure vary enormously from season to season. 

In the winter, the deciduous tree cover appears translucent, and views of adjacent 

properties are quite evident. The lawn forms a white blanket - bright white against 

the scattered evergreen backdrop of Yews. In summer, the rich verdant qualities of 

this landscape provide deep shade and a strong sense of enclosure.

Figure 2.14. Photograph 15: View 

of the parking lot from the West 

Slope. Note the office wing

in background and the board fence 

in right foreground, 1994 (OCLP).

Figure 2.13. Photograph 16: View 

of parking lot and storage shed, 

1994 (OCLP).
Description of the Historic Landscape

35

The use of the landscape is very similar today to its use during Olmsted Sr. and 

Olmsted Brothers period. Private space, or rather nonpublic space is still primarily 

located in the historic house, even though it no longer serves as a residence. The 

front entry still serves as the formal entry to the site, with very minimal parking. 

Office staff continues to use the parking area, entering the National Historic Site 

through the office courtyard and the service yard. Visitors park in the existing 

parking lot and walk around the western side of the barn, along the South Lawn to 

the conservatory entrance. The maintenance yard, behind the barn, is not open to 

the public.

CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES

The historic character of the landscape is its physical appearance as it has evolved 

over time.1 The qualities of the landscape that are conveyed by its materials, 

features, spaces, and finishes are referred to as character-defining.2 The categories 

of character-defining features listed below are derived from the Guidelines for the 

Treatment of Historic Landscapes:

Spatial Organization

The landscape zones described above form the basis for the spatial organization 

of the site. The landscape zones include the Hollow, Front Drive, Rock Garden, 

South Lawn and west slope, and Service Areas including the parking area, service 

courtyard, and office courtyard. The most significant view is the vista extending 

from the Conservatory south through the vegetated boundary into the adjacent 

Gardner property.

Topography and Natural Features

The rugged topography of Brookline Hills significantly influenced the design 

and development of Fairsted. Most notably, Olmsted and his sons and colleagues 

enhanced the existing exposed bedrock and natural slopes and depressions to 

provide character and structure to the site. Today, many of these topographic 

features are apparent. A natural depression formed the Hollow, with a prominent 

exposed bedrock wall in the northeast corner. Exposed bedrock and boulders 

were also incorporated into the design of the Rock Garden. The west slope was 

altered only minimally and instead planted to form an edge to the South Lawn.

Vegetation

The use of plant material is one of the most significant characteristics of an 

Olmsted-designed landscape. At Fairsted, Olmsted, with help from his sons and 

later plantsman Hans Koehler, created a microcosm of larger landscape designs 

by carefully selecting and siting plant material to achieve a dramatic and specific 
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

36

effect. Throughout Fairsted, the vegetation reinforces a cohesive design rather 

than calling attention to itself. The exception to this rule is the “Olmsted Elm,” 

clearly the most important character-defining feature of the landscape. This 

specimen Ulmus americana, in the center of the South Lawn, has formed an 

organizing element for an entire zone of the property.

In the Hollow, Olmsted chose and located plant material to create a naturalistic 

effect. The Flowering Dogwood at the west edge next to the office and the 

Shagbark Hickory near the Hollow steps create a small canopy along the western 

edge of the garden, next to the office. Under these trees, a dense planting of 

Rosebay Rhododendron (R. maximum) serve as a strong edge along the office 

facade. The northern boundary of the Hollow, along the fence bordering Dudley 

Street, several Yews and a Hawthorn form an edge and the understory for the Red 

Oak and Tuliptree lost during Hurricane “Bob.” A group of Canadian Hemlocks 

and Yews comprise the northeastern corner, above the exposed bedrock wall. 

The southern boundary, at the base of the retaining wall is characterized by a 

mixed planting of Azaleas and Yew, some of which are recent plantings. The 

only significantly alteration to the Hollow is the center bed, where several 

Rhododendron cultivars were planted in the 1960s.

The Front Entry and Circular Drive are characterized by a central planting bed 

dominated by a historic Canadian Hemlock, which rises at least 75 feet above 

the drive (Figure 2.15). The central bed also contains plantings of Yew, Barberry, 

Viburnum, Euonymous, and a volunteer Crab Apple. Plantings of Yew, Mock 

Orange, Lilac and California Allspice surround the east, south, and west sides of 

the drive and parking area from the arch to the house. The large Sycamore Maple 

on the southwest border of the drive, near the path and house is not historic. 

A hedge of nonhistoric Carolina Hemlocks extends along the fence bordering 

Warren Street (Figure 2.16).

The Rock Garden and the eastern corner of the site are characterized by a 

complete overstory with a shrub understory. The most notable tree is a large 

Cucumber Magnolia (Magnolia acuminata) which remains from the historic 

period. Other trees in the corner include several volunteer Norway Maples which 

are not historic. The understory consists of Winged Euonymous, Mock Orange, 

Jetbead, Yew, Barberry, and Mountain Laurel which is a mixture of historic and 

volunteer shrubs. The Rock Garden itself retains many historic shrubs in the 

understory including Mountain Laurel, Viburnum, and an English Weeping Yew 

(Taxus baccata ‘Repandens’). The existing Devils-walkingstick (Aralia spinosa) 

has been determined not historic. At the western edge of the Rock Garden, the 

Flowering Crabapple (Malus sp.) is not original, but was planted in the 1980s 

to replace a missing historic Crab Apple (species unknown, but probably M. 

baccata).
Description of the Historic Landscape

37

Figure 2.15 (above). Photograph 

8: Planting island formed by the 

Circular Drive. The large Canadian 

Hemlock is an historic feature, 1994 

(OCLP).

Figure 2.16 (right). Photograph 

7: Spruce pole arch and Carolina 

Hemlocks along Warren Street, 

1994 (OCLP).
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

38

The South Lawn is the largest landscape zone at Fairsted. As described above, the 

Olmsted Elm punctuates the South Lawn, framed by the Rock Garden, the house, 

the south boundary and the west slope. The vegetation along the southern edge 

of the house and laundry yard includes a number of flowering shrubs including 

Lilacs, Deutzia, and Weigelia. Like the eastern corner of the property the west 

boundary namely the west slope has experienced a large amount of volunteer tree 

growth, primarily in the form of Norway and Japanese Maples (Figure 2.17).

In the Service Areas, vegetation plays a less prominent role in defining the 

character. These areas are most noticeably affected by the spatial character of the 

structures, and the functional needs of circulation. Still, a number of noteworthy 

plants are present. In the parking area, a large, historic Sugar Maple is located near 

the barn. Lilacs and two Canadian Hemlock form the planting bed along the north 

side of the parking lot. In the service courtyard, two historic False Cypresses and 

a large yew are the only woody vegetation found in this area (Figure 2.18). The 

plant material in the office courtyard is dominated by a large nonhistoric Climbing 

Hydrangea (Figure 2.19). Ostrich ferns and other herbaceous plant material fill the 

beds between the concrete pavers.

Circulation

Nine historic circulation features and one nonhistoric circulation feature exist 

at present. Pedestrian circulation occurs in a number of walkways through the 

landscape and to several building entrances. A rubble walkway extends from 

Warren Street to the office entrance adjacent to the circular drive. An aggregate 

paved walk extends from the circular drive to the office entrance. While the exact 

date of this surface material is not known. It is thought to have existed when 

Artemis Richardson arrived c. 1940.3 Rustic stone steps extend from this path into 

the Hollow, and a crushed stone path circles the Hollow around a central planting 

Figure 2.17. Photograph 13: 

Panoramic view of the West Slope, 

taken from the South lawn, 1994 

(OCLP).
Description of the Historic Landscape

39

Figure 2.19. Photograph 18: View 

of service drive from the interior 

courtyard. The rear entrance to the 

Office Wing is on the right. The 

Climbing Hydrangea on the plan 

vault is a nonhistoric feature, 1994 

(OCLP).

Figure 2.18. Photograph 14: View 

of the interior courtyard formed by 

the Fairsted residence, office wing 

and barn. Existing False Cypress is 

an historic feature, 1994 (OCLP).
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

40

bed. Access to the Rock Garden is made by a dirt path lined with Roxbury 

Puddingstone. The existing path along the South Lawn extends from the Front 

Drive to the Conservatory and from the Conservatory around the house and barn 

to the parking area. This is not a historic feature and was installed following the 

removal of the swimming pool in 1985. The section of the path from the barn to 

the parking lot is in the historic location. The west office entrance is found near 

the vault, on series of deteriorated aggregated pavers through the office courtyard 

(Figure 2.20).

Vehicular circulation occurs in two areas of the site. The front entry drive forms 

a circle from Warren Street, through the spruce pole arch and around a central 

planting bed. This feature was modified with the addition of parking spaces in the 

1960s. The second area of vehicular circulation occurs into the parking area and 

Figure 2.20. Photograph 19: Rear 

entrance to Office Wing from the 

Parking Lot. The forecourt

to rear entrance is paved with a 

deteriorated concrete surface, 1994 

(OCLP).

Figure 2.21. Photograph 17: View 

of Dudley Street towards Warren 

Street. The brick Plan Vault

and the spruce pole fence are 

visible on the right, 1994 (OCLP).
Description of the Historic Landscape

41

the service courtyard (Figure 2.21). Although considerable work has been done by 

the NPS to the parking area, it represents the historic configuration, as installed 

in 1926. Only the surface material, originally dark grey cinders, now a hazardous 

material, has been changed.

Water Features

There are no significant water features at Fairsted.

Site Furnishings and Objects

The most significant site furnishing is the rustic spruce pole fence which 

extends along Warren, Dudley, and Fairmount Street and into the site forming 

the entrances to the parking area and office courtyard. In the last 110 years, 

nearly every section of the spruce pole fence has been replaced due to age and 

deterioration. However, the existing character and construction is identical to 

the original construction. An elaborate spruce pole arch spans the front entrance, 

creating a dramatic entrance to the site. This feature was rebuilt by the NPS 

in 1984. A field stone wall extends along the south property line forming the 

boundary with the Gardner property. This feature is vernacular in character and 

undoubtedly existed when the property was acquired by Olmsted Sr. in 1883. 

A metal, chain-link fence demarcates the west (Clark sisters) boundary. This 

feature is not historic; it was installed by the NPS in the 1980’s to replace an 

existing, deteriorated fence chain link fence with wood posts. A wood board fence 

surrounds the storage area on the north side of the barn and continues between 

the barn and the shed. A latticework fence surrounds the clothes yard. Several 

nonhistoric security lights have been placed in the landscape, the most visible 

of which is located on the South Lawn at the base of the west slope. No other 

furnishings such as benches are found at Olmsted NHS.

There are no significant site objects, such as sculpture, found at Fairsted.

Structures

Landscape structures consist of buildings, sheds, and outbuildings which 

contribute to character of the landscape. At Fairsted, they include the house, 

office, barn, and shed.
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

42
Description of the Historic Landscape

43

Figure 2.22. 1993 Existing Conditions. This drawing is based on the electronic survey by Boston University Office of Public Archeology, with plant identification by the Arnold Arboretum. Note the size and configuration of plant material, and the absence of the pool and herb garden in comparison to the 1983 

UVA-HABS plan (Figure 1.1). Prepared by the NPS, Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, 1994.
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

44
Description of the Historic Landscape

45

B. DESCRIPTION OF THE LANDSCAPE C. 1930

As described in Chapter I, the Period Plan was created after intensive analysis of 

all relevant historical documents in concert with the existing historic features, tree 

coring, and research archeology.

As discussed throughout this report, the Fairsted landscape retained the overall 

organization created by Frederick Law Olmsted despite continued maintenance 

and improvements by his sons and other professionals in the firm. The basic 

zones, the Hollow, Front Entry, Rock Garden, South Lawn, and Service Areas 

were retained throughout continued work on the site. The biggest changes to the 

site between the time of Olmsted Sr.’s death in 1903 and the c. 1930 restoration 

date were continued additions to the office wing, the construction of the parking 

lot, and the legal separation of the Clark Sisters House. In the draft of Volume 1, 

Cultural Landscape Report: Site History, Cynthia Zaitzevsky summarizes the c. 

1930 landscape as follows:

During the 1920s and 1930s, the Olmsted firm replanted and improved 

many parts of the Fairsted landscape - the Hollow, Rock Garden, Rear 

Entrance Court, Service/Parking areas - and rebuilt and replanted the 

Figure 2.23. Key to Historic Views. 

Prepared by Olmsted Center for 

Landscape Preservation, 1994.
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

46

spruce pole fence. The particular attention to the public parts of the 

grounds reflected the firm’s increase in clients, especially private clients, 

in the 1920s but was continued into the economically depressed 1930s. 

None of these changes, even the new parking lot that had always been 

fenced and screened, altered the essential character of the Fairsted 

landscape as established by Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr. and John Charles 

Olmsted between 1883 and 1903.4

Design and construction activity at Fairsted was most active during the period 

1920-1940, and focused primarily on the areas of the grounds directly associated 

with the office: the Hollow, the office courtyard, and the Service Areas.5 During 

this period, the office was the busiest in its history, and as a result, concern was 

often expressed regarding the appearance of the grounds around the front 

entrance and service entrance.6

SPRUCE POLE FENCE

The rustic spruce pole fence which encloses the site along Warren, Dudley, and 

Fairmount Streets was originally constructed in 1883 as part of an agreement with 

the Town of Brookline regarding widening of Dudley Street (Figure 2.24).7 Several 

Figure 2.24. Photograph 2: View of 

entrance arch and fence after 1935 

fence repairs. Note new Euonymus 

plants. Photo #673-144, courtesy 

of National Park Service, Olmsted 

National Historic Site.
Description of the Historic Landscape

47

plans were made for the spruce arch but no known plans exist for the fence. The 

arch and adjacent fence are clearly illustrated in several photos taken in 1930 and 

1932 which show the front completely engulfed in Euonymous (Figure 2.25). 

This practice clearly continued into the 1930s; an important photo series taken 

by Harry Perkins illustrates the fence shortly after a major repair and replanting 

project in 1933. This series shows the ubiquitous Euonymous fortunei radicans

covering the arch and fence along Dudley Street with Wild Grape or Fox Grape on 

the fence along Fairmount Street indicates that the intent to cover the fence with 

vines continued into the 1930s despite extensive repairs to the fence.

THE HOLLOW

During the 1920s and into the early 1930s, the Hollow received more attention 

from the firm than any other part of the landscape in order to make the area more 

attractive to clients and provide a laboratory for junior staff.8 This work included 

resetting the Hollow steps as well as planting of shrubs and herbaceous material 

(Figures 2.26 and 2.27). It is possible that the deteriorated condition of the Hollow 

in the early 1920s was in part the result of many years of office construction. In 

1923, Hans Koehler wrote to F.L. Olmsted, Jr. regarding the condition of the 

Hollow:

Figure 2.25. Photograph 1: View 

of entrance arch covered with 

Euonymus, 1932. Photo #673-135, 

courtesy of National Park Service, 

Olmsted National Historic Site.
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

48

Figure 2.26. Photograph 3: View of 

the Hollow from the steps, Spring, 

1926. Photo #673-114A, courtesy of

National Park Service, Olmsted 

National Historic Site.

Figure 2.27. Photograph 4: View 

of center bed, ledge and grotto in 

Hollow, May, 1935. Photo #673-137, 

courtesy of National Park Service, 

Olmsted National Historic Site.

The Hollow, of course, has some beauty, interest, and charm now, but 

perhaps you will pardon me if I say that it looks just a bit untidy and 

dilapidated, and that it could be made much more beautiful, interesting, 

and charming, a place that we should be proud to take clients into, a place 

of interest to and for study by the men in the office, especially the younger 

men.9

As a result of the dialogue between Olmsted Jr. and Koehler, considerable work 

was done to the Hollow in the late 1920s. By 1930, the general layout consisted of 

a curvilinear path and central planting bed. A Shagbark Hickory and Flowering 

Dogwood (both extant) are located on the western slope near the office entrance. 

The understory of this area consists of a mass of evergreen shrubs including 

American, English and Japanese Yews, Mountain Laurel, Rhododendron, and 
Description of the Historic Landscape

49

Box. Five Weeping English Yews continue along the western edge of the Hollow 

adjacent to the office. The northern edge along Dudley Street was dominated 

by a Red Oak, Tuliptree (both destroyed in Hurricane “Bob”), and a mass of 

Canadian Hemlock at the top of the ledge. Other plantings along the north 

boundary include various Yews, Common Juniper, and Cotoneaster, which 

continue at the base of the ledge in the northeast corner. The east and southern 

perimeter is distinguished by a mass planting of Yews with Euonymous and a 

Carolina Rhododendron at the base of the wall. Unlike the periphery, the center 

bed was not heavily planted with shrubs; only a small cluster of Creeping Juniper, 

Cotoneaster, and a lone Firethorn were placed among a heavy planting of bulbs 

and perennials.

Figure 2.28. Photograph 5: Circular 

Drive and spruce pole arch from 

upstairs window, 1900. Photo 

#673-22, courtesy of National Park 

Service, Olmsted National Historic 

Site.
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

50

FRONT ENTRY

The circular drive retained its original configuration into the 1920s and 1930s. 

Circling a central planting bed, the drive is lined with Roxbury puddingstone 

curb (Figure 2.28). A rustic stone walkway extends from Warren Street along the 

Hollow retaining wall to the office entrance. This walkway continues as a band of 

square stones to the house entrance. From here, the drive continues in a circle, 

lined with puddingstone curb. No parking area existed in 1930. The central bed 

is dominated by the existing Canadian Hemlock, which was much smaller than 

it is today. However, it is likely that by 1930, the Hemlock obscured the view of 

the house from the entry drive. The rest of the center bed is planted with ferns, 

Euonymous alata and Jetbead (Rhodotypos). The entrance to the house was 

simply planted with Cotoneaster and Euonymous with vines nearly obscuring 

the facade. A large American Elm, which by 1930 had already received substantial 

repair work, was located on the southeastern edge of the drive. Here, a swale of 

grass extended east toward the fence between the Elm and the existing historic 

Cucumber Magnolia. On the southwestern edge of the drive, views into the South 

Lawn are apparent. Another Cucumber Magnolia, no longer extant, was located 

on the northeastern corner of the drive near the arch.

ROCK GARDEN AND NORTHEAST CORNER

Historically, a grass swale extended into the northeast corner of the property, from 

the existing Cucumber Magnolia to the corner. It was bordered by a shrub layer 

of Viburnum, Mock Orange, and Euonymous. Along the fence, an American Elm, 

Red Oak, and Ash form the eastern periphery of the grass swale. Several Pitch Pine 

(P. rigida) line the southwestern edge of the swale along with Mock Orange. Two 

white Spirea are evident in several historic photographs and appear to form the 

narrow “entrance” to the grass swale.

