Frederick Law Olmsted SUBJECT FILE [*Community Design Boston, Mass. 1889*]1 Brookline, Mass. 19th [21st] February, 1889" Henry M. Whitney, Esq. President West End Land Co., Dear Sir; At your request we have examined the property and plans of your company on Beacon Street between the Stevenson and Clark estates. 2 There are two different methods of laying out this property. First, to grade the lots on Beacon Street so that they can be conveniently entered by carriages from the roadway in front of them. Second, to grade them so high that they cannot be so entered, [and provide] provision being made by a lane in their rear, for access by carriages to houses at a much higher elevation. In our opinion, the first method promises to be the most profitable to your company, for the following reasons: First, The narrower wheel way of Beacon Street, at this point has been formed at a considerable elevation above the broad wheel way expressly to afford direct [as an] approaches for carriages to houses in these and other adjoining lots. [If houses in these lots set so high that they cannot be approached in carriages directly from Beacon Street as so would be the case by the second method, the] The adoption of the first method would therefore be directly in the line of carrying out the ideas controlling the design of Beacon Street. Second. Considering the appearance of the houses, as well as the view from them, the first method promises the best results. If the main floors of houses in these lots are fixed at the moderate height above the street (say eight or ten feet) intended by the first method, they will not only be extraordinarily elevated as compared with the main wheel way, riding way, car tracks and walk of Beacon Street and thus afford a good outlook, but they will be of just about the height above the upper wheel way that an architect would prefer in order to make the houses appear to the greatest possible advantage. 4 [from the upper wheel way of Beacon Street.]. On the other hand, if houses are set as high as they probably would be, (some twenty feet above the street), by the second method, and yet as near the street as they must be, they will appear to be, and in fact will be, uncomfortably perched up and comparatively inaccessible. They will consequently be [therefore] less attractive to most purchasers. Third, the high brand (some ten or twelve feet high) close upon Beacon Street, which is a necessity of the second method, unless treated in some special and costly way such as purchasers could not be depended upon to adopt and maintain, would have a shabby aspect and be a disagreeable circumstance injuring the character of Beacon Street. On the other hand a high bank as required in the first method, even if it should not be kept in the neatest condition, since it would be in the rear of the houses and stables to be built and the foliage to be grown upon the lots, would be comparatively inconspicuous from Beacon Street. 5 Fourth. All of the land which under the second method would be needed for the rear lane can, under the first method be included in and sold at the price of The Beacon Street lots, while the steep bank which, under the second method, there would have to be in the rear of the Prospect Street lots, can, under the first method, be sold, as part of the Beacon Street lots, at higher prices. [This]6 Fifth. It will be better to have the necessary steep bank in the rear of the Beacon Street lots, [as by the first method,] than in the rear of the Prospect Street lots because it can then be and is more likely to be made good use of in various ways, as, for instance, (by means of retaining walls) for a terraced garden, or a stable or kitchen wing could be set back into it, or a cool-room for the storage of provisions, [and] conveniently situated on a level with the kitchen, could be built into it, or, suitably planted with trees and shrubs, it would add to the rural quality of the grounds of which it would form a part and which it would be most seen. On the other hand, if in the rear of the Prospect Street logs, this steep bank would be out of sight of those 7 owning it and consequently would be apt to be neglected, [and become shabby] would wash out upon the lane, and would become shabby and offensive to those living on Beacon Street. Moreover it is more than likely that such a bank in the rear of the Prospect Street lots would have stables built out over it, which, being entered on the high level, would necessarily have enormous substructures which would be great eyesores. (An example of such a stable can be seen from the railroad south of Longwood Station.)8 Sixth. The excess of material that would be excavated under the first method is all needed to fill up neighboring low land belonging to the Company -- a contractor employed to fill the low land could probably afford to pay for the privilege of taking the material from this high land, but even if, owing to the hardness of the soil, he could not pay for it, he could still remove it at a low rate. 9 Seventh. By the first method, lots on Beacon Street can run through to Prospect Street, which by the second method such an arrangement is not possible. This would strike many purchasers as an advantage. One might like to hold the cheaper back land as an investment, getting the use of it as garden ground or pasture meanwhile. Or one might wish to hold the back land as a building site for a member of his family to be used in intimate connection with his own grounds. Or one might wish to diminish the steepness of the bank by sloping it further back and then make it available for gardening or other purposes. 