The Rustic Landscape of
Rim Village, 1927-1941
Crater Lake National Park
1990

Cathy A. Gilbert
Historical Landscape Architect
Gretchen A. Luxenberg
Architectural Historian

National Park Service
Cultural Resources Division
Pacific Northwest Region

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to thank the Superintendent and staff at Crater Lake National Park, who provided office space, research materials, technical expertise, and enthusiasm in the development of this report. In addition, the professional staffs in the Pacific Northwest Regional Office and the Denver Service Center provided technical assistance and coordination in the development of the scope of work and review sessions throughout the project. Thanks also to Richard Winters, Associate Regional Director, Recreation Resources and Professional Services, Pacific Northwest Region, for his insight and guidance on several key portions of the report. A special thanks to the staff at the National Archives Administrative Center in San Bruno, California, for their persistence over several months tracking down the historical records that were the basis of this study, and to Marsha Tolon, for graphic assistance in the production of the document.

INTRODUCTION

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

On May 22, 1902, Crater Lake became the nation's sixth national park. It was set aside as a "public park" and "pleasure ground" to ensure the preservation of a unique resource for the benefit and enjoyment of the American people. Charged with oversight of the new park, the Department of the Interior set out to develop basic visitor services and access to Crater Lake. In spite of the park's isolated location in southern Oregon and limited operating funds, significant progress and site improvements were underway almost immediately.

Roads were one of the earliest concerns addressed. By 1905, the Department of the Interior had constructed a "steep and tortuous" road following a ridgeline west of Garfield Peak, that led up to the south side of the crater's edge. This early access road proved essential in the next development effort along the rim of Crater Lake -- the building of a hotel.

Addressing the need for overnight lodging, the park concessioner undertook construction of Crater Lake Lodge in 1909. Following examples set in other national parks, the concessioner selected a location as close as possible to the main attraction in the park, and sited the hotel near the edge of the caldera wall, overlooking Crater Lake. The lodge opened for business in 1915. In conjunction with the building of the lodge, "Crater Camp," complete with tent cabins, opened to the public to provide accommodations for the park's growing numbers of auto-touring visitors.

Despite these improvements, visitor services at the rim remained nominal. Like other early parks, Crater Lake suffered from a lack of funds, personnel and a long-term direction for development. The establishment of the National Park Service in 1916 provided some impetus for change, and appropriations were put in place for various projects in the park. The entry of the United States into World War I, however, slowed progress and while park staff did increase at Crater Lake, road improvements and other construction projects were undertaken only in a limited way.

Access into the park and to the rim was improved by the Army Corps of Engineers, and several hiking trails were built radiating out from the lodge, enabling park visitors to enjoy views on The Watchman and Garfield Peak, or from below, along the water's edge. Slowly over the years services improved and by 1924 visitors to Crater Lake National Park had a number of amenities available to them. The "village" area had a large hotel and campground, a photographic studio, and a community house for special programs. Comfort stations were built in the campground, which had been relocated to the lovely sub-alpine glen south of the hotel. Nineteen twenty-seven marked a turning point for the development at Crater Lake, particularly at Rim Village. A general plan for rim area development was approved and the park received its largest appropriation ever. This program was overseen by the NPS' Chief of the Landscape Engineering Division, Thomas C. Vint, who created a Western Field Office in San Francisco. Vint brought together a number of disciplines for an era of unprecedented development in the parks. He became a controlling figure in the implementation of planning and the use of master plans for all of the parks, plans that were intended to guide each park's construction and maintenance work over several years. The next fourteen years were critical ones for the implementation of Crater Lake's master plan. More importantly, the execution of the plan and its concepts reflected the direction of the Park Service's design ethics and style of the era, a style that has since come to be known as NPS Rustic.

Implementation of the comprehensive design plan for Rim Village was completed in two phases. The first phase, between 1927-1932, saw the establishment of roads and parking areas, new buildings, strolling paths, and plantings, all completed by NPS and contract labor. The second phase of implementation, between 1933-1941, was accomplished by the manpower made available by the New Deal. Two CCC camps were established at Crater Lake, bringing more than four hundred men into the park to undertake a variety of construction projects, landscape work, and general maintenance projects. New trails were built, roads were improved, additional plantings were established, and buildings were erected by these young men. The rim planting program continued, with special attention to planting around buildings, along the promenade, and on the caldera itself. Probably the CCC's most significant contribution was the work they completed at the Rim Campground. For the first time this important and heavily-used area of the village received considerable attention. Supplemental plantings were installed for design and functional purposes: an internal circulation system was formalized for foot and auto traffic; and individual camp sites with Rustic style picnic tables, benches, and fireplaces were built.

World War II brought an end to this intensive period of development at Crater Lake. Nearly all of the landscape design at Rim Village had been implemented by this time, and maintenance had become the primary concern as the park lost its CCC forces and much of its park staff.

In the years after 1941, the designed landscape of Rim Village was virtually neglected. During the war years little thought or care was given to the maintenance of the plant material that had painstakingly been added to the site. Park staff turned their attention to other areas and concerns in the park.

In 1955, after many years of neglect throughout the National Park system, the NPS implemented the system-wide Mission '66 program. With the program's thrust of economically standardizing improvements in the national parks, Crater Lake's Rim Village once again became the focus of attention. In many ways, however, this attention resulted in the beginning of the dismantling of the designed landscape at Rim Village. A variety of features and elements comprising the significant design period (1927-1941) were altered or removed entirely; rustic motifs were replaced or covered over in the effort to "modernize" the park facilities; pedestrian walkways and rock walls were realigned and rebuilt. Later, camping was removed entirely from the rim and the former campground was converted into a day-use area for picnickers. Rustic tables and fireplaces were replaced with more contemporary models.

The landscape at Rim Village installed under the 1930s Master Plan has undergone a number of alterations over the decades. These changes, in addition to the impacts from intense visitor use, and a general lack of maintenance over several years has left much of the designed landscape ill-defined, and many structures at Rim Village in poor condition. In spite of the changes and impacts however, much remains of the designed historic landscape at the rim. Overall patterns, as well as many small-scale features are extant from the critical years of implementation -- 1927-1941.

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

Beginning in the 1970s, the NPS undertook a series of public meetings, technical studies, and planning efforts directed toward development of a comprehensive management plan for the redevelopment of Rim Village. Following several years of debate over the future of Rim Village and Crater Lake Lodge, the Mazama Campground/Rim Village Corridor Development Concept Plan/Amendment to the General Management Plan was completed in 1988. Key concepts of that document include the removal of several existing structures, the rehabilitation of the Crater Lake Lodge, the construction of a new year-round lodge and interpretive center, the creation of new circulation systems (including the removal of all vehicular traffic from the rim), the relocation of existing utilities to reduce the impacts of Rim Village on the lake environment, and a general restoration of the 1930s "character" of the site.

Restoration, where possible, of the pedestrian-oriented ambiance of the historic landscape must be predicated on a knowledge of the original plan and detailed information about important patterns and features that have survived from the significant period of development. With that data in hand, appropriate recommendations and decisions can be made as to what features should be stabilized, preserved, or reestablished, and how new site elements can be successfully integrated within the context of the historic design.

The primary purpose of the historic landscape study is to investigate the historic record for Rim Village and to identify and evaluate significant landscape components. Based on that evaluation, a series of recommendations have been developed to provide a design vocabulary for new design work at the Rim. The identification of significant historic landscape qualities and resources does not preclude new development at the site, but should serve as a material palette, providing an envelope of appropriate forms and compatible style for the landscape of Rim Village.

METHODOLOGY AND SCOPE

The historic landscape study for Rim Village is divided into three main parts: research; analysis and evaluation; and recommendations. A variety of materials were investigated in the research phase of the project. All NPS planning documents, administrative materials, and historical documents on file in the Pacific Northwest Regional Office were reviewed. The park's extensive historical files and archives -- including superintendents' annual reports and the historic photograph collection -- were thoroughly studied for relevant information. Park historian Stephen R. Mark provided supplemental and special research materials throughout the course of the project. In addition to park and regional office files, historical research was conducted at the National Archives and Records Administrative Centers in Seattle, Washington and San Bruno, California, where among other items, the Landscape Architects' narrative reports for Crater Lake National Park were located, complete with original black and white photographs. This historic record was particularly valuable to the study. The landscape architects and engineers working in the field at Crater Lake National Park kept copious notes and records throughout the 1930's, documenting not only what they did from month to month, but why and how they did it. In this regard, the historic record is more than a chronological record, it is a record of ideas and technologies for adapting the NPS Rustic ethic to the landscape of Rim Village. In addition to this research, two weeks were spent in the park conducting field surveys and a general reconnaissance of the existing landscape. The findings from the research portion of the study can be found in the "Landscape History," which is divided into two chapters. The first chapter is an overview of the general principles that define the Rustic ethic, and the design context for the NPS Rustic as a style of design in the parks. The second chapter discusses the material forms of the Rustic style as designed and implemented at Rim Village.

The second part of the report -- analysis and evaluation -- is based on the landscape history, and provides the criteria for development of specific recommendations for rehabilitation. Based on historical research and field analysis, the project team identified a variety of individual features that collectively comprised the essential philosophies, themes, materials, and character of the historic landscape. These individual features form the typology and were grouped into five components: Circulation; Vegetation; Structures; Small-Scale Features; and Construction Technologies. Each component forms an individual "chapter" within the Typology section of the report. National Register criteria was used to determine which components were significant and contributing elements of the designed historic landscape.

Based on the analysis and evaluation, recommendations were developed for stabilization, preservation, and reestablishment of significant historic patterns and features in the landscape. While these recommendations targeted preservation as the preferred action, they also addressed new design for Rim Village in the context of preliminary program elements for redevelopment of the site. It is important to note that the recommendations are not intended to serve as, or replace, site plans for specific areas or features of Rim Village, nor do they include construction or maintenance specifications. Many of these issues are being addressed in other documents and in future studies associated with the more detailed design work planned for the rim.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

CONTEXT AND SITE BOUNDARIES

Crater Lake National Park is located in the Cascade Mountains of southern Oregon. The park includes more than 183,000 acres of mountains, volcanic peaks, unique and unusual landforms, and a diversity of plant and animal communities surrounding Crater Lake. As the deepest lake in the United States, Crater Lake is the primary natural resource of the park. The lake is 6 miles long, 4-1/2 miles wide and 6176 feet above sea level at the surface. Due to its location in the Cascades, Crater Lake is subject to high volumes of snow and for much of the year, the land surrounding the edge of the lake, including Rim Village, is blanketed with snow.

Rim Village, the focus of this study, is located on the southwest side of the lake, and is one of the primary parking areas but very structured along the rim, where a series of narrow walkways route visitors to the main promenade. The promenade varies between 6 and 8 feet in width and follows the edge of the caldera from a point several hundred feet west of the cafeteria to the head of the Garfield Peak Trail, east of the lodge. Informal paths are located throughout the former campground. Social trails between Rim Village Road and the promenade have had a very negative impact on the vegetation throughout the area.

There are six primary buildings at Rim Village including the Crater Lake Lodge (1909-1922) at the east end of the site, the Kiser Studio (1921), the Sinnott Memorial (1931), the Cafeteria (1928, 1956, 1970s), the Community House (1924), and the Plaza Comfort Station (1938). These buildings remain (with varying degrees of integrity) along with several secondary buildings from the historic period. Other structures, including more than 1450 feet of stone walls and observation bays, also remain from the historic design, although portions and segments of these features are in poor condition or have been altered over the years. The Community House functioned as a gathering place for NPS interpreters and visitors until 1989. The lodge functioned as a hotel until the summer of 1989 when it was closed for structural repairs. The Sinnott Memorial, Cafeteria, and Plaza Comfort Station continue to function as they did historically, providing interpretive and general services to park visitors.

With the notable exception of the large hemlock forest south of Rim Village Road, virtually all of the vegetation at Rim Village was planted between 1930 and 1941. All plant materials at the site are indigenous to the park. Due to the extreme environmental conditions at the rim (an average of only two to three snow-free months a year), and intense trampling by visitors over many years, plant materials between Rim Village Road and the promenade are generally in very poor condition, or in some cases, they have been destroyed altogether. In other areas, such as around the lodge, foundation plantings are remarkably intact, reflecting the original design.

Functionally, Rim Village remains the focal point for visitor services in the park. Food service, hiking trails, interpretive programs, strolling on the promenade, and enjoying the lake views provide visitors with both passive and active recreational opportunities. No other site in the park provides this diverse use in one concentrated place.

LANDSCAPE HISTORY

DESIGN CONTEXT

In any area in which the preservation of the beauty of Nature is a primary purpose, every modification of the natural landscape, whether it be by construction of a road or erection of a shelter, is an intrusion. A basic objective of those who are entrusted with development of such areas for the human uses for which they are established, is . . . to hold these intrusions to a minimum and so to design them that, besides being attractive to look upon, they appear to belong to and be a part of their settings.

Arno B. Cammerer, Director
National Park Service, 1935 [1]

INTRODUCTION

The design philosophy espousing a close relationship between man-made structures and the natural environment can be traced to the mid-19th century, when American landscape architects were beginning to influence environmental planning and architectural design and practices. During the decades that followed, these theories and ideas were applied and further refined by the advocates of what became a recognized style of design, one well-suited for national parks. This style was known as the Rustic, and it served as the framework for all design work at Rim Village.

The landscape of Rim Village is the result of two independent factors that were closely interwoven by NPS designers to create an image for the village. The two factors were function and utility, and aesthetics and design. The Park Service recognized that Rim Village needed specific services to accommodate the growing numbers of visitors to the park. Lodging, meals, camping and travel supplies, and general services were among the park visitors' needs. Planners also knew that a site's natural and aesthetic qualities were of equal importance to how it functioned. The Rustic style of design, then, became the "envelope" within which the functional needs of the village were addressed in a manner that was sensitive and appropriate to the natural surroundings.

FUNCTION AND UTILITY

Although the Department of the Interior had jurisdiction over development in the parks, it was the concessioners and railroad companies who first constructed buildings and other facilities in these areas. Some structures were good examples of the evolving Rustic style of design, others were not. Beginning in 1911, a series of National Park Conferences addressing development and design for the national parks were held in Yellowstone and Yosemite National Parks, and in Berkeley, California.[2] A number of professionals in the fields of architecture, landscape architecture, and engineering, as well as Park Service officials, attended these forums to express their goals, desires, and ideas for appropriate ways in which to develop and design for these special areas.[3] It was at one of these forums that Mark Daniels, a landscape engineer serving as the Department of the Interior's General Superintendent of Parks, presented his "campaign plan" for improving the parks.[4] A key component of Daniels' plan was to concentrate visitor services in one place -- a village. In his concept the village would be designed primarily for utility and functional needs of the visitor. Accommodations for every type of individual would be provided, from the visitor who wanted to stay in a hotel and take meals at a lodge, to the visitor who preferred cooking his own meals and sleeping in a tent. In Daniels' plan, individual buildings would be carefully sited and arranged throughout the village, and architectural styles would be thoughtfully considered in order to enhance -- in Daniels' words -- the "picturesqueness" of the site. Since the number of people traveling to the parks was increasing rapidly, Daniels felt the establishment of these villages, complete with their infrastructure of lights, water, utilities, supply stores, and lodging facilities, was inevitable for all the parks including Crater Lake. By 1915, a preliminary plan was in place for a village at Crater Lake, to be sited along the south side of the rim overlooking the lake.[5]

DESIGN AND THE NATURALISTIC STYLE

Early plans for the national parks focused on responding to specific functional needs, such as good roads and accommodations, rather than overall design or formal planning. An "official" design ethic for the parks came in 1918, two years after the National Park Service was established. The Secretary of the Interior wrote to the Director of the NPS, setting down policies and guidelines for the new bureau.

The Secretary's letter covered a number of issues. The influence of design professionals was clearly evident with regard to buildings and their place in the landscape. Secretary Franklin K Lane wrote:

In the construction of roads, trails, buildings, and other improvements, particular attention must be devoted always to the harmonizing of these improvements with the landscape. This is a most important item in our programs of development and requires the employment of trained engineers who either possess a knowledge of landscape architecture or have a proper appreciation of the esthetic value of park lands. All improvements will be carried out in accordance with a preconceived plan developed in special reference to the preservation of the landscape.[6]

In addition, Lane stated that any improvement activities would be undertaken by its "Section of Landscape Engineering," and that each improvement would blend harmoniously into a carefully considered scheme

. . . in order to secure a maximum of beauty and convenience with a minimum of interference with natural conditions. . . . It is an invariable rule that no structure of importance, whether for the Service or the public operators, can be erected until the approval of the Landscape Engineer has been secured, both as to location and design.[7]

These words represent the underlying basis of the distinct style of design that came to be known as NPS Rustic. Over the years Lane's statement became a charter for the NPS' design program, and for the next twenty years this philosophy was faithfully followed in the nation's parks, including Crater Lake.

In America, antecedents of the Rustic style can be traced to the writings of 19th century Landscape Architect Andrew Jackson Downing. Influenced by British landscape traditions and writing in the mid-1800s, Downing espoused rural ideals for landscape gardening and design. By the turn of the century, the fancy gardens of the Victorian era had given way to the simple, economic, "naturalistic" and "informal" gardens championed earlier by Downing. Journals and landscape design books of the day popularized the style that drew its inspiration directly from nature. In their writings, landscape architects and horticulturists, particularly Frederick Law Olmsted, Henry H. Hubbard, and Frank Waugh, set down principles for designing in the naturalistic style. These principles, in turn, set the framework for the design values and philosophy of the Rustic style.

At its best, the Rustic style achieved sympathy with the natural surroundings and with the past. The style became the means in which functional architecture was brought into natural environments in a visually pleasing and nonintrusive manner. Characteristics such as the use of natural materials used in proper scale, the avoidance of rigid, straight lines, and the visual character of a structure that appeared rugged, handcrafted, and built by pioneer craftsmen with limited hand tools, were the essence of the Rustic style. Structures, however, were always intended to be subordinate to their surroundings. The features to be preserved, emphasized, and appreciated in the parks were the site's natural features and not the man-made ones. In the Rustic philosophy, the natural features were the overriding factors in determining the design vocabulary for both individual buildings and entire developments in the national parks. [8]

Over several years of implementing the rustic idiom in the parks, the NPS continually strove to perfect the techniques required to achieve visually appealing and well-proportioned rustic structures. Awkward examples were followed by ever-improving and more eloquent examples. The relationship between landscape architecture and architecture continued to strengthen, and the landscape itself became an integral part of every design.[9]

In 1927 the NPS' Landscape Division was transferred to San Francisco, where a Western Field Office was created, combining landscape design work with the NPS' Civil Engineering Division and the Bureau of Public Roads. This joint office brought together a number of professional disciplines for an era of unparalleled development in the parks. Concurrently, park appropriations significantly increased, leading to an increase in park staff and general development activities. It was during this time that comprehensive planning efforts were formalized, with master plans prepared for each national park. Landscape architect Thomas C. Vint headed up the San Francisco office, becoming the dominant and controlling figure in the implementation of planning in the parks -- planning that was manifested in the Rustic style.