The Rock Garden retained its basic design of 1910-11 into the 1920s with some 

modest repair work to the plantings. A rustic walk extended from the grass swale, 

following the topography of the Rock Garden to the South Lawn. The rocky 

knoll was planted with a dense, primarily evergreen understory of Mountain 

Laurel, juniper, Taxus, and Andromeda, with scattered deciduous shrubs such 

Pyracantha, Mock Orange, Barberry, and Buckthorn. A large mass of Taxus 

repandens formed the northwest edge of the Rock Garden, visible from the house. 

The overstory consisted of a Golden Raintree at the northern edge of the Rock 

Garden and a mix of Birch, Hickory, and Buckthorn along the south border. The 

existing Devilswalkingstick is not apparent in any historic documentation. Finally, 

a white-flowering Crab Apple, believed to be a Siberian Crab (Malus baccata) 

formed the transition from the Rock Garden to the South Lawn.
Description of the Historic Landscape

51

SOUTH LAWN

Since very little documentation exists for the South Lawn around 1930, its 

description in based on a combination of earlier information (primarily 

annotations to the 1904 survey), field testing of existing conditions, and a few 

key photos (Figure 2.29). By 1930, it appears that the path which had extended 

from the entry drive to the conservatory and from the conservatory around the 

west side of the barn was no longer extant (Figure 2.30). Similarly, the Hydrangea 

evident in earlier photographs appears to be gone by 1930. This resulted in large 

expanse of lawn bordered by Lilacs, Deutzia, and Spirea along the lattice fence 

and an informal planting of Maximum Rhododendron, Andromeda, ferns, and 

Leucothoe along the south border. A “borrowed view” extended the vista from 

the Conservatory into the expanse of lawn at the Gardner estate (Figure 2.31). 

Screening along portions of the south border is provided by a mass planting of 

Canadian Hemlock.

Figure 2.29. Photograph 7: View 

of South Lawn and the Olmsted 

Elm, nd (pre-1903). Photo #673-51, 

courtesy of National Park Service, 

Olmsted National Historic Site.
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

52

Figure 2.31 (below). Photograph 

6: View across South Lawn to 

Gardner property. Note entrance to 

Rock Garden on the left. January, 

1910. Photo #673-79, courtesy of 

National Park Service, Olmsted 

National Historic Site.

Figure 2.30 (right). Photograph 

8: View of South Lawn and 

house after path taken out, nd 

(after 1926). Unnumbered photo, 

courtesy of National Park Service, 

Olmsted National Historic Site.
Description of the Historic Landscape

53

The west slope appeared quite differently in 1930 than it does today (Figure 2.32). 

Here, as in the eastern corner of the property, a grass swale extended into the 

southwestern corner. An undulating edge of shrubs defined the lawn, lined with a 

rich shrub planting of Red Winged Euonymous and 2 species of shrub Dogwood 

(Cornus alba ‘Sibirica’ and Cornus sericea ‘Fiaviramea’) and a Yellowwood 

(Cladrastis lutea). Several massings of Canadian Hemlock are grouped along the 

slope in the southwestern corner of the property. The grass swale is defined by 

Red Winged Euonymous, shrub Dogwood, Inkberry, Lilac, and Yew with two 

Pitch Pine on the north side of the swale. Continuing along the west slope, the 

lawn edge makes a sweeping curve around a scattered group of trees (Maple, Pine, 

and Linden) with a shrub border of Viburnum and Lilac. The lawn continues to 

curve around toward the barn and the end of the path from the parking area. The 

remainder of the west slope is dominated by a large open area which originally 

supported the Reserve Garden and a few trees - Pitch Pine and a clump of Birth 

near the shed.

Figure 2.32. Photograph 9: 

View of West Slope from 

South Lawn, nd (after 1912). 

Photo #946-160, courtesy 

of National Park Service, 

Olmsted National Historic Site.
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

54

Figure 2.34. Photograph 10: View 

of Rear Entrance Court, nd (circa 

1925). Photo #673-158, courtesy 

of National Park Service, Olmsted 

National Historic Site.

Figure 2.33. Photograph 11: View 

of Parking Lot, May 1931. Photo 

#673-133, courtesy of National Park 

Service, Olmsted National Historic 

Site.
Description of the Historic Landscape

55

SERVICE AREAS

The parking lot, office courtyard, and service courtyard received a lot of design 

construction attention from the firm in the 1920s. The area that constitutes the 

parking lot was a fenced vegetable garden until the early 1920s.10 In the mid-1920s, 

several studies were made for the area related to flower gardens and a garage, 

but none of these recommendations were implemented. In 1926, F.L. Olmsted, 

Jr. wrote to the tenant, Captain Pentecost regarding a “long row of automobiles 

parked outside on Dudley Street,” to assure him that the garden area would soon 

be converted to a parking area for employees.11 The parking lot plan for 12-15 

cars was implemented shortly thereafter as indicated several historic photographs 

(Figure 2.33). Later studies to further enlarge the parking, remove the shed, or 

build a multi-car garage were not implemented. At the eastern corner of the 

parking lot- near the barn - the planting bed is composed of a large (existing) 

Sugar Maple, a mass planting of Common Quince and an herbaceous understory. 

Lilacs border the northern edge of the parking area and other trees include two 

Canadian Hemlock in the northeast corner along with a White Pine and Tuliptree 

along the northwest edge, and a Cucumber Magnolia and an unidentified 

deciduous tree in the western corner.

Like the Hollow, the office courtyard received substantial work, especially 

replanting during the 1920s and 1930s (Figure 2.34).12 Two planting studies, 

by Brown (1924 or 1925) and Koehler (1925) to improve the courtyard with a 

rich assortment of herbaceous material including bulbs and perennials such as 

Peonies, Tuberous Begonias, and Narcissus as well as several species of Roses. 

Euonymous is clearly evident on the south wall of the vault in a 1920 photograph 

by J.C. Olmsted; it was replaced in 1935 by Hans Koehler, probably at the same 

time the repair and replanting work was undertaken on the fence. At the same 

time, Hedera helix baltica was replaced on the north side of the Plan Vault.13

Historic photographs provide a clear view of 3 pyramidal Yew (Taxus cuspidata 

‘Pyramidalis’) on either side of the fence opening and in the southwest corner of 

the courtyard. Dutchman’s Pipe and violets are evident at the base of the fence. 

The height of the fence appears slightly different than its present height.14

No evidence exists to confirm that the 1926 planting recommendations for the 

service court was implemented. The existing Falsecypress likely existed in 1930.
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

56
Description of the Historic Landscape

57

Figure 2.35. 1930 Period Plan, prepared by the NPS, Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, 1994.
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

58
Description of the Historic Landscape

59

C. NEARBY/ADJACENT HISTORIC PROPERTIES

Olmsted NHS is situated between two National Register Historic Districts, 

both of which are contained in the Brookline Multiple Resource Area. The 

information described below regarding the historic properties adjacent to or near 

Olmsted NHS is derived from several nomination and inventory forms found at 

the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC). This includes the Multiple 

Resource Area nomination form for the Brookline Multiple Resource Area as well 

as National Register nomination forms and MHC inventory forms for the Green 

Hill and Town Green Historic Districts.

The Brookline Multiple Resource Area includes two National Register Historic 

Districts in the vicinity of Olmsted NHS.15 The Green Hill Historic District 

(established in 1985) lies directly south of Olmsted NHS along portions of 

Figure 2.36. Green Hill Historic District. Prepared by NPS, Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, 1994.
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

60

Warren, Sargent, Cottage and Fairmount Streets while the Town Green National 

Register District (1980) is located directly north of Olmsted NHS along the 

portions of Fairmount, Dudley, Walnut, and Warren Streets and Welch Road 

extending northwest to Kennard Road (Figures 2.36 and 2.37). Olmsted NHS was 

designated a National Historic Landmark in 1963 and listed as a National Register 

property in 1966, and was not included in either historic district.16

GREEN HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT

Green Hill encompasses a total of 34 contributing historic properties and 5 

noncontributing properties collectively listed on the National Register in 1985 

as a historic district (Figure 2.36).17 The district is noted as a “neighborhood of 

old, architecturally distinguished and varied homes” which retain much of their 

19th century flavor.18 Many of these houses were built as summer residences for 

a group of distinguished Boston merchants. The house at 215 Warren Street was 

acquired by George Cabot in 1793 and named “Green Hill.” Cabot’s acquisition 

marked the beginning of a series of distinguished individuals who built houses in 

the nearby vicinity during the 19th century, firmly establishing the development of 

Brookline as a wealthy suburb of Boston.

Several noteworthy individuals acquired property and developed estates in the 

vicinity of Green Hill. They include Samuel Perkins, Thomas Coffin Amory, Isaac 

Table 2.1. Properties Included in the Green Hill Historic District

MHC# Address Date Architect Original/Subsequent Owner(s)

1 12 Fairmount St. 1883 J.C. Olmsted F.L. Olmsted; Clark Sisters

2 130 Warren St. c. 1840 Unknown S.H. Perkins

3 211 Sargent Rd. 1845-61 Unknown Ignatius Sargent

4 209 Sargent Rd. 1845 Richard Upjohn Ignatius Sargent

5 135 Warren St. 1806 Unknown Nathaniel Ingersoll

6 185 Warren St. c. 19th cent. Unknown Goddard (non-contributing) 

7 186 Warren St. c. 1845, 

1850, 1905

Unknown; Guy Lowell Ignatius Sargent

8 190 Warren St. c. 1850 Unknown William Dwight

9 215 Warren St. c. 1742, 

1796

Unknown Nehmiah Davis; George Cabot

10 222 Warren St. c. 1844; 

1857

Unknown S. Perkins; N. Goddard

11 25 Cottage St. late 18th 

cent., 1804

Unknown Unknown; S.G. Perkins; H.H. Richardson

12 45 Cottage St. 1905 Chapman and Frazer Josephine Cox

13 85 Cottage St. 1827 Unknown Isaac Cook

14 230 Warren St. 1899 E.A. Snow Francis White

15 278 Warren St. 1880 George Harvey Barthold Schlesinger

16 257 Warren St. c. 1840; 

1936

Unknown George Gardner

17 285 Warren St. 1855-8 Unknown Simon Warren

18 305 Warren St. 1812 Unknown John Warren
Description of the Historic Landscape

61

Cook (Goddard Avenue -1809 and 85 Cottage Street- 1827), John Lowell Gardner 

(135 Warren Street- 1842), Ignatius Sargent (209 Sargent Road -1845), and 

Thomas Parsons (45 Cottage Street). Later in the 19th century, several individuals 

with a historic connection to Frederick Law Olmsted including Henry Hobson 

Richardson and Charles Sprague Sargent settled in the neighborhood. The period 

of significance for the Green Hill Historic District is simply “19th century,” and 

the district meets the NR criteria A, B, and C.

Many of the properties within the district have been noted for their architectural 

values. In addition, the Green Hill Historic District has been recognized for its 

landscape architectural and horticultural significance. Holm Lea, the Sargent 

Estate, was developed by Ignatius Sargent and his son, Charles Sprague Sargent 

who later became the founder and director of the Arnold Arboretum. John 

Lowell Gardner and his daughter-in-law, Isabella Stewart Gardner, developed 

the property at 135 Warren Street to include lavish gardens and greenhouses. 

Figure 2.37. Town Green Historic District. Prepared by NPS, Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, 1994.
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

62

The work of the Olmsted firm(s) is evident in the siting of 12 Fairmount Street, 

designed by john Charles Olmsted, and in the landscape design for the Schlesinger 

property at 278 Warren Street. Henry Hobson Richardson, son of architect H. H. 

Richardson received the gold medal of the Massachusetts Horticultural Society 

for his collection of shrubs, herbaceous plants, and vines.

The properties included in the Green Hill Historic District are listed in Table 2.1.19

Table 2.2. Properties Included in the Town Green Historic District

MHC# Address Date Architect Historic name/owner

1 15 Kennard Rd. 1897 F. Manton Wakefield Davenport House

2 16 Kennard Rd. 1899 Cabot, Everett, and 

Meade

3 22 Kennard Rd. 1905 Hartley Dennett

4 25 Kennard Rd. 1844 Gridley Bryant Hill-Kennard-Ogden House

5 32 Kennard Rd. 1897 Chapman and Frazer

6 10 Chestnut St. 1928

7 14 Chestnut St. 1930 M.P. Mead

8 20 Chestnut St. 1881

9 26 Chestnut St. 1870-71

10 27 Chestnut St. 1844-55

11 33 Chestnut St. 1864

12 11 Chestnut Pl. 1854-55

13 29 Chestnut Pl. 1867-68

14 35 Chestnut Pl. 1896 F. Manon Wakefield

15 15 Hedge Rd. 1904 Putnam and Cox

16 No entry

17 37 Hedge Rd. 1916 Strickland and Law

18 43 Hedge Rd. 1916 Strickland and Law

19 52 Hedge Rd. 1913 Kilham and Hopkins

20 57 Hedge Rd. 1913 Sidney T. Strickland

21 58-60 Hedge Rd. 1885 Peabody and Sterns

22 61 Hedge Rd. 1923 Strickland, Blodgett, 

and Law

23 Walnut St. 1717 Burying Ground

24 348 Walnut St. 1869-70

25 353 Walnut St. 1856 First Parish Church

26 356 Walnut St. 1854

27 371 Walnut St. 1852 Howe-Townsend House

28 382 Walnut St. 1825 Pierce Hall

29 393 Walnut St. 1852 Bacon-Poor-Prouty House

30 400 Walnut St. 1893 Shepley, Rutan, and 

Coolidge

First Parish Church

31 423 Walnut St. 1896 Joseph Chandler

32 424 Walnut St. 1901 Alexander Jenny

33 433 Walnut St. 1952 Francis Dooley

34 434 Walnut St. 1898 Fehmer and Paige
Description of the Historic Landscape

63

MHC# Address Date Architect Historic name/owner

35 446 Walnut St. 1898 Hartwell, Richardson, 

and Driver

36 460 Walnut St. 1899 W.G. Rantoul

37 468 Walnut St. 1902 W.G. Rantoul

38 469 Walnut St. 1900

39 120 Codman Rd. 1929 Henry and Richmond

40 1 Perrin Rd. 1895-96

41 2 Perrin Rd. 1899

42 3 Perrin Rd. 1895-96

43 5 Perrin Rd. 1848-55

44 20 Dudley St.

45 23 Dudley St. 1899 W.G. Rantoul

46 30 Dudley St.

47 46 Dudley St. 1893 William F. Goodwin

48 54 Dudley St. 1896 William F. Goodwin

49 64 Dudley St. 1902 John Lavalle

50 Warren/Boylston St. 1848 Waterworks Town of Brookline

51 16 Warren St. 1851-52

52 30 Warren St. 1885 Peabody and Stearns

53 37 Warren St. 1896 Winslow and Wetherell Moses Williams

54 45 Warren St. 1896 Hartwell and 

Richardson

55 49 Warren St. 1896 F. Manton Wakefield

56 116 Warren St. 1822 rear, 

1871 front

57 440 Walnut St. 1898-99 Chapman and Frazer

58 11 Welch Rd. 1871-72

59 34 Welch Rd. 1906 Allen and Collins

60 46 Welch Rd. 1906 Everett and Mead

61 58 Welch Rd. 1902 Hartley Dennett

62 21 Fairmount St. 1888-89 B. McNeal

63 25-27 Fairmount St. 1870

64 33 Fairmount St. 1885

65 39 Fairmount St. 1858-59

TOWN GREEN HISTORIC DISTRICT

The Town Green Historic District was listed on the National Register of Historic 

Places in 1980 (Figure 2.37). The district is centered around Walnut Street, which 

at the intersection of Warren Street forms the triangular town green. The district is 

composed of 64 contributing historic properties including 58 houses, a church, a 

cemetery, a school, and the first Brookline town hall. The district is characterized 

by a unified collection of large late 19th and early 20th century residential estates 

which typify the affluent Boston suburbs.20 Many of the existing historic buildings 

are architecturally significant, designed by noteworthy architects including 

Peabody and Stearns, W.G. Rantoul, Hartwell and Richardson, Chapman and 
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

64

Frazer, and Kilham and Hopkins. The Olmsted firm(s) designed the landscape for 

the Frederick Hood House (440 Walnut Street- 1898-99), 46 Dudley Street (1893), 

and the Gardner -Comstock House (54 Dudley St.-1896).

PROPERTIES THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY PHASE 1 WORK

No impact to nearby or adjacent historic properties is anticipated for the removal 

of shrubs since this work is being incorporated into the seasonal work plan of the 

existing grounds maintenance team. A small increase in noise may be generated 

by the increased activity at the site. The tree removal contract will employ large, 

heavy equipment for some of the tall trees on site and may be noticed by residents 

in the neighborhood.

One of the principal concerns of the tree removal is its potential effect on 

residential traffic. Warren Street, a narrow, winding, historic road is heavily used 

during rush hours as a bypass to Route 9. Dudley Street, with very little traffic, is 

one access to residents on Fairmount Street. For these reasons, careful planning is 

underway to coordinate construction staging to eliminate any disruption to traffic 

on Warren and Dudley Streets. The primary staging area for the tree removal 

will be the existing parking lot off Dudley Street; it is likely that a small amount 

of chipping (e.g. of the hemlock hedge and Sycamore Maple) will be done in the 

circular front drive . It is possible that there will be a small increase in traffic due 

to heavy equipment entering and leaving the site at the beginning and end of the 

tree-removal contract. In addition, the NPS staff, researchers, and visitors will 

be encouraged to carpool, take public transportation, or park at the Brookline 

Reservoir during the approximately 2 week duration of the tree removal.

