Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1911-04-28
Park Addition or Park Subtraction

It is declared that the blocks south of
the Avenue recently condemned as the
sites of three new department buildings
DO not furnish a sufficient area upon
which to erect all three structures with
proper approaches and environment. In
stead of meeting this condition by &C
curing more blocks south Of the Avenue
by the passage of the Hepburn bill, 1T II
now proposed to seize a portion OF the
Mall park and use 1t as the site OF one
OF these department buildings. The
wrong alternative remedy is thereby sug.
gested.
For many years, beginning long be-
fore the present park-extension move
ment took its start. the Washington
park lovers and conservationists fought
the good fight for the City Beautiful as
defenders Of existing parks against en-
croachment and spoliation. They were
not then able to enlarge the park sys.
tenn, but they struggled desperately to
preserve it against individual trespass-
crs, against the wholesale confisca-
tions Of the railroads. and against peri
odical efforts to rob the people Of these
breathing places, the city's lungs. by
choking them with stone and bricks
anu dS thO 1IC0 SitCS VI P0OAS
buildings. To legislators pulled this
way and that by advocates of rival
sites and often impatient at exorbi-
tant prices demanded by land owners.
the temptation was very strong to
avoid bother and to make a sham rec
ord Of economy by yielding to the sug-
gested breach of trust and by divert
ing to other uses land held in trust for
the peoples use as parks. But as a rule
Congress has resisted these confiscation
projects with admirable firmness. and
the principle Is firmly established that
all the parks should be scrupulously
preserved as the capitals main asset
in municipal health and beauty.
This principle of sound public policy is
involved in essence in the decision OF the
present question whether additional
ground necessary for department build
ing sites shall be obtained by further
purchases under the Hepburn bill or
whether 1t shall be subtracted from the
peoples park. Shall city section which
in spots il squalid and ugly be made
wholesome and attractive by use as pub
lie building sites or shall fine trees be
killed and park section be destroyed in
order to supply these sites? Shall the
verdict be for partial park destruction or
for park enlargement and development,
and for the promotion Of municipal
health and beauty?
The easy course in this particular case
is to yield the Mall without resistance or
protest. But II the precedent of free
public building sites in the city's Oldest
large urban park is once established, and
the policy Of park protection 50 laborious-
ly and anxiously maintained is over
thrown, the purchases Of further ground
south Of the Avenue for public uses may
be expected to cease. and tie Avenue
Will naturally be left Indefinitely with its
ugly and discreditable southern environ.
ments. Our natural course is to develop
and adorn the capitals historic thorough.
fare as a thoroughfare with public build
ings and to develop and adorn the CAPT.
tails park as a park. and not to adopt a
policy which will injure or spoil both
park and Avenue. Let US not in the name
Of the City Beautiful create new condi-
tons and perpetuate old conditions which
90 to make the City Ugly.