As a culmination of its efforts to introduce and implement design in the national parks that followed the principles of the Rustic style, the NPS printed a book that synthesized information about the style. The NPS commissioned Albert H. Good to create a manual of appropriate park designs. Published in 1935, Park Structures and Facilities was directed at government agencies and professionals charged with designing buildings and structures in natural or recreational areas. It quickly became the foundation for state and national park design. The book included a treatise on appropriate design for these areas. Various features, from buildings to drinking fountains, were described in a text that was heavily illustrated with photographs, plans, and elevations. The NPS was confident that by pulling together a collection of the "best" examples of the Rustic style in one place, an understanding of the style would be enhanced and stimulate further developments and improvements in design. The bureau was correct in its assumption: the book sold out almost immediately and was reprinted as a three-volume set three years later under the title Park and Recreation Structures. It had become an "indispensable architectural pattern book."[10]

Park and Recreation Structures set down several fundamental principles for designing in the Rustic style. Both structures and landscape were addressed. The visual success of the finished structure was directly related to how various native materials were combined, the scale and massing of the structure, its siting on the landscape, the appropriate use of color, and the appearance of craftsmanship in construction. Essentially, park structures that looked as though they had "sprung from the soil" were "of the elect."[11] In addition to guidelines for buildings and structures, Park and Recreation Structures made recommendations for minimizing the visual impact of these features through the use of plant materials. While the goal was to site buildings in a natural setting, this was not always possible. In order to "gracefully obliterate the otherwise unhappy line of demarcation between buildings and ground," it was advised that vegetation be introduced along the structural foundations, to soften the edge between earth and structure. Another recommendation suggested the use of rocks around building foundations, "artfully contrived," to give the impression of natural rock outcroppings occurring next to the building. It is of interest to note that Good, while espousing the use of natural and native materials, also advocated "deception" when necessary in order to attain the desired rustic look. Changing technologies in building methods permitted stone bridges, drinking fountains, and other structures or features to be built using modern materials like concrete. In order to achieve the natural appearance desired, these features -- with their concrete infrastructure -- were sided with a masonry veneer for that "rustic" look.[12]

This publication provided fundamental guidance for those charged with design in the nation's parks. The diverse ideas and principles that had been championed and practiced by the NPS and design professionals over many decades finally came together formally in this sourcebook. Park and Recreation Structures communicated to a broad audience the design context that national parks were following in their structural improvements and developments across the country.

RUSTIC DESIGN AT RIM VILLAGE

INTRODUCTION

Because it was one of the early parks in the system, Crater Lake National Park was a laboratory for NPS planners and designers working in the Rustic style. It was also an older park, with many needs to address. With monies in place for park development, and a professional team in the Western Field Office transforming ideas and concepts into master plans for the parks, the time was right for design implementation. At Crater Lake, the period of intensive development was 1927 to 1941, and one area of focus was Rim Village.

The key players developing the design concepts for Rim Village were assembled in San Francisco, and led by Thomas Vint. Along with Vint, landscape architect Merel S. Sager had the greatest influence in the design program for Crater Lake's Rim Village. Crater Lake was one of several Pacific Coast parks that benefited from Sager's expertise. It was Vint, however, the "veteran," who was responsible for teaching Sager and the other young professionals about the principles of non-intrusive (Rustic) design.

Vint was charged with the job of implementing the NPS' Rustic architecture program in the parks. He did this through the use of general development plans and later, beginning in 1931, by instituting a Master Plan Program.[13] In this program, each park in the system would have a plan establishing design criteria to guide development. These plans would govern all construction and maintenance work in the parks and in Vint's eyes be "progressive" and revised regularly to reflect new issues, annual progress, or new information. The plans themselves were comprised of two components: written statements detailing policy and objective statements about the park's intended use; and a series of site plan drawings. The drawings served both as an inventory of existing conditions, and as design documents showing proposed facilities. In order to prepare these plans, Vint assigned each member of his team of professionals to specific parks. Summers were spent in those areas conducting topographic surveys, photography, and other field work critical for site design.

At Crater Lake, the construction season was extremely short, due to the area's harsh weather conditions. Substantial amounts of snow fell annually at the park, blanketing the place for almost nine months a year. These conditions made planning work schedules difficult, as the actual work season varied from one year to the next. In a typical year the workforces began their operations in June and were forced to stop in October. Occasionally, crews were able to begin as early as April. No matter when the work season started, the park's landscape architects were prepared to begin, working on unfinished projects from the previous year that required completion prior to undertaking new tasks. As the season drew to a close and over the course of the winter, the park's landscape architects assessed what was completed during the previous season, and what was needed next season, and designed their proposed work schedules accordingly.

Extensive and detailed monthly narrative reports were prepared by the assistant or resident landscape architects and forwarded to the chief and/or regional landscape architect through the park's superintendent. Returning to San Francisco in the fall, the architects and landscape architects would use the winter months to synthesize their field observations and notes, and draft the information into cohesive master plans for each park. The master plans were primarily conceptual: what was delineated on a master plan drawing during any given year was not necessarily found on the ground for the same year. Often, it took years before design ideas were actualized on the site. In addition, many design decisions were made "in the field." For example, if a good idea occurred to one of the designers or planners working at the site, that idea was often implemented immediately and the master plan drawings and narrative text later adjusted to reflect the new design element or feature.[14]

When Vint turned his attention to Crater Lake in 1927 to begin a fall-scale planning program for the park, the "village," espoused earlier by planners as a means of accommodating park visitors, was already in place on the south shore of Crater Lake.[15] At the east end of the site was the hotel, the Crater Lake Lodge, and a stone comfort station built in 1921 for park campers. To the west a short walk, was the rustic Kiser Studio (built in 1921) where visitors obtained their souvenir photographs of the park. Across the way, was the Community House, built in 1924 by the NPS. Such a building had been suggested in 1923, "to encourage visitors to mingle together after sundown."[16] The Community House provided space for visitors to dance, hear lectures, and participate in other forms of entertainment. A wooded area behind the Community House was formally designated as a campground by the NPS.

Despite this development, the overall appearance of Rim Village was bleak and had been for many years. Park visitors drove their cars in a random fashion all over the area and up to the edge of the steep caldera wall. People walked wherever they desired, including to a precipitous outcrop known as Victor Rock, where they could take in a breathtaking vista of the lake. Campers arbitrarily pitched their tents after driving around the campground looking for suitable sites. With all of the indiscriminate activity, the landscape of Rim Village suffered. Trees were used as bumpers for automobiles; vegetation was practically non-existent from trampling by visitors and/or their cars; and the nature of the site's soil combined with the prevailing winds, often created an unbearably dusty and dirty environment. NPS designers went so far as to describe the area as a "pumice desert" and "an unattractive sand waste."[17]

The intent of Vint's plan was to improve the appearance of the landscape, eliminate safety hazards with respect to cars, reduce dust, and simplify traffic and parking problems by spreading people out across the site. The plan focused on three components: buildings; landscape; and circulation. With regard to buildings, the park concessioner (who had built two of the three existing buildings) had plans for additional structures, including a cafeteria and store, and twenty-two rental cabins, at the far west end of Rim Village. The circulation component of the plan proposed a pedestrian trail to be laid along the edge of the rim for the full length of the village, and trails to be built leading down to the lakeshore and up to Garfield Peak from the Rim Village. Vint felt that this rim walk would be one of the most important units of the rim area development, and its center of attraction would be the lookout designed for Victor Rock, complete with a rustic stairway and ramps. The landscape component of the plan focused on reclaiming the "pumice desert" by restoring the area's natural grasses and wildflowers. It was hoped that this planting program would bring back the site's original beauty and once again be in harmony with its natural surroundings. Other structures and features, including paved parking areas north of the cafeteria, south of the lodge, and a road with parking revetments linking the two main lots, were also incorporated into the design proposal for Rim Village. In 1928 a new road to Rim Village was completed altering the visitor's entry sequence to the west end of the site. However, Vint saw this as an improvement, for it would help distribute traffic at the rim. Vint noted that this new road approach was "one of the most powerful factors, having an influence on the general layout" programmed for the village.[18]

In general, the design intent of the first general development plan was to create an aesthetic and functional environment for visitors through non-intrusive design. The overall development would appear natural, as though the vegetation added to enhance the site had always been there, and the buildings and curving walks belonged in the landscape. Orderliness would prevail. Of utmost importance was to refrain from overdevelopment, but develop all services intensively in one area so the rest of the park could remain intact and "virgin." Vint's long-term vision for the village included the development of the open desert area west of the Community House into a plaza where all services and facilities would be located. He wanted to relocate the Kiser Studio to this area, a site away from the rim and thus more visually appropriate. Vint also hoped that a new Community House could be erected in this plaza, designed in a more sensitive manner than the existing structure.[19]

IMPLEMENTATION

Although it is not known whether individual landscape areas were specifically targeted in the preliminary designs for the site, the landscape at Rim Village was organized into distinct landscape zones: the linear edge following the caldera wall; the area surrounding the lodge; the campground area; and the open expanse in front of the cafeteria building. In general, work progressed from one zone to the next. As construction of walkways and plantings were completed along the caldera wall, for example, work shifted to the next zone of concern, the lodge. Upon completion of circulation improvements and planting around the hotel, work efforts then turned to the campground. The fourth zone of concern, the west plaza where the cafeteria and store were located, was the last to be addressed, principally because Vint's plans called for a major overhaul of this area and the construction of new buildings.

Several primary landscape elements were addressed in the design and site development of Rim Village. First and foremost, in order to achieve a "naturalistic appearance," a hallmark of the Rustic style, NPS designers respected the natural topography of the area and worked to fit their designs to the natural features and lay of the land. Vegetation at the site, although minimal due to years of abuse, was retained and protected to the degree possible for incorporation into the new design. The NPS enhanced the site's extant landscape fabric by bringing in a variety of native plant materials. While these plants were found elsewhere in the park, they were not necessarily indigenous to Rim Village. In looking at other areas of the park, Merel Sager found a landscape that matched his vision for the barren site at Rim Village in Sun Notch, a verdant swale of meadow grasses and wildflowers situated east of Garfield Peak. Transposing this verdant appearance to Rim Village would satisfy Sager's plan in two ways: first, the area would be "improved" by the addition of new plants and the diminishing of the "dust evil" that was prevalent at the site; second, and perhaps more importantly, the landscape at the rim would be "restored" to its original, lush appearance. The effort to bring back to the rim the native plants once thought to blanket the site was called "naturalization" by Sager. Naturalization was undertaken in all four zones at the rim; around buildings, structures, walks, and even on the slopes of the caldera, in order to enhance the appearance of the area while simultaneously reducing the visual impact of the man-made improvements. Ultimately, naturalization was the means by which the buildings, roads, sidewalks, and curbs, which theoretically did not belong in a natural environment, were visually tied together into a cohesive design. Accomplished successfully, it made all of the improvements appear as though they belonged to the site, as though they "grew" out of the land.[20]

The critical years of design implementation at Rim Village can be divided into two periods of construction. The first period, between 1927 and 1932, was characterized by the Park Service completing tasks recommended by Vint and his colleagues. Park staff, the concessioner, and private contractors together built structures, made parking and circulation improvements to the site, and initiated the "naturalization" program at the rim. The second period, from 1933 until the onset of the second World War, was characterized by the presence of the Civilian Conservation Corps. With this new source of manpower, the continuation and maintenance of the "naturalization" program occurred and a concerted effort to rehabilitate the Rim Campground into a pleasant environment for park visitors began.

Phase I: 1927-1932

Implementation of the general development plan for Rim Village began in 1927. For the first five years work was completed by NPS forces and private contractors. Both Ernest A. Davidson and John B. Wosky, assistant landscape architects to Vint, guided the early improvements. By the fall of 1930, landscape architect Merel Sager was assigned to Crater Lake and became the lead in directing the design work there. The design as implemented at Rim Village is considered by many to be Sager's personal vision and expression of the Rustic.

The park received its largest appropriation to date in 1927. A variety of projects were undertaken that year. At Rim Village, the most notable addition was the completion of a new trail down to the lake. This trail replaced an older, steeper trail that originated near the lodge. The new trail began at the west end of the village. In 1928, there was a considerable increase in development activity at the village. The construction of buildings became a priority, particularly for the park's concessioner, the Crater Lake National Park Company. In 1928 they constructed a sizable cafeteria and store building at the west end of the village, orienting it toward the lake. Following NPS landscape architects' designs, the Cafeteria was built with Rustic styling, the exterior faced in stone and the broad gable roof sheathed in wood shingles. Its unbroken roofline and rectangular shape, although punctuated by windows and a recessed central door, made for a massive, overscaled building. This same year, a cluster of housekeeping cabins were built behind (south of) the Cafeteria. Later known as the Coldwater Cabins, these twelve tourist cabins followed the layout delineated on the general plan for the rim.[21]

Victor Rock, the rock outcrop 50 feet below the caldera rim and so popular with park visitors, became the focus of attention during this first period of construction. Vint had originally proposed for the site "an observation platform with an architectural development in the way of a memorial rest." Concurrently, NPS Director Horace Albright proposed the installation of a bronze plaque at the rim to honor former Oregon State Congressman Nicholas J. Sinnott, an individual who had worked diligently on behalf of the national parks. NPS Chief Naturalist Ansel Hall made a suggestion that combined and expanded on these two ideas:

. . . the placque might be placed at the Victor Rock Observation Station -- indeed if support can be secured on this project we might very well erect a neat little granite structure which might be known as a memorial to Mr. Sinnot [sic] and at the same time fulfill the requirements of a branch museum and observation station such as has been erected at Yavapai Point in Grand Canyon National Park.[22]

In 1930 the decision was made to change the project from a "memorial rest" to a memorial museum. Landscape Architect Merel Sager assisted with the preparation of plans for a substantial structure to be built on the precipitous outcrop, using the Grand Canyon building as the model. Studies for the building were drawn up in San Francisco over the winter and by June a preliminary sketch plan was finished. Unfortunately, these plans were drawn without actual field knowledge of the site. The designers quickly learned that Victor Rock had its limitations as a building site; in order for the building to be constructed as designed, several large hemlock trees would need to be removed and very heavy cutting of other vegetation was required. After some time was spent reconfiguring the building, construction began and was well underway by fall of that year. A tribute to the Rustic style of design, the Sinnott Memorial was completed in 1931.[23]

The trail to the Sinnott Memorial -- the former Victor Rock trail -- originally followed the ridge and was extremely steep; its presence was also causing damage to the nearby tree roots. After considerable study of the site was completed and lines surveyed and staked, landscape architect Merel Sager relocated the trail along an easier grade. The new trail was a combination of steps and a ramp, beginning at a point just west of the Kiser Studio.[24] In 1931, discussions were underway for how to best light the trail for visitation at night. Low lamps set into the retaining wall to illuminate the steps and ramp were determined to be the best solution, however these "final touches" were never incorporated into the design.

Other buildings constructed during this first phase of activity included public comfort stations. In the early 1930s, two additional comfort stations were built in the campground, designed with rough logs applied to the buildings' exteriors for a rustic appearance. In 1930, a third rustic log comfort station was built to the south of the Community House. Oil-burning water heaters were installed in this new comfort station so that hot showers were available for park visitors. That same year, a combination bathhouse/comfort station was built in the west end of the Rim Campground, behind the Cafeteria. Sager felt that this Rustic style comfort station, constructed with good-sized native stones, was a successful structure aesthetically because it harmonized with the exterior of the nearby Cafeteria.[25]

In conjunction with building construction, work began almost immediately on a comprehensive circulation system at Rim Village. To help direct the great number of tourists arriving daily in Rim Village during the summer season and to protect the natural landscape, a system of roads and guardrails was designed and under construction beginning in 1928. The main road through Rim Village, referred to as a "wide oiled highway from the junction of the Rim Road to the Lodge," was begun that year. Parking strips flanked this road, which also served to link both ends of the village. A rustic log guardrail was completed on the crater side of the road, in the hope that it would prevent visitors from driving their automobiles directly to the edge of the caldera, a practice that was ongoing since the first car reached the rim in 1905. Some means of control was also needed around buildings, as visitors had a propensity to drive directly up to these facilities as well. A guardrail was placed in front of the cafeteria to control cars around the west plaza area; the same type of rail was placed in front of the Community House, and at the main entrance to the rim auto camp, to help define that area. All of the rails were stained a dark brown color to improve their appearance and give the village a unified look.[26]

Most of the log guardrails were short-lived, however. NPS landscape architects, deciding that masonry curbing gave a better appearance and was more permanent, had all of the log rails at Rim Village replaced in 1932. Masons cut stone from nearby at The Watchman slide, and, beginning at the lodge and heading west toward the Crater Wall Trail, put in a low, stone curb along the edge of the road and parking areas. The log rails were reused elsewhere in the park, primarily for guardrails along Rim Road and at entrances to the park.[27]

To provide a link for the visitor from his automobile to the edge of the caldera and a view of the lake, designers developed a system of primary and secondary pedestrian footpaths. The primary focus of the evolving circulation network for park visitors at Rim Village was the main promenade following the edge of the caldera. Stretching from west of the cafeteria and traveling past the Sinnott Memorial and the lodge as far east as the trailhead to Garfield Peak, the promenade was a predominate design feature structuring movement along the rim. The intent of the path was to provide a strolling boulevard for tourists to better enjoy the lake views. Work on the promenade began in 1928. A low, stone wall or parapet was also planned, to help define both the edge of the promenade and the edge of the caldera, thus protecting visitors from inadvertently falling down the steep walls of the crater. In 1930, a sample section of this proposed wail was constructed. Landscape architect Merel Sager selected a standard NPS design typically used for guardrails. Using the standard specification sheet as the model, and under the guidance of Sager, masons erected an 18-inch high stone wall. To obtain a more naturalistic appearance and provide interest, the design of the wall was broken at regular intervals.[28] By late September of that year, more than 600 running feet of stone parapet was completed along the rim. Problems arose now and then as Sager's watchful eye found the workers using inappropriate construction methods. At one point Sager noted: "A little difficulty was experienced getting the workmen to understand just the type of work which was wanted."[29]

Incorporated into the design of this handbuilt rock wall were a series of observation bays, subtle extensions of the parapet designed to bring the visitor closer to the lake for open views and gathering areas set off from the crowds. The wall was also designed to accommodate trails leading down to the lake and to the Sinnott Memorial. Small-scale features like rustic drinking fountains were carefully integrated into the parapet wall for the visitors' refreshment, and were designed to look like springs flowing out of natural boulders. The rock wall, gracefully following the serpentine line of the promenade, would also serve as a continuous bench for tired visitors or those simply wishing to contemplate the lovely view. For three years the parapet was under construction; it was declared finished in 1932.