Only two of the 18 contributing properties within the Green Hill Historic District 

lie adjacent, within visual access, or may be affected by construction traffic from 

Olmsted NHS. They are the Gardner estate at 135 Warren Street and the former 

Clark Sisters cottage at 12 Fairmount Street. The house most clearly affected by 

the proposed tree removal will be 12 Fairmount Street. However, this property 

was historically part of the Frederick Law Olmsted estate - built specifically for the 

Clark Sisters who resided at 99 Warren Street at the time of Olmsted’s purchase 

in 1883. Historically, the Clark Sisters house was clearly visible from Fairsted, 

and the view from 12 Fairmount Street onto the south lawn visually extends the 

property far beyond its physical boundary. Thus the visual effect of removing a 

substantial number of trees along the west slope adjacent to 12 Fairmount Street 

will not adversely affect the integrity of the property. Some construction noise and 

activity will impact 12 Fairmount Street simply due to proximity. However, every 

effort will be made to minimize the effect. The visual effect of the tree removal 

on the Gardner property and to a lesser extent 130 Warren Street will be very 

minimal since the majority of the trees will be removed from the west slope. It is 

possible that the removal of the c. 1960 hemlock hedge along Warren Street will 
Description of the Historic Landscape

65

result in greater visibility of the Fairsted house from Warren Street. However, this 

will be limited to winter views since the existing historic Cucumber Magnolia 

will screen the house in spring, summer, and fall and the subsequent replanting 

will increase the screen. Furthermore, south of Olmsted NHS, Warren Street 

is a winding narrow road, and Fairsted is only visible along a small stretch. As a 

result, it is not likely that any other properties in the Green Hill Historic District, 

such as the former Perkins house at 130 Warren St., will be visually affected by the 

proposed work.

The tree removal may be visible from six properties in the Town Green Historic 

District. They include 20 Dudley Street, 45 Dudley Street (1899- house by W.G. 

Rantoul), 57 Walnut Street (1898-99- house by Chapman and Frazer, Olmsted 

Associates landscape), 46 Welch Road (1906 - house by Everett and Mead), 

34 Welch Road (1906- house by Allen and Collins), and 116 Warren Street 

(1822/1871- architect unknown). The removal of nonhistoric trees and shrubs 

from these properties will not affect the integrity of the district since all have 

sprouted or were planted since the 1930 preservation date. Furthermore, the 

majority of the volunteer growth has been along the west slope of the Fairsted 

grounds which is barely visible beyond Fairmount Street. The greatest visual 

change will result from the loss of the nonhistoric hemlock hedge along Warren 

Street making the Fairsted house slightly more visible along Warren Street and 

conversely properties along Welch Road more visible from the Olmsted house, 

office, and grounds.
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

66

Endnotes

1. National Park Service. Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Landscapes. Draft, 

1992. p. 4.

2. Ibid.

3. Interview with Artemis Richardson by Cynthia Zaitzevsky. Note that the material 

used in this location is very similar to the aggregate pavers installed in the office 

courtyard. These improvements are known to have been implemented in 1925.

4. Zaitzevsky, Chapter 4, p. 41.

5. Zaitzevsky, Chapter 4, p. 1.

6. Zaitzevsky, Chapter 4, p. 1-2.

7. Zaitzevsky, Chapter 4, p. 9.

8. Zaitzevsky, Chapter 4, p. 17-18.

9. Koehler to Olmsted, March 1924 as quoted by Zaitzevsky, Chapter 4, p. 19. 

10. Zaitzevsky, Chapter 4, p. 36.

11. F.L. Olmsted to Capt. Pentecost, August 5, 1926 as cited by Zaitzevsky, Chapter 4, 

p. 37.

12. Zaitzevsky, Chapter 4, p. 38. 

13. Koehler, Hans. Notes “from memory,” 1936 as cited by Zaitzevsky, Chapter 4, p. 39.

14. This may be due to the fact that the 1987 parking lot restoration placed the new 

fence in a slightly modified location to allow for emergency vehicle access.

15. National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form for the Brookline Multiple 

Resource Area.

16. See the National Register and MHC inventory forms for the Green Hill and Town 

Green Historic Districts.

17. Ibid.

18. Benka, Carla. Massachusetts Inventory Form A: Area. Green Hill, Brookline. 1983.

19. Benka, Carla. 1983.

20. Benka, Carla, Leslie Larkin, Elizabeth Durfee, and Candace Jenkins. National 

Register Form for the Town Green Historic District. December 1979.
Project Scope

67

Chapter III: Project Scope

A. PROJECT OBJECTIVES

The principal objective of this project is to re-establish the character of the 

landscape as originally envisioned by Frederick Law Olmsted and perpetuated 

through the careful management by his sons, John Charles and Frederick Law 

Olmsted, Jr. By 1900, the overall design structure of landscape was well established 

and composed of five principle zones: the hollow, front drive, rock garden, south 

lawn and west slope, and service areas (see Figures 1.3 and 2.2).

The landscape has changed sufficiently to obscure some of the original 

picturesque qualities. This is due to changes in maintenance practices and the 

introduction of flowering plant material during the Olmsted Associates tenure 

(1961-1979) which preceded NPS management beginning in 1980. Most notable 

is the loss of diversity and quantity of shrubs, due to the invasion of volunteer tree 

growth, primarily Norway (Acer platanoides) and Japanese Maples (A. palmatum). 

This restoration project will re-establish the rich diversity of plant material that 

typified the picturesque landscape designed by Frederick Law Olmsted and his 

sons.

The 1983 General Management for Olmsted NHS called for a preservation period 

of 1960 and the removal of non-contributing landscape features constructed after 

that date - a swimming pool, terrace, and formal garden.1 By 1987 it was clear that 

this approach did not communicate the rustic character of the original design, 

that the landscape had deteriorated significantly by 1960, and that sufficient 

documentation existed to restore the landscape to an earlier period. Thus, a 1987 

amendment to the GMP recommended a change in the preservation period to 

1930, a time of great activity for the Olmsted Brothers firm.2

B. TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED

The General Management Plan (1983) states that the emphasis of the site should 

not be limited to Frederick Law Olmsted, but also includes the growth and 

development of the firm he founded and on the entire profession of landscape 

architecture.3 To this end, the GMP recommends “preservation” with limited 

restoration to c. 1960 necessary to remove features (that existed in 1983) that 

compromised the historic character of the landscape. This included the pool, 

terrace and herb garden (Figure 1.1). These features were removed shortly 
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

68

thereafter, followed by the replacement and repair of certain historic features 

including portions of the spruce pole fence and front arch, the parking area 

(Figure 1.4), and a trellis system to re-establish vines on the south facade of 

the house (Figure 3.1). In 1993, plans were also made to provide an accessible 

entrance to the house in concert with new exhibit space proposed for 

implementation in winter 1995.

A 1987 report was prepared to revise the GMP by changing the restoration 

period from 1960 to 1930.4 This report highlighted problems with the existing 

preservation philosophy. In particular, the 1987 report stressed that the landscape 

had deteriorated significantly by 1960 and much of the landscape design and 

documentation was created prior to 1930, making a restoration to a later period 

very difficult. Most importantly, 1930 landscape retained the overall design and 

character created by Olmsted Sr. By this time, the office wing was complete with 

the second story of the Clerical Department constructed in 1925. In 1926, the 

existing parking lot was installed.

Since the preservation period was revised, substantial work to the house, office, 

and grounds has been implemented. This includes restoration of the parking area, 

repair of the house and office exterior, and the development of a trellis system to 

re-establish vine growth to the house facade (Figure 3.1).

Since the restoration period has already been approved by the NPS, the SHPO, 

and the Advisory Council, this Treatment Plan has only briefly considered other 

treatment alternatives for the landscape. They are described below.

PRESERVATION

The current landscape treatment is generally preservation maintenance which 

strives to manage the grounds as they appear at present. This practice emphasizes 

routine and cyclic maintenance such as mowing, pruning, and integrated pest 

management. Deteriorated plant material is replaced in kind. While this treatment 

is not detrimental to the site, it does not retain nor recover the rugged, picturesque 

character that existed prior to 1930. At Fairsted, two fundamental changes have 

occurred since 1930 that affect the character of the landscape. Firstly, flowering 

shrubs such as rhododendrons in the Hollow center bed and a climbing 

Hydrangea on the vault were planted. These shrubs are not consistent with 

the plant palette implemented by Olmsted and others prior to 1930. Secondly, 

landscape maintenance priorities appear to have shifted after c. 1960 resulting in 

substantial growth of invasive and volunteer woody species. This trend is most 

evident on the west slope bordering the Clark sisters [now Nicrenz] property. 

Thus, preservation as a treatment, does not achieve the interpretive objectives 

outlined in the 1987 report since the rich diversity and density of shrub species are 

not evident on the site.
Project Scope

69

Figure 3.1. Trellis Alternatives. These alternatives were developed by Charlie Pepper to re-establish twining vine growth on the south facade of the house. The final trellis solution is a modified version of Alternative 1 - spiraled steel strapping. Prepared by the NPS, Olmsted National Historic Site, 1994.
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

70
Project Scope

71

REHABILITATION

“When...alterations or additions to the property are planned for a new or 

continued use; and when depiction at a particular period of time is not 

appropriate, Rehabilitation may be considered as a [landscape] treatment.”5 By 

and large, Olmsted National Historic Site functions very similarly to the historic 

office with small variations necessary to preserve the most significant areas for 

interpretive purposes. This has been adequately addressed in the 1983 GMP 

with treatment work completed as recommended. The house however is used for 

office space rather than as a residence as it had been historically and rehabilitation 

as a treatment has been successfully accomplished there to accommodate office 

and exhibit space while simultaneously preserving the historic character of the 

structure.

In the landscape, the historic design works well for the operation of the National 

Historic Site. However, a historically accurate presentation of the landscape is 

absolutely essential to the interpreting the work of Frederick Law Olmsted and his 

sons. For this reason, substantial rehabilitation that would add new features and 

preclude the re-establishment of an earlier appearance is not appropriate.

RESTORATION TO AN EARLIER PERIOD

The 1987 report clearly describes the rationale for changing the preservation 

period from c. 1960 to c. 1930. It does not address the feasibility of restoring the 

landscape to an earlier period such as 1903, the year Olmsted Sr. died. While this 

earlier period more directly relates to the life of Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr., the 

property as a whole is overlain with later features that have significance in their 

own right and which relate to the period of significance of the life and work of 

Olmsted Brothers. Olmsted Sr. ceased active practice in 1895 and retired in 1897 

and due to failing health, spent most of his last year at the McLean Asylum. The 

Olmsted Brothers firm which succeeded Olmsted, Olmsted, and Eliot, continued 

to expand and substantial alterations to office were made between 1903 and 1925. 

The most obvious later features include the kitchen (1903), conversion of the barn 

to carpentry and model shop (1909), upper vault (1911/12), second floor to the 

west drafting room (1911/12), and the second floor Clerical Department (1925).6

These structures are very significant and relate directly to the interpretive and 

curatorial missions of the National Historic Site.

The 1904 period is documented by a 1904 survey of the landscape, presumably 

completed for estate purposes following the death of Olmsted Sr.7 However, many 

corrections and clarifications to this survey were made by Frederick Law Olmsted, 

Jr., Henry Hubbard, and Hans Koehler in 1910, 1911 and 1923. As a result, the 

documentation for a 1903 landscape is considerably weaker than what exists for 

the slightly later period. Two alterations to the landscape were made in the mid-
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

72

1920s that are present today: legal separation of the Clark sisters’ property (1925), 

now a private residence; and the construction of the parking area (1926). Modest 

additional planting and repair was also made to Hollow and Rock Garden with 

several studies completed in 1916, 1923, and 1924. The result of this work, on both 

buildings and landscape, makes restoration to an earlier date inappropriate, costly, 

difficult to implement, and contradictory to the mission of Olmsted NHS.

RECONSTRUCTION

Due to the significance of the Olmsted period, a reconstruction of the preOlmsted landscape was not considered.

C. TREATMENT CHOICE: RESTORATION TO C. 1930

The treatment decision at Olmsted National Historic Site, to restore the landscape 

to its appearance in 1930, accomplishes several objectives. The primary objective 

is to promote an understanding of the principles of landscape design practiced 

by Frederick Law Olmsted, and his sons and partners. The restoration period is 

consistent with the interpretation of the property as a whole, since it represents 

a period for which the Olmsted Brothers firm was particularly active. The overall 

landscape design created by Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr. was maintained by his 

sons despite continued construction on the office wing. By 1926, many of the 

significant alterations to the structure had been completed; thus the restoration 

period allows for a unified historic appearance in both architecture and landscape.

D. TREATMENT PLAN PHASING

The landscape treatment for Olmsted National Historic Site will be implemented 

in two distinct phases. This separation is appropriate given the nature of the work 

involved and is necessary due to the limitations of fiscal year funding. The overall 

treatment plan (restoration) is illustrated in Figure 3.2. Due to the complexity 

of the woody plant material at Fairsted, the Treatment Plan illustrates a general 

view of the restored landscape, especially the new plantings and the removal of 

nonhistoric elements other than plant material. This plan has been drawn at 1”-

10’; the final planting plans and working drawings for Phase 2 will be developed 

1/4 scale (1” -4’).

PHASE 1 (FY 94)

Phase 1 includes the removal of nonhistoric woody plant material based on 

an exhaustive analysis of existing conditions and all available documentation 
Project Scope

73

Figure 3.2. Treatment Plan. This figure summarizes the overall restoration of the grounds. Exact locations of new plantings as well as construction specifications for surface work will be provided at 1 “-4’ for Phase 2. Phase 1 is described in Figures 15 and 16. Prepared by the NPS, OCLP, 1994.
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

74
Project Scope

75

for the preservation period (c. 1930). The process for analyzing this analysis is 

described in Chapter 1. The scope of work for phase 1 includes the removal of 

136 nonhistoric trees, removal and replacement of 2 severely deteriorated historic 

trees, the removal of 96 nonhistoric shrubs, grinding 21 stumps, and removal of 

5 small tree stumps at trunk flair. The shrubs, seedlings, and small volunteer trees 

will be removed by Olmsted NHS grounds staff. Larger trees and stump grinding 

which require specialized arborist services will be removed through a contract or 

purchase order in Fall 1994.

PHASE 2 (FY 95-96)

Phase 2 will include the replacement of missing historic features - primarily a 

large number of shrubs and trees and is based on analysis of the appearance 

of the landscape c. 1930 and planting plan studies at 1”-4’. This phase will also 

include work on the front drive to re-establish a portion of the historic alignment 

and rubble walkway, all surface repairs to paths, drives and the office courtyard; 

removal of the existing nonhistoric path (installed in 1985); drainage repairs and 

the installation of water spigots; replacement of the missing historic cedar post 

and chain-link fence along the boundary with the Clark sisters property (now 

Nickrenz); and the construction of a new concrete walkway along Dudley Street, 

outside the historic property.

E. PROJECT SCOPE PHASE 1

Decisions regarding trees and shrubs to be removed or retained are based 

on substantial documentation of both historic and existing conditions. This 

information and the process for making treatment decisions are described in 

Section 1: Methodology and Section 2: Description of the Historic Landscape.

TREE REMOVAL

In Phase 1, 136 trees are scheduled for removal (Figure 3.3 and Table 3.1). The 

majority of these trees are seedlings or volunteers that have grown up in the last 

thirty years due to changes in maintenance practices. A few were consciously 

planted during the Olmsted Associates tenure, after the preservation period c. 

1930. By far the majority of the trees included in this submittal will be removed 

from the west slope area. The most common nonhistoric species on the site is 

Norway Maple, followed by Japanese Maple and Birch. These species self-sow 

easily and Norway Maple are known to be particularly invasive.8 Several Carolina 

Hemlocks, a recent introduction to the landscape, will also be removed. Appendix 

H provides a complete list of all trees to be removed including identification 

number, Latin name, diameter at breast height (DBH), and canopy. This Appendix 
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

76

also indicates trees and stumps will be removed by the NPS and which will be 

covered in a tree removal contract or purchase order. Existing historic trees that 

will remain are listed in Appendix I. The following text describes the tree removal 

in each zone. Two severely deteriorated trees will be removed and replaced in 

kind.

Hollow

No trees will be removed in the Hollow.

Front Drive

Most of the trees to be removed in the vicinity of the front drive comprise a hedge 

of 17 Carolina Hemlocks planted in the 1960s by Artemis Richardson.9 Two small 

Striped Maple, north of the existing parking area, are to be removed. The existing 

Sycamore Maple 20” in diameter was cored and determined to be 36 years in age 

based on tree coring and will be removed. This corresponds with plantings made 

on the south edge of the drive following its reconfiguration.10

Rock Garden

On the east side of the Rock Garden path, 21 trees are to be removed. These 

include 11 Norway Maple, 3 Striped Maple, 3 White Ash, 2 Crab Apple, 1 Amur 

Corktree, 1 Cherry, and 1 European Mountain Ash. 1 deteriorated historic 

White Ash will be removed and replaced in kind. Most of the nonhistoric trees 

are seedlings and all are 12” or less in diameter. West of the path, 10 trees will be 

removed. This includes 4 River Birch sprouting from an existing stump, and a 

mixture of small deciduous volunteers. 2 Red Oak (10” and 12” in diameter) were 

cored and determined to be 21-28 years in age and will be removed.

South Lawn

In the area known as the South Border, trees to be removed include 1 Japanese 

Maple and 5 Norway Maple volunteers. 3 Carolina Hemlock will also be removed. 

They appear to have been planted amongst several historic Canadian Hemlock. 

They were determined to be nonhistoric due to size, species, and location, and do 

not appear on any of the historic plans for this area.11

On the west slope, 71 trees including 39 Norway Maples and 14 Japanese Maples 

have been determined to be nonhistoric. It is likely that the Japanese Maples have 

sown from parent trees in the neighborhood.12 Other trees to be removed from 

the west slope include 2 Sycamore Maples, Tuliptree, Yellowwood, White Ash, 

River Birch, Katsura, Kousa Dogwood, Cherry, Red Oak, and Canadian Hemlock. 

Most of the trees to be removed are 12” or less in diameter, indicating that they 
Project Scope

77

Figure 3.3. Nonhistoric Tree Removal Plan. Prepared by the NPS, OCLP, 1994. For a summary of trees to be removed, see Table 3.1
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

78
Project Scope

79

are quite young. All trees, whose age was questionable, whether due to size or lack 

of documentation, were cored to determine their exact age (see Appendix E). Tree 

#43-17, a 24” Norway Maple was not cored because it is clearly absent in historic 

photographs and firm documentation exists for missing plantings.