10 Or, one might, by swinging the steep bank back in the middle, gain more room below it. It is a serious objection to the lane that it would almost necessarily have to be narrow and might at times become overcrowded; that traffic upon it would be very close to the windows of the houses; that nice carriages would have to pass very near to [stables &] back doors and stables, and be crowded by tradesmen's vehicles. Eight. Although it is to be hoped that nothing of the kind will occur, still it may be an argument that will appeal to some purchasers, that in case (after the time limitation expires) it should be desired to build a block of houses twenty feet from the street and not much above it, the grading of the near land according to the first method would make it [comparatively] easy to provide convenient back yards, [while by without] at small expense, without interfering with the continued suburban style of occupation of the adjoining lots -- wheras if the land is graded high, as by the second method, expensive retaining walls and awkward arrangements would be necessary to such use of them.Ninth. As a general rule all lots above a suburban street, constructed on a steep hillside, should be deeper than those below it, because the houses on them can be placed further back from the street line. If the Beacon Street lots are graded down, and have no lane behind them, they can, in accordance with this rule, be made from one hundred and seventy to two hundred feet deep and still leave the Prospect Street lots, upon which they would back, from one hundred to one hundred and thirty feet deep. The houses on Beacon Street, if set as far back as they thus may be, will have comparatively large and, owing to the easy slope proposed, comfortable lawns. By way of illustrating our idea of how the first method [should] may best be carried out, we have prepared a grading plan and cross sections, and [in explanation] the following remarks refer to our plan -- We have shown the lot lines which seem to us most suitable by black lines. We advise that a right-of-way be given with each deed to use the path and stairs shown on the plan. We have placed this at the extreme end of the property so that it [will better serve the] may be extended up the hill along a convenient property line.Believing that, as a means of making the land [additionally] especially attractive to the most luxurious class of purchasers, it would pay to build a good looking retaining wall along the line of Beacon Street, we have indicated on our plans a [wall] retaining wall four feet high. (Such a wall need not cost over four dollars a running foot.) Above the wall we recommend that the land be given a slope of about one in fifteen to the base of the steep bank. This will make the land look very available and will [best] serve [any] all probably [subsequentive] requirements. Of course the wall and land will both have to be cut into [h] when an entrance is made, but the adjustment will be an easy one. We should recommend that the grade of the entrance drives should not be steeper than one in fifteen. If the adjoining owners could unite in having a common entrance drive they would save land and expense -- We advise that enough of the good top soil be saved in grading to [re] cover all the land stripped [with] at least six inches deep and that the finished surface be sodded, or seeded, as the case may require. There are two reasons for this; first to make the land look neat and attractive, and second, to prevent surface washing of soil. [We presume that] In regard to the drainage of the land, our grading plan shows a shallow turfed surface gutter at the top of the steep bank which is intended to prevent all surface water from above it from flowing down over the steep bank and gullying it out as it otherwise almost inevitably would. The water from this turfed gutter is intended to be collected in a catch basin and carried under ground along the boundary line to the street. The coping on the proposed street wall will prevent the remaining surface water from flowing over the side walk, except [where] at the entrances, where special provision can be made for it.In addition to the above arrangements for surface drainage, we recommend that the land, especially the steep bank, be under drained into drains laid their lot lines. If this be not done it is to be feared that the land will [in spring] be excessively wet and consequently less attractive to purchasers, and that there will be [waste] more washing and land slides on the steep bank. The cost of underdrainage, if done by skilled workmen with proper tools is very trifling. Having regard to the furtherance of the general policy which we recommended and which, owing to this situation and other conditions is certain to succeed manually that of stramping before these particular lots the move motaber characteristics of the best suburban residences [ a policy which their situation will ensure] we venture to suggest, for your judgement and the consideration of your [lawy law] legal adviser, certain "restrictions" [in the deeds to these] to be embodied in the deeds. Two of these restrictions [which] would apply to both the [upper and lower team of lots]Prospect Street and the Beacon Street lots. First, are against carrying on any trade or manufacture; second are against any building being erected on them with more than three principal stories aboveground or [higher to] having an extreme height to top of roof or other construction of more than sixty five feet above the street curb. Other restrictions are, first, one against any building being nearer to the side line of the lots than ten feet in the case of the Beacon Street lots or five feet in the case of the Prospect Street lots. [Second, against the Beacon Street lots being subdivided to conspire by construction on household except in the case of a boarder or other sense of the principal household. Third,] Second, against the main front wall of any building being built nearer to the street line than twenty feet in the case of the Prospect street lots, or fifty feet in the case of the Beacon Street lots. Third, against the Beacon Street lots being subdivided or occupied by more than one household, not counting that of a coachman or other servant of the principal household. Fourth, against the erection of any dwelling of less cost than $15,000 in the case of the Beacon Street lots and $10,000 in the case of the Prospect Street lots. If the, against any house or stable being built [so] in the Prospect Street lots so low that the sewer from it cannot deliver into the public sewer in Prospect Street.[The possibility of a permanent suburban quarter] Sixth, against the construction or use of any privy vault, [or] cesspool or outside manure pit. We suggest that all of these restrictions be made absolute for 60 years [but] and that there be a provision by which, after that period they can be modified or set aside on any lot by the unanimous consent of the owners of the remainder of these lots, except in regard to the distance from the street which ought never to be less than [20 ft] twenty feet. Yours respectfully --Report to H.M. Whitney Beacon St. Lots. 19th. Feby. 1889. -- Not in letter Book Report on plan for developing Beacon St lots on Stevenson & Clark estates. Contains specifications for restrictions. V 1/2. M