One of E.A. Davidson's first suggestions was to get started on the site's crosswalk construction. He felt these walks were very important elements of the rim development, and after some debate about how wide these paths should be (Davidson thought 6-foot widths were appropriate while others favored narrower walks), stakes for 6-foot wide walks were set. During this time the park Superintendent, E.C. Solinsky, made the suggestion that a path be developed along the parking strip extending the entire length of Rim Village, between the road and the log guardrail (linking the cafeteria to the lodge). This path would provide visitors with a safe place to walk to and from their parked cars. Davidson thought this was an excellent idea and proceeded to set stakes immediately.[30] By 1932, all of the sidewalks located on the master plan between the road and promenade were in place and paved, with the exception of the walks just west of the hotel.

The rim planting program was a major component of this early period of construction in Rim Village. By July of 1929, discussions between the superintendent and the landscape architects were underway. Of utmost importance was a dependable and sufficient water source and when one could not be located the entire program was nearly postponed. Landscape architect Davidson recommended that until a solution to this problem could be found, the actual planting that would be done in 1929 would consist of a small, experimental plot of grass, approximately one-half acre in size. The site chosen for the test plot was near the lodge.[31]

Suitable soil for the successful establishment of new vegetation was critical. Initially, topsoil was found along the rim road approximately 1/2-mile from the village. This was a preferred site as it was not noticeable from the road. Other areas were investigated for additional soil as well as for shrubs and small trees. A suitable site for the latter was found near the park headquarters' junk pile, located down at Annie Springs. Munson Valley was found to have a bog, an excellent source for peat moss, and the material was removed from the valley in substantial amounts for use at the village.

Actual planting at Rim Village, begun in 1930, initially concentrated in the vicinity of the Crater Wall Trailhead. Because the overall site to be naturalized was long and narrow, Sager felt it was important to keep the views across the area open and free from obstruction:

Trees were planted in small groups occasionally to lend variety, and not in great enough numbers to cause an obstruction to the view of the Lake from the road.[32]

After proper soil was prepared, planting began. A significant number of mountain hemlocks were transplanted to the site. A small number of fir trees were planted, and large groups of deciduous shrubs were added to the evergreen groupings to give the transplanted vegetation a naturalistic appearance. A total of eight planting beds were established and planted in 1930. By 1931, Sager was impressed with the results of the planting program to date and worked to accomplish much more in the years that followed. Ten additional planting beds were established in 1932. Shade-loving plants were planted under established trees and sod was transplanted, filling the barren landscape between the parapet and the parking revetment with native plant materials. The first few years of planting proved to be somewhat experimental. Certain plant materials were found to be more suitable for the environment than others, and some did not work at all. Sager noted that the pink spirea showed the most promise, because it never failed to grow, even when transplanted in leaf. Mountain ash was another shrub that impressed the landscape architect. He used it in abundance because it was one of the largest plants growing at that elevation (a larger plant specimen gave the impression of a mature landscape) and its bright red berries and the brilliant color of its leaves in the fall were attractive bonuses. A concerted effort was made to plant sod on the lake side of the parapet wall, to control erosion, and give the steep, windswept slopes a more naturalistic appearance.[33]

Nineteen-thirty-one marked the first time that large evergreen trees were transplanted to the Rim from sites elsewhere in the park. Sizable evergreens were brought in 1930 but they did not require the use of special equipment to complete the work. The large specimens were selected, dug, root-pruned, and boxed the year prior to transplanting. A special hoist on the back of a truck was used to transplant these large evergreens. A grouping of three evergreens -- all hemlocks -- were planted on the northwest corner of the lodge in 1932, after other successes had been realized. One of the large evergreens brought in was the Stephen Mather Memorial tree, planted in the fall of 1931 after the original (and smaller) Mather tree, ceremoniously planted a year earlier, had died.[34]

By 1932 a good portion of the landscaping between the road and the edge of the caldera at Rim Village was completed. The park's landscape architect began to address the need for a maintenance program to ensure a low mortality rate for the newly planted materials. In Sager's words: "The park has made an investment in this planting which it can not afford to lose. The actual construction work is only the first part of the plan." Sager also addressed the need to look at the landscaping requirements of the area south of the road. He noted in his report on "Naturalization in the Rim Area":

Although it is not recommended that naturalization be done on the south side until the area on the north side between the road and the rim has been completed, it is well to point out here that this work will be necessary in the future. The area between the campground and the road should be reforested. This will make more camp ground area which is needed and also provide a screen for the camp ground.[35]

Landscape architects Davidson and later, Sager, grappled with a variety of issues while working at Rim Village during this first phase of development. One was the location of the park's hitching rail for horses. The new Crater Wall Trail was built wide enough to accommodate saddle animals, "enabling many thousands to enjoy the lake who were heretofore denied that pleasure by physical incapacity," but Davidson thought its siting at the west end of the village near the new trailhead was "unfortunate" and noted:

. . . these things too often become extremely hard to correct if allowed to drag along. The sight of a dozen horses diligently fighting flies, now equally divides with the Lake, the attention of every visiting tourist's "first look" as he comes over the "hump" into [view] of the water.[36]

Another issue was how to properly light the boulevard. While opinions differed the general consensus was to have subdued lighting. Superintendent Solinsky noted in 1931:

Please bear in mind that the Landscape Division is not particularly interested in having this boulevard brilliantly lighted; on the contrary, illumination comparable with moonlight will be sufficient. The object is to secure only fair general illumination, and not to distract the visitor's attention from the view of the Lake at night. Therefore the usual illuminating engineering calculations need not be used but rather the installation will be made from the aesthetic standpoint.[37]

Fifteen standards spaced at 180-foot intervals, located on only one side of the road between the lodge and the Cafeteria, was determined to be appropriate. But as was the case with the Sinnott Memorial lighting, none of these fixtures were added to the landscape of Rim Village.

By the end of the 1932 construction season, the basic elements of the master plan for Rim Village were in place. A circulation system of primary and secondary roads and paths directed vehicles and pedestrians around the site. Facilities, including additional overnight accommodations, were constructed for the use and enjoyment of park visitors. And finally, the "greening" of the barren, dusty village had begun with the introduction of new trees, shrubs, and ground cover.

Phase II: 1933-1941

Nineteen thirty-three brought many significant changes into the National Park system. Up until that time President Herbert Hoover saw to it that the national parks received their allotment requests for park operations and development. Budgets and staff for the national parks had increased substantially during his administration.[38] But the Depression changed all of this. Budgets for the parks were drastically reduced and park staff were let go during Hoover's final year in office. In 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt and a new administration came on board. A variety of innovative and comprehensive relief programs were introduced to alleviate the nation's growing unemployment crisis. These programs, instituted under the New Deal, provided work opportunities for the unemployed. In March 1933, the Emergency Conservation Work Act was passed by Congress. The ECW program created the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). Originally conceived as a "conservation army" to undertake the simplest kind of manual labor, the CCC eventually became more than tree planting and ditch-digging crews. Government bureaus benefiting from the new labor force -- one being the NPS -- saw greater potential for these work crews. While the NPS recognized the tremendous opportunity this manpower provided, there remained the concern that the quality of work was at risk if unskilled laborers were allowed to build structures. NPS architect Charles Peterson firmly stated that all design work would be undertaken and supervised by professionals, while actual implementation would be done by the enrollees. Landscape architect E.A Davidson agreed, advising against the use of the CCC for capital improvements because of the lack of skilled supervision at the time.[39] But within a few years time, CCC crews demonstrated that if properly supervised, they were capable of constructing well-built structures. During the summer of 1933, seventy CCC camps were in place in national parks and monuments across the country, and two of these were established at Crater Lake.[40]

Another relief program of the New Deal, the Public Works Administration, was created in 1933 with the passage of the National Industrial Recovery Act. The PWA awarded grants to federal agencies for the construction of roads, buildings, and other physical improvements. Because the NPS had development plans in place for the national parks, much of this grant money was directed into NPS coffers.[41] With renewed funds for development, additional staff was needed. The magnitude of the change during these years is somewhat staggering, particularly when looking at NPS personnel figures for the Branch of Plans and Design. Thomas Vint had a staff consisting of sixteen individuals in 1933; two years later his staff had increased to include one hundred-and-twenty professionals, all hired to complete the tremendous amount of design work programmed for the parks.[42] Along with a park's resident landscape architect, the Park Service hired a landscape architect for each CCC camp.[43] At Crater Lake, skilled supervisors were hired in great enough numbers to provide the oversight needed to complete construction projects according to the NPS's high standards for design. What makes this period of development at Rim Village notable is that these work crews, particularly the CCC, were able to accomplish in one season work that would have taken regular park forces several years to complete. Without these "make work" programs, the implementation and completion of Crater Lake's master plan would have been brought to an abrupt halt.[44] Furthermore, as landscape architect Francis Lange noted:

It would appear safe to say that the cost of this work would be less than that by the regular park method, and surely it would go without saying that the quality of work is better, as men trained in landscape work are in charge, resulting in carefully planned and executed work.[45]

The New Deal, then, totally changed the momentum of construction activity at Rim Village between the years 1933 and 1941. The work programs supplied the necessary manpower to complete much of Sager's proposals and act on other tasks that required attention. Sager continued to work at Crater Lake in the early 1930s, but he was assisted by others. By 1934 Armin M. Doerner was the park's Resident Landscape Architect and Emergency Conservation Work crews were supervised by NPS Landscape Architect Francis G. Lange. In Doerner's absence, Lange watched over other work in the park and also assisted with the "architectural work on the buildings."[46] In addition, from 1934 until 1939, Crater Lake had six landscape architects employed on various construction projects.[47]

At Crater Lake, CCC enrollees participated on a variety of projects, beginning with roads and trails work. During the course of a work season much of their time was spent firefighting, planting fish, and doing general clean-up tasks around the park. After NPS landscape architects became more confident that the CCC laborers could undertake more sophisticated projects, CCC projects were expanded to include small-scale construction projects. Storage and equipment sheds, ranger cabins, checking stations, comfort stations, warehouses and garages, and a messhall were just some of the facilities built by these crews at Crater Lake.[48]

The landscaping program at Rim Village remained a major activity for CCC crews. Enrollees hauled peat and topsoil up to the site for their revegetation effort. Additional plants from other areas in the park were established at the site to enhance the naturalization work that was already in place. In his report to the Chief Architect that year, Merel Sager wrote:

One of the most gratifying phases of this rim landscaping is the fact that we have accomplished the great objective aimed at three years ago, that is, of bringing back vegetation between the road and the rim all the way from the head of the trail to Crater Lake Lodge.[49]

The first year the CCC crews undertook landscaping, particular attention was paid to the area between the Kiser Studio and the lodge. The following year, 1934, the area on the north side of the lodge received attention as did the cafeteria building. The latter, with an exterior appearance that was "one of the most distracting sights that greeted the tourist as he arrived at the Rim area," was naturalized, "improving the appearance of a poorly designed and unattractive building."[50] Curbing stone was prepared and placed around the cafeteria and in front of the lodge in 1934. The beds created by the new curbing were planted with a variety of native plant materials.[51] By 1935, landscaping efforts were considered complete on the north side of Rim Village Road. Work was then directed to the south side of the road. In 1936, topsoil was brought in, and landscape architect Francis Lange focused on improving the landscape around the Community House. Eight hundred and fifty shrubs were transplanted in this area in 1936. Even though the planting program was considered to be approximately 75 percent complete, peat, topsoil, sod, trees, and shrubs continued to be hauled up to the village, with more than two thousand plants transplanted in 1938 alone.[52]

Roads, parking areas, walks, and curbing continued to be important areas of concern for landscape architects during the CCC era at Crater Lake. One new feature incorporated into the site was the construction of a triangular traffic island at the west end of the village. This was added in 1935 at the road junction where the main Rim Road and the road leading into the developed village converged. NPS landscape architects felt that this feature would not only help control traffic, it would also serve to break up a large expanse of pavement and permit planting within the bed of the triangle. Abandoned roads leading to Rim Village east of the lodge were obliterated by work crews beginning in 1937. Large rocks, logs, and plants were brought in and placed over the road remnants in attempts to hide the old routes.

The grounds around the lodge received renewed attention during this time. In 1933, CCC crews built a new parking area and entry platform on the south side of the hotel. The following year, a redesigned entrance route for cars driving to the hotel was constructed because the original design was not functioning as planned. The new design alleviated the congestion that was increasing in that vicinity. In 1938, walks and cut stone steps linking the tiers of parking together with the hotel entrance were incorporated into the design of the new lodge parking area. These features added a picturesque and "finished" quality to the landscape around the hotel. Additional paved walks and stone curbing were constructed in 1933 and 1934 at the village. Frustrated by the different workmen assigned to building the curbs, "each [one] trying to express his own ideas in masonry" thus making it hard to get a uniform type of stone curbing, the park landscape architects and inspectors from the Bureau of Public Roads agreed on a single style and credible work progressed.[53] Shortly after the stone curbing was installed, it became the target of criticism. Dr. Harold C. Bryant, Assistant Director of the NPS, visited Crater Lake during the summer of 1935 and prepared a field report for NPS Director Arno B. Cammerer. Bryant noted that while the most conspicuous improvement at the park continued to be the landscaping at the rim, he added:

A considerable change has been made in the parking area, the logs having been supplanted by rock curbing. The more I see of these parking spaces, the more they look like city parking spaces transplanted to a mountain setting. We are evidently getting away from simple rustic improvements.[54]

New walks were added around the cafeteria building in 1936 to facilitate and direct visitor circulation. Also in 1936, stone markers were placed at the corners of walkways where they met curbs, directing pedestrians onto the walkways and away from the newly planted vegetation.[55] By this time a number of the walks built earlier at the site had fallen into disrepair. Some of these paths were constructed under adverse weather conditions and the proper setting of paving materials did not occur. The addition of an underground water system at the rim and the landscaping work in general had also damaged some of the walks. CCC crews were put to work on the rehabilitation and/or repair of these features during the 1936 work season.[56]

Beginning in 1934, the Rim Campground became the focus of activity for CCC workforces. The campground was an area of concern for both NPS landscape architects as well as professional consultants working outside of the Park Service. Dr. Emilio P. Meinecke, a pathologist employed by the Bureau of Plant Industry in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, was one of the specialized professionals the NPS employed to assist them in development of this area. In 1933 Meinecke visited the park to confer with various park officials concerning "campsite preservation and general forest conservation."[57] His advice and recommendations were outlined in his "Camp Planning and Camp Reconstruction," and included everything from general site layout and planning to specifics on individual campsite features.[58] Following Dr. Meinecke's suggestions, the public campground and parking areas at Rim Village would be "improved" in such a way that cars could be driven through the campground but parking would be restricted. Meinecke provided guidance on the appropriate types of stoves and fireplaces to use in parks. In 1933 the superintendent noted in his monthly narrative report:

Fire places of a permanent nature are also being installed so that automobile driving and camp fire burning cannot occur indiscriminately and destroy the forests. It is hoped that by this regulated parking and driving through the camp ground that the sustenance for the beautiful hemlock trees may be preserved and that the growth and longevity of the forest cover will be aided.[59]

The next year work was underway, and twenty-five individual units were developed. Each unit was comprised of a stove, a fireplace, space for a tent, a table, and an area for parking one automobile. For the "permanent fireplaces," the park followed Meinecke's designs for an elaborate type of stove-fireplace unit that required an inordinate amount of time to erect. These units quickly proved to be too expensive, and after eight of the more sophisticated versions were built, fireplaces of "less elaborate design" were put in.[60]

In addition to these functional features, portions of the campground were naturalized with the addition of shrubs, plants and a fine ground cover of rush.[61] The following year, more plants were added and additional parking and fireplaces were built to accommodate the large numbers of tourists staying at the camp. By 1935, the campground had more than seventy-five camping sites. It was at this time that consideration was given to developing the south slope of the existing campground, as an "overflow" area for campers. Francis Lange noted in a 1935 report that ten fireplaces and parking stalls were erected in the area but the area would remain closed until it was a fully developed campground.[62] Throughout the development, site "furniture" was added to the Rim Campground. After "experimenting" with a particular type of log table -- one designed to be more "fitting to an area of this nature than the usual milled type of table," -- a number of table and bench combinations (picnic tables) were constructed and placed throughout the campground.[63] In 1936, additional picnic tables, twenty fireplaces, and thirty more sites were added. Over the next few years, replanting efforts continued, log tables and benches were brought in, and a general maintenance program was underway for the area. Log and stone barriers were added to the campground beginning in 1938 in the hopes that they would prevent cars from hitting trees, running over vegetation, and in general, control parking within individual campsites. New sites and additional parking areas were added as late as 1939.[64]

Only one building was constructed at Rim Village during this second period of development. In 1937, a rustic style comfort station was designed for a site at the east end of the large parking area fronting the cafeteria. This building was intended to serve both campers and day visitors. Francis Lange supervised the construction of the building which was to be built of native stone and timber "in keeping with the park type of structure."[65] He purposefully set the building back from the curb approximately 30 feet so not to give "a crowded appearance to the building in relation to the entire area."[66] CCC crews brought in oversized boulders for use as a veneer over the building's wood frame structure, placing the largest stones on the bottom and decreasing their size as the walls rose. A stone mason named John D. Bowdish completed the exterior stone work, and Lange was so impressed by the CCC enrollees' skill he remarked in a final narrative report that it represented an excellent piece of work and "the type of stone work on this building will serve as a basis for future stone construction on later Rim buildings."[67] Wood siding was used above the stones on the gable ends of the building. It blended nicely with its surroundings and Lange felt the structure was a success, both functionally and aesthetically. The comfort station and pedestrian walks around the building were completed in 1938.