Table 3.1. Summary of Trees to be Removed

Common Name Scientific Name Number to 

Remove

Front Drive: 21 trees

Center Bed (1 tree)

Crab Apple Malus sp. 1

Circular Parking Area Beds (21 trees)

Striped Maple Acer pensylvanicum 2

Sycamore Maple Acer pseudoplatanus 1

Carolina Hemlock Tsuga caroliniana 17

Rock Garden (30 trees)

East Side of Walk (20 trees)

Sriped Maple Acer pensylvanicum 2

Norway Maple Acer platanoides 11

White Ash Fraxinus americana 3

Crab Apple Malus sp. 2

Amur Corktree Phellodendron amurense 1

Cherry Prunus sp. 1

European Mountain Ash Sorbus aucuparia 1

Lawn - West Side of Path (9 trees)

Devils Walkingstick Aralia spinosa 1

River Birch Betula nigra 4

Crab Apple Malus sp. 1

Cherry Prunus sp. 1

Red Oak Quercus rubra 2

South Lawn (80 trees)

South Border (9 trees)

Japanese Maple Acer palmatum 1

Norway Maple Acer platanoides 5

Carolina Hemlock Tsuga caroliniana 3

West Slope (71 trees)

Japanese Maple Acer palmatum 14

Sycamore Maple Acer pseudoplatanus 2

Norway Maple Acer platanoides 39

Tuliptree Liriodendron tulipifera 1

American Yellowwood Cladrastis lutea 3

White Ash Fraxinus americana 2
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

80

Service Areas

In the service areas, which include the parking lot and the rear office entry, 1 

Norway Maple will be removed. It is reasonably large in size (25” DBH) and was 

cored and determined to be 24 years in age. This corresponds with the thirty-year 

growth of volunteers along the western boundary of the site.

SHRUB REMOVAL

A total of 96 shrubs will be removed from the landscape, primarily from the 

Rock Garden and edges of the South Lawn. As with the trees on the site, the 

south border and west slop are areas that have suffered from extensive volunteer 

growth. Many of the shrubs listed below are very small seedlings - volunteers 

that have self-seeded from other shrubs on site, or from properties nearby. A few 

were consciously planted during the Olmsted Associates period- bright-flowering 

shrubs to add color to the landscape. These later additions are not significant and 

conflict with the landscape created by Frederick Law Olmsted Sr. and maintained 

by his sons. Figure 3.4 illustrates the distribution of shrubs to be removed (see 

also Table 3.2). They are summarized below and listed by zone and identification 

number in Appendix K.

Hollow

15 shrubs will be removed from the Hollow. This area is well documented in 

surveys, plans and photographs up to 1930. Shrubs to be removed include 8 

plants from the center bed. The most noteworthy of which are 5 azaleas and 

rhododendrons planted in the 1960s which are not consistent with the earlier 

Common Name Scientific Name Number to 

Remove

River (Sweet) Birch Betula lenta 7

Katsura Cercidiphyllum japonicum 1

Kousa Dogwood Cornus kousa 1

Cherry Prunus sp. 1

Red Oak Quercus rubra 1

Canadian Hemlock Tsuga canadensis 1

Service Areas (1 tree)

Parking Lot (1 tree)

Norway Maple Acer platanoides 1

Trees to be Removed and Replaced In Kind

Rock Garden

White Ash Fraxinus americana 1

South Lawn

River Birch Betula lenta 1
Project Scope

81

Figure 3.4. Nonhistoric Shrub Removal Plan. Prepared by the NPS, Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, 1994. For a summary of shrubs to be removed, see Table 3.2.
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

82
Project Scope

83

plant palette and are not indicated in historic plans. 7 more shrubs will be removed from 

the north embankment and west embankment of the Hollow. They include 2 Buckthorn, 1 

Barberry, 1 Torch Azalea, and 1 Korean Rhododendron.

Front Drive

A total of 11 shrubs will be removed from the Front Drive zone. In the center bed, 2 

English Yew and 1 Arrowwood will be removed and replaced with shrubs documented 

in historic photos. The area adjacent to the parking area includes several large Japanese 

and English Yews with canopies ranging from 10 to 22 feet. These shrubs cannot be 

documented in historic plans or photos and the parking area was substantially altered 

in the early 1960s. These shrubs have been determined to be nonhistoric. The Carolina 

Allspice located near the northeast corner of the house, will also be removed.

Rock Garden

35 shrubs, or approximately one third of the total number of shrubs in this submittal, will 

be removed from the Rock Garden. Twenty four of these shrubs will be removed from 

the area east of the Rock Garden path. At present this corner of the site is largely a mass 

of trees and shrubs. Historically, the lawn extended into this corner, necessitating the 

removal of many existing shrubs. Ten of the shrubs to be removed in this area are Mock 

Orange; the rest of the removal will include 7 winged Euonymus, 4 Jetbead, 1 Buckthorn, 

and 1 Japanese Yew. Existing shrubs along the outside of the historic lawn boundary 

will remain since clear documentation does not exist for the composition of the shrub 

border in this area. West of the path, in the rocky area bordering the South Lawn, eleven 

shrubs known to be recent introductions or which conflict with historic plantings will be 

removed. They include 2 Flame Azaleas, 2 Japanese Yew, 3 Arrowwood, and 1 each of Tea 

Viburnum, Rhododendron, Japanese Barberry, Honeysuckle, and English Yew.

South Lawn

34 shrubs, also over a third of the total number of shrubs, are not historic and will be 

removed in the vicinity of the South Lawn. The most noticeable of these is the Hydrangea 

heteromalla adjacent to the path near the conservatory entrance. 14 shrubs will be 

removed along the south border. They include 1 Catawba Rhododendron and 9 Yews 

including a Dwarf Japanese Yew, English Yew, and Japanese Yew, as well as 2 Arrowwood 

and 2 Viburnum in the southwest corner. Along the west slope, a large group of 16 

Winged Euonymous have self-sown and will be removed along with 2 English Yew and 1 

Arrowwood.

Service Areas

The only nonhistoric shrub in the Service Area zone is the Climbing Hydrangea along the 

south side of the vault in the office courtyard.
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

84

Table 3.2. Summary of Shrubs to be Removed

Common Name Scientific Name Number to 

Remove

Hollow: 15 trees

Center Bed and Walk (8)

Cranberry Cotoneaster Cotoneaster apiculatus 1

Tatarian Honeysuckle Lonicera tatarica 1

Torch Azalea Rhododendron kaempferi 1

Rhododendron Rhododendron x laetevirens 2

Korean Azalea Rhododendron yedoense poukhanense 1

Rhododendron Rhododendron sp. (cultivar to be identified) 1

Arrowwood Viburnum dentatum 1

North Embankment and Grotto (6)

Japanese Barberry Berberis thunbergii 1

Common Buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica 1

Torch Azalea Rhododendron kaempferi 3

Korean Rhododendron Rhododendron mucronulatum 1

West Embankment (1)

Common Buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica 1

Front Drive: 11 trees

Circular Drive and Center Bed (3)

Japanese Yew Taxus cuspidata 2

Arrowwood Viburnum dentatum 1

Circular Drive Parking Area (7)

Catawba Rhododendron Rhodotypos catawbiense 1

Jetbead Rhodotypos scandens 1

English Yew Taxus baccata 1

Japanese Yew Taxus cuspidata 4

House and Office (1)

Carolina Allspice Calycanthus floridus 1

Rock Garden: 35 trees

East Side of Walk (24)

Common Barberry Berberis vulgaris 1

Winged Euonymus Euonymus alata 7

Jetbead Rhodotypos scandens 4

Mock Orange Philadelphus coronarius 10

Common Buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica 1

Japanese Yew Taxus cuspidata 1

Lawn/West Side of Path (11)

Japanese Barberry Berberis thunbergii 1

Honeysuckle Lonicera sp. 1

Rhododendron Rhododendron sp. (cultivar to be identified) 1

Flame Azalea Rhododendron calendulaceum 2

Japanese Yew Taxus cuspidata 1

English Yew Taxus baccata 1

Arrowwood Viburnum dentatum 3

Tea Viburnum Viburnum setigerum 1
Project Scope

85

IMPLEMENTATION PHASE 1

The actual removal of the trees and shrubs described in this submittal will be 

accomplished through a combination of NPS day-labor and a tree removal 

contract/purchase order. Olmsted NHS has an established grounds crew and 

detailed knowledge of the delicate site conditions. Work performed in house will 

be directed by Ed Baciagalupo, Facility Manager and Barbara Harty, Grounds 

Supervisor in collaboration with the Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation. 

The in house work will be done by grounds maintenance staff from Olmsted, 

Longfellow, and Kennedy National Historic Sites, with limited assistance from 

other parks in the North Atlantic Region. All of the shrub removal and a portion 

of the tree removal will be done by NPS staff. Approximately 50% of the trees will 

be removed through the contract/purchase order. The NPS will remove those that 

are smallest in diameter and most accessible, because specialized equipment will 

be required to remove the larger trees. The plant identification numbering system 

originally developed for the Cultural Landscape Preservation Guide has been 

used consistently throughout this project to facilitate tracking of all woody plant 

material.

Shrub Removal

1. The first step will be to accurately tag shrubs to be removed. The identification 

numbers are recorded on metal tags and fixed to each plant, making tagging 

very easy. Thus, each shrub (and tree) will be tagged in the field using the 

enclosed plan and key as a reference.

Common Name Scientific Name Number to 

Remove

South Lawn: 34

House and Lawn Area (1)

Hydrangea Hydrangea heteromalla 1

South Border (14)

Catawba Rhododendron Rhododendron catawbiense 1

Dwarf Japanese Yew Taxus cuspidata 1

English Yew Taxus baccata 3

Japanese Yew Taxus cuspidata 5

Arrowwood Viburnum dentatum 2

Viburnum Viburnum plicatum 2

West Slope (19)

Winged Euonymus Euonymus alata 16

English Yew Taxus baccata 2

Arrowwood Viburnum dentatum 1

Service Area: 1

Rear Office Entry and Vault Area (2)

Climbing Hydrangea Hydrangea peteolaris13 1
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

86

2. Mechanized removal of the root ball is only desirable if a new planting 

will occur in the same location. However, some shrubs may be prone to 

resprouting and a herbicide treatment will ensure that new growth will not 

occur. Therefore, a systemic herbicide will be applied in late spring or early 

summer to the green leafy material to retard resprouting. The herbicide 

can be brushed or wiped directly on the foliage. Since “Round-Up” can 

only be applied as spray, it is likely that another herbicide such as “Accord” 

which is also a glyphosate or “Garlon 4” which can be applied late in the 

season and penetrates the bark and cambium layer easily will be used with a 

“Hypohatchet” tree-injector.

3. Two to three weeks after initial herbicide treatment, shrubs will be manually 

cut back to the base of stem or trunk.

4. The location of the primary trunk or stems will be marked with a flag to 

facilitate monitoring.

5. Three to four weeks after stems are cut, locations will be re-examined and 

retreated with herbicide if necessary. In this case, the herbicide can be wiped 

on a second time to allow for very specific contact only with new sprouts.

6. In most cases, the stump/rootball will be left in place to decompose. In 

cases where an established single stem stump exists, decomposition may be 

accelerated drilling holes into the stump and adding nitrogen enhanced soil.

7. In a few cases, the stump or root ball will be removed to allow for planting 

later on. This work will be accomplished manually by using a nursery spade 

and a grub-hoe or maddox to sever the roots at the trunk flair and pulling out 

as small a stump section as possible to minimize impact to the landscape and 

surrounding plant material. The depth of the stump section to be removed 

is anticipated to be 6-8” for a 3” stem. The depth of disturbance will be less 

for smaller shrubs. After the stump is removed, the location will be backfilled 

with parent soil found on site or with a soil mix brought in which closely 

resembles the existing soil composition to minimize physical barriers between 

soil types. If permission cannot be obtained for herbicide treatment, the 

shrub stumps will be heavily mulched for one growing season to prevent 

resprouting.

Tree Removal

As is specified for shrubs, all nonhistoric trees will be tagged prior to action. The 

nonhistoric trees will be removed in Fall 1994, after the leaves drop to minimize 

the visual impact to the site and neighbors. Removal in late fall is also much easier 

to implement since the amount of biomass is significantly less than in the summer. 

Trees less than 3” dbh will be treated like shrubs. Herbicides or stump removal 
Project Scope

87

will be required for some species, but not all. Conifers such as Carolina Hemlock 

will die once the trunk is cut. The invasive maples and birch, on the other hand, 

will resprout after cutting and will require herbicide treatment. Trees greater than 

3” in diameter will be removed according the following methodology:

1. All nonhistoric trees will be tagged prior to removal.

2. Trees > 3” dbh will be injected with a systemic herbicide using a specialized 

applicator. One option is a “hypohatchet tree injector” which selectively 

injects 1 ml of herbicide. One application per inch of dbh is required.

3. Following application of the herbicide, trees will be cut down after the leaves 

drop. This work will be done through a combination of contract and in house 

work.

A detailed scope of work for contracted tree removal is currently being 

prepared. This contract will require many provisions including:

All work will be performed under the direction and supervision of a 

certified Arborist. An experienced crew supervisor will also be present. 

All tree workers will have the appropriate level of training and experience 

related to expected hazards and technical equipment used in the 

operation.

All equipment will meet Federal OSHA, state, and local safety 

requirements including bucket trucks, aerial lifts, chipper trucks, stump 

grinders, etc. All work will be conducted in accordance with national and 

local fire and safety codes, laws, rules, relations, and ANSI Z133.1-1882: 

Safety Requirements for Pruning. Trimming, Repairing, Maintaining, and 

Removing Trees and Cutting Brush.

Satisfactory removal includes the following conditions: safety (blocking 

the work area to access by pedestrians or vehicles); proper topping and 

sectioning before felling; roping, guying, or anchoring trees that may 

cause damage to the site, neighbors, or existing vegetation; felling a tree 

only in areas where adequate space is available; proper removal of felled 

or cut sections; stumps ground to present grade or below; backfilling 

stump holes; complete removal of debris prior to beginning the next tree 

removal; removing debris from installation daily.

Trees that cannot be felled due to proximity of buildings, adjacent plant 

material, or lack of an adequate felling area will be topped and felled in 

sections. The contractor shall confine his work, the storage of materials 

and equipment, the parking of vehicles, all other operations to specific 

hours and work areas defined by the COTR (see below). The contractor 

will protect all existing vegetation including trees, shrubs, and lawn on or 
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

88

adjacent to areas adjacent to trees being removed. Any damage to existing 

vegetation, structures, utilities, or surface materials will be repaired by the 

contractor at no additional cost.

4. The remaining stumps may require additional application of herbicide in the 

spring to ensure that resprouting will not occur.

Tree Stump Treatment

The stumps resulting from the tree removal will be treated in one of the following 

ways:

1. No Action

Wherever possible, stumps will be cut flush to the ground and left to decompose 

to minimize additional damage to landscape.

2. Accelerated Decomposition

In this case, decomposition may be enhanced by drilling 1 - 1 1⁄2” diameter holes to 

a 6” depth into the stump, spaced every 2-3” in a honeycomb or diamond pattern. 

The holes will be filled with a mixture of

1 part finely screened compost, 1 part sand to enhance drainage, and 1 part highnitrogen fertilizer such as a slow-release synthetic fertilizer or a 100% organic 

fertilizer such as dried blood.

3. Stump Grinding

In some cases, stump grinding will be necessary to provide sufficient planting 

space for the replacement of missing historic vegetation. In this case, a stump 

grinder will be used to remove the base to a depth of 12-24” depending on the 

size of the existing stump and the anticipated size of new plantings. 21 stumps 

will be ground in Phase 1 (see Figure 3.3 and Appendix H). The depression will 

be backfilled and leveled using parent soil found onsite or a new mix to match the 

existing soil composition.

4. Roots Cut at Trunk Flair

5 small tree stumps will be removed mechanically to allow for planting in Phase 

2. They will be removed by a) washing the soil from the tree base to expose lateral 

roots at the trunk flair; b) cut lateral/stabilizing roots as close to trunk flair as 

possible; c) remove trunk at depth of 6-8”; d) backfill hole with parent soil found 

onsite or with a new mix which matches the existing soil to the greatest extent 

possible.
Project Scope

89

Staging

It is likely that the staging area for tree removal will be the existing parking area. 

For a limited time, the circular drive may also be used for brush piles since a 

chipper can be backed in easily under the arch to grind the materials removed 

along Warren Street and the front entry. Hours of activity will be confined to the 

time of regular business at Olmsted NHS (7AM-5PM). During the two week 

period this project is anticipated, staff and visitor parking may be very limited, 

though the 8 spaces along Dudley Street will be available. Staff will be strongly 

urged to car pool or take public transportation during this work. Limited 

additional parking is available at the Brookline Reservoir, approximately 2 blocks 

from the site.

Confirmation of Identification Prior to Removal

Taxonomic identification or verification by the Arnold Arboretum is still in 

process, but is anticipated to be complete in 1994. No shrubs or trees will be 

removed until verification is complete and a documented herbarium specimen is 

completed and entered into the park’s natural history collection.

F. PROJECT SCOPE PHASE 2

A complete overview of work proposed for Phase 2 is presented in the enclosed 

drawing, Treatment Plan. Item that require design or construction detailing follow 

in a series of more specific drawings- 9 sheets of plantings plans and 1 sheet of 

preliminary design derails for nonvegetation work.

PLANTING

Plantings in Phase 2 restore one of the most significant characteristics of the 

Olmsted design. The use of plant material combined with the natural topography 

and rock features created a microcosm of the regional landscape. As a whole, 

the plantings create a cohesive and naturalistic design. Decisions regarding 

new plantings are based on substantial documentation of historic and existing 

conditions as described in volumes 1 and 2 of the Cultural Landscape Report. 

However, historic records do indicate a very high density of shrub plantings. In 

some cases, the quantities of shrubs in a given massing have been decreased to 

allow for future growth and to accommodate the existing plant material which 

has grown substantially since 1930. Because their role in the original design 

was to create an overall effect the evergreen massings should be considered as 

a single group of plants, not as individuals. The attached planting plans include 

all vegetation that was originally specified in plans, planting order lists, or which 

was identified in historic photographs by Cynthia Zaitzevsky, Peter Del Tredici 
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

90

(Director of the Living Collections, Arnold Arboretum) and Charlie Pepper, 

Horticulturist of the Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation. All but the 

shrub willow, Salix tristis and some of the Iris varieties have been located from 

commercial or field sources. If the willow cannot be found, it is likely that the 

replacements will be propagated at the Arnold Arboretum, grown in the Olmsted 

Center’s historic plant nursery, then replanted in the Hollow when they are 

approximately three years old. It is possible that a limited number of substitute 

Iris varieties will be required, but this is not anticipated to affect the overall project 

since the characteristics of these herbaceous plants can be easily replicated.

