NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Park and Recreation Structures

IF MAN COULD BRING to his creations in natural parks the protective coloration that Nature bestows on wildlife, with how much more harmony he would endow his trespasses! One particularly longs for this quality in barriers, herein considered to embrace obstacles and obstructions to automobile travel—stone walls and wood fences, guard rails and retaining walls. These are unavoidable necessities in parks, generally so extensively required that any treatment short of the most skillful is a source of quick contamination to natural beauty into the farthermost reaches of the area.

For this reason they deserve to be planned thoughtfully and to be constructed with ever alert willingness to adjust the predetermined treatment to conditions actually encountered in the field. The contrary approach, the attempt to warp conditions of site to some blueprint treatment of barrier or retaining wall, usually leads to disaster. Natural quality is so ready to vanish; artificial quality, so prone to persist.

Barriers of stone have one basic advantage over barriers of wood. Stone is the more permanent, a fact which often predisposes its selection as the material for use. The claim of permanence, however, should not alone determine the choice of stone over wood; each must be further considered for its native suitability. Stone imported into areas to which no stone is native seems always inappropriate. There are parks where native stone suitable for building is not present, yet the landscape is of definitely stony character. Here barriers of imported stone can be made effective if skill and artistry are brought to their contriving. But more often than not, unless barriers can be produced from native stone, it is more reasonable to waive the advantage of greater permanence and make use of wood. Timber for barriers in some localities will offset comparative lack of permanence through native abundance and consequent greater suitability and economy. For wooded areas, regardless of stone supply, there are those who cast their votes in favor of wood, usually log, barriers, which can be made sturdy and unobtrusive and are far from short-lived.

When neither wood nor stone can stake a valid claim to being, or appearing to be, native to a region, the attributes of the area for park purposes may be logically challenged. This premise allowed, we are assured that either wood or stone will appropriately serve as material for the barriers we may require in any tract of true park potentialities. The problem then becomes one of intelligent use of whichever material Nature's bounty indicates.

One cannot visit many parks without becoming conscious of shortcomings of barrier and guard rail treatments in general. Where there is extensive need for guard rail, the use of one type of construction can become very monotonous. This is especially true if the construction is not utterly simple, or is too mathematically precise. Miles of stone barrier with crenelles and merlons of fixed length and height ticking off on the consciousness with pendulumlike routine seem almost to infect Nature itself with dull monotony. Better far to borrow something of Nature's variety. If it is desired to avoid the tiresome regularity of an unbroken coping line, it is merely choosing a different monotony to introduce a system of regular and repetitious breaks into the silhouette. Changes in coping levels to present varying lengths and varying heights are much more in the rhythm of Nature.

There are parks wherein the very extent of necessary guard rail seems to cry out for the variety of more than one type of construction. This is not to suggest merit in a hodge-podge of barrier treatments in one area, or in close coupling two widely different types. But where stretches demanding guard rail construction are separated by distances requiring none, occasionally to introduce variety for an isolated stretch would seem to be well reasoned.

A long stretch of elaborate guard rail, not only offends and distracts the viewer, but detracts from the view in direct proportion to its complexity of character. Probably the guard rail most generally satisfying to the eye, and as practical and economical as any, is the log barrier hub cap high supported on log posts at the joints. Logs and supports must be first of all of ample diameter, for flimsiness here, as in a bridge, registers adversely on the consciousness. Wood supports below grade should be treated with a preservative to prolong their life. They should extend deep into the ground so as to be truly effectual under impact.

Unpleasant indeed is the barrier of bowed, contorted logs that twists and writhes in its course like an attenuated corkscrew. Just as disturbing is the log barrier that bumps along at the roadside haphazardly rising high above the grade, then dipping almost to meet it. The log barrier should flow along parallel with the grade of the roadway if it is to be harmonious in the picture.

It is possible to detail the log guard rail so that when one section is broken the adjoining sections are unaffected either by reason of the accident itself or the ensuing operation of replacement. These will be favored wherever the limiting of maintenance costs must be considered. Barriers designed with wood rails that build into stone piers usually require an excessive amount of labor when replacement of a broken rail becomes necessary.

The ideal barrier treatment along certain roadways would be guard rocks, bedded deep in the ground in naturalized groupings spaced at irregular but effective intervals. This has been attempted but never, in the examples noted to date, with the measure of success held to be possible if executed with more skill and feeling for natural values.

In his well-presented Camp Planning and Camp Reconstruction, issued by the United States Forest Service, Dr. E. P. Meinecke discusses the choice and use of obstacles, obstructions, and barriers in relation to the principles of camp planning. So much on the subject of barriers therein contained is applicable to their proper use in parks, beyond the confines of campsites, that careful study of Dr. Meinecke's work is recommended.

One of the difficult park problems is the blending of a masonry barrier or retaining wall to a rock outcrop which it surmounts or abuts. The results in general seem to indicate failure to sense that skillful blending of the man-made to the natural was of the essence of the problem, or else that skill was lacking. When the transition is so handled that the precise limits of Nature's handiwork and man's blur to the eye's satisfaction, the accomplishment is praiseworthy.

Of particular import is the wall or fence that adjoins the entranceway. Unless it is to be completely planted out, something of the flavor of the entrance structures should be given it. The stone wall so typical of New England, New York, and other localities, and the snake fence once so widely distributed through the Middle West have the advantage of long familiarity and deep significance to us. Because these bring subconsciously to mind the very values that parks seek to recapture—open spaces, unspoiled Nature, release from cramped and artificial existence—they might well serve as a far more useful instrument than they have to date in our hands.

Unquestionably there are sometimes required in natural areas barriers that must forego protective coloration to warn forcefully of danger ahead, particularly to the motorist. Barriers and obstructions, purposed to prevent traffic accidents, are not to be laughed off. They are an acknowledged, if unwelcome, necessity even in parks, and our public highways provide many precedents more or less effectual in purpose and construction. Probably reflector studs judiciously placed crowd a maximum of warning into a small space, and so interfere least with natural values. To create barriers that shout a warning is no trick at all, but to determine at exactly what locations along park roads barriers having this function are requisite and tolerable needs thoughtful judgment. To provide within a given park area neither one too many nor one too few such barriers is both the problem and the solution. It should be studied in the light of the accepted tenet that park roads exist for leisurely automobile travel only, and with an understanding that traffic speed and barrier need relate to each other. Resultantly we should find in parks fewer blatant barriers than the public highways require, and a prevalence of unobtrusive treatments.

• Plate I B—1 — Plate I B#151;6