The construction of signs was another aspect of CCC work at Crater Lake. Francis Lange found that logs with letters cut into the wood were both effective as signs and they produced the rustic appearance desired for these site details. Large circular slabs of pine, 4 feet in diameter were cut and letters then carved into the wood surface, to provide visitors with necessary park information or directions. In turn, the slabs were set on cut, unpeeled logs to keep them off the ground and improve their visibility. The first three such rustic signs were made for the Rim Drive, the Sinnott Memorial, and the park's Naturalist service. In 1938 an outdoor workshop was established in one of the CCC camps, and under the supervision of a foreman following approved drawings, the enrollees carved additional rustic signs for placement within the village and throughout the park.[68]

As projects in Rim Village were completed, new ones were added to the park's everpresent list of "future work to be accomplished." In 1936 Francis Lange observed the need for sufficient camping, picnicking, and trailer facilities to be developed at the village, as the existing ones were already overtaxed by the park's growing numbers of visitors.[69] Lange's monthly narrative reports repeatedly mentioned the need to remove the unsightly and poorly constructed Community House (each fall it required bracing to withstand the yearly snow loads and it did not accommodate the large crowds wishing to assemble therein) and the "less dangerous but just as unsightly" Kiser Studio. Lange proposed the construction of a new Contact Building, one that would serve the tourists' needs as well as the park's administrative needs. With a new building in place -- one properly located -- the older structures could be removed and "the entire Rim area will then give a more striking appearance as well as serve a better and more modern need."[70] Other buildings proposed for the village included additional housekeeping cabins for use by the concessioner. The existing cabins, Lange felt, were poorly arranged, disagreeable to occupy, and lacked many of the other customary accommodations that were typically found in the "better type of park operator's development[s]." The concessioner's lack of maintenance on the cabins were a source of contention for Lange throughout the 1930's. Although possible locations for this new development were discussed between the regional landscape architect (E.A. Davidson) and the park superintendent, new cabins were not erected for many years.[71]

Future landscape work proposed for Rim Village included the need for additional plantings around the large parking area in front of the lodge and around the Cafeteria; the improvement of the parking area in front of the Cafeteria; the addition of light standards in the campground and the placement of low lights along the south side of the Rim walk; additional log signs; the development of an overlook near the Rim Campground; and the moving of peat, topsoil, plants, shrubs, and sod where needed. Lange made mention several times about the need for maintenance and upkeep of the landscape work completed at the village. Watering and pruning the transplanted material was essential for the life and health of the new plants.[72]

SUMMARY

With entry of the United States into World War II, construction activity at Rim Village was reduced considerably and the intensive period of development at Crater Lake was over. Park staff and field personnel were lost to the war effort, the public works programs were disbanded, and the park itself switched to a summer only operation. A few small construction projects were completed during this time, all outside of the village proper. With so little staff in place, the superintendent and his remaining personnel turned their attention to planning for future development during the quiet years ahead.[73]

Nineteen-forty-one marks the end of an era for Crater Lake National Park, the most important era in the park's history in terms of Rustic design and the implementation of that design ethic in the park. Although changes to the historic designed landscape at Rim Village have occurred since 1941, they have not been extensive and the primary landscape features, patterns, and overall design character remains with a high degree of integrity. Rim Village is an outstanding example of a landscape that reflects the design ethic of a special period of development and of an era that espoused designing the built environment in a manner that was sympathetic and respectful of the natural landscape.

TOPOLOGY

INTRODUCTION

Documentation of the historical development and designed landscape of Rim Village is fundamental in the process of assessing the relative value of remaining landscape features and patterns. In order to determine significance, however, it is essential that the landscape be analyzed and evaluated within an appropriate historic context, using National Register criteria. There are many ways to analyze a historic landscape but in every case the objective is to first, clearly identify the individual features that comprise the historic landscape (in terms of form and function) and then, analyze those features in relation to each other, and within the context of the overall design intent.

In this study the analysis of the historic landscape took the form of a landscape TYPOLOGY. Based on historical research and field analysis, eighteen individual landscape features were identified that collectively comprised the essential philosophies, themes, materials, and character of the historic landscape. In this regard, the typology is not generic but very specific to Rim Village. All eighteen features were organized into five components: CIRCULATION; VEGETATION; STRUCTURES; SMALL-SCALE FEATURES; and CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES. These components represent individual chapters in the typology. Each chapter includes a definition and description of the feature, based on the historic record within the significant historic period, 1927-1941. Descriptions include detailed discussions of the dates for implementation, the original design, and uses associated with each feature. In some cases, additional background information may be included in the description as it relates to or reflects the general design intent and Rustic philosophy. Finally, each chapter includes an analysis and evaluation of significant features. All historic landscape features that remain today were evaluated both in terms of design (form and material) and function (use and pattern). In general, those features that were significant in the historic design and retain original qualities of design and function, were determined to have integrity.

Primary data used in the typology, unless otherwise noted, was taken from the collection of "Resident Landscape Architects' Reports to the Chief Architect, 1929-1938" (Box 1, "Crater Lake 1929-1934" (6 folders); and Box 2, "Crater Lake 1935-1938" (4 folders), in RG 79, Records of the National Park Service), located in the National Archives and Records Administrative Center, San Bruno, California. Additional background material was taken from Albert Good's Park and Recreation Structures (1938).

CIRCULATION

DEFINITION

Circulation includes four individual features: roads and parking, which reflect vehicular circulation; and walkways and trails, which represent pedestrian circulation. As a category in the typology, circulation is important because the roads and walkways at Rim Village were the first features implemented from the general development plan, and serve as the backbone and fundamental structuring elements for the landscape design as a whole.

DESCRIPTION

Roads

NPS Access Road to the Rim Early access roads from the base of the mountain to the rim were in place as early as 1905. The first road followed a ridge running generally southwesterly from the summit, terminating at the rim, east of the lodge. A second road was constructed by the Corps of Engineers in 1914, and led from the headquarters area (Government Camp) to the rim, emerging directly south of the lodge. In 1919, road engineering for Crater Lake National Park was transferred to the NPS, and construction of the NPS road from Government Camp to the rim was underway in the spring of 1926.

The new road was aligned along a gradual 3.17-mile grade up the mountain with a maximum slope of 6.5 percent, and a minimum curve radius of 100 feet. The road ended at a spot on the rim that offered "spectacular views" to the lake and caldera. As Vint was to explain, this approach to Rim Village was one of the most powerful factors having an influence on the general layout of the rim development. In 1928, the road had a graded width of 20 feet and a surfaced width of 16 feet. In 1944, the road was still considered too steep in places, and improvements were planned and undertaken for several sections.

Rim Village Road In August 1928, a road through Rim Village was graded and completed, from the junction of the main Rim Road, east to the lodge. The road was 1/2-mile long and 56 feet wide with a 20-foot driving lane for two-way traffic. Two 18-foot wide parking strips were provided on either side of this boulevard. The road was carefully sited at the base of a small slope leading up to the campground so that it would appear recessed in the landscape and subordinate to the natural setting. Plantings were established on either side of the road to enhance the sense of a continuos sweep of vegetation. First surfaced with gravel and then oiled, the road distributed traffic to the cafeteria and cabin group, to the campground and finally to the hotel. A log guardrail was placed on the crater side of the road to prevent automobiles from driving close to the rim. By 1929, crews were changing the alignment of the road, repairing knolls and filling washes near the east end of the road in conjunction with the construction of a loop road in front of the lodge. The loop road was 640 feet long, 12 feet wide, with more than 5 inches of crushed rock, uniformly spread over the surface before oiling.

In 1935, a traffic island was erected at the junction of Rim Village Road and the road to Diamond Lake. It was planted and graded to blend with the surrounding landscape. The island as a whole, was five to 10 feet smaller on each side than originally planned. This was necessary to comply with the turning requirements of the park's snow-plow machinery.

Campground Roads Prior to 1928, there were no formalized roads to or through the campground, and roads within the site were random and ill-defined. In 1928, the circulation system through the area was designed and integrated into the overall plan for the area. A single entry road to the campground was created branching south, off of the main rim road just east of the Community House. At the top of a small rise, this access road branched again to the east and the west, looping through the campground. Initially, all campground roads were either dirt or pumice. In 1934, roads throughout the campground were treated with an application of oil to reduce the dust and debris.

Parking

Cafeteria Plaza Parking In 1929, the area in front of the cafeteria was graded and a gravel surface laid for automobile parking. The surfaced area measured 200 by 400 feet. In 1931, the parking area was oiled and spaces were marked with paint, providing two double rows of parking (for 96 cars) in the middle of the plaza and additional spaces along the south edge of the lot (51 cars). Plans were made in 1938 for construction of a traffic island to better define and soften the parking area, but it was never developed.
Rim Village Road Parking Parking along the rim was added in conjunction with the construction of the Rim Village Road in 1928. An 18- foot wide parking lane was designed on both the north and south sides of the road providing parking for 240 cars on each side, or 480 cars altogether.
Lodge Parking Limited parking was available on the south side of the lodge in 1929, when the loop road was completed as part of the Rim Village Road development. There were spaces for approximately 15 cars, all of which were used by lodge guests. In 1931, plans were made to expand parking at the lodge by constructing another lot south of the loop. The landscape division took exception to the parking lot being sited directly in front of the lodge, and suggested a change in location. Their recommendations were ignored and in 1935 grading was done to construct the new parking area. Originally designed as a double-loaded lot for 100 cars, the parking lot ended up half the size, and provided space for 44 cars. As late as the 1950s, plans called for the expansion of this lot.

Walkways

Promenade The promenade, constructed between 1928 and 1931 along the crater rim, was the primary pedestrian circulation system for the village. The walk was 2525 feet long (from the lodge to a point 380 feet west of the Crater Wall trailhead), 8 feet wide, and surfaced with a bituminous paving. The walk closely followed the edge of the rim, gently curving and winding to take advantage of splendid views and vistas to the lake. Before the end of the 1928 construction season, split-stone steps were under construction, leading from the cafeteria plaza to the Crater Wall Trail. In 1930, walks in the vicinity of the Crater Wall Trail were staked and also under construction. Water pipe was layed under these paths for the drinking fountain in the parapet wall. In 1932, the promenade was extended east of the lodge, to the Garfield Peak Trail.
Crosswalks Secondary paths or "crosswalks" between Rim Village Road and the crater wall were planned as early as 1929 but not constructed until 1931. Observing visitors at the rim over a number of years, it became apparent that random circulation and social paths over the site were having a negative impact on newly established vegetation. By the following year, several crosswalks were in place (with the exception of the ones planned for the area directly west of the lodge). These walks were narrower than the main promenade, ranging in width between 4 and 6 feet, and were designed to echo the curving nature of the promenade while routing visitors to various activity centers and focal points.

Walkways to the three observation bays were completed between 1931 and 1935. In 1931 the trail to the Sinnott Memorial was realigned from a steep trail directly above the site, to a more gentle slope west of the building. Two sets of cut-stone steps and 220 feet of paved walk were completed that year to assist visitors in accessing the memorial. Walkways in the bay directly below the lodge were paved in 1932, and the Mather Bay was paved sometime after 1934. Other walks completed between 1934 and 1938 include the walk through the circular loop in front of the lodge (1934-35); the walk in front of the cafeteria (1935-36); and the walks around the plaza comfort station (1938).

Trails

Crater Wall Trail The first trail from the rim of Crater Lake to the water was built in 1907 and was located near the lodge. The trail was steep and subject to washouts. In 1914, the trail was considered dangerous but was still used. In 1918 the trail was rebuilt to form a 1-1/4 mile trail from the rim to the water edge near Eagle Cove. In 1925, the trail was described as more than 1000 feet straight down, with 28 percent grades and narrow benches. The trail was closed in 1930.

In 1927, a new trail was under construction from the rim to the lake edge. The trailhead was located approximately 800 feet west of the Kiser Studio. The trail was 8000 feet long and 4 feet wide with a maximum grade of 15 percent. There were more than twenty switchbacks and six landings along the trail. The trail was described as being wide enough to accommodate horses, burros and mules, providing an accessible trail to most visitors. The trail was completed in 1928 and opened to the public the following season. Retaining walls and parapets were added as needed at various points along the trail to take-up the grade and stabilize the slopes. Vegetation was planted along the trail and log seats were placed at convenient intervals, sited to take advantage of pleasant views through the trees to the lake. In spite of this landscaping effort, the trail required a high degree of annual maintenance in order to "open" the route each spring. Plans were made in 1933 to provide a more permanent and suitable surface for the trail with an application of crushed stone and an oil. The decision was made not to oil the path because of the poor location and unstable banks. Eventually, the trail was oiled (by hand), while plans were underway for a new trail to the lake. In 1956, the Crater Wall Trail was still being used and still was a considerable drain on maintenance. Coinciding with the overall intent of park management to disperse the crowds from the vicinity of Rim Village, a new trail was proposed on the north side of the lake, at Cleetwood Cove. In 1958, the new trail was under construction and in 1960, the Crater Wall Trail at Rim Village was permanently closed, and replaced with the trail on the north shore.

ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION

Historically, roads at Rim Village were functional, reflecting a utility in the hierarchy from primary roads -- like the entry road and Rim Road -- to secondary and service roads. Roads also reflected, to a degree, the naturalistic "style." For example, roads through the campground were informal and designed to fit the ground plane and natural topography. Even Rim Road, a 56-foot wide "boulevard" was carefully sited and graded to fit at the base of the slope leading to the campground, so that it would appear recessed and unobtrusive. Plantings on either side of the road were established to enhance the sense of a continuous sweep of vegetation, further minimizing the visual impact of the road.

Pedestrian circulation systems, like the promenade, also were naturalistic in style, undulating gracefully along the caldera wall, taking advantage of spectacular lake views and natural extensions of land out over the caldera. Crosswalks, which served to disperse pedestrians from parking areas to the rim, were narrower than the main walk and more direct and functional in design, echoing the principles of utility and hierarchy for secondary systems of foot traffic.

Virtually all of the original circulation systems designed and implemented at Rim Village are evident today and serve as the primary systems of movement through the landscape. Although some changes have occurred, such as the hard-surface paving of social paths, and the realignment of the promenade due to erosion of the caldera, a remarkable amount of the original material and design remains intact. In addition, the Crater Wall Trail, and both early entry roads to the site (1905 and 1914) remain as remnants, and traces are discernible on the ground. Because these individual features and patterns remain (reflecting principles of the Rustic style) with such a high level of integrity, circulation systems as a whole are significant landscape resources.

VEGETATION

DEFINITION

Vegetation is defined by two features: planting concepts, which describes the design philosophy for all plantings at Rim Village; and plant materials, which comprise and define the material form of that philosophy.

DESCRIPTION

Planting Concepts

Prior to implementation of the master plans for Rim Village, the landscape between the lodge and the new entry road was barren and devoid of vegetation. In addition to a predominance of infertile pumice soils, volcanic dust, and sand, the area had been impacted over many years by unrestricted circulation and intense visitor use, resulting in what was described as an "unattractive sand waste." The goal of the landscape architects during the initial implementation of the general development plan was to restore the landscape to its "original beauty," and develop the site so that it could accommodate visitors safely and without further damage to the landscape. This program of landscape restoration and enhancement was called naturalization. In terms of design and composition, three different planting treatments were commonly used at Rim Village:

new plantings -- establishing vegetation where none existed;

supplemental plantings -- adding materials to "fill-out" areas for design or functional purposes; and

integrated plantings -- using vegetation to blend introduced features such as buildings and roads with the surrounding landscape.

All three treatments reflect basic principles and expressions of the Rustic style. For example, new plantings along the linear strip between the Rim Village Road and the caldera were designed to recreate a "natural looking landscape" -- a concept drawn from looking at areas adjacent to Rim Village such as Sun Notch, where natural meadows were broken by small groupings of trees and shrubs. At the rim, recreating this image, in addition to the goal of maintaining views from the road to the lake, led to the development of several small planting beds placed along the entire length of the rim. Trees were planted in clusters and grouped to lend variety in the landscape, but not planted dense enough to obstruct views. Shrubs and herbaceous materials were added to reflect natural associations and plant communities, and sod was transplanted from other areas in the park to provide the appropriate ground cover.

In the summer of 1929, work was underway on the landscape restoration at Rim Village, including large-scale replacement and amendment of infertile soils, the development of test plots, and general clean-up from previous construction.

Nineteen-thirty marked the first full year of planting and naturalization at Rim Village. Eight shrub beds were laid out, starting at the head of the Crater Wall Trail and moving east. Ninety hemlocks, 15 fir trees, and 300 deciduous shrubs were planted in this first season (see Plant Materials, section B, below). In addition to the work at the rim, 27 trees, 5 to 15 feet in height, were root-pruned, dug, and boxed for transplanting the following year.

In 1931, planting continued east an additional 300 feet along the rim. The area outside the parapet was also planted from the Cafeteria as far east as the Sinnott Memorial. There are suggestions that some of this planting was done for the purposes of controlling erosion near the top of the caldera wall, but as discussed by the landscape architects, the primary effect of the planting was to visually extend the landscape so that the parapet appeared to "fit" into the site. Shrubs were planted on either side of the steps leading down to the memorial to mark the trailhead. During the peak construction season at Rim Village, from early August through September, a crew of twelve men was working full-time on the revegetation program. Seven thousand five hundred square feet of sod was transplanted and installed around the shrub beds. Using special equipment the first of the large trees -- prepared the year before -- were moved to the rim, and shrubs were planted on the north side of the lodge.

In 1932, ten additional planting beds were laid out between the Sinnott Memorial and the lodge. Sodding was carried out as far east as the Kiser Studio (although an area immediately around the building was left open in anticipation of the removal of the structure). The entire bank above the Sinnott Memorial was planted and additional shrubs were placed at the southwest corner of the building. Many large trees were moved during this construction season. Three large hemlocks were planted on the west corner of the lodge, two smaller hemlocks were placed on the southeast comer of the Sinnott, and many large hemlock and fir trees were installed in front of the Kiser Studio.

In 1933, the final two acres along the rim, from the Kiser Studio to the lodge, were carefully planted with sod, shrubs, and trees. This area of the rim was the most disturbed and required the greatest amount of work to restore and landscape. Grading was done in order to reestablish "natural" contours along the side of Rim Village Road which had been impacted during construction. Subfill was hauled to fill low spots and peat and top soil were added prior to the plantings. Also during this year, the area in front of the lodge was prepared for planting.

By 1934, the entire area between Rim Village Road, and the caldera was landscaped as designed in the master plan. Three CCC men were stationed full-time at the rim to maintain existing plantings, water, prune, and generally cleanup debris as needed. The next phase of naturalization at Rim Village, which lasted three years, involved the establishment and integration of plantings around individual buildings, and supplemental plantings in the campground for design and functional purposes.

Plant beds were prepared around the Cafeteria and initial plantings were established in order to "improve the ridged appearance that confronts the arriving tourist." Planting areas were also prepared around the lodge and the Community House. As a component of the Rustic design at Rim Village, foundation plantings were an important landscape tool for integrating and easing the demarcation between the building and the ground plane. At the lodge, tall coniferous trees were transplanted and clustered at the corners of the building to give height and define the structure within a landscape context. Shrubs were massed against the building to mask the foundation and reflect indigenous plant associations. During the year, planting was also completed in the circle on the south side of the lodge and along the north side of the building. In the campground, individual units were laid out, each with a stone fireplace, tent site, table, and parking area. Plantings were used to delineate individual spaces and create privacy between sites.

Between 1935 and 1938, 75 small trees, 250 shrubs and 300 miscellaneous plants were planted in the campground and around the lodge and Community House. The following year, 2000 shrubs and 225 small trees (2-4 feet in diameter), and 12 truck loads of sod, were used at the rim in what was called "undifferentiated plantings."