Tree Planting

Phase 2 includes planting of 57 trees, concentrated on the south border of 

the property (Table 3.3). Planting will be done by contract according to the 

preservation planting detail provided in the attached plans. Since these trees 

replace missing historic trees which were lost to age, disease, and storm damage, it 

is not anticipated that the tree planting will affect any archeological resources. The 

following describes the plantings in each landscape zone.

Hollow

One Tuliptree and one Red Oak will be planted along the Dudley Street side of the 

Hollow area, replacing those lost during the 1990 hurricane. Between these two, a 

deteriorated Downy Hawthorne will be replaced in kind.

Front Drive

Four trees will be planted between the drive and Warren Street. A Cucumber 

Magnolia marks the entry just inside the spruce pole. An American Elm will be 

placed at the edge of the parking area. A Flowering Dogwood and Russian-olive 

provide the understory tree layer between the replacement Elm and existing 

Magnolia.

Rock Garden

Nine trees are to be added in the Rock Garden. Eight will be placed to the east 

side of the walk. A White Ash, an American Elm and a Red Oak will be planted on 

the Warren Street edge in the northeast corner of the property. Two Pitch Pines 

will be placed in the new grass bay created by the reconfigured lawn. Two existing 

White Pines separate this massing from a Shagbark Hickory and Sweet Birch to 

be placed along the south rock wall. A River Birch will be planted on the slope 

between the White Pine and the path. One tree, a Golden Rain tree, will be added 

to the west side of the path, completing the canopy layer.
Project Scope

91

South Lawn, Border, and West Slope

Three massings of Canadian Hemlock, totaling 20 trees, define the southern 

border of the site. These groups join the existing Canadian Hemlocks to provide 

a continuous edge above the western half of the rock wall. Two Pitch Pine, a 

European Larch, a Silver Linden and two White Pine line the West Slope and 

separate the Reserve Garden from the South Lawn. A Paper Birch will be placed 

alongside an existing Paper Birch between the historic path and the Shed.

Service Areas

A Sugar Maple and a Tuliptree will be placed at the north west corner of the 

parking lot. A Sycamore Maple placed between the vault and the fence at the east 

side of the drive completes the service area tree plantings.

Table 3.3. Summary of Trees to be Planted

Common Name Scientific Name Number to 

be Planted

Hollow: 3 Trees

North Embankment and Grotto (3)

Downy Hawthorn Crataegus mollis 1

Tuliptree Liriodendron tulipifera 1

Red Oak Quercus rubra 1

Front Drive: 4 Trees

Circular Drive Parking Area (4)

Flowering Dogwood Cornus florida 1

Russian Olive Elageous angustifolia 1

Cucumber Magnolia Magnolia acuminate 1

American Elm Ulmus Americana 1

Rock Garden: 9 Trees

East Side of Walk (8)

Sweet Birch Betula lenta 1

River Birch Betula nigra 1

Shagbark Hickory Carya ovata 1

White Ash Fraxinus americana 1

Pitch Pine Red Pinus rigida 2

Oak American Quercus rubra 1

Elm Ulmus americana 1

Lawn-West Side of Path (1)

Golden Raintree Koelreuteria paniculata 1

South Lawn: 27 Trees

South Border (20)

Canadian Hemlock Tsuga canadensis 20

West Slope (7)

Paper Birch Betula papyrifera 1

European Larch Larix decidua 1

Pitch Pine Pinus rigida 2
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

92

Shrub Planting

The restoration planting plans call for the installation of 738 shrubs and vines 

in Phase 2 of the project (Table 3.4). This work will be implemented by Olmsted 

NHS grounds staff.

Recommendations for the replacement of missing historic shrubs follow the 

detailed review of historic plans, planting order lists, and photographs outlined 

in volumes 1 and 2 of the Cultural Landscape Report. As indicated above, in 

some cases, the quantities of plants in a given shrub mass have been reduced. 

The historic documentation indicates that, in some areas, shrubs were planted in 

very dense masses to provide an instant effect. In this project, the lower density 

and wider spacing of the replacement shrubs is part of a long-term landscape 

maintenance strategy to ensure that the new plantings survive and grow to achieve 

the desired effect. Once the shrub masses are established, it is anticipated that this 

slight variation from the historic condition will not be noticeable. Furthermore, 

this slight adjustment in quantity and spacing is necessary to accommodate the 

existing historic shrubs and trees which have grown considerably since 1 930.

Hollow

The Hollow will be returned to its intended rustic and picturesque conditions 

with the addition of 186 shrubs. The vast majority of the shrubs, 129 in all, will 

be placed along the North Embankment creating a dense underplanting along 

the Dudley Street edge. Plantings consisting of 48 Wintercreeper Euonymous, 

26 Dwarf Bush-honeysuckle, 39 Shrub Willows, 2 Japanese Yew, 3 Japanese Yew 

‘Nana’, 2 Rock Cotoneaster, l English Yew, 4 Chinese Juniper and 1 Rosebay 

Rhododendron. 5 English Weeping Yew will be planted along between the stone 

steps and the retaining wall. In the area of the Grotto, 4 Canadian Yew, 6 Rock 

Cotoneaster, and 2 English Weeping Yew will be planted. I Canadian Yew will be 

replaced in kind at the base of the stone ledge.

4 Rock Cotoneaster and 2 Common Juniper will be massed at the northeast end 

of the center bed. A single Scarlet Firethorn will be placed adjacent to the rock 

outcropping at the southwest end. On the West Embankment, two Schlippenbach 

Common Name Scientific Name Number to 

be Planted

White Pine Pinus strobus 2

Silver Linden Tilia tomentosa 1

Service Areas: 3 Trees

North Side (1)

Sycamore Maple Acer pseudoplatanus 1

Parking Lot (2)

Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 1

Tuliptree Liriodendron tulipifera 1
Project Scope

93

Rhododendron will be placed at the bottom of the stone steps. A massing of 11 

Canadian Yew will be planted below the landing with groups of 4 Japanese Yew 

‘Nana’, 5 Mountain Laurel 4 English Weeping Yew located at intervals along the 

northeast face of the house. 3 Wintercreeper Euonymus will be planted at the base 

of the office wing wall. One deteriorated Common Boxwood will be replaced in 

kind.

Front Drive

The understory of the Front Drive area will be supplemented with 78 shrubs. 

The Barberry in the Center Bed will be replanted. The front door will be flanked 

by 2 Rock Cotoneaster and 2 Wintercreeper Euonymous with 2 additional 

Wintercreeper Euonymous further to the north side of the entry. A Sweet Mock 

Orange and a Vanhoutte Spirea at the south edge of the drive will be replanted. 

9 Winged Euonymous and 2 Sweet Mock Orange complete the underplanting at 

the base of the existing Cucumber Magnolia. A dense planting is created on the 

Warren Street edge of the Front Drive with the addition of 8 Winged Euonymous, 

4 Common Quince, 1 Common Lilac, 14 Mountain Maple, 25 Yellowroot and 5 

Bush Honeysuckle.

Rock Garden

Shrub additions in the Rock Garden total 177. As stated previously, the 

design took advantage of the natural rock outcropping, creating a naturalistic 

landscape with a shrub layer dominated by evergreens. Plantings are most 

dense surrounding the outcropping on the west side of the path. 9 Mountain 

Pieris, 5 Scarlet Firethorn, 5 Weeping English Yew, 5 Canadian Yew, 17 

Mountain Laurel, 1 Common Quince and 2 Common Buckthorn complete 

the shrub layer in this area. To the north of the rock outcropping, 11 Mountain 

Laurel, 14 Mountain Pieris, 3 Eastern Redcedar, 2 Black Jetbead, 2 Vanhoutte 

Spirea and I Hinoki Falsecypress will be planted.

East of the path 19 Witherod Viburnum, 20 Arrowood Viburnum, 3 Sweet 

Mock Orange and 1 Common Buckthorn complete the plantings. Between the 

path as it turns west and the Southern rock wall, 20 Mountain Laurel. 7 Canadian 

Yew, 5 Eastern Red Cedar, 14 Mountain Pieris and 9 Scarlet Firethorn will be 

planted.

South Lawn, Border, and West Slope

A break in the canopy occurs along the south border as the path enters the South 

Lawn. The vista through this break toward the Gardner property is considered 

the most significant view from the property. In this area, 22 Wintercreeper 
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

94

Euonymous and 45 Drooping Leucothoe will be added. Beneath the canopy of 

Canadian Hemlock, 15 Drooping Leucothoe, 37 Mountain Pieris, and 6 Japanese 

Holly will be added where the border pushes in toward the American Elm.

Where the grade begins to rise toward the southwest corner, 10 Tartarian 

Dogwood, 10 Redosier Dogwood, 10 winged Euonymous, and 13 Inkberry 

Holly will front and intermingle with the continuing Canadian Hemlock edge. 3 

Japanese Yew and 1 Japanese Holly will be placed in the lawn. In the Southwest 

Corner, 6 Tartarian Dogwood, 7 Redosier Dogwood, 6 Winged Euonymous, and 

4 Japanese Yew complete the shrub layer beneath and in front of the last of the 

Canadian Hemlock. 1 Japanese Yew in the lawn will be replanted.

In the open area along the west slope, 10 Common Lilac will be planted along the 

fence with 10 Virginia Rose edging the lawn. The shrub layer opens considerably 

coinciding with the resumption of the canopy layer. 5 Memorial Roses will be 

planted at the lawn edge near the base of the southwest corner slope and 1 Showy 

Border Forsythia will be placed in the lawn. 2 Vanhoutte Spirea will be planted in 

the lawn near the north edge and 1 Dutchman’s Pipe will be placed at the base of 

the replacement Wicket (pipe-arbor).

Service Areas

7 Common Lilacs will be added to those existing on the west side of the parking 

lot. Office Court plantings will be restored with the addition of 3 pyramidal 

Japanese Yew at the entry, 3 Wintercreeper Euonymous on the North wail, 1 

Japanese Yew and 3 Dutchman’s Pipe on the south wall and 1 Pyramidal Yew to 

the south side of the path. Roses complete the woody plantings, 15 of which are 

in the center bed and one to the south side of the path. 5 English Ivy are to be 

planted at the base of the north side of the Plan Vault, facing Dudley Street.

Outside Boundary Fence

Vines to be planted along the spruce pole fence are 30 Wintercreeper Euonymous 

and 4 Dutchmen’s Pipes. Historic photographs from the restoration period 

indicate a persistent effort to keep the fence covered with vines, despite ongoing 

repair work to the fence.
Project Scope

95

Table 3.4. Summary of Shrubs to be Planted

Common Name Scientific Name Number to 

be Planted

Hollow: 186 Shrubs

Center Bed and Walk (7)

Rock Cotoneaster Contoneaster horizontalis 4

Common Juniper Juniperus communis 2

Scarlet Firethorn Pyracantha cocinea 1

West Embankment (30)

Common Boxwood Buxus sempervirens 1

Wintercreeper Euonymus Euonymous fortunei var. radicans 3

Mountain Laurel Kalmia latifolia 5

Schlippenbach Rhododendron Rhododendron Schlippenbachii 2

English Weeping Yew Taxus baccata ‘Repandens’ 4

Canadian Yew Taxus canadensis 11

Japanese Yew ‘Nana’ Taxus cuspidata ‘Nana’ 4

North Embankment and Grotto (149)

Rock Cotoneaster Contoneaster horizontalis 8

Dwarf Bush-honeysuckle Diervilla lonicera 26

Wintercreeper Euonymus Euonymous fortunei var. radicans 48

Chinese Juniper Juniperus chinensis 4

Common Juniper Juniperus communis 3

Rosebay Rhododendron Rhododendron maxima 1

Shrub Willow Salix tristis 39

English Yew Taxus baccata 3

English Weeping Yew Taxus baccata ‘Repandens’ 7

Canadian Yew Taxus canadensis 5

Japanese Yew ‘Capita’ Taxus cuspidata ‘Capitata’ 2

Japanese Yew ‘Nana’ Taxus cuspidata ‘Nana’ 3

Front Drive: 78 Shrubs

Circular Drive and Center Bed (1)

Native Barberry Berberis vulgaris 1

Circular Drive Parking Area (69)

Mountain Maple Acer spicatum 14

Common Quince Cydonia oblonga 4

Bush Honeysuckle Diervilla sessifolia 5

Winged Euonymous Euonymous alatus 17

Sweet Mock Orange Philadelphus coronarius 2

Common Lilac Syringa vulgaris 2

Yellowroot Xanthorhiza simplicissima 25

House and Office (8)

Rock Cotoneaster Contoneaster horizontalis 2

Wintercreeper Euonymus Euonymous fortunei var. radicans 4

Sweet Mock Orange Philadelphus coronarius 1

Vanhoutte Spirea Spirea x vanhouttei 1
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

96

Common Name Scientific Name Number to 

be Planted

Rock Garden: 177 Shrubs

East Side of Walk (102)

Tartarian Dogwood Cornus alba ‘Siberica’ 1

Eastern Red Cedar Juniperus virginiana 5

Mountain Laurel Kalmia latifolia 20

Sweet Mock Orange Philadelphus coronarius 3

Mountain Pieris Pieris floribunda 14

Scarlet Firethorn Pyracantha coccinea 9

Common Buckthorn Rhamus cathartica 3

Canadian Yew Taxus canadensis 7

Japanese Yew Taxus cuspidata 1

Witherod Viburnum Viburnum cassinoides 19

Arrowood Viburnum Viburnum dentatum 20

Lawn-West Side of Path (76)

Hinoki Falsecypress Chamaecyparis obtuse 1

Eastern Red Cedar Juniperus virginiana 3

Mountain Laurel Kalmia latifolia 28

Sweet Mock Orange Philadelphus coronarius 1

Mountain Pieris Pieris floribunda 23

Scarlet Firethorn Pyracantha coccinea 5

Common Buckthorn Rhamus cathartica 2

Black Jetbead Rhodotypos scandens 1

Vanhoutte Spirea Spirea x vanhouttei 2

English Weeping Yew Taxus baccata ‘Repandens’ 5

Canadian Yew Taxus canadensis 5

South Lawn: 225 Shrubs and Vines

South Border (182)

Dutchman’s Pipe Aristolochia durior 1

Tartarian Dogwood Cornus alba ‘Siberica’ 16

Redosier Dogwood Cornus sericea ‘Flaviramea’ 10

Winged Euonymous Euonymous altatus 10

Wintercreeper Euonymous Euonymous fortune radicans 22

Japanese Holly Ilex crenata ‘Microphylla’ 7

Inkberry Holly Ilex glabra 13

Drooping Leucothoe Leucothoe fontanesiana 60

Mountain Pieris Pieris floribunda 37

Vanhoutte Spirea Spirea x vanhouttei 2

Japanese Yew Taxus cuspidata 4

West Slope (43)

Redosier Dogwood Cornus sericea ‘Flaviramea’ 7

Winged Euonymous Euonymous altatus 6

Showy Border Forsythia Forsythia x intermedia ‘Spectabilis’ 1

Virginia Rose Rosa virginiana 10

Memorial Rose Rosa wichuraiana 5

Common Lilac Syringa vulgaris 10
Project Scope

97

Herbaceous Material Planting

Phase 2 will include planting of herbaceous material in the Hollow, Front Drive 

and Office Court. Documentation on herbaceous materials in the form of plant 

lists or plans is limited to the Hollow, and the Office Court (Table 3.5). These 

documents which date from the restoration period, the busiest period for the firm, 

indicate that perennial plantings focused attention on the entry areas for both 

clients and employees.

Herbaceous plantings will be done by NPS staff. Historic varieties of iris, roses 

and peonies have been researched and wherever possible, historic varieties will 

be obtained. Where they are not available, research has determined the visual 

character of the plants so that suitable replacements can be obtained without 

adversely affected the intended design effect.

Hollow

Herbaceous plantings in the Hollow are based primarily on the October 1923 

Plan #673-33. Numeric codes were defined in an accompanying plant list. Plan 

#673-39 detailed plantings for the Hollow steps. An August 1925 plan reflected the 

addition of a number of iris varieties which are included in the treatment plan as 

well. Excluding groundcover, 1226 herbaceous plants will be planted.

The middle of the center bed will be planted with Iris cristata. Edging the bed are 

areas of Pachysandra terminalis, Epimedium macranthum, 110 Garden Phlox in 

three varieties, and Iris Kochi. Spot plantings of five varieties of tall bearded iris 

are concentrated in the northern side of the bed. Eighteen varieties of tall bearded 

iris will be planted along the north side of the path, with beds of smaller iris 

Common Name Scientific Name Number to 

be Planted

Japanese Yew Taxus cuspidata 4

Service Areas: 38 Shrubs and Vines

Parking Lot (7)

Common Lilac Syringa vulgaris 7

Office Court (26)

Dutchman’s Pipe Aristolochia durior 3

Wintercreeper Euonymous Euonymous fortune radicans 3

Various roses Rose (multiple varieties) 16

Japanese Yew Taxus cuspidata 1

Pyramidal Japanese Yew Taxus cuspidata ‘Pyramidalis’ 3

North Side (5)

English Ivy Hedera helix 5

Outside Boundary Fence: 34 Shrubs and Vines

Dutchman’s Pipe Aristolochia durior 4

Wintercreeper Euonymous Euonymous fortune radicans 30
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

98

species completing the northeast edge. A bed of Iris cristata will be planted a t the 

west base of a bed of 190 Garden Phlox bordering the west side of the stone steps. 

The remaining edge of the path is edged with groundcover.

Shrubs and trees are underplanted with Epimedium, Pachysandra, NarrowLeaved and Sieboldiana Hosta, and Hay scented and Marginal Shield Fern. Hayscented Fern will be placed at the end of the path to the top of the stone ledge. 

Marginal Shield Fern interspersed with Bergenia edges the new handicappedaccessible ramp. A bed of Sedum at the base of the north facing wall completes the 

herbaceous plantings.

Front Drive

Historic photographs show fern planted in the center bed. Fifty Cinnamon Fern 

and 125 Hay-scented Fern will be planted based on that information.

