building the american landscape - Univerza v Novi Gorici

and pastoral life. The “middle landscape” theorized by Leo Marx seems to permeate
this particular project by Wright.
Olmsted reacted differently to the grid, by taking a more diversified, radical
approach. Contrary to Wright, Olmsted acknowledged that the town and its
functions had a precise meaning, but he did try, however, to free his projects of
urban parks from the logic of the grid and reconnect with the picturesque planning
of the English garden, which Andrew Jackson Downing’s theories had popularised in
America. Moreover, Olmsted’s work began as a need for giving structure to the
overall layout of the town. His projects offered a realistic proposal of improvement
and, as Francesco Dal Co has correctly said “Olmsted's landscape did not aim at
producing isolated models, separate and alternative to the town. The landscape
was by now transformed in a precise town planning instrument; the parks were the
product of a philosophy that aimed at reforming the life conditions through refined
planning techniques” 94 . Bruno Zevi further explains the relationship between
Olmsted and the traditional town, by identifying an alternative proposal to the rigid
checkerboard plan in his idea of a park:
The of the United States were not satisfied
with protecting the countryside and with rescuing some green areas
from the building industry. They wished a development that brought
94 DAL CO, Francesco, “Dai Parchi alla regione. L’ ideologia progressista e la riforma della città
americana” [From the Parks to the region. Progressive ideology and reform of the American city]
published in CIUCCI Giorgio, DAL CO Francesco, MANIERI ELIA Mario, TAFURI Manfredo, La città
americana dalla guerra civile al New Deal, [The American city from the Civil War to the New Deal]
Laterza, Bari, 1973, p. 181 [translation by the editor from Italian]; This book requires a note of
clarification. It is an important Italian contribution as regards the development of American towns
between the nineteenth and twentieth century, however, it must be said that the overall significance
of the research appears dated nowadays, and affected by some of the typical categorisations of
culture in the 70s.. The continual references to Marxist theories and the explicit condemnation of
laissez‐faire often make the treatment of social and economic matters anachronistic and make the
authors appear inexplicably interested in a topic which they then seem at times to despise. The
book was later translated into English and printed in the United States. However, following an ironic,
disparaging review which appeared in April 1980 in the magazine Skyline, the official mouthpiece,
together with Opposition, of the IAUS [Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies] directed by
Peter Eisenman, risked undermining the relationship between the IUAV in Venice, represented to a
certain extent by the authors, and the New York architects mentioned in the magazine. Evidence of
this unfortunate situation can be found in the correspondence filed at the Centre Canadien
d’Architecture in Montreal: CCA ‐ Peter Eisenman fonds, serie BOX‐51‐B (AP143.S5.D17‐
DR2001:0038). [My thanks go to Francesco Coppolecchia, architectural researcher, for the time and
assistance he dedicated to providing the information needed to help me reconstruct this episode
with all the aforementioned details.]
55