Plant Materials

The following lists of plant materials for Rim Village were taken from the Landscape Architects' monthly narrative reports. The lists are general up to 1934 (although plant materials are mentioned throughout the monthly reports, only one actual plant "list" was found reflecting the first four years of the naturalization program). During the eight years CCC crews were working at Rim Village, more detailed records of materials and "man-hours" used at the rim were incorporated into the monthly reports, with the most detailed accounts recorded for the 1934-1936 work seasons, when the majority of new plantings were done. All nomenclature used in the following is from Applegate (1939), Hitchcock and Cronquist (1973), Franklin and Dyrness (1973), and Wheeler and Atzet, (1987). Where discrepancies occurred Hitchcock and Cronquist was used as the authority source. Plant names that were used historically are in parentheses.

1930 -- Classification of Plant Materials for the Season

TREES
Abies concolorwhite fir
Abies lasiocarpasubalpine fir (alpine fir)
Abies procera (nobilis)noble fir
Tsuga mertensianamountain hemlock

SHRUBS
Acer glabrumRocky Mountain maple (sierra maple)
Alnus sinuataSitka alder (waxy-leaved alder)
Amelanchier alnifolia (florida)western serviceberry
Lonicera conjugialispurple-flower honeysuckle (twinberry)
Ribes cereumwax current
Salix scoulerianaScouler's willow
Sambucus racemosared elderberry (mountain elderberry)
Sorbus sitchensisSitka mountain ash (mountain ash)
Spiraea densiflorasubalpine spirea (pink spirea)

GROUNDCOVER

Sod was the predominate groundcover planted at Rim Village. Sod refers to practically all types of flora growing in the park and, as transplanted, was comprised of several native sedges. Many varieties of wildflowers and small shrubs were commonly taken along with the grass roots when digging sod for transplanting.

1934 -- Classification and Quantity of Plant Materials Moved During the Season (June 1 - October 1)

TREES
TypeNumber
Hemlock and Fir spp.
(12 feet-14 feet height)		45
Hemlock and Fir spp.
(2 feet-4 feet height)		900
Total945

SHRUBS
TypeNumber
Acer glabrumRocky mountain maple (Sierra maple)351
Alnus sinuataSitka alder (waxy-leaved alder)20
Amelanchier alnifolia (florida)western serviceberry175
Archtostaphylos nevadensispine-mat manzanita64
Castariopsis chrysophyliachinkapin27
Holodiscus discoloroceanspray50
Kalmia microphyllawestern laurel30
Lonicera conjugialispurple-flower honeysuckle (twinberry)1680
Prunus virginianachokecherry27
Rhamnus alnifoliacascara32
Ribes cereumwax current14
Ribes erythrocarpumCrater Lake current (mazama current)300
Salix scoulerianaScouler's willow30
Sambucus racemosared elderberry (mountain elderberry)556
Sorbus sitchensisSitka mountain ash (mountain ash)957
Spiraea densiflorasubalpine spirea (pink spirea)722
Vaccinum spp.huckleberry270
Total5,025

PERENNIALS
TypeNumber
Anaphalis margaritaceaPearly everlasting50
Aquilegia spp.columbine800
Castilleja spp.Indian paintbrush100
Dicentra spp.bleeding heart850
Erigeron spp.fleabane90
Gilia spp. Gilia50
Helleborus spp.hellebore200
Phlox spp.phlox1300
Polemonium caeruleumJacobs ladder25
Valeriana spp.valerian110
Total3,575

GROUNDCOVER
TypeNumber
Juncusrushes (Sod)1,200 sq. ft.

1935 -- Classification and Quantity of Plants Moved During the Season

TREES
TypeNumber
Tsuga mertensiana
(12-14 feet height)		24
Tsuga mertensiana
(2-4 feet height)		250
Total274

SHRUBS
TypeNumber
Acer glabrumRocky Mountain maple (Sierra maple)50
Amelanchier alnifolia (florida)western serviceberry35
Holodiscus discoloroceanspray25
Lonicera conjugialispurple-flower honeysuckle (twinberry)250
Ribes cereumwax current75
Rhammus alnifoliacascara50
Salix eastwoodiaeEastwood willow100
Sorbus sitchensisSitka mountain ash (mountain ash)200
Spirea densiflorasubalpine spirea (pink spirea)200
Total960

1936 -- Classification and Quantities of Plants Moved During the Season

TREES
TypeNumber
Tsuga mertensiana
(2-4 feet height)		600

SHRUBS
TypeNumber
Acer glabrumRocky Mountain Maple (Sierra maple)80
Amelanchier alnifoliawestern serviceberry110
Holodiscus discoloroceanspray20
Lonicera conjugialispurple-flower honeysuckle (twinberry)50
Rhamnus alnifoliacascara30
Salix eastwoodiaeEastwood willow200
Sorbus sitchensisSitka mountain ash (mountain ash)40
Spiraea densiflorasubalpine spirea (pink spirea)100
Total650

1937 -- Classification and Quantity of Plants Moved During the Season

TREES
TypeNumber
Tsuga mertensiana
(2-4 feet height)		75

SHRUBS
TypeNumber
misc.250

PERENNIALS
TypeNumber
misc.300

1938 -- Classification and Quantity of Plants Moved During the Season

TREES
TypeNumber
Tsuga mertensiana
(2-4 feet height)		25

SHRUBS
TypeNumber
misc.1825

ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION

With one exception, all plant materials selected and installed at Rim Village were indigenous and transplanted from areas in the park that were similar in elevation and microclimate to Rim Village. The use of native plant materials was a fundamental principle in the overall design goals for Rim Village. In the context of the Rustic design, plant materials were chosen for their form, structure, texture, size, and color to blend with the surrounding landscape and provide a natural and harmonious setting. For example, Mountain ash was used in abundance because it was one of the largest shrubs to grow at this elevation (providing immediate effect), and because it had bright red berries and brilliant fall color. Elderberry, which was uncommon at that elevation, was used because it had a light green cast to the leaves, contrasting with the "sober green" of the mountain hemlocks. A plant file (since lost) was created and careful records were kept by the landscape architects during the restoration, documenting plant materials that survived and those that did not. For example, huckleberry was used in large quantities early on, only to find later that it could not survive the winter. Spirea, on the other hand, was able to flourish under virtually any condition and was used in the design with more regularity after 1931. Large coniferous specimens were selected and prepared for transplanting as much as two years in advance. Individual trees were dug, root-pruned, and boxed in order to retain the integrity of the root mass when replanting took place. Over the primary period of landscape restoration at Rim Village -- 1930-1938 -- several thousand trees, shrubs, perennials, and ground covers were transplanted and established at the Rim.

In the effort to develop a "natural" looking landscape at Rim Village, the landscape architects stressed the need to incorporate as much of the existing material landscape as possible into the naturalization program. For example, "unsightly" dead and deteriorated tree snags were removed from the site only if they presented a threat to safety. Whenever possible, snags were retained throughout the site and incorporated into the design as special features called "white ghost trees." These snags often had interesting shapes and, in the eyes of the landscape architects, conveyed the story of "lost battles with the elements," and were an important part of the natural setting of Rim Village.

Although some of the plant materials are in poor condition today, overall planting concepts and the majority of plant materials are from the historic period and have integrity. Together, they are significant resources in the historic design.

STRUCTURES

DEFINITION

In the typology, structures cover three features that are architectural in character or have engineered qualities. At Rim Village these structures include buildings, rock wails, and observation bays.

DESCRIPTION

Buildings

Between 1927 and 1941 there were six primary buildings at Rim Village and between twenty-two and thirty-four secondary structures including comfort stations, sleeping cabins, tent cabins, and service-related buildings. Three of the six primary buildings -- the Crater Lake Lodge, the Kiser Studio, and the Community House -- were all constructed prior to 1927 by the concessioner and the NPS. The Cafeteria (1928), the Sinnott Memorial (1931), and the comfort station next to the plaza (1938) were developed under the supervision of NPS designers and represent better examples of the Rustic style as applied at Rim Village. All six primary buildings are described below, followed by a discussion of secondary structures, some of which are no longer extant.

Crater Lake Lodge Construction of Crater Lake Lodge began in 1909, on a slope at the east end of Rim Village overlooking the lake. As designed, it was the primary facility on the rim to provide accommodations and meals for park visitors. Construction was slow, however, and despite its unfinished state, the lodge formally opened to the public in 1915. In 1922, an addition was built on the west end of the building, nearly doubling its size. For the most part, the new annex closely followed the design and material composition of the original structure. The Crater Lake Lodge is irregular in shape, comprised of a series of 6 rectangular blocks, connected to form a slight crescent shape. The roof is punctuated by numerous shed roof dormers giving visual interest to the wood shingled jerkin-head roofline. Native stone faces the lower portion of the lodge and wood shingles sheath the upper walls. Further visual interest is supplied by the massive exterior stone chimneys on the east and south; overhanging, bracketed eaves; numerous arched windows with stone lintels on the lower story; and multi-paned windows. Exterior alterations to the historic lodge since 1922 have been minimal. The addition of fire escapes and the enclosure of the main entry (from paired doors to one door) are the primary changes.
Sinnott Memorial The Sinnott Memorial was constructed in 1931 under the supervision of the NPS Landscape Division. Built as a memorial to an Oregon congressman, it functioned as an interpretive center and exhibit building, an educational center, and an observation point for park visitors. It was the first structure in the park to use massive stone masonry construction, and was considered an excellent example of the Rustic style of design, setting the tone for all future structures built in the park. The Sinnott Memorial is an irregularly-shaped stone and concrete structure built into a rock outcrop on the slope of the caldera about 50 feet below the rim. Access to the building is via a moderately steep walkway with steps. The building is entered through an elliptically-shaped "observation room" on the north side of the structure. A 30-inch tall stone parapet below a large opening offers unobstructed views to the lake. The original asphalt-treated flat roof was rebuilt in the 1930s with heavy asphalt and lead flashing to stop leaking. Exterior walls are load-bearing native stone, pierced on the east side by a square window opening and a door leading from the museum to the exterior stairs (shielded from view by a massive stone wall). Double-glazed, tongue-and-groove doors are located on the west end of the observation room. Alterations to the Sinnott Memorial have not compromised its rustic character. The most noticeable change was the addition of flagstone paving to the interior (and probably the exterior entry patio) in 1961.
Plaza Comfort Station This small comfort station was constructed under the guidance of an NPS landscape architect using CCC crews. Begun in 1937 and finished the following year, this structure was the last Rustic style building constructed at Rim Village. Sited against the forest edge at the east end of the cafeteria plaza, the building is a one-story, rectangular, wood-frame structure with massive native stones applied to the exterior. Horizontal wood siding is used above the stonework on the gable ends of the building. The wood-shake gable roof has extended eaves and exposed rafter ends. Doors centered on the gable ends and bands of windows on the north and south punctuate the building's rock walls. Major alterations to the original structure include the removal of a central stone chimney and lattice privacy fences from the north and south sides; the removal and replacement of the original square multi-light hopper windows; and the addition of a door to the west elevation.
Community House The Community House was originally built to provide park visitors with a place for evening activities and informal gatherings. It has also served as a headquarters for the park naturalist, and as a museum. Erected in 1924 following NPS architects' designs, the Community House is a one-story, rectangular, wood-frame structure set against a backdrop of mature evergreens in the northwest area of the former campground. Originally, the steeply pitched, wood-shingled gable roof sloped down to the north to form a full-length porch overhang supported by peeled log columns. This porch roof has been removed and the log supports are gone. Centered on the north roof slope is a shed roof dormer with multi-paned windows. Originally sheathed in wood shingles, the building is now sided with horizontal wood boards (shingles are extant in the dormer). The historic entry and primary facade had a pair of ten-light french doors centered on the north wall, flanked by pairs of multi-paned casement windows. The windows remain intact but the original doors were replaced by a pair of eight-light doors. An exterior massive chimney, "battered" in form and built of random coursed stone, rises on the east elevation.
Kiser Studio Fred Kiser, a nationally recognized scenic artist known for his hand-colored photographs, built this structure in 1921 to serve as his southern Oregon headquarters, studio, and salesroom for his work and photographic supplies. Kiser built a one-story, rectangular, stone and wood structure near the edge of the caldera wall, west of the lodge. Five years later, he built a large addition perpendicular to the edge of the caldera wall. Uncoursed stone walls (both veneer and load-bearing) with board and batten siding above the stonework on the gable ends was incorporated into the addition to match the original building. Wood shingles covered the gable roofs of both the original section and the addition, and overhanging eaves were supported by exposed, peeled log purlins. Multi-paned sliding windows were used on all elevations of the Studio. The south facade had a simple, peeled log pergola over the entry. A more elaborate pergola, rustic in character with peeled log supports resting on stone piers on a stone terrace, was added early to the building's north elevation, enhancing a visitor's entry experience. After 1930, the NPS converted the building into an information office, exhibit building, and Rim Village visitor contact station. Alterations to the Kiser Studio include the removal of the pergolas, the covering of the log purlins, the replacement and removal of some of the original windows, and the replacement of the original sheathing with horizontal board siding.
Cafeteria Building In 1928, the concessioner completed the latest addition to Rim Village -- a cafeteria and supply store for park visitors. Following NPS designs, the Crater Lake National Park Company erected a rustic stone building, 1-1/2 stories in height, rectangular in shape with a rectangular service ell on the south, and sited several hundred feet south of the caldera edge, oriented towards the lake. Stones similar in size and color to those used in the Kiser Studio were used on the exterior walls of the building. Board and batten siding was used above on the gable ends. The steeply-pitched gable roof was covered with wood shingles. On the primary facade, a recessed central entry with peeled log supports was flanked by two pairs of multi-paned casement windows. Other multi-paned windows placed throughout the structure further punctuated the stone and wood surfaces of the building. The Cafeteria retained its historic appearance until 1955, when a ski warming hut was added onto the structure. This addition was followed by a series of other extensions in the 1970s that increased the size of the historic building threefold.
Secondary Buildings Comfort stations comprise the majority of these buildings at Rim Village. The oldest comfort station standing (No. 2) is, located in the former campground area, southeast of the Community House. This building is T-shaped, one-story in height, and sited amidst the tall evergreens of the campground area. The wood-frame building was sided in vertical boards which, in turn, were covered with a rustic veneer of stained logs applied in "stickwork" fashion to define entries and window openings. The intersecting gable roofs were sheathed in wood shakes and had slightly extended eaves with exposed round log rafters and purlins. In later years, the rustic motifs were removed and the comfort station received new horizontal board siding.

Comfort stations Nos. 1 and 3 were built c. 1931 and were more simple in nature. Both were one-story, rectangular, wood-frame buildings sheathed in horizontal board siding. To give the buildings a rustic character, cut logs were applied as a veneer to the structures' corners and around door and window openings. Steeply-pitched gable roofs were covered in randomly-coursed wood shakes. Multi-paned sliding windows enhanced the picturesqueness of the buildings. In later years, the rustic motifs were removed and the roofs covered with corrugated metal roofing material.

Comfort station No. 4, located directly behind the Cafeteria, was designed and built by the NPS in 1931, following rustic design principles employed elsewhere at Rim Village. The comfort station as designed was a wood-frame building, rectangular in shape, and 1-1/2 stories in height. Large stones applied in a "battered" fashion were used as a veneer to encase the building. Board and batten siding was used above the stone at the gable ends. The steeply-pitched gable roof was covered in wood shakes. Original windows were bands of square, four-light windows on the east and west elevations. Central doors were placed on both the north and south elevations, providing access to the women's and men's restrooms, respectively. From its appearance this structure may have served as the prototype for the Plaza Comfort Station, which was built in 1938. Alterations to the structure were undertaken c.1971 when the function of the building changed from a comfort station to an electrical transformer vault. Changes included the removal of most windows and filling the openings with concrete blocks finished with plywood. One of the two original entry doors remains intact.

The housekeeping units known as the Coldwater Cabins were built by the park concessioner beginning in 1928 to provide the growing number of park visitors with overnight accommodations. Twenty-two cabins were eventually built. The cabins were sited southwest of the Cafeteria, clustered together around an access road against a backdrop of evergreens. For the most part, the cabins were oriented toward the lake. Small in scale, these wood-frame, rectangular buildings were one-story in height and sheathed in horizontal boards halfway up the wall, with board and batten siding above. The gable roofs were covered in wood shakes and slightly extended eaves exposed the cabins' rafter ends. Doors with a Stick style pattern of applied battens were centrally located on gable end elevations. Poor quality construction initially, and subsequent years of neglect, resulted in the removal of these cabins in 1986.

Rock Walls

As originally planned, two stone parapet walls were proposed and designed between the road and the caldera. One, following the caldera edge, was to be 18 inches wide and 22 inches high; the other wall was to be set back along the edge of the road and outer edge of the parking strip to serve as a guardrail. These initial plans were modified in 1929 due to time and insufficient funds, resulting in the construction of only one wall along the caldera.

In the summer of 1930, a sample section of masonry wall was constructed at the rim. This prototype was based on standard designs for stone guardrails developed by the NPS, and was 18 inches in height and 18 inches thick. The wall was broken at regular intervals by 6-inch merlons. The merlons were incorporated as a design motif for altering the "monotony" of an unbroken coping line and as a symbolic representation of the rhythms found in nature. Construction of the parapet wall began that summer. Stone was quarried from The Watchman, and taken to the site where it was cut and faced. By the end of the construction season in September, 300 feet of wall was complete and additional segments had been staked out.

The following summer, five masons were working full time on the parapet wall. Throughout the project, a great deal of effort went into achieving the desired structural and visual effect of the wall, and although good progress was being made, the landscape architect frequently expressed some difficulty "getting workmen to understand just the type of work which was wanted." Regular inspections and trimming of individual stone facings after the stone was set was not uncommon as a means of fine-tuning the overall quality of the wall. By the end of the second season of work on the structure, approximately 3600 linear feet of the wall had been constructed. The parapet as constructed was 18 inches wide, and ranged in height from 12 to 18 inches. The wall closely followed the contour of the caldera. undulating along the edge, and extending out over the caldera to follow a natural prominence or to create a bay. In some areas, retaining walls were constructed as part of the wall to reinforce areas that were unstable or required shoring. Some of these walls were as much as 10 feet in height.

By October 1932, the parapet was completed to the foot of the Garfield Peak Trail, north of the lodge, and west as far as the intersection of the road to Diamond Lake and Rim Village Road.