Service Areas

Information on office court herbaceous plants was taken from the October 1923 

Plan #673-40 by Hans Koehler supported by historic photographs. The central 

bed in the Office court will contain nine varieties of roses and is bordered by 

Sweet Alyssum. Four varieties of iris will be planted on the west edge of the 

Table 3.5. Summary of Herbaceous Materials to be Planted

Common Name Scientific Name Number to 

be Planted

Hollow: 3841 Herbaceous Plants

Center Bed and Walk

Bergenia Bergerua cordifolia 30

Fern Fern (multiple varieties) 228

Epimedium Epimedium macranthum 756

Hosta Hosta (multiple varieties) 110

Iris Iris (multiple varieties) 630

Japanese Spurge Pachysandra terminalis 1859

Garden Phlox Phlox sp. 200

Sedum Sedum stoloniferum 28

Front Drive: 175 Herbaceous Plants

Center Bed (175)

Fern Fern (multiple varieties) 175

Service Area: Herbaceous Plants

Office Court (273)

Sweet Alyssum Alyssum maritimum 48

Fern Fern (multiple varieties) 75

Iris Iris sp. 15

Japanese Pachysandra Pachysandra terminalis 110

Peonies Paeonia (multiple varieties) 9

Stonecrop Sedum Sedum spectabula 16
Project Scope

99

courtyard. Pachysandra interspersed with Bergenia will fill the southern edge. 

Giant Holly Fern and Tree Fern will surround the pavers leading to the door. Five 

varieties of peony will be placed at the north side of the start of the pavers and 

three more varieties at the north side of the entrance to the office court. Sedum fill 

the north bed a t the base of the north wall.

OTHER (NONVEGETATION) WORK

Phase 2 includes the removal of nonhistoric hardscape features, repair of some 

deteriorated features, and the replacement of missing historic features. These 

items will be implemented through a combination of field work by Olmsted NHS 

staff and by contract.

Hollow

The stone steps leading from the office walkway to the bottom of the hollow will 

be reset. Dry-laid stone steps leading to the lower level of the office wing will be 

reinstalled as indicated in the attached plans. The original steps were removed 

during previous work to repair a drainage problem in the vault, but were welldocumented in photographs when they were removed. The stone edging around 

the planting beds will be reset

As part of a separate 106 submittal, a new ramp has been designed for the 

front office walkway. Following the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) 

recommendations, the design raises the existing walk to create ramp to a new 

deck at the same height as the office entrance threshold. The coping stones which 

border the existing walk will also be raised to form a barrier to the Hollow with 

the same elevational relationship that existed historically. The existing concrete 

walk will be widened to accommodate a wheelchair. This solution is in consistent 

with the existing and historic character of the Hollow and historic office entrance.

Front Drive and Outer Edge

The existing nonhistoric parking area will be retained to provide accessible 

parking. This parking area is not historic and was not constructed with the same 

subsurface material as the rest of the circular drive. As a result, it is prone to major 

drainage problems during heavy rains and spring thaw. To solve this problem, new 

subsurface materials are required. The area will be excavated to a depth of one 

foot and replaced with a gravel to provide a stable subsurface layer and permit 

adequate drainage. This work is described on the preliminary detail sheet of the 

enclosed plans.

The deteriorated bituminous area located near the spruce pole arch will be 

removed. An eight foot asphalt concrete transition apron will be installed 
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

100

beginning at the existing trench drain. The entire front (circular) drive and 

parking area will be resurfaced with stone dust mixed with stabilizer consistent 

with the historic appearance. No excavation will be required for this resurfacing 

work.

A small missing portion of the rustic flagstone walkway and edging leading from 

Warren Street to the front door of the house will be replaced as indicated in 

historic photographs. The existing stones of the walk will be leveled and reset. 

Missing puddingstone curb around the center bed will also be replaced. A new 

concrete sidewalk will be installed commencing at the end of the flagstone 

walkway and continuing along the street edge to the Dudley Street drive. This 

work is intended to meet the Town of Brookline’s specifications and is detailed in 

the attached drawings. A nonhistoric stone walkway leading from the front drive 

toward the Rock Garden will be removed, as will excess edging stones. A curb cut 

will be made near the house allowing disabled access to the lawn.

Rock Garden

The existing path through the Rock Garden will be resurfaced with packed clay 

soil, supplemented in the spring with pine needles to address muddy conditions. 

No excavation will be required. The existing nonhistoric stones at the northern 

entrance to the Rock Garden path will be removed in order to re-establish the 

grass “bay” that historically extended into the northeast corner of the property.

South Lawn, Border, and West Slope

The topography of South Lawn adjacent to house will be altered slightly to 

remove the flat plane which exists as a remnant of the nonhistoric herb garden 

which was removed in 1985. This grading is very subtle and illustrated in section 

in the enclosed plans. The existing nonhistoric path which follows the southern 

and western edge of the house will be removed and reseeded as lawn. Additional, 

but minor, grading may be required to direct water from the South Lawn to the 

existing catch basin in the lilac bed. However, very little, if any, ground will be 

disturbed in order to protect the root system of the Olmsted Elm, the single most 

important feature of the landscape.

The chain link boundary fence between the site and the Clark sisters’ property 

will be replaced to replicate the historic design which utilized wooden posts and 

chain link. Deteriorated remnants of this fence were removed when the existing 

fence was installed in the 1980s. In this case, the existing metal poles and concrete 

footings will be removed and replaced with the cedar posts. A design detail for the 

new fence, which is based on measurements from fragments of the original, has 

been included in the enclosed drawings. The spruce pole fence and gate near the 

shed will be restored to its historic configuration by extending the fence into the 
Project Scope

101

property toward the shed entrance. The existing historic brick paving, which is 

presently buried under a few inches of accumulated organic matter, will be raised 

and reset to form a new drive into the shed. The reserve garden which historically 

heeled plant material for the site will be reestablished at the northwest end of the 

lawn.

The existing path along the board fence on the west side of the barn will be 

retained, and will be extended at right angles at the beginning of the lilac bed. The 

path will terminate with a new pipe arbor, designed based on historic photographs 

of a “Wicket” (pipe-arbor) structure located at the opening between the board 

fence and the barn. The existing drain/catch basin in the stone dust path will be 

relocated approximately 10’ closer to the parking area to better accommodate 

surface water from the path and reserve garden slope. 

Service Areas

The parking area will be resurfaced with a new material to match the historic 

appearance. Since the historic material, cinders, is now considered hazardous 

and cannot be used, a substitute material should be found which approximates 

the historic appearance to the greatest extent possible. Recycled bituminous may 

be a potential alternative since it is one of the few materials that replicates the 

color and texture of cinders. No subsurface work is anticipated. The courtyard 

surface will be repaired by removing and replacing the existing aggregate concrete 

in kind. The small aggregate pavers in the northeast corner of the courtyard 

will be reset in their historic configuration. A seasonal, above-ground irrigation 

system will be installed and is described in the enclosed drawings. This system 

consists of a series of above-ground and removal field pipes fed from one water 

source located at the shed. These pipes will be mulched so they will not be visible. 

This will entail bringing a waterline from the basement of the west office wing 

(Planting Department), under the drive to the barn yard, continuing to the shed. 

Archeological work was done on this location for Section 106 approval related to 

parking lot restoration and drainage repair to the vault. A spigot will be installed at 

the shed from which surface (field) pipes will feed. Seasonal spigots will be located 

every 50’ or so to allow for adequate watering of the new plant material.

Summary of Other Site Work

Hollow

•	 Reset existing steps from office entrance

•	 Reset existing stones bordering center bed

•	 Replace missing steps on path from Dudley Street
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

102

Front Drive and Outer Edge

•	 Reset existing rustic walk and replace missing stones

•	 Repair subsurface of existing parking area

•	 Repair surface

•	 Add new concrete walk outside site boundary, along Dudley Street

Rock Garden

•	 Resurface path

•	 Remove nonhistoric edge stones

South Lawn and West Slope

•	 Remove nonhistoric path and regrade

•	 Regrade area where nonhistoric herb garden existed

•	 Remove existing nonhistoric chain link fence and replace with cedar post and 

chain link

•	 Add missing section of path to barn yard

•	 Add missing pipe rail arbor

•	 Reconfigure fence into entrance of shed

•	 Repair brick drive into shed

•	 Move drain on path

Service Areas

•	 Resurface parking area and service drive

•	 Add water line from basement of planting department through barnyard to 

shed

•	 Add spigot and seasonal irrigation system

•	 Remove existing deteriorated historic pavers in office courtyard and replace 

in kind
Project Scope

103

ARCHEOLOGY

As mentioned above, a few items included in this phase are located in areas that 

have been previously disturbed by the NPS, or have received archeological testing 

as part of the Phase 1 work or earlier projects. They include:

•	 Subsurface repair work to the front drive, located approximately 50’ from the 

1994 test pit researched by the NPS, Cultural Resource Center

•	 New concrete sidewalk is located outside the boundary of Olmsted NHS 

in an area that was significantly disturbed in the 1980’s when emergency 

drainage repairs were made to correct flooding in the vault

•	 Water line in the service area is located where earlier archeological 

investigations were conducted for the restoration of the parking area

•	 The existing (deteriorated) brick drive into the shed has been examined by 

the Regional Archeologist

Based on preliminary discussions with the Regional Archeologist, it appears that 

only the subsurface work for the parking area and the new concrete walkway 

along Dudley Street will require archeological testing.
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

104

Endnotes

1. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Genera/ Management for 

Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site. Boston, MA: North Atlantic Region, 

Planning and Design. 1983, p. 38.

2. Directory, North Atlantic Region to Superintendent, Longfellow National Historic 

Site, August 31, 1987. For the complete text and associated correspondence, please see 

Appendix A.

3. General Management Plan, p. 35.

4. “Proposed Revision to the General Management Plan.” Prepared by NPS, Olmsted 

National Historic Site, 1987. See complete text in Appendix A including accompanying 

correspondence.

5. National Park Service. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment 

of Historic Properties, Standards for Rehabilitation. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

National Park Service, Cultural Resources, Preservation Assistance, 1992.

6. HABS, and Historic Resource Study.

7. Zaitzevsky, Cynthia.

8. See also Weinstein articles on understory replacement at Central Park.

9. Zaitzevsky. Chapter 5, p. 11.

10. Zaitzevsky. Chapter 5.

11. Plan #673-. NPS, Olmsted National Historic Site.

12. Peter del Tredici, personal communication.
Project Scope

105

Figure 3.5. Treatment Plan, Historic Woody Plants to be Replaced. Prepared by the NPS, Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, 1995. For summaries of trees and shrubs to be planted, see Tables 3.3 and 3.4.
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

106

Figure 3.6. Planting Plan, Hollow and Front Drive. Prepared by the NPS, Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, 1995. For summaries of trees and shrubs to be planted, see Tables 3.3 and 3.4.
Project Scope

107

Figure 3.7. Planting Plan, Front Drive and Rock Garden. Prepared by the NPS, Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, 1995. For summaries of trees and shrubs to be planted, see Tables 3.3 and 3.4.
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

108

Figure 3.8. Planting Plan, Parking Lot and Office Court. Prepared by the NPS, Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, 1995. For summaries of trees and shrubs to be planted, see Tables 3.3 and 3.4.
Project Scope

109

Figure 3.9. Planting Plan, Service Court and Laundry Yard. Prepared by the NPS, Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, 1995. For summaries of trees and shrubs to be planted, see Tables 3.3 and 3.4.
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

110

Figure 3.10. Planting Plan, South Lawn. Prepared by the NPS, Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, 1995. For summaries of trees and shrubs to be planted, see Tables 3.3 and 3.4.
Project Scope

111

Figure 3.11. Planting Plan, Shed Vicinity. Prepared by the NPS, Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, 1995. For summaries of trees and shrubs to be planted, see Tables 3.3 and 3.4.
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

112

Figure 3.12. Planting Plan, West Embankment. Prepared by the NPS, Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, 1995. For summaries of trees and shrubs to be planted, see Tables 3.3 and 3.4.
Project Scope

113

Figure 3.13. Planting Plan, Southwest Corner. Prepared by the NPS, Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, 1995. For summaries of trees and shrubs to be planted, see Tables 3.3 and 3.4.
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

114

Figure 3.14. Planting Plan, Hollow and Front Drive Herbaceous Plants. Prepared by the NPS, Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, 1995. For a summary of herbaceous materials to be planted, see Table 3.5.
Project Scope

115

Figure 3.15. Treatment Details. Prepared by the NPS, Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, 1995.
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

116
Public Participation Strategy

117

Chapter IV: Public Participation

Strategy

The restoration of the landscape at Fairsted is a project that interests many people, 

and may have a small effect on the adjacent neighbors. For this reason, a series of 

three briefings have been scheduled to provide public information on the project 

and address concerns or questions.

The first briefing was held on Monday, May 23 and included professionals from 

the historic landscape preservation community (see list below). This briefing 

includes representatives from key preservation organizations including Historic 

Massachusetts, Inc. (HMI), the National Association for Olmsted Parks (NAOP), 

the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA), the Alliance for Historic 

Landscape Preservation, the F. L. Olmsted Papers at American University, City 

of Boston Landmarks and Parks Department, the Arnold Arboretum, Harvard 

University Department of Landscape Architecture and several academics and 

private consultants. Due to space limitations at Olmsted NHS, twenty-six 

individuals were invited to the May 23 briefing (Table 4.1).

Topics discussed at this meeting included the schedule for Phase 1 work, and 

the proposed change in circulation following removal of the existing nonhistoric 

path. Several people commented on the positive effect the landscape restoration 

will have on the lawn - effectively extending it from the circular drive to the west 

slope. Issues related to the size of some of the existing historic plant material were 

also discussed, especially as it relates to shade conditions for replanting. Finally, 

the discussion included the need for a revised maintenance plan - to articulate the 

intent of the restoration to ensure that the historic appearance is achieved as the 

new plantings mature.

The second briefing was held on Wednesday, May 25 for approximately 50 

neighbors, primarily those whose homes are located adjacent to Olmsted NHS, 

on an access road that may be affected by Phase 1 work, or who may see or 

hear construction activity (Table 4.2). The list of neighbors was obtained from 

a number of sources, including Olmsted NHS mailing list and the Town of 

Brookline census. The mailing list was cross-referenced with the two adjacent 

historic districts to ensure that all abutters and nearby neighbors in both districts 

were invited. This includes families living on portions of Warren and Walnut 

Streets, Welch Road, portions of Dudley Street, all families on Fairmount Street, 

and Green Hill Road.
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

118

Despite a very low attendance, many interesting issues were raised. In particular, 

the problem of invasive Norway Maple growth in other parts of the neighborhood 

was discussed in detail, including the need to manage invasive volunteer growth in 

the Brookline Land Trust property.

A third briefing, for the Brookline Selectman is scheduled for June 28.

Table 4.1. Representatives Invited to Public Briefing

Name Organization Address

Betsy Shure Gross Historic Massachusetts Inc. 25 Edgehill Road, Brookline, MA 02146

Arleyn Levee Historic Massachusetts Inc.

Landscape Committee, National Association for Olmsted 

Parks

51 Stella Road, Belmont, MA 02178

Lucinda Brockway Consultant, Past Designs 53 High Street, Kennebunk, ME 04043

Charles Birnbaum NPS, ASLA Open Committee on

Historic Preservation

NPS, Preservation Assistance Div. P.O. Box 37127- Mail 

Stop 424, Washington, DC 20013-7127

Robert Page NPS, Cultural Landscape Program

Manager

NPS, Park Historic Architecture Div., P.O. Box 37127 - 

Mail Stop 422, Washington, DC 20013-7127

Gary Hildebrand NPS, Cultural Landscape Program

Manager

48 Quincy Street, Cambridge, MA 02138

Eleanor Ames Maine Alliance for Olmsted Landscapes 113 Foreside Rd., Cumberland Foreside, ME 04110

Wesley Ward Trustees of Reservations 572 Essex Street, Beverly, MA 01915

Robert Cook Director, Arnold Arboretum 125 Jamaica Way, Jamaica Plain, MA 02130

Phyllis Andersen Arnold Arboretum 125 Jamaica Way, Jamaica Plain, MA 02130

Marcia Molay Director, Historic Massachusetts Inc. Old City Hall, 45 School Street, Boston, MA 02108

Charles E. Beveridge Frederick Law Olmsted Papers American University, 5010 Wisconsin Ave., NW, 

Washington, DC 20016

Cynthia Zaitzevsky Landscape Historian 31 Elm Street, Brookline, MA 02146

John Furlong Radcliffe Seminars, Landscape Design Program 6 Ash Street, Cambridge, MA 02138

Carla Benka Preservation Consultant 26 Circuit Road, Brookline, MA 02146

Pat Weslowski Preservation Consultant 115 Randlett Park, West Newton, MA 02165

Ellen Lipsey Boston Landmarks Commission Room 805, Boston City Hall, Boston, MA 02201

Shary Page Berg Preservation Consultant, Alliance for Historic Landscape 

Preservation

469 Franklin Street, Cambridge, MA 02139

Lucinda Brockway Consultant, Past Designs 53 High Street, Kennebunk, ME 04043

William Clendaniel Mount Auburn Cemetery 580 Mount Auburn Street, Cambridge, MA 02138

Marion Pressley Landscape Architect, William Pressley and Associates 432 Columbia Street, Cambridge, MA 02141

Peter Del Tredici Arnold Arboretum 125 Jamaicaway, Jamaica Plain, MA 02130

Richard Shulhoff Arnold Arboretum 125 Jamaicaway, Jamaica Plain, MA 02130

Greer Hardwick Town of Brookline 333 Washington Street, Brookline, MA 02146

Fran Beatty Boston Parks and Recreation Dept. 1010 Massachusetts Ave., Boston, MA 02118

Keith Morgan Boston University, Preservation Studies Program 226 Bay Road, Boston, MA 02215
Public Participation Strategy