Observation Bays Three primary observation bays and several secondary bays were built at the rim between 1930 and 1932. All were proposed and developed in conjunction with the promenade and parapet wall following the edge of the caldera. Several of these bays were simple extensions, located in places where the natural edge of the caldera extended out over the rim, providing good lake views and gathering areas. These bays were typically separated from the main promenade by a planting area. The primary bays were also constructed to take advantage of a view or prominence, but were major structural undertakings, pulling away from the promenade, with a stairway or walk, requiring a considerable amount of design and engineering work. Plantings were integral to the design of the three primary bays, which are described below.
Sinnott Memorial Bay This bay was constructed in 1931 to provide access to the Sinnott Memorial, located on a cliff in the caldera north of the Kiser Studio. The bay is comprised of two runs of stairs, masonry retaining walls, and a walkway that is 6 feet wide and 220 feet long. The elevation change from the rim and promenade to the Sinnott Memorial is approximately 50 feet. Two stairways take-up the grade along the walkway; the one at the top, has twenty risers and the stairs at the bottom of the walk have nineteen risers. There is a flagstone terrace at the base of the second stairway (not original), leading to the entry doors of the building. Additional changes in grade for the bay itself are taken-up by 18-inch wide masonry walls which vary in height between 3 and 15 feet along the length, and on both sides of the walk. The entire slope between the walkway leading to the building, as well as the area around the building itself, was heavily planted as part of the naturalization program.
Mather Bay The construction date for this bay is unknown. It does not appear on either the 1931 or 1932 Master Plan for Rim Village, but it is on the 1933 plan. The bay is located approximately mid-way between the Kiser Studio and the Crater Lake Lodge. Structurally, it consists of a small, irregularly-shaped "plaza" -- roughly 24 feet x 32 feet -- enclosed by a low, 18-inch wide masonry wall that extends down to act as a retaining wall on the outside edge of the bay. The bay itself is at the same elevation as the promenade, and vegetation on the west and east sides of the bay provide a sense of enclosure. Historically, a large hemlock tree in the center of the bay (no longer extant) provided a focal point, drawing pedestrians into the bay and framing views to the lake, Wizard Island and Garfield Peak. The second Mather tree (unconfirmed), and the Mather plaque are sited nearby.
Lodge Bay This bay was built in 1932 and like the other two bays, it is set off of the promenade. In many ways, this bay is designed spatially and functionally as part of the outdoor space associated with the lodge. The bay is sited near the northwest corner of the lodge, where the parapet wall extends out to form an approach to the first of two sets of stairs. These steps lead to a landing and a narrow walkway that routes visitors down the slope of the caldera. The walk switches back and loops around to a second set of stairs, which lead back to the landing. Stone benches, built into the retaining walls, provided stopping points along the walk with sweeping views of the lake and surrounding environs.

ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION

Historically, virtually all of the structural components constructed at Rim Village were designed and installed as good examples of the Rustic style. For example, all of the primary and secondary buildings constructed at Rim Village reflected, to different degrees, basic design principles of this style. The use of native materials such as stone and wood, and the stylistic motifs of steeply-pitched roofs, exposed rafter ends, and multi-paned windows, all added to the picturesque and "naturalistic" appearance of individual buildings.

From a landscape point of view, the Sinnott Memorial is a particularly good example of the Rustic style. Comprised of oversized native stone, the structure literally appears to grow out of the landscape, rather than merely sit upon it. In a similar fashion, the Plaza Comfort Station was designed with large stones around the base of the building, decreasing in size toward the top of the building making it appear physically rooted to the ground plane. Of the six primary buildings at Rim Village, four of them -- Crater Lake Lodge, the Kiser Studio, the Sinnott Memorial and the Plaza Comfort Station -- retain architectural integrity and contribute to the historic landscape. In addition, although the Cafeteria and the Community House no longer retain architectural integrity, they continue to function as they did historically and also are valuable structures in the context of the historic landscape.

Rock walls throughout Rim Village were remarkably uniform when first installed, and although based on standard plans, they took on unique expression at the site. Great care went into assuring proper drainage, structural stability, and the desired visual and material qualities of the walls. Although segments of the parapet wall have been altered or modified over the years, large portions of the original wall are intact and retain integrity.

All three primary observation bays remain at the site although a portion of the Lodge Bay has collapsed. Several secondary bays also remain. Designed to provide visitors with the opportunity to view the lake from a prominence, these features were important influences on the design of the promenade and parapet wall, and are significant features in the historic landscape.

Collectively and individually, these structural features are representative of the Rustic style, and retain a high degree of integrity in the historic landscape.

SMALL-SCALE FEATURES

DEFINITION

Small-scale features include a variety of detail elements that were historically important in the design, either individually as they added dimension to the design, and/or collectively as they helped define the essential "character" of the landscape. Small-scale features documented in this study include signs, drinking fountains, guardrails and curbing, benches, picnic tables, and fireplaces associated with campsites.

DESCRIPTION

Signs

Many early informational and directional signs at Rim Village were made of wood. Cedar posts were used for permanence and each unit was designed so that by removing a rod, the sign could be taken down and stored over the winter, preventing cracking of the enamel lettering through expansion of the wood.

In 1934, sketches were prepared for new signs at the rim that were considered visually "appealing and appropriate in character." In 1935, three rustic signs were completed for Rim Village; one for the Sinnott Memorial, one for the Rim Drive, and one for the Naturalist. The new signs were "vigorous" in scale, comprised of large sections of pine (4 feet in diameter) set on log foundations. Lettering was created by cutting and chiseling into the flat surface of the log. The background surface was stained to increase the visual contrast on the sign (between the letters and the surface) and to reduce maintenance. Letters were then painted a "conspicuous bright orange" so that the signs were both "effective and readable" from a distance of 40-50 feet.

By 1936, however, maintenance on the wood signs throughout the park was high enough to warrant reconsideration of the material standards used previously. Suggestions were made to replace the wood signs with metal ones in all but "one or two places where signs should be carved from logs as in keeping with the general characteristics of the surroundings." One of these places was Rim Village.

In 1938, new signs were fashioned for the rim that were more "contemporary," but still in keeping with the rustic idiom. Still comprised of wood, the new signs incorporated multiple upright posts on each side of a rectangular plate, and were sited to enhance visibility (placed against a group of trees) yet placed so as not to obstruct views. Letters were carved and raised about 1/2-inch above the surface and painted. Ten additional directional signs were also constructed and placed at the rim during this year. All of these signs were single post and cross arm signs under 4 feet in height. Lettering on these signs was also painted a bright orange, matching the colors and material form of the larger signs throughout the rim.

Drinking Fountains

Treatment of utilitarian site features at Rim Village such as drinking fountains always hinged first on health/safety codes and second on the functional nature of the feature. In terms of detail elements, drinking fountains are a good example of the successful blending between utility and design that typifies the Rustic style. Traditionally comprised of a pipe and bubbler, drinking fountains at Rim Village were physically enveloped in the material vocabulary of the site, either as part of a rock wall or designed to stand alone yet fit visually into the surrounding landscape.

Two drinking fountains were part of the original design of the rock wall. One, by the Crater Wall Trailhead, was built in 1930 in conjunction with construction of the promenade and the parapet wall. The other, built in 1931, was located next to the trailhead to the Sinnott Memorial. This fountain is unique in design and character with images of Wizard Island, Phantom Ship, and the sweep of the caldera walls forming the bowl of the fountain.

Another unique water "fountain" was built across the road at the edge of the campground. Pipes were structurally incorporated into a large boulder (6 feet in height), with three "bubblers" down the face of the rock.

Two other rustic stone drinking fountains are found in Rim Village. One is located near the Kiser Studio, and the other is located near the comfort station on the east end of the cafeteria parking plaza. The construction dates for both are unknown.

Several other drinking fountains are located throughout the former campground. These are more utilitarian in nature (pipe and bubbler on a wood support stem) and do not reflect the predominant design character implemented at the rim during the historic period.

Curbing

In 1928, the landscape division made plans to install a log guardrail along the road through Rim Village. The primary purpose of the guardrail was to control vehicular circulation and limit access throughout the village to designated parking areas, preventing cars from driving onto planting beds and areas targeted for revegetation. Construction of two log guardrails -- one along both sides of the road and one around the lodge loop -- began late that year.

The log guardrail served its purpose, but from the beginning the goal of the landscape architects, as reflected in the master plans, was to establish a "permanent" curbing along the road and parking areas at Rim Village. As a material, wood was appropriate visually, but did not reflect the quality of permanance as well as stone. By 1931, plans were underway to replace the log guardrail with stone curbing.

In the summer of 1932, two stone masons with "helpers" were working at The Watchman, cutting stone for the new curbing. Work began in July and by October, a total of 1412 feet of stone curbing was in place along the north edge of Rim Village Road, from the lodge west, almost to the steps near the Cafeteria. The curbing was laid with "good alignment and grade deep enough to be very strong." Individual curb stones were cut to a thickness of 8 to 9 inches on top with a depth of approximately 24 inches. Individual stones varied in length from 32 to 84 inches, and were set to show a face of approximately 9 inches, backed by walkway.

In 1933, work continued on the south side of the road and adjacent areas around the cafeteria plaza. By October, an additional 1050 feet of curbing had been installed.

In 1934, most of the log guardrail around the lower parking area and in the plaza south of the lodge was replaced with stone curbing. The placement of the curbing was viewed as a necessary first step to planting the entry area and as a tool for traffic control.

Final installation of the curbing took place in 1935, with completion of the lower parking area at the lodge, and installation of curbing around the traffic island at the junction of the entry road to Rim Village and Rim Road.

Stones were placed where the sidewalk intersected or abutted the stone curbing, serving as an indicator to prevent pedestrians from walking on the plants and shrubs. These specially placed stones were called "pilasters" by the landscape architects.

Benches

With few notable exceptions, virtually all of the benches for the trails and campground at Rim Village were constructed after 1936 by CCC labor. Twenty "heavy log" seats were constructed in 1937 for use on the Garfield Peak and Crater Wall Trails. These trail seats were constructed using single logs set on cross footings reflecting the "casual" and "undesigned" character thought critical for areas where no other manmade features were found.

The only other benches at Rim Village were designed and constructed as part of the observation bay in front of the lodge. Each bench was comprised of a single stone slab, approximately 4 feet long, with two stone footings. Both benches were designed with a multiple stone backing which was recessed into the slope of the hill and integrated into the rock-work associated with the bay itself.

Picnic Tables

The pros and cons of using commercial lumber or native-cut material in the construction of picnic tables for the campground at Rim Village were debated and a decision was made favoring more rustic ones in a "harmonious" appearing style. Prior to 1935, picnic tables in the campground at Rim Village were removed and stored inside during the winter to prevent excessive damage from the snow load. An experimental log picnic table was constructed in 1935 to test the effects of winter snows on the durability of a new table. These tables, constructed of split logs with log footings, in conjunction with the stone fireplaces (see below), made a "pleasing combination" in the camping area.

In 1937, thirty units (picnic table and benches) were placed in the campground, and the following year an additional thirty-two units were placed.

Fireplaces

Stone fireplaces throughout the campground were constructed in conjunction with the development of individual campsites. Along with a picnic table and a place to park an automobile, fireplaces were included in each site. Initially, sizable cut stone fireplaces were built following specifications developed by the United States Forest Service. Found to be prohibitive in cost and more "formal" in character, these elaborate designs were replaced by much simpler prototypes that were more rustic in appearance. Rough cut stones were turned on end and placed in a half circle or U-shape, with a larger boulder placed at the bottom of the "U." These stones wrapped around and supported a solid metal plate which was used as a cooking surface. These rustic fireplaces successfully integrated into the surrounding landscape, for they appeared as natural rock outcrops in the wooded area.

ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION

The variety of small-scale features and detail elements that contribute to the historic landscape at Rim Village are characteristic of the strong relationship between utility and form in the design at several scales. The early log guardrails, for example, were designed to fit two different types or "levels" of circulation. The larger, heavier structure, was used along the main access road through Rim Village, and the smaller railing was used to delineate parking areas in front of the lodge, illustrating an appropriate sense of scale and proportion as well as function. Drinking fountains also reflected this relationship between function and design as natural materials served as the casing for a very basic and utilitarian feature. A hierarchy was established whereby more elaborate drinking fountains were constructed in the more public spaces and the simple, straightforward types were used extensively throughout the campground.

All of the rustic signs (with the exception of the Cafeteria sign), log guardrails, picnic tables, and fireplaces at Rim Village have been replaced over the years, leaving only the drinking fountains, stone curbing, and stone pilasters from the original design. Many of these changes reflect changes in technology, maintenance practices, or management strategies within the context of the park as a whole. Even within the significant historic period, changes were made to individual features, such as the log guardrail being replaced by stone curbing. Many of the individual detail features designed for Rim Village were models for other NPS areas and were commonly used as illustrations in Albert Good's 1938 edition of Park and Recreation Structures. The small-scale features that do remain at the site -- the drinking fountains and the curbing details -- have special value in the historic landscape.

CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES

DEFINITION

Construction technologies describe the method and technique associated with the construction of various features at Rim Village. Understanding these technologies is valuable because the manner in which individual pieces are manufactured and assembled influence the form and visual quality of each feature in the larger landscape context. Three technologies were analyzed including stonework (buildings, rock walls, and curbing), planting (soil preparation, establishment, and transplanting), and paving.

DESCRIPTION

Stonework

Buildings (also see Appendix B) Stone for the buildings at Rim Village were collected from different areas in the park, although the majority of stone came from The Watchman. Material for the initial construction of Crater Lake Lodge and other early structures at the rim was collected (not necessarily quarried) from the area around Garfield Peak. Other early structures, including the Kiser Studio, and a comfort station near the lodge, were also constructed using stone that was similar in scale and dimension to the early lodge prototype. Stone for later structures, constructed with some assistance and/or input from NPS designers, including the lodge's annex, the Cafeteria, and the nearby comfort station, was quarried from an area along the rim road. As others have indicated, the "true expression" of the Rustic, as reflected in the material composition of the stone structures, can more readily be seen in the construction and stylistic elements of other buildings at the rim, particularly the Sinnott Memorial and the Plaza Comfort Station. In these structures, very large or "oversized" and untrimmed boulders were used to give a sense of scale, texture, and dimension to the building. Stones were placed to give the appearance of a rounded or curved facade, which made the building blend into the natural setting and appear to fit the terrain far better than the straight line of the building wall. The largest stones were placed near the base of the structure and the walls were "battered" using smaller stones toward the top. During construction, the work was constantly inspected to ensure that the size, color, and form of individual stones was appropriate and well-matched throughout.
Rock Walls Stone for the parapet along the caldera, for the three observation bays, and for the steps around the lodge and in front of the cafeteria plaza, was obtained from various parts of the park. Using a hoist, it was loaded into trucks and hauled to the site. Once at the site each stone was cut and trimmed by masons to the proper size and shape. Prior to actual construction of the parapet, sample sections of wall -- about 6 feet in length -- were constructed to test for visual quality and drainage. A great amount of attention was given to the visual quality of these walls and it was not uncommon for stones to be trimmed after being set, in order to conform to the rest of the wall.
Curbing Stone for the curbing at Rim Village was quarried from the north slope of The Watchman during the summer of 1932. The stone was selected because it was "close to the road and splits better than any stone in the park." Unlike stone work for the parapet wall, all stone for the curbing was prepared at the quarry site. A compressor, along with "plug and feather drills," were used to split the stones into suitable sizes. Each curb stone was 8 to 9 inches across the top and approximately 24 inches deep. The length of an individual stone varied between 32 and 84 inches. The top and upper 10 to 12 inches of the front face of the curb stone was then dressed and trimmed by hand before being loaded into a truck for hauling to the rim. At the site, a mason with two helpers set each stone in place, allowing about 9 inches of the face to sit above grade. Careful attention was given to the precise line and grade along the edge, and all joints were secured and filled with mortar.

Planting

Soil Preparation

Several factors contributed to the soil treatment associated with the naturalization program at Rim Village. The pumice and sandy soils throughout Rim Village prior to 1930 not only created dust and dirt problems for visitors, but were very unstable, shifting and redistributing constantly in the wind. The soil was unacceptable for plant growth because it was very low in nutrients. Because of its texture and composition, the soil could not hold moisture, making it unsuitable for plant growth. After some test plots and trial plantings at the rim, a comprehensive program of soil replacement was developed for all areas slated for revegetation.

The decision to replace the soil, rather than simply amend it, reflected an awareness on the part of the landscape architects of the harsh environment and stresses on any plant materials established there. Preparing the soil for planting required the physical removal of the first 8 to 12 inches of pumice soil. This excavated soil was loaded, by hand, on trucks and hauled away. A layer of manure was added and on top of that, a layer of peat moss was brought in from a site below Munson Valley. On top of the peat, a layer of top soil was spread and graded prior to the actual planting or sodding.

All peat used at the rim was hauled from a large bog located in Munson Valley, about 2 miles below headquarters, just east of the highway. This bog was the third site tapped for the peat; the other two presented difficulties in access and supply. Log and wood planks were used to create a causeway out over the bog some 150 feet, and ditches provided the necessary drainage. The bog provided a "fine, pure sedge peat" to a depth of 8 feet. In the first season, more than seven hundred truck loads of peat were taken from the site (a truck load was approximately 1-1/2 tons) to Rim Village, some three miles away. Each one-way trip took about forty-five minutes.

Top soil was taken from several locations during the three years of naturalization. Most of the sites were located in the general vicinity of the rim, including an area not far from headquarters, on the edge of a meadow. As with the bog, several planks were laid to form a double track to support trucks on the soft soil. One shovel depth was the digging limit for top soil, because beyond that depth, the soil was primarily gravel. In the first year of naturalization and soil treatment, 642 truck loads of top soil were hauled to the rim, 3-1/2 miles away. Finding good top soil became a very difficult problem towards the end of the 1931 planting season. Most of the available top soil throughout the area contained large quantities of sand and gravel, making it less than desirable as a soil amendment. Quantities of top soil were reduced as plantings continued east from the Kiser Studio, where, because of the topography, less soil amendment was required.

Establishment (sod/seed/other)

In 1930, several experimental ground cover planting methods were undertaken in order to determine the best method of establishment. Two seeding methods were attempted (one test area was near the head of the Crater Wall Trail; the other was near the lodge). One area was raked fine and seeded with native wildflowers and grasses in the fall. This planting resulted in an abundance of "straggly grass," which was undesirable because there was no "variety in the size or kind." Another test plot was planted in spring, using a mixture of Kentucky bluegrass and native seed. This planting produced a better effect as a greater variety of grasses were established, including the Kentucky bluegrass and a variety of wildflowers. By the second season, however, the Kentucky bluegrass was described as bunchy and unattractive.

During this test period, several other areas at the rim were planted with sod collected from other areas in the park. After observation, it was evident that this method was most successful, because the appearance could be controlled and the composition was good. Grasses were diverse and included native sedges, which looked like grass but were notably tougher and able to withstand considerable tramping.

All of the other plant materials for the rim were also taken from the park. By 1934, the supply of sod as a material required "continual shifting about" to find enough suitable material. Sod taken from an area one year always filled in with a good coverage the next season, and it was generally believed that "thinning enabled the remaining sod to produce a heavier growth the following year."

Transplanting: moving large trees

In 1931, the first of several large trees were planted at Rim Village. Individual specimens of hemlock and fir were selected from other areas in the park (primarily from Munson Valley), and prepared for transplanting one to two years in advance.

Once a specimen was selected, it was dug, root-pruned, and boxed. Root-pruning was done by digging a trench around the tree, deep and wide enough to retain the side roots. These roots were then pruned with a sharp tool, insuring a clean cut, and reducing the possibility of disease. The dirt surrounding the tree roots was encased with boards that were strong enough to hold the root mass, and spaced a minimum of 4 inches from the earth ball. This space was important because it allowed new soil to be added at the base and around the sides of the encasement. This new soil provided the growing medium for new root growth, strengthening the root mass as a whole.

When the trees were ready to be moved to the site, the encasement was excavated. The tap roots were cut and a bottom added to the base of the box. The box itself was made of 2 x 4s and 4 x 4s. Several heavy planks were placed along the bottom of the box, at right angles to provide structural support and facilitate the attachment of chains and cables for lifting the box out of the hole. The trees were removed from the hole by a hoist, and loaded onto another truck for transport to the site. The same hoist was used to place the tree in the new hole.

The planting hole was 6 feet wider than the box and 1-foot deeper. Good soil was added to the bottom of the hole prior to placing the tree, and enough was added to bring the tree to the proper height. The tree was then lowered into the hole and the boards were removed. The hole was filled with good soil, tamped firmly, and watered as the new soil was added.

Newly transplanted trees were protected from wind and sun with a canvas cover. In some cases, a wooden frame was constructed around the tree to prevent excess snow weight from crushing the tree and to ensure proper ventilation and moisture. This practice was used only in the early stages of the transplant. Experimentation had shown that it was not a good practice to brace newly planted trees through the winter with guy wires because the wires prevented the trees from bending in "a natural fashion," which was important to the general health and adaptability of the specimen.

The success rate for the transplanted specimens over the three-year program was very high. Two years into the program, Merel Sager reported that none of the trees were lost "either by root-pruning or transplanting," and all had put on new growth.

Paving

All paved surfaces at the rim were surfaced with an asphalt material. The main road through the rim was first scarified and then bladed. Water was applied using a tank sprayer, and the wet surface was bladed again until a proper grade was attained. The bed was rolled and a layer of crushed rock was placed before the area was rolled again. On this surface an emulsified asphalt was applied and as a finish surface a fine screen material was applied, broomed, and rolled again. A second coat of asphalt was applied with additional fine rock screening and proper brooming.

The promenade was surfaced with a cold-laid bituminous material. It was not rolled but compacted.

In 1935, several paved surfaces at the rim were treated with oil to preserve and extend use. A significant amount of attention went into the visual character of these treatments. Oils, which were naturally dark in color, were commonly used, but the final seal coat which was laid on these initial beds was covered with a fine coat of rock, then rolled, and brushed, to give a medium gray color that was both "pleasing to the eye as well as fitting to the area. . ."

ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION

The purpose of analyzing construction technologies used at Rim Village is to clarify the degree to which historical techniques influenced the material fabric and visual character of the landscape as a whole. Most conspicuous is the high level of craftsmanship and attention to composition that went into the development of specific features -- such as the rock walls and several buildings -- in order to present a man-made element in a "Rustic" or "Naturalistic" appearing manner. For example, the work done by the masons on the parapet was approved only after an inspection and, in several cases, reworking, resetting, and/or redressing the face of individual stones already placed was required to ensure overall visual continuity.

Roads and walkways were paved with asphalt, but dusted and sealed with a material that left a grey tone to the finished surface, visually blending into the natural landscape. Other available paving materials were considered for use at Rim Village, but were rejected as being inappropriate. For example, gravel was considered for surfacing roads through the campground, but the landscape architects felt it would visually stand-out far more than a dark oiled surface.

Plant materials were installed over an eight-year period at Rim Village, and the relative success and/or failure of the planting program as a whole is a direct result of the intensive measures taken to ensure proper soils, transplanting and establishment techniques, and after-care. Because of these specific techniques, the landscape we see today at Rim Village looks "natural" but, in fact, is the result of a tremendous amount of manipulation, all undertaken in order to "naturalize" the rim landscape.

In terms of construction technologies, therefore, it is perhaps not critical (or practical) in every case to replicate historic practices in replacing or adding fabric. It is, however, important to retain the physical characteristics and the visual and material qualities that were a direct result of those techniques.

RECOMMENDATIONS

INTRODUCTION

SIGNIFICANCE AND INTEGRITY

Four areas or zones at Rim Village have distinct historic character and specific landscape resources that contribute to the overall design significance: the promenade and associated features, including the parapet wall, the crosswalks, the planting beds, and the overall configuration of the groundplane; the lodge, including the plaza (parking and entry) on the south side of the building, the terrace and walls on the north side, and all plantings associated with these features; the historic campground area, including the forest itself, the roads, comfort stations, paths, individual sites and vistas; and the cafeteria plaza including the stone comfort stations and the predominant open space on the north side of the structure. Collectively, these areas define the overall spatial organization of Rim Village and retain a high level of landscape integrity.

In addition, throughout Rim Village, several historic patterns of land use and overall design associated with these areas remain evident today. The promenade, for example, was always a relatively formal area, with clearly delineated pedestrian systems and planted areas designed to direct traffic, orient the visitor, and provide a series of "naturalistic" relationships between the open spaces and more discrete gathering areas along the rim. This area was also the primary system linking features throughout the village and was, from the time it was built, the area where visitor activity was concentrated. Over the years changes and modifications to individual features as well as intensive visitor use along the promenade have, to different degrees, impacted the original design. This is especially evident in the areas west of the Kiser Studio and in front of the Cafeteria where many plant materials are in poor condition or have been lost altogether; where rock walls have been rebuilt in a less than sympathetic manner; and where wood fences have been erected that are inappropriate in the context of the historic design. In spite of these changes, the majority of individual features are remarkably intact and the promenade as a whole retains a very high degree of landscape integrity.

In contrast to the "formal" design of the promenade, the area south of Rim Village Road sweeping up to the campground was more informal, with fewer hard surfaces and fewer spaces with rigidly defined borders. It primarily functioned as a transition zone and boundary between the promenade and the campground zones, with Rim Village Road the boundary feature.

The campground, located on the hill south of the rim, was designed within the mature and "somber" hemlock forest. As one of the first areas developed at Rim Village, the campground was reconfigured several times before an overall design was implemented in the 1930s Although not "formal" in terms of highly articulated spaces, the campground was designed with very specific spatial characteristics that remain today. Individual sites, for example, were located in response to the natural topography and in relation to access roads, the comfort stations, and each other, assuring privacy, views, and comfortable access. In addition, in terms of scale, orientation, and facilities, each individual site in the area was designed with a degree of uniformity which created a distinct landscape. Although the function of this area has changed from overnight camping to day-use and picnicking, the significant design and landscape character remains.

The Cafeteria area has undergone many physical changes, but the general patterns of land use remain as originally conceived. It remains the primary arrival point for visitors to Rim Village, and continues to function as the area from which most people disperse. Although the building itself has been significantly altered and the area designated for parking has increased substantially, parking has always been located in front of the Cafeteria. The open character of this plaza is equally significant in the context of the historic landscape.

The landscape associated with the Crater Lake Lodge also retains a high degree of overall integrity in design and function. The plaza and planting areas on the south side of the building continue to function as the arrival/entry focus for the lodge, and although the plant materials are in poor condition, the original lay-out and organization of spaces is intact. Planting beds on the south and west side are also intact and plant materials in these areas are also original. The terrace wall on the north side of the building has collapsed and planting beds have been changed over the years due to visitor impacts and harsh microclimate conditions. These areas, as well as the service area on the east side of the building, are generally in poor repair but do not undermine the overall design integrity of this area. Rim Village, as a whole, is a significant designed historic landscape that reflects the essential philosophies, design character, and individual components of the NPS Rustic style as implemented at the site between 1927 and 1941.

NEW DESIGN IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DESIGNED HISTORIC LANDSCAPE

Identification and recognition of significant historic landscape features at Rim Village does not preclude new development at the site. However, in order to retain integrity, attention must be given to the historic patterns and individual features that comprise the designed landscape and define its salient character. While some modification of the landscape can occur -- such as realignment of individual roads, or resurfacing of historic crosswalks -- attention must be given to both the nature and the degree of change proposed. In all cases, efforts should be made to preserve and retain existing historic fabric. Where changes to the historic fabric and historic land uses are necessary, it is important to analyze, evaluate, and ascertain the potential impacts of these changes in the context of the historic landscape overall. For example, the hill south of Rim Village Road was historically designed and used for a campground. Today, however, it is a picnic area with day-use only. Although the historic use has changed, the contemporary function -- picnicking -- does not negatively impact the historic design; the roads are the same, individual sites are clearly defined, and plantings and views are all fundamentally the same. In general, understanding the significant qualities of an individual feature (form, function, structure, scale, material and composition) and its role in the historic design (design intent), is fundamental in determining the potential impacts these new design features will have on the historic ones, and whether the merit of these changes outweighs the potential loss of character or integrity.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations are based on an analysis and evaluation of historic landscape features and resources at Rim Village. The purpose of the recommendations is to provide guidance for the reestablishment of significant historic features and, to the degree possible, the general ambiance and character of the 1930s Rustic design. The recommendations do not target restoration of the historic landscape to any given year, nor do they cover every individual feature. Rather, the goal is to identify what features should be reestablished, or rehabilitated and/or reconstructed, and suggest ways in which new site elements sympathetic to the historic landscape can be incorporated into the redevelopment package for Rim Village.

Five topical areas are discussed following the format established in the typology, and include recommendations for Circulation, Vegetation, Structures, Small-scale Features, and Construction Technologies. Each set of recommendations includes a series of historic design principles. These principles are based on philosophies set forth in Albert Good's Park and Recreation Structures from 1938. They are general in nature and outline a direction for development that ensures a continuity between new design and historic design, both in material and function. Individual recommendations are organized in priority to address: stabilization and preservation of significant landscape resources; enhancement and/or treatment of remnant or ill-define historic fabric; and appropriate replacement or adaptive use of non-extant historic landscape features and patterns.

The goal of the recommendations is to provide a framework for the redevelopment of the rim landscape. While many of the specifics contained within the redevelopment program are undefined, the recommendations establish a design context for the landscape, and provide an appropriate vocabulary or "palette" for new design. In most cases, alternative treatments are suggested when the optimum preservation solution cannot be accommodated, and in cases where individual features are not addressed (garbage cans, site furniture, etc.), Good's Park and Recreation Structures should be used as a basis for new design features.

Although beyond the scope of these recommendations, a comprehensive Historic Landscape Preservation Guide should be prepared for Rim Village to ensure proper maintenance of the designed historic landscape. In addition to guidelines and specifications for the maintenance of individual plant materials, walkways, walls, and other site features, this document should define the philosophy and specific techniques for maintaining the Rustic style landscape. Historically, Rim Village received a high degree of maintenance, and a considerable amount of time went into controlling the overall appearance of the landscape. Plant materials were maintained and pruned to appear "natural" without appearing overgrown or neglected. Maintenance guidelines should reflect this design intent.

And, finally, as site work for the redevelopment progresses, additional assessments and evaluations of individual historic features (such as plant materials and rock walls) should be undertaken by the appropriate professionals to ensure that proposed treatments are appropriate and that historic fabric is not indiscriminately lost. Additional surveys and fieldwork may be necessary for specific evaluations in order to determine the appropriate treatment or the documents required for the more discrete areas of Rim Village.

CIRCULATION

ROADS

Design Principles

1. Rim Village Road and roads through the campground reflect historic patterns and should be retained. If the new design for Rim Village calls for the reconfiguration, removal or construction of new roads, treatment should be as follows:

a. removal -- If historic roads are removed, disturbed areas associated with former road beds should be revegetated and regraded as appropriate (see RECOMMENDATIONS: Vegetation). In addition, because Rim Village Road historically functioned as a transition zone between the promenade and the campground, new design for this area should attempt to reestablish that function.

b. realignment -- Roads realigned from historic roads should retain the design character of the original road (width, surface material, shoulder treatment), and every effort should be made to tie the realigned portion of the road into the existing road without disturbing the original grade. Reconfigured portions of the road should follow the natural topography and generally conform to guidelines for new roads (see below).

c. new roads -- New roads should be added only as required to accommodate functional needs. Whenever possible, new roads should be sited in previously disturbed areas to minimize impacts on natural areas. In terms of design, new roads should be as direct as possible, but have a curvilinear character, following natural contours. Plantings, low stone walls, and/or berms should be used to help blend and minimize the impacts of newly constructed roads. Plantings should be massed to reflect natural associations and the gradation in density of planting, from the existing forest to the road. Views should also be included in the criteria for siting new roads, and all new roads should be surfaced with asphalt.

2. Service-related roads should be physically separated from public spaces and activity areas, and be different in character than primary roads.

3. Historically, the road and arrival sequence to Rim Village played an important role in the design of the site. If the arrival sequence is modified in conjunction with the new site plan, the new access to Rim Village should attempt to create similar experiential qualities (visitor travels from forest to open meadows, back through the forest, up in elevation to a sudden clearing and a vista of the lake). The view to the lake at the point of arrival was fundamental in the historic design and should be retained in the new plan.

PARKING

1. The parking "loop" at the lodge has integrity and should be retained. If additional parking is required two alternatives are suggested:

a. Construct a second (lower) loop, south of the existing lodge parking area as illustrated in the historic master plans, or;

b. If Rim Village Road is removed, site a new lot in the disturbed area west of the lodge (where the existing Rim Village Road begins to drop in grade).

In both cases the goal is to select a solution that minimizes the potential impacts to the natural landscape, and is visually compatible in design and orientation to the lodge, access and viewshed to the lake, and from the promenade. Taking these issues into consideration, alternative "a" is the preferred option.

2. The parking revetment along both sides of Rim Village Road has integrity and should be retained. If removal of this parking area is required, the disturbed area should be revegetated (see RECOMMENDATIONS: Vegetation).

3. Although the parking plaza in front of the Cafeteria has historically been used for parking, it has been altered over several years and does not retain design integrity. if the redevelopment program calls for the removal of parking in this area, efforts should be made to retain key historic design associations including preserving a strong visual connection from the building to the lake and designing the area to function as a staging area for rim activities.

4. All parking areas should be surfaced with asphalt or a material treatment that will yield a similar visual character. Stone curbing should be used to define edges and transitions in surface materials.

PROMENADE

1. The promenade, from west of the Cafeteria to the Garfield Peak trail, has integrity and should be retained. Pedestrian access along the full length of the promenade, including the area on the north side of the lodge, should be maintained to provide a continuous walk along the edge of the caldera as originally designed.

2. Portions of the promenade that are in poor condition or have deteriorated and are unsafe, should be rehabilitated according to the historic design, including historic grades, materials, width and configuration.

3. Historically, the area of the promenade where the former Crater Wall Trail began, was a focal point and an important visitor staging area. Although the trail is closed, this area remains a key pedestrian gathering area with much of the original landscape design intact. The function and spatial quality of this area should be retained. Because this area has been dramatically impacted by snow loading and intense visitor use, a rehabilitation plan should be prepared which specifically addresses paths and the flow of pedestrians through the space, reestablishment of planting beds and materials, and rehabilitation of the parapet wall.

CROSSWALKS

1. All historic crosswalks between the existing Rim Village Road and the promenade have integrity and should be retained to the degree possible. whenever possible historic crosswalks should be incorporated into the new design. Crosswalks not original to the historic design can be manipulated or removed as necessary, in conjunction with the redevelopment plan.

2. Historic crosswalks that have deteriorated but will be retained in the new design should be rehabilitated.

3. New crosswalks should be constructed based on functional need and not as design features in and of themselves. They should appear similar in scale, material and design to historic crosswalks and meet Federal Standards for accessibility.

4. All new walkways should be staked in the field prior to construction to ensure conformity with the natural topography, views, and other site features.

5. Social trails between Rim Village Road and the promenade should be eliminated or incorporated into the new design and surfaced with the appropriate materials.

6. Stone "pilasters" or markers should be used to:

a. delineate the location of crosswalks where they intersect roads or other surfaces; and

b. prevent random circulation over planting areas.

Existing pilasters should be salvaged and reused if possible and new ones should reflect the appearance of the historic ones.

VEGETATION

PLANTING CONCEPTS

Design Principles

1. Planting beds between Rim Village Road and the caldera have integrity and should be retained whenever possible in the redevelopment of the area.

2. Plant materials within each planting bed should be evaluated to determine physical condition and then stabilized, rejuvenated or replaced in-kind, as appropriate (see Plant Materials, below).

3. Historic planting beds that will be retained in the new design and have lost plant materials (due to visitor impacts and snow loads) should be restored following historic design principles, including the selection and use of native plant materials.

4. A detailed site plan should be prepared for the plaza south of the lodge that addresses rehabilitation of the planting beds and all associated features.

5. Existing foundation plantings around the Plaza Comfort Station, Comfort Station No. 2 in the former campground, and the south and west elevations of the Crater Lake Lodge, have integrity and should be retained.

6. In the rehabilitation of Crater Lake Lodge, individual plant materials around the foundation should be salvaged and reused or replaced in-kinds. Special attention should be given to the preservation of the large specimen trees on the southwest and northwest corners of the structure.

7. The establishment of new planting areas at Rim Village should follow historic design principles including the use of native materials, massing, and a clear gradation of canopy, understory, and groundcovers.

8. Revegetation of disturbed areas should target restoring the material and visual quality of the surrounding landscape. Plants along roads and walks should be grouped in such a way that they reflect natural plantings and the transition between forest and meadows.

9. With the removal of Rim Village Road, the landscape between the promenade and the historic campground should be planted in order to minimize the demarcation between these two distinct areas and enhance the visual and physical connection between these two zones (see RECOMMENDATIONS: Vegetation, Planting Concepts, #7).

10. Snags and "ghost trees" should be incorporated into the new design whenever possible. These elements were historically considered part of the natural landscape by NPS designers and should only be removed when they present a threat to safety.

PLANT MATERIALS

1. A comprehensive evaluation of existing historic plant materials throughout Rim Village should be undertaken prior any treatments. The evaluation should include an estimate of how much material can be salvaged.

2. All plant materials used at Rim Village must be indigenous to the parks. Exotic and introduced plant materials are inappropriate and should not be used under any circumstances.

3. Because plant materials to be used in revegetation cannot collected from the park, a nursery or other plant source should be established as soon as possible to ensure the availability of acclimated stock.

4. Plant materials selected for revegetation or replacement at Rim Village should be selected from the list below (also see TYPOLOGY Vegetation).