119

Table 4.2. Neighbors Who Attended the Second Public Briefing

Name Address

1. Walnut Street (portion)

First Parish Church 400 Walnut St., Brookline, MA 02146

Judith and Thomas Bullitt 423 Walnut St., Brookline, MA 02146

Sarah Feldman 424 Walnut St., Brookline, MA 02146

David Scharfstein 424 Walnut St., Brookline, MA 02146

Elaine and Eric Kolm 433 Walnut St., Brookline, MA 02146

Ann Brown 434 Walnut St., Brookline, MA 02146

Ernest and Caroline Urvater 434 Walnut St., Brookline, MA 02146

Vasilis Kefalas 434 Walnut St., Brookline, MA 02146

Resident 440 Walnut St., Brookline, MA 02146

Rhoda and Spencer Frankl 446 Walnut St., Brookline, MA 02146

Orah and Richard Platt 460 Walnut St., Brookline, MA 02146

Margot Botsford and S. S. Rosenfeld 468 Walnut St., Brookline, MA 02146

Mary and Sherif Nada 469 Walnut St., Brookline, MA 02146

2. Welch Road (Portion)

Allen Drescher 46 Welch Rd., Brookline, MA 02146

Edward Heard 11 Welch Rd., Brookline, MA 02146

Judith and Stephen Bowen 58 Welch Rd., Brookline, MA 02146

Mara and Michael Liberman 34 Welch Rd., Brookline, MA 02146

3. Dudley Street (most)

Brit and Alexander D’Arbeloff 20 Dudley St., Brookline, MA 02146

Sandra and Harry Dine 23 Dudley St., Brookline, MA 02146

Joan and Leslie Ottinger 30 Dudley St., Brookline, MA 02146

James Dow 46 Dudley St., Brookline, MA 02146

Lucille Zanghi 46 Dudley St., Brookline, MA 02146

Mary Comstock 54 Dudley St., Brookline, MA 02146

Paveneh and Albert Shamsi 64 Dudley St., Brookline, MA 02146

Robert Reilly 64 Dudley St., Brookline, MA 02146

Richard Gotham 64 Dudley St., Brookline, MA 02146

Elise and Patrick Wilmerding 68 Dudley St., Brookline, MA 02146

Ted Bailey 80 Dudley St., Brookline, MA 02146

Hamid Razavi 80 Dudley St., Brookline, MA 02146

Jody Scherrer 80 Dudley St., Brookline, MA 02146 

Glenn and Peter Schweich 80 Dudley St., Brookline, MA 02146

Eleanor Bassick 92 Dudley St., Brookline, MA 02146

Kerry Bolduc 92 Dudley St., Brookline, MA 02146

Demee Gambulos 94 Dudley St., Brookline, MA 02146

Kenneth Goldstein 94 Dudley St., Brookline, MA 02146

Rivera and Jacques Sasson 94 Dudley St., Brookline, MA 02146

Slocumb and Edward Perry 112 Dudley St., Brookline, MA 02146

4. Fairmount Street (all)

Paula and Scott Nicrenz 12 Fairmount St., Brookline, MA 02146

Mary Jane and Henry Ellis 21 Fairmount St., Brookline, MA 02146

Palmina & Daniel McDonald 25 Fairmount St., Brookline, MA 02146
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

120

Name Address

Janet Sullivan 27 Fairmount St., Brookline, MA 02146

Thomas Cutler, Jr. 27 Fairmount St., Brookline, MA 02146

Karen and Merrill Diamond 33 Fairmount St., Brookline, MA 02146

Sylvia Burnham 39 Fairmount St., Brookline, MA 02146

Daniel and Maria Gerrity 54 Fairmount St., Brookline, MA 02146

Carolina & Thomas Graboys 70 Fairmount St., Brookline, MA 02146

5. Warren Street (few)

Doris and Thomas Keating 77 Warren Street, Brookline, MA 02146

Alastair and Elizabeth Caperton 116 Warren Street, Brookline, MA 02146

George P. Gardner Ill 130 Warren Street, Brookline, MA 02146

George P. Gardner, Jr. 135 Warren Street, Brookline, MA 02146

Nathan and Anne Talbot 176 Warren Street, BrookIine, MA 02146

6. Green Hill Road (few)

Lawrence and Marjorie Hantman 24 Green Hill Road, Brookline, MA 02146

Sue Welpton 43 Green Hill Road, Brookline, MA 02146
Sources

121

Sources Consulted

Baugh, Elia, and Tartaron. Geophysical Remote Sensing Survey at Fairsted, Frederick 

Law Olmsted National Historic Site. Boston University Office of Public Archeology. 

1993.

Beveridge, Charles E. “Frederick law Olmsted’s Theory of landscape Design.” 

Nineteenth Century.

Carden and Gilmore. Historic Structures Report, Frederick Law Olmsted National 

Historic Site. Draft 1987-1990.

Coffin, Margaret. Cultural Landscape Preservation Guide, Frederick Law Olmsted 

National Historic Site. Draft, 1992-3.

Day, Karen E. “Restoring Vine Coverage to Historic Buildings.” Preservation Tech 

Note, Site No.1. National Park Service, Preservation Assistance Division, October 

1991.

Gilmore, Andrea. Historic Structures Report, Fences, Frederick Law Olmsted 

National Historic Site. Draft 1986-7.

Meier, Lauren. “The Treatment of Historic Plant Material.” Public Garden, 

American Association of Botanic Gardens and Arboreta.

Millman, Amy. Historic Resource Study, Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic 

Site. NPS, North Atlantic Region, 1982.

National Park Service. General Management Plan, Frederick Law Olmsted National 

Historic Site. NPS, North Atlantic Region, 1983.

---. Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Landscapes. Washington, DC: 

Preservation Assistance

Division, draft 1992.

---. NPS 28: Cultural Resource Guidelines Release No.4. Washington, DC: History 

Division, 1993.

---. “Proposed Revision to the General Management Plan.” Unpublished report, 

concurred by SHPO

and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Olmsted National Historic Site, 

1987.
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

122

---. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties. 1992. Weinstein, Geraldine. “Replacing the Understory Plantings of 

Central Park.” Arnoldia. Spring 1985.

---. “Replanting the Trees and Shrubs of Central Park, Olmsted and Vaux’s Design 

Still Work.” The Green Scene, March 1986.

Whitehall, Lucinda. Historic Grounds Report and Management Plan, Frederick 

Law Olmsted National Historic Site. National Park Service, 1982.

Zaitzevsky, Cynthia. Cultural Landscape Report, Volume 1: Site History, Frederick 

Law Olmsted National Historic Site. Draft, 1993

---. Frederick Law Olmsted and the Boston Park System. Cambridge, MA: The 

Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1982.
Contributors

123

Contributors

PROJECT TEAM - OLMSTED CENTER FOR LANDSCAPE PRESERVATION

Catherine Evans, Historical Landscape Architect

Lauren Meier, Historical Landscape Architect, Manager- Preservation Planning 

Branch

Catherine Morris, Landscape Architect

Charlie Pepper, Horticulturist; Manager, Preservation Maintenance Branch

NPS CONTRIBUTORS

Ed Bacigalupo, Facility Manager, Olmsted National Historic Site

Alan Banks, Park Ranger, Olmsted National Historic Site

Elizabeth Banks, Curator, Olmsted National Historic Site

Margaret Coffin, Historical Landscape Architect, Olmsted Center for Landscape 

Preservation

Joyce Connolly, Reference Archivist, Olmsted National Historic Site

Rolf Diamant, Superintendent, Olmsted, Longfellow, and Kennedy National 

Historic Sites

Lee Farrow, Deputy Superintendent, Olmsted, Longfellow, and Kennedy National 

Historic Sites

Eliot Foulds, Historical Landscape Architect, Olmsted Center for Landscape 

Preservation

Linda Genovese, Archivist, Olmsted National Historic Site

Barbara Harty, Grounds Supervisor, Olmsted National Historic Site

Michelle Leach, Landscape Intern, Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

124

Tim Maguire, Supervisory Park Ranger, Olmsted National Historic Site

Nora Mitchell, Manager, Cultural Landscape Program, North Atlantic Region

Steven Pendry, Archeologist, Cultural Resource Center, North Atlantic Region

COLLABORATORS

Arnold Arboretum of Harvard University 

Phyllis Anderson, Landscape Historian 

Robert Cook, Ph.D., Director

Peter Del Tredici, Ph.D., Assistant Director for the Living Collection

Cynthia Zaitzevsky and Associates

Cynthia Zaitzevsky, Ph.D., Landscape Historian

Boston University Office of Public Archeology

David Clayton, et al., Archeologist
Appendix A

125

Appendix A: Memorandum From Regional Director, 

North Atlantic Region, To Superintendent, 

Longfellow National Historic Site, 1987 and

Associated Correspondence Related to the

Restoration Period Change
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

126
Appendix A

127
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

128
Appendix A

129
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

130
Appendix A

131
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

132
Appendix A

133
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

134
Appendix A

135
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

136
Appendix A

137
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

138
Appendix A

139
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

140
Appendix B

141

Appendix B: Numbering System for Woody Plant

Material

The landscape zones are derived from the 1982 Historic Grounds Report. For a more detailed discussion of the 

accession numbering system, please see the draft Cultural Landscape Preservation Guide.

Area Plant# Zone Name Area Name

Zone 1

1 001-009 Hollow Center Bed and Walk

2 001-031 Hollow North Embankment and Grotto

3 001-035 Hollow West Embankment

Zone 2

1 N/A Front Drive Edge of Property

2 001-012 Front Drive Circular Drive and Center Bed

3 001-041 Front Drive Circular Drive Parking Area Beds

4 001-004 Front Drive House and Office Entrance

Zone 3

1 001-080 Rock Garden Boundary/East Side of Path

2 001-046 Rock Garden Lawn/West Side of Path

Zone 4

1 001-023 South Lawn House and Lawn Area

2 001-062 South Lawn South Border

3 001-149 South Lawn West Slope

4 001-010 South Lawn Storehouse Area

Zone 5

1 001-027 Service Areas Parking Lot Area

2 001-004 Service Areas Courtyard and Barnyards

3 001-004 Service Areas Rear Office Entry and Vault Area
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

142
Appendix C

143

Key Common Name Scientific Name

Ace pa Japanese Maple Acer palmatum

Ace pe Striped Maple, Moosewood Acer pensylvanicum

Ace pl Norway Maple Acer platanoides

Ace pl ‘S’ Schwedleri Norway Maple Acer platanoides ‘Schwedleri’

Ace ps Plane Maple, Sycamore Maple Acer pseudoplatanus

Ace ru Red Maple Acer rubrum

Ace sa Sugar Maple Acer saccharum

Act ar Bower Actinidia, Tara Vine Actinidia arguta

Aes pa Bottlebrush Buckeye Aesculus parviflora

Ara sp Devils-walkingstick Aralia spinosa

Ber th Japanese Barberry Berberis thunbergii

Ber vu Native Barberry Berberis vulgaris

Bet le Sweet Birch Betula lenta

Bet ni River Birch Betula nigra

Bet pa Paper Birch Betula papyrifera

Bux se Common Box, Boxwood Buxus sempervirens

Cal fl Strawberry Shrub, Carolina Allspice Calycanthus floridus

Car ov Shagbark Hickory Carya ovata

Cer ja Katsura Cercidiphyllum japonicum

Che sp Common Flowering Quince Chaenomeles speciosa

Chm ob Hinoki False Cypress Chamaecyparis obtusa

Chm pi Threadleaf False Cypress Chamaecyparis pisifera ‘Filifera’

Cla lu American Yellowwood Cladrastis lutea

Cle al Summersweet Clethra Clethra alnifoli

Cor al Pagoda Dogwood Cornus alternifolia

Cor fl Flowering Dogwood Cornus florida

Cor ko Kousa Dogwood Cornus kousa

Cot ap Cranberry Cotoneaster Cotoneaster apiculatus

Cra mo Downy Hawthorne Crataegus mollis

Cyd ob Common Quince Cydonia oblonga

Deu ca Deutzia Deutzia carnea f. densiflora

Deu sc c Fuzzy Deutzia Deutzia scabra var. candidissima

Euo al Winged Euonymus Euonymus alata

Euo fo Wintercreeper Euonymus Euonymus fortunei

Euo fo r Wintercreeper Euonymus Euonymus fortunei var. radicans

Fra am White Ash Fraxinus americana

Hyd he Hydrangea Hydrangea heteromalla

Hyd pe Climbing Hydrangea Hydrangea petiolaris

Appendix C: List of Woody Plants, Ol m s t e d

Nat i o na l Hi s t o r ic Si t e
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

144

Key Common Name Scientific Name

Kal la Mountain Laurel Kalmia latifolia

Leu fo Drooping Leucothoe Leucothoe fontanesiana

Lir tu Tuliptree Liriodendron tulipifera

Lon ta Tatarian Honeysuckle Lonicera tatarica

Mag ac Cucumber Magnolia Magnolia acuminata

Mal sp. Flowering Crabapple Malus species

Phe am Amur Corktree Phellodendron amurense

Phi co Sweet Mock Orange Philadelphus coronarius

Pie fl Mountain Pieris Pieris floribunda

Pie ja Japanese Pieris Pieris japonica

Pin St White Pine Pinus strobus

Pru sp Cherry Prunus species

Pya co Scarlet Firethorn Pyracantha coccinea

Que ru Red Oak Quercus rubra

Rha ca Common Buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica

Rho cl Flame Azalea Rhododendron calendulaceum

Rho ct Catawba Rhododendron Rhododendron catawbiense

Rho ka Torch Azalea Rhododendron kaempferi

Rho Ia Wilson Rhododendron Rhododendron x laetevirens

Rho ma Rosebay Rhododendron Rhododendron maximum

Rho mu Korean Rhododendron Rhododendron mucronulatum

Rho sp. Rhododendron Rhododendron species

Rho va Pinkshell Azalea Rhododendron vaseyi

Rho ye Korean Azalea Rhododendron yedoense poukhanense

Rho sc Black Jetbead Rhodotypos scandens

Ros sp Rose species Rosa species

Sor au European Mountain Ash Sorbus aucuparia

Spi th Thunberg Spirea Spirea thunbergii

Spi va Vanhoutte Spirea Spirea x vanhouttei

Syr pe Persian Lilac Syringa x persica

Syr vu Common Lilac Syringa vulgaris

Tax ba English Yew Taxus baccata

Tax ba ‘R’ English Weeping Yew Taxus baccata ‘Repandens’

Tax ca Canadian Yew Taxus canadensis

Tax cu Japanese Yew Taxus cuspidata

Tax cu ‘N’ Dwarf Japanese Yew Taxus cuspidata ‘Nana’

Tsu en Canadian Hemlock Tsuga canadensis

Tsu cr Carolina Hemlock Tsuga caroliniana

Ulmam American Elm Ulmus americana

Vibde Arrowwood Viburnum Viburnum dentatum

Vib pi Doublefile Viburnum Viburnum plicatum

Vib se Tea Viburnum Viburnum setigerum

Wei fl Old Fashioned Weigela Weigela florida

Wis si Chinese Wisteria Wisteria sinensis
Appendix D

145

Appendix D: Outline - [draft] 

Cultural Landscape Report Volume

1: Site History

By Cynthia Zaitzevsky, Ph.D. and the Arnold Arboretum of Harvard University

Table of Contents

List of Illustrations

Introduction

Chapter I

•	 99 Warren Street: The Pre-Olmsted Years

•	 Olmsted and Brookline

•	 The Clark House

•	 The Purchase

•	 End Notes

Chapter II

•	 The Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr. Era: 1883-ca. 1904

•	 Introduction

•	 General Plans, Photographs, and Written Documents

•	 Front Entry and Drive

•	 The Hollow

•	 Rock Garden and Southeast Corner South Lawn and Rear Embankment 

Service Areas

•	 Written Description of Fairsted, 1883-1903

•	 End Notes

Chapter III

•	 The Olmsted Brothers Era, Part 1: 1904-ca. 1920

•	 Introduction
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

146

•	 General Plans, Photographs, and Written Documents

•	 Front Entry and Drive

•	 The Hollow

•	 Rock Garden and Southeast Corner South Lawn and Rear Embankment 

Service Areas

•	 Written Description of Fairsted 1904-1920

•	 End Notes

Chapter IV

•	 The Olmsted Brothers Era, Part 2: 1920-1940

•	 Introduction

•	 General Plans, Photographs, and Written Documents

•	 Tenants

•	 Spruce Pole Fence

•	 General Horticultural Practices

•	 Miscellaneous

•	 Front Entry and Drive

•	 The Hollow

•	 Rock Garden and Southeast Corner South Lawn and Rear Embankment 

Service Areas

•	 Garden/Parking Lot

•	 Rear Office Courtyard

•	 Vicinity of the Plan Vault

•	 Service Court

•	 Tulip Test Bed

•	 Written Description of Fairsted 1920-1940

•	 End Notes

Chapter V

•	 The Olmsted Brothers Era, Part 3: 1941-1963

•	 Introduction

•	 General Plans, Photographs, and Written Documents

•	 Tenants

•	 The Spruce Pole Fence
Appendix D

147

•	 General Horticultural Practices Proposed Division of Property Hurricane 

Damage

•	 Front Entry and Drive

•	 The Hollow

•	 Rock Garden and Southeast Corner South Lawn and Rear Embankment 

Service Areas

•	 End Notes

Chapter VI

•	 The Olmsted Brothers Era: 1963-1979

•	 Introduction

•	 General Plans, Photographs, and Documents

•	 Front Entry and Drive

•	 The Hollow

•	 Rock Garden and Southeast Corner South Lawn and Rear Embankment 

Service Areas

•	 End Notes

Chapter VII

•	 The National Park Service Ownership: 1980-19921

Chapter VIII

•	 Conclusions2

Bibliography

List of Repositories Consulted and Outcome

Recommendations for Future Research

Appendix A Chronology of Plans, Photographs, and Other Key Documents

Appendix B Selected Plant Lists

Appendix C Copies of Selected Historical Documents

Endnotes

1. Due in draft June 30, 1994.

2. Due in draft June 30, 1994.
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

148
Appendix E

149

Appendix E: Results of Tree Coring

ID# Botanical Name DBH Canopy Results Conclusion Action

Front Drive: Parking Area and Edge

23-3 Acer pseudoplatanus 20” 54’ 36 rings not historic remove

Rock Garden: East Side of Walk

31-14 Fraxinus americana 23” 60’ 78 rings historic retain

31-17 Malus sp. 7” 21’ not historic remove

31-18 Malus sp. 4” 17’ 16 rings not historic remove

Rock Garden: Lawn/West Side of Path

32-12 Malus sp. 5” 18’ not historic keep

32-13 Malus sp. 8” 30’ not historic remove

32-15 Quercus rubra 10” 34’ 28 rings not historic remove

32-16 Quercus rubra 12” 28’ 21 rings not historic remove

South Lawn: South Border

43-8 Acer palmatum 8” 27’ 37 rings not historic remove

43-15 Acer pseudoplatanus 18” 44’ 34-35 rings not historic remove

43-16 Acer pseudoplatanus 14” 60’ 31 rings not historic remove

43-17 Acer platanoides 14” 45’ 32 rings not historic remove

43-22 Liriodendron tulipifera 12” 28’ 30 rings not historic remove

43-31 Cladrastis lutea 13” 26’ not historic remove

43-42 Acer platanoides 15” 34’ 28 rings not historic remove

43-59 Acer platanoides ‘Schwedleri’ 30” 45’ 62 rings historic retain

43-60 Acer saccharum 21” 53’ 58 rings historic retain

43-63 Betula lenta 12” 38’

43-68 Betula lenta 23” 68’ 60+ rings historic retain

43-72 Cladrastis lutea 8” 46’ 28 rings not historic remove

43-76 Quercus rubra 13” 36’ 24 rings not historic remove

Service Areas: Parking Lot Area

51-1 Acer platanoides 25” 42’ 24 rings not historic remove
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

150
Appendix F

151

Appendix F: Summary Results of Archeological

Testing

From Memorandum – Steven Pendry, Archeology Branch, Cultural Resource Center, to Lauren Meier, Olmsted 

Center for Landscape Preservation, March 1, 1994
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

152
Appendix F

153
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

154
Appendix G

155

Appendix G: Secretary of the

Interior’s Standards for the

Treatment of Historic Properties

STANDARDS FOR RESTORATION

1. A property shall be used as it was historically or be given a new use which reflects 

the property’s restoration period.

2. Materials and features from the restoration period shall be retained and 

preserved. The removal of materials or the alteration of features, spaces, and 

spatial relationships that characterize the period shall not be undertaken.

3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. 

Work needed to stabilize, consolidate and conserve materials and features from 

thee restoration period shall be physically and visually compatible, identifiable 

upon close inspection, and properly documented for future research.

4. Materials, features, spaces, and finishes that characterize other historical periods 

shall be documented prior to their alteration or removal.

5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples 

of craftsmanship that characterize the restoration period shall be preserved.

6. Deteriorated features from the restoration period shall be repaired rather than 

replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive 

feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and where 

possible, materials.

7. Replacement of missing features from the restoration period shall be 

substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. A false sense of history shall 

not be created by adding conjectural features, features from other properties, or 

by combining features that never existed together historically.

8. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the 

gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials shall 

not be used.

9. Archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved 

in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be 

undertaken.

10. Designs that were never executed historically shall not be constructed.
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

156
Appendix H

157

Appendix H: Summary of Tree Work

ID# Botanical Name DBH Canopy Contract/NPS Stump Treatment

Front Drive: Center Bed

22-1 Malus sp. 4” 18’ NPS No action

Front Drive: Parking Area and Edge

23-1 Acer pensylvanicum 8” 34’ Contract Grind

23-2 Acer pensylvanicum 3” 22’ Contract Grind

23-3 Acer pseudoplatanus* 20” 54’ Contract Grind

23-5 Tsuga caroliniana 8” 7’ NPS No action

23-6 Tsuga caroliniana 4” 7’ NPS No action

23-7 Tsuga caroliniana 6” 7’ NPS No action

23-8 Tsuga caroliniana 9” 7’ NPS No action

23-9 Tsuga caroliniana 6” 7’ NPS No action

23-10 Tsuga caroliniana 8” 7’ NPS No action

23-11 Tsuga caroliniana 7” 7’ NPS No action

23-12 Tsuga caroliniana 7” 7’ NPS No action

23-13 Tsuga caroliniana 8” 7’ NPS No action

23-14 Tsuga caroliniana 5” 7’ NPS No action

23-15 Tsuga caroliniana 5” 7’ NPS No action

23-16 Tsuga caroliniana 3” 8’ NPS No action

23-17 Tsuga caroliniana 4” 7’ NPS No action

23-18 Tsuga caroliniana 4” 8’ NPS No action

23-19 Tsuga caroliniana 4” 7’ NPS No action

23-20 Tsuga caroliniana 4” 7’ NPS No action

23-21 Tsuga caroliniana 5” 7’ NPS No action

Rock Garden: East Side of Walk

31-1 Acer pensylvanicum 5” 30’ NPS No action

31-2 Acer pensylvanicum 3” 20’ NPS No action

31-3 Acer platanoides 9” 32’ Contract No action

31-4 Acer platanoides 8” 21’ Contract Grind

31-5 Acer platanoides 5” 25’ NPS Remove

31-7 Fraxinus americana 6” 10’ Contract No action

31-8 Acer platanoides 6” 26’ Contract No action

31-9 Acer platanoides 7” 38’ Contract No action

31-10 Acer platanoides 12” 50’ Contract No action

31-11 Acer platanoides 9” 26’ Contract No action

31-12 Acer platanoides 7” 23’ Contract No action

31-13 Acer platanoides 6” 26’ Contract No action

31-15 Fraxinus americana 9” 60’ Contract Grind

31-16 Fraxinus americana 9” 28 Contract Grind

31-17 Malus sp.* 7” 21’ NPS Remove

Note: *Indicates trees cored
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

158

ID# Botanical Name DBH Canopy Contract/NPS Stump Treatment

31-18 Malus sp.* 4” 17’ NPS No action

31-21 Phellodendron amurense 7” 24’ Contract Grind

31-23 Prunus sp. 3” 10’ NPS No action

31-24 Sorbus aucuparia 9” 24’ Contract No action

31-78 Acer platanoides 3” 25’ NPS No action

31-79 Acer platanoides 5” 26’ NPS No action

Rock Garden: Lawn/West side of path

32-1 Aesculus parviflora 1” NPS No action

32-7 Aralia spinosa 6” 30’ NPS Remove

32-8 Betula nigra 1” 12’ NPS No action

32-9 Betula nigra 2” 18’ NPS No action

32-10 Betula nigra 3” 26’ NPS No action

32-11 Betula nigra 3” 14’ NPS No action

32-13 Malus sp.* 8” 30’ NPS No action

32-14 Prunus sp. 6” 22’ Contract Grind

32-15 Quercus rubra* 10” 34’ Contract Grind

32-16 Quercus rubra* 12” 28’ Contract Grind

South Lawn: South Border

42-1 Acer palmatum 7” 28’ NPS No action

42-2 Acer platanoides 9” 49’ Contract Grind

42-3 Acer platanoides 3” 30’ Contract No action

42-4 Acer platanoides 5” 22’ NPS No action

42-5 Acer platanoides 3” 28’ NPS No action

42-6 Acer platanoides 4” 18’ NPS No action

42-12 Tsuga caroliniana 5” 28’ NPS No action

42-13 Tsuga caroliniana 5” 12’ NPS No action

42-15 Tsuga caroliniana 3” 12’ NPS No action

South Lawn: West Slope

43-1 Acer palmatum 3” 13’ NPS No action

43-2 Acer palmatum 4” 15’ NPS No action

43-3 Acer palmatum 4” 28’ NPS No action

43-4 Acer palmatum 4” 14’ NPS No action

43-5 Acer palmatum 4” 33’ NPS No action

43-6 Acer palmatum 2” 13’ NPS No action

43-7 Acer palmatum 9” 52’ NPS No action

43-8 Acer palmatum* 8” 27’ NPS No action

43-9 Acer palmatum 1” 14’ NPS No action

43-10 Acer palmatum 4” 17’ NPS No action

43-11 Acer palmatum 1” 11’ NPS No action

43-12 Acer palmatum 4” 24’ NPS No action

43-13 Acer palmatum 7” 21’ NPS No action

43-14 Acer palmatum 3” 29’ NPS No action

43-15 Acer pseudoplatanus* 18” 44’ Contract No action

43-16 Acer pseudoplatanus 14” 60’ Contract No action

43-17 Acer platanoides* 2” NPS No action

43-18 Acer platanoides 5” 25’ NPS No action

43-19 Acer platanoides 7” 47’ Contract Grind

43-20 Acer platanoides 3” 24’ NPS No action
Appendix H

159

ID# Botanical Name DBH Canopy Contract/NPS Stump Treatment

43-21 Acer platanoides 9” 26’ Contract No action

43-22 Liriodendron tulipifera* 12” 28’ Contract No action

43-23 Acer platanoides 4” 24’ NPS No action

43-24 Acer platanoides 12” 32’ Contract Grind

43-25 Acer platanoides 3” 12’ NPS No action

43-26 Acer platanoides 2” 10’ NPS No action

43-27 Acer platanoides 3” 11’ NPS No action

43-28 Acer platanoides 1” 12’ NPS No action

43-29 Acer platanoides 2” 9’ NPS No action

43-30 Acer platanoides 3” 18’ NPS Remove

43-31 Acer platanoides 4” 8’ NPS No action

43-32 Acer platanoides 5” 30’ NPS Remove

43-33 Acer platanoides 2” 12’ NPS No action

43-34 Acer platanoides 2” 12’ NPS No action

43-35 Acer platanoides 3” 10’ NPS No action

43-36 Acer platanoides 3” 32’ NPS No action

43-37 Acer platanoides 3” 19’ NPS No action

43-38 Acer platanoides 2” 14’ NPS No action

43-39 Acer platanoides 3” 15’ NPS No action

43-40 Acer platanoides 2” 12’ NPS No action

43-41 Acer platanoides 9” 27’ Contract No action

43-42 Acer platanoides* 15” 34’ Contract Grind

43-43 Fraxinus americana 12” 28’ Contract No action

43-44 Acer platanoides 4” 18’ NPS No action

43-45 Acer platanoides 5” 28’ NPS No action

43-46 Acer platanoides 3” 24’ NPS No action

43-47 Acer platanoides 9” 14’ Contract No action

43-48 Cladrastis lutea 13” 26’ Contract No action

43-49 Acer platanoides 5” 26’ NPS No action

43-50 Acer platanoides 6” 24’ NPS No action

43-51 Acer platanoides 11” 33’ Contract No action

43-52 Acer platanoides* 5” 16’ NPS No action

43-53 Acer platanoides* 5” 25’ NPS No action

43-54 Acer platanoides 1” 12’ NPS No action

43-55 Acer platanoides 1” 8’ NPS No action

43-56 Acer platanoides 4” 11’ NPS No action

43-57 Fraxinus americana 1” 7’ NPS No action

43-58 Acer platanoides 2” 12’ NPS No action

43-61 Betula lenta 10” 37’ Contract Grind

43-62 Betula lenta 11” 34’ Contract Grind

43-63 Betula lenta* 12” 38’ Contract Grind

43-64 Betula lenta 8” 27’ Contract Grind

43-65 Betula lenta 11” 39’ Contract Grind

43-66 Betula lenta 9” 62’ Contract Grind

43-67 Betula lenta 12” 65’ Contract Grind

43-69 Cercidiphyllum japonicum 4” 22’ NPS No action

43-70 Cladrastis lutea 1” 12’ NPS No action

43-72 Cladrastis lutea* 8” 46’ Contract No action

43-73 Cornus kousa 4” 28’ NPS No action
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

160

ID# Botanical Name DBH Canopy Contract/NPS Stump Treatment

43-75 Prunus sp. 1” 14’ NPS No action

43-76 Quercus rubra* 13” 36’ Contract No action

43-78 Tsuga canadensis 6” 17’ NPS No action

43-87 Acer platanoides 4” 10’ NPS No action

Service Areas: Parking Lot

51-1 Acer platanoides* 25” 42’ Contract Grind
Appendix I

161

Appendix I: Existing Historic Trees to Remain

ID# Botanical Name DBH Canopy

Hollow: North Embankment and Grotto

12-1 Crataegus ‘Toba’ 17’

12-2 Crataegus ‘Toba’ 4”

12-5 Tsuga canadensis 18” 32’

12-6 Tsuga canadensis 22” 32’

Hollow: West Embankment

13-1 Carya ovata 18” 34’

13-2 Cornus florida 1” 36’

Front Drive: Circular Drive and Center Bed

22-3 Tsuga canadensis 27” 56’

Front Drive: Circular Drive Parking Areas Beds

23-4 Magnolia acuminata var. acuminata 41” 68’

Rock Garden: Boundary and East Side of Path

31-19 Pinus strobus 20” 38’

31-20 Pinus strobus 19” 40’

Rock Garden: Lawn and West Side of Path

32-12 Malus sp. 5” 18’

South Lawn: House and Lawn Area

41-1 Ulmus americana 35” 69’

South Lawn: South Border

42-8 Tsuga canadensis 11” 22’

42-9 Tsuga canadensis 23” 72’

42-10 Tsuga canadensis 12” 60’

42-11 Tsuga canadensis 19” 72’

42-14 Tsuga canadensis 19” 56’

42-16 Tsuga canadensis 12” 26’

42-17 Tsuga canadensis 14” 32’

42-18 Tsuga canadensis 19” 24’

42-19 Tsuga canadensis 7” 34’

South Lawn: West Slope

43-59 Acer platanoides ‘Schwedleri’ 30” 45’

43-60 Acer saccharum 21” 53’

43-68 Betula lenta 23” 68’

43-71 Cladrastis lutea 2” 8’

43-77 Tsuga canadensis 8” 23’

South Lawn: Storehouse Area

44-1 Betula papyrifera 4” 13’

44-2 Betula papyrifera 4” 13’

44-3 Betula papyrifera 4” 13’
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

162

ID# Botanical Name DBH Canopy

44-6 Pinus strobus 6” 36’

Service Areas: Parking Lot Area

51-2 Acer saccharum 30” 51’

51-3 Magnolia acuminata 36” 55’

51-5 Tsuga canadensis 4” 11’

Service Areas: Driveway and Barnyards

52-1 Chamaecyparis pisifera 19” 30’

52-2 Chamaecyparis obtusa 11” 24’

Service Areas: Rear Office Entry and Vault

53-1 Tsuga canadensis 3” 7’
Appendix J

163

Appendix J: Existing Historic Trees to be Replaced

ID# Botanical Name DBH Canopy

South Lawn: South Border

42-7 Betula lenta 19” 52’

Rock Garden: East Side of Walk

31-14 Fraxinus americana 22” 60’
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

164
Appendix K

165

Appendix K: Nonhistoric Shrubs to be Removed

ID# Botanical Name DBH Canopy

The Hollow: Center Bed and Walk

11-1 Cotoneaster apiculatus 6’

11-2 Lonicera tatarica 11’

11-4 Rhododendron kaempferi 7’

11-5 Rhododendron x laetevirens 9’

11-6 Rhododendron x laetevirens 8’

11-7 Rhododendron yedoense poukhanense 7’

11-8 Rhododendron kaempferi 4’

11-9 Viburnum dentatum 16’

The Hollow: North Embankment and Grotto

12-8 Berberis thunbergii 3’

12-17 Rhamnus cathartica 10” 20’

12-18 Rhododendron kaempferi 6’

12-19 Rhododendron kaempferi 4’

12-20 Rhododendron kaempferi 9’

12-21 Rhododendron mucronulatum 8’

The Hollow: West Embankment

13-6 Rhamus cathartica 4” 10’

Front Drive: Circular Drive and Center Bed

22-10 Taxus cuspidata 14’

22-11 Taxus cuspidata 16’

22-12 Viburnum dentatum 10’

Front Drive: Circular Drive Parking Area Beds

23-32 Rhododendron catawbiense 10’

23-33 Rhodotypos scandens 9’

23-36 Taxus baccata 22’

23-37 Taxus cuspidata 18’

23-38 Taxus cuspidata 10’

23-39 Taxus cuspidata 10’

23-40 Taxus cuspidata 14’

Front Drive: House and Office

24-1 Calycanthus floridus 14’

Rock Garden: East Side of Walk

31-25 Berberis vulgaris 7’

31-26 Euonymus alata 5’

31-30 Euonymus alata 4’

31-31 Euonymus alata 4’

31-32 Euonymus alata 4’
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

166

ID# Botanical Name DBH Canopy

31-33 Euonymus alata 4’

31-34 Euonymus alata 4’

31-35 Euonymus alata 4’

31-36 Rhodotypos scandens 6’

31-44 Philadelphus coronarius 8’

31-47 Philadelphus coronarius 10’

31-49 Philadelphus coronarius 9’

31-50 Philadelphus coronarius 8’

31-51 Philadelphus coronarius 8’

31-52 Philadelphus coronarius 5’

31-53 Philadelphus coronarius 5’

31-54 Philadelphus coronarius 7’

31-55 Philadelphus coronarius 2’

31-56 Philadelphus coronarius 2’

31-58 Rhamnus cathartica 3” 12’

31-59 Rhodotypos scandens 12’

31-60 Rhodotypos scandens 8’

31-61 Rhodotypos scandens 5’

31-67 Taxus cuspidata** 4’

Rock Garden: Lawn/West Side of Path

32-17 Berberis thunbergii 8’

32-29 Lonicera morrowii 4’

32-32 Rhododendron sp. 6’

32-33 Rhododendron calendulaceum 15’

32-34 Rhododendron calendulaceum 14’

32-36 Taxus cuspidata** 7’

32-38 Taxus baccata** 3’

32-43 Viburnum dentatum 11’

32-44 Viburnum dentatum 12’

32-45 Viburnum dentatum 18’

32-46 Viburnum setigerum 12’

South Lawn: House and Lawn Area

41-7 Hydrangea heteromalla 8’

South Lawn: South Border

42-39 Rhododendron catawbiense 9’

42-40 Taxus cuspidata 26’

42-41 Taxus baccata 17’

42-42 Taxus cuspidata 28’

42-43 Taxus x media ‘Hatfieldii’ 28’

42-44 Taxus cuspidata 12’

42-45 Taxus cuspidata 15’

42-46 Taxus cuspidata 10’

42-47 Taxus baccata 13’

Note: **Indicates seedlings
Appendix K

167

ID# Botanical Name DBH Canopy

42-48 Taxus baccata 8’

42-49 Viburnum dentatum 5’

42-50 Viburnum plicatum 6’

42-51 Viburnum dentatum 10’

42--52 Viburnum plicatum 12’

South Lawn: West Slope

43-80 Euonymus alata** 5’

43-81 Euonymus alata** 2’

43-82 Euonymus alata** 3’

43-83 Euonymus alata** 7’

43-84 Euonymus alata 3’

43-86 Euonymus alata 3’

43-90 Euonymus alata** 4’

43-91 Euonymus alata** 7’

43-92 Euonymus alata** 6’

43-93 Euonymus alata** 11’

43-94 Euonymus alata** 4’

43-95 Euonymus alata** 4’

43-96 Euonymus alata** 6’

43-97 Euonymus alata** 5’

43-119 Taxus baccata** 6’

43-121 Taxus baccata** 5’

43-124 Viburnum dentatum 12’

43-148 Euonymus alata 19’

43-149 Taxus alata**

Service Areas: Rear Office Entry and Vault Area

53-3,4 Hydrangea petiolaris 25’ (vine)
Cultural Landscape Report for the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

168

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation

Boston National Historical Park

Charlestown Navy Yard, Quarters C

Boston, Massachusetts 02129

Phone: 617-241-6954

Fax: 617-241-3952

web: www.nps.gov/oclp/