Canopy
Trees
Abies concolorwhite fir
Abies lasiocarpasubalpine fir
Abies magnifica shastensisShasta red fir
Abies proceranoble fir
Pinus albicauliswhitebark pine
Pinus contortalodgepole pine
Tsuga mertensianamountain hemlock

Understory
Shrubs
Acer glabrumRocky Mountain maple
Alnus sinuataSitka alder
Amelanchier alnifoliawestern serviceberry
Arctostaphylos nevadensispine-mat manzanita
Castariopsis chrysophyliachinkapin
Holodiscus discoloroceanspray
Lonicera conjugialispurple-flower honeysuckle
Rhamnus alnifoliacascara
Ribes cereumwax current
Ribes erythrocarpumCrater Lake current
Salix eastwoodiaeEastwood willow
Salix scoulerianaScouler's willow
Sambucus racemosared elderberry
Sorbus sitchensisSitka mountain ash
Spiraea densiflorasubalpine spirea

Perennials
Anaphalia margaritaceapearly everlasting
Aquilegia spp.columbine
Castilleja spp.Indian paintbrush
Dicentra spp.bleeding heart
Erigeron spp.fleabane
Gilia spp.Gilia
Helleborus spp.Helleborus
Phlox spp.phlox
Polemonium caeruleumJacobs ladder
Valeriana spp.valerian

Groundcover
Sod

Sod was comprised of several native sedges, varieties of wildflowers, and small shrubs. These were commonly taken along with the grass roots when digging sod for transplanting.

STRUCTURES

Design Principles

BUILDINGS

1. Of the six primary historic buildings at Rim Village, four of them -- the Crater Lake Lodge, the Kiser Studio, the Sinnott Memorial, and the Plaza Comfort Station -- retain architectural integrity and contribute to the historic landscapes. All four should be preserved.

2. Although the architectural integrity of the Community House and the Cafeteria has diminished, the buildings continue to function as they did historically, and they contribute to the historic landscapes.

3. Comfort Stations Nos. 2 and 4 contribute to the historic landscape and should be evaluated to determine their overall condition and the degree to which original materials are intact. If there is a potential for adaptive reuse, they should be preserved.

4. Comfort Stations Nos. 1 and 3 in the former campground no longer retain integrity of function or design and do not contribute to the historic landscape.

5. All existing secondary and service-related structures should be evaluated in the context of the new design to determine appropriate locations, forms, and materials.

6. The rehabilitation of Crater Lake Lodge is being addressed in other documents. However, structural elements associated with the lodge -- the north terrace, planting beds, the south plaza, all walks and service areas -- should be considered as design components of the historic landscapes. Specific recommendations for each follow.

a. The North Terrace

The terrace was an integral part of the lodge after 1929, and should be rebuilt in conjunction with the rehabilitation of the lodge. Because this structure was historically part of the lodge (rather than the public promenade) all materials used in the rehabilitation should be similar to those used in the lodges. Views and vistas from the terrace should be retained. A physical connection between the terrace and the promenade (ramps and stairs) should be incorporated into any new design, however, a clear delineation should be maintained between the two functions.

b. Planting Beds

Foundation planting beds on the south and west sides of the lodge have integrity and should be retained. Some of the plant materials in these beds, however, are in poor condition and should be evaluated to determine specific maintenance treatment or other necessary actions associated with the rehabilitation of the lodge (see APPENDIX C). Other planting beds, on the north and east sides of the building, have been changed over several years and most of the plant materials are in poor condition. These areas have little if any landscape integrity. In redeveloping these areas, it is important to incorporate Rustic design principles emphasizing the use of native materials and foundation plantings (see RECOMMENDATIONS: Vegetation).

c. South Plaza

The south plaza, including the historic entry and entry sequence, the planting beds, steps, walks, curbing, parking, and overall organization, has integrity and should be retained. Plant materials within the beds are in generally poor condition and should be assessed and replaced on a plant by plant basis (see RECOMMENDATIONS: Vegetation).

d. Service Areas and Walks

Service areas for the lodge should be concentrated in one area, on the east side of the building as it was historically, to provide a strong separation between visitors and lodge operations. Plantings should be used to screen views and control circulation/access to service areas from the promenade and public parking areas. Pedestrian walkways in the plaza area can be rehabilitated and incorporated if the same configuration for lodge parking and access is retained.

7. All new buildings at Rim Village should be designed and incorporated into the site following the principles of the Rustic style (see APPENDIX A).

8. Because the new visitor activity center/hotel and plaza will be located in the same general location as the existing Cafeteria, they should maintain a strong physical and visual connection to the promenades.

ROCK WALLS

1. The parapet wall following the edge of the caldera for the length of the promenade has overall integrity. It is a primary site element contributing to the historic landscape and should be preserved.

2. Sections of the wall that have been altered, rebuilt, or are deteriorated, should be rehabilitated as part of a comprehensive preservation maintenance program for the entire wall.

3. In the reconstruction of individual wall segments, attention must be given to the appropriate use of materials, proper alignment, form, and scale in order to ensure conformity to the original wall (see TYPOLOGY: Construction Technologies stonework).

OBSERVATION BAYS

1. The three primary bays at Rim Village -- the Sinnott Memorial Bay, the Mather Bay, and the Lodge Bay -- have integrity and are contributing structures in the historic landscape. All three should be retained.

2. Reconstruction and rehabilitation of portions of the lodge bay, including steps, walks, and walls, is strongly recommended. Original fabric should be reused to the degree possible and the historic design should be the basis of any reconstruction work.

3. Vegetation located adjacent to, or in some cases, planted in association with the design of all three bays should be monitored as part of a cyclic preservation maintenance plans. In cases where vegetation is encroaching and undermining the structural integrity of the feature, it should be carefully removed under the supervision of an engineer.

4. An engineer should evaluate the structural stability of the north side of the Mather Bay. If determined structurally sound, a hemlock tree should be reestablished in the center of the bay as per the historic designs.

5. Whenever possible, consideration should be given to reestablishing plant materials in the planting beds that worked to create and define the secondary bays along the promenade.

SMALL-SCALE FEATURES

Design Principles

SIGNS

1. With one exception, no historic signs remain at Rim Villages. Existing signs should be replaced as part of a comprehensive sign plan for Rim Villages.

2. Consideration should be given to reestablishing the historic motifs when constructing new signs. Signs throughout Rim Village should be rustic in character, constructed of unmilled wood or logs with rough log or stone bases that are consistent with existing structures. Signs can be stained to reduce maintenance and enhance visual continuity (see TYPOLOGY: Small-Scale Features, signs).

3. Directional and informational signs serve different purposes and should appear different. Directional signs for vehicular traffic should be relatively large in scale and readable from a distance. Informational signs orienting pedestrians to buildings and features should be smaller in relation to directional signs, although both should be similar in form and material.

DRINKING FOUNTAINS

1. All three drinking fountains in the promenade area, including the two incorporated into the parapet wall and the one west of the Kiser Studio, are historic and should be retained, rehabilitated, and maintained in good working order.

2. Other drinking fountains at Rim Village, including the one near the Plaza Comfort Station and the pipe/bubbler types located throughout the former campground, do not (as individual features) contribute to the historic landscapes. If these drinking fountains are retained, consideration should be given to redesigning them in a more appropriate style (i.e. encasing the water pipes in a single boulder).

3. The water feature in the former campground near Comfort Station No. 2 is a unique design element of the historic landscape and should be preserved and maintained in good working orders.

4. New drinking fountains should be sited according to functional needs and designed to reflect the historic character of Rim Village, and be fully accessible.

CURBING

1. Stone curbing along roads and parking areas throughout Rim Village is historic and should be retained whenever possible.

2. Prior to construction, an assessment of the existing curbing should be undertaken (in areas where historic curbing will be retained) to identify damaged curbing. Damaged areas should be rehabilitated to conform with the existing historic curbing whenever possible.

3. When roads and parking areas are removed, historic curbing along Rim Village Road should be salvaged for use as needed in the repair, replacement, or addition of curbing in the new design.

PICNIC TABLES

1. Picnic tables throughout the former campground at Rim Village are not historic and can be removed. If picnicking as a use is to remain in the design program for the site, new picnic tables should be designed based on appropriate historic prototypes.

2. All picnic tables should be sited in forested areas where the scale, mass, and material composition of the tables is appropriates.

FIREPLACES

1. Rustic fireplaces constructed in the historic campground no longer exist, and none of the existing fireplaces are historic. If the park wants to retain picnicking at the site and provide fireplaces for day-use visitors, consideration should be given to removing non-historic fireplaces and siting one or two larger and more rustic fireplaces in a central location to accommodate several parties.

CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES

Design Principles

Although historic construction techniques may be used to attain specific visual or material qualities, the following recommendations do not suggest the specific use of historic construction methods. These recommendations focus on the material and visual qualities that are critical to the design and, in many cases, are the result of specific construction techniques.

STONEWORK

1. Where stone is used in the construction of new buildings, it should be selected to match existing materials in terms of scale, color, texture, and dimensions.

2. In the construction of new walls and the rehabilitation of the existing parapet walls and bays, every effort should be made to maintain the visual quality (form and design) consistent with the original historic wall. Significant characteristics of the stonework to address include:

3. All curbing along roads and parking areas should be dressed and trimmed to match existing historic curbing throughout Rim Village (see RECOMMENDATIONS: SMALL-SCALE FEATURES, curbing). Curbing should be salvaged and reused whenever possible.

PLANTINGS

1. Soil amendments were used extensively to improve soil structure and nutrient content in newly developed planting area at Rim Village during the naturalization program. In areas where revegetation will be undertaken as part of the redevelopment program, and in existing planting beds where vegetation will be reestablished, soil supplements may be required prior to planting. Soil samples should be analyzed prior to implementation of any intensive revegetation program to ensure proper site conditions.

2. Plant materials selected and used at the rim historically were indigenous and well-acclimated to the harsh growing conditions at the site. where revegetation of the site is anticipated, a viable and rather extensive source for trees, shrubs, and sod should be secured as part of any planning or design.

3. Large "specimen" materials should be used whenever possible in order to create an immediate effect, reflect the "natural character" of the landscape, and enhance the relationship between mature plantings and newly established plant masses.

4. The historic record indicates that large specimen trees should be protected immediately after planting, until roots have time to establish. Guy wires or any other devise that prohibits trees from bending in a natural fashion should not be used.

PAVING

1. In the construction of new walkways or the rehabilitation of existing ones, asphalt, or a similar product, is the appropriate paving material. In order to attain the historic finish and appearance, an application of fine (screened) rock, dust or other treatment should be applied to the surface to create a grey tone that blends with the surrounding environment.

ENDNOTES

1. National Park Service, Park Structures and Facilities, Wash. D.C.: National Park Service, 1935, 1.

2. The National Park Conference held in Berkeley, California in 1915 coincided with the Panama-Pacific International Exposition. The two previous conferences were held in 1911 and 1912.

3. National Park Service, Proceedings of the National Park Conference, Wash. D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1915, 3.

4. The position of General Superintendent of Parks was created in 1910 for the purposes of overseeing development in existing national parks.

5. National Park Service, Proceedings of the National Park Conference, 14-21.

6. William C. Tweed, with Laura E. Soulliere and Henry G. Law, National Park Service Rustic Architecture: 1916-1942. San Francisco: Division of Cultural Resource Management, National Park Service, 1977, 23.

7. Jenks Cameron, The National Park Service, Its History, Activities and Organization, Institute for Government Research, Monograph No. 11, New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1922, 55-56.

8. National Park Service, Park Structures and Facilities, 4.

9. Tweed, 3.

10. Phoebe Cutler, The Public Landscape of the New Deal. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985, 91-2.

11. Albert H. Good, Park and Recreation Structures. Part I-Administration and Basic Service Facilities. Wash. D.C.: Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1938, 6-7.

12. Cutler, 93.

13. Cutler, 86; Linda W. Greene, Historic Resource Study, Crater Lake National Park, Oregon. Denver, CO: Denver Service Center, National Park Service, 1984, 221.

14. Francis Lange, typescript of oral interview with Stephen R. Mark, 12-14 September 1988, Vacaville, CA.

15. These improvements were built according to the park's long-term or general development plan that was approved in 1926 by Vint, the Superintendent of the park, NPS director Aibright, and the Bureau of Public Roads (the road-building faction of the NPS). The NPS's Washington office gave it final approval the following year.

Harlan D. Unrau, Administrative History, Volumes I and II, Crater Lake National Park, Oregon. Denver, CO: Denver Service Center, National Park Service, 1988, 469.

16. A wood shake house, designed in the imitation of a wigwam and containing a large central circular fireplace, was first proposed for the site; a simple, wood frame shingled building with an end-chimney and a gable roof sloping down to form a porch was ultimately designed and built.

National Park Service, "Report of Director of National Park Service," Wash. D.C.: National Park Service, 1923, 144.

17. Unrau, 473.

18. Unrau, 470, 475; Superintendent's Annual Report, 1928, Crater Lake National Park Archives #1696, Box 15.

EARLY ROADS TO AND WITHIN RIM VILLAGE

Arant's Road (Ca 1902-1914)

In October of 1902, Superintendent Arant employed a surveyor and hired laborers to locate and stake-out a road from "the base of the mountain" to the rim. The route selected generally followed the route of the wagon trail blazed in 1869 by the Sutton party, terminating at the rim east of the lodge. (The original road to the rim followed the north side of a ridge running generally southwesterly from the summit. The new road followed the same ridge but was located on the south side of the ridge). The following spring, construction of the new road began. A bridge was built across Anna Creek, grades were improved and surfaces leveled. By the end of August 1903, 2 miles of the road were completed leading north from the new park headquarters at the head of Anna Creek, and by the end of the work season in October, the road was completed to within 1 mile of the lake. Progress was made in the following year and in 1905, the new road from headquarters to the rim was open to the public. The road was described as a "comfortable one," as straight as it was "practicable to make it." The steepest grade was a reported 10 percent, far less than the 33 percent along most of the existing road, which was, by this time, virtually abandoned. The following year the road to the rim was reported in good condition, requiring only "smoothing out" and widening in places. In spite of this positive report, maintaining the road was a significant issue. Spring rains and runoff routinely caused washouts and deep ruts in the tread, requiring constant rebuilding and repair. Dust from the pumice tread was such a nuisance that at one point, Arant suggested the use of sprinklers to keep dust and ash at a minimum. By 1910, a new road to the rim was under consideration as part of a comprehensive system of park roads and trails.

Army Corps of Engineers Road (1914-1926)

The new road from headquarters to the rim was surveyed and located by the Corps of Engineers in 1910-1911. Located west of the existing road it was completed in 1914. The road was 5 miles long with steep grades (reported at 11 percent), hazardous turns and a dirt and pumice surface that made travel a dirty and somewhat risky business. In 1919, road engineering for Crater Lake was transferred to the National Park Service (NPS), and in 1926, NPS engineers, revised the road system for the park in coordination with the Bureau of Public Roads, regrading, resurfacing, and in some cases, realigning the roads designed by the army engineers.

19. National Park Service, "Park Development Program, Crater Lake National Park," January 1928, Records of the National Park Service, Crater Lake National Park, RG 79, #67A614, Box 1, Federal Archives and Records Center, Seattle, Wa.

20. Merel S. Sager, "Report on Naturalization in the Rim Area, Crater Lake National Park," November 18, 1932, National Park Service Records, RG 79, Landscape Architects' Reports to the Chief Architect through Superintendent, Box 1, File "Crater Lake 1929-34," National Archives and Records Center, San Bruno, CA.

21. Unrau, 477.

22. Ansel F. Hall to the Director of the NPS, 5 December 1929, RG 79, 67A618, Box 4499, File 620-77, Sinnott Memorial, Federal Archives and Records Center, Seattle, WA.

23. Thomas C. Vint to the Director of the NPS, 6 February 1930, RG 79, 67A618, Box 4499, File 620-77, Sinnott Memorial, Federal Archives and Records Center, Seattle, WA; Merel S. Sager to Dr. J.C. Merriam,, 25 July 1930, RG 79, 67A618, Box 4499, File 620-77, Sinnott Memorial, Federal Archives and Records Center, Seattle, WA,

24. Merel S. Sager to the Chief Architect, July 4-August 1, 1930, National Park Service Records, RG 79, Landscape Architects' Reports to the Chief Architect through the Superintendent, Box 1, "Crater Lake National Park 1929-34," National Archives and Records Center, San Bruno, CA.

25. Unrau, 463, 465.

26. Merel S. Sager to the Chief Architect, 4 July-1 August 1930, National Park Service Records, RG 79, Landscape Architects' Reports to the Chief Architect through the Superintendent, Box 1, "Crater Lake National Park 1929-34," National Archives and Records Center, San Bruno, Ca.

The guardrail along the road consisted of 24-inch posts set 8 feet on center, with a single 14-inch diameter log railing. The smaller guard rail was comprised of 14-inch posts and 8-inch rails and was constructed around the inside loop of the lodge parking lot, the outer south end of the loop, behind the west parking strip, and at the entrance to the campground. The timbers for all guardrails were selected from the forests within the park, and a large share of the costs associated with the fabrication of these structures was in the labor costs of felling trees, peeling the logs, and hauling them to the job. By the end of January 1929, all of the posts had been set and approximately 90 percent of them had been framed (ready for the railing). About 75 percent of the railing had been framed and was ready to be bolted to the posts. In September of that year, all but 200 feet of the log guardrail was complete. The following year, the job was completed and in October all log guardrails were stained with "Cabot's brown stain," in order to enhance the "visual appearance" of the structure.

27. Log guardrails remained in place around the lodge's lower parking area until 1963.

28. "Report to the Chief Architect through Superintendent of Crater Lake National Park," 4 July-1 August 1930.

29. Merel S. Sager to the Chief Architect, 23-27 June and 1-11 July 1931, National Park Service Records, RG 79, Landscape Architects' Reports to the Chief Architect through the Superintendent, Box 1, "Crater Lake National Park 1929-34," National Archives and Records Center, San Bruno, Ca.

30. E.A. Davidson, "Report on Rim Village Construction Activity," 21-25 July 1929, National Park Service Records, RG 79, Landscape Architects' Reports to the Chief Architect through the Superintendent, Box 1, "Crater Lake National Park 1929-34," National Archives and Records Center, San Bruno, Ca.

31. Merel S. Sager to the Chief Architect, 21-25 July 1929, National Park Service Records, RG 79, Landscape Architects' Reports to the Chief Architect through the Superintendent, Box 1, "Crater Lake National Park 1929-34," National Archives and Records Center, San Bruno, Ca.

32. Sager, 3.

33. Sager, 4.

34. Sager, 4.

35. Sager, 7.

36. "Report to the Chief Architect through Superintendent of Crater Lake National Park," 21-25 July 1929; Unrau, 477.

37. E.C. Solinsky to General Electric Supply Corporation, 29 September 1931, National Park Service Records, RG 79, 67A618, Box 4499, File 661, Electrical Systems, Federal Archives and Records Center, Seattle, Wa.

38. Tweed, 75.

39. Cutler, 87.

40. Tweed, 75-6, 88; Greene, 221.

41. Tweed, 76-7.

42. Greene, 235.

43. Cutler, 84.

44. Unrau, 483.

45. Francis Lange to the Chief Architect, 22 October 1934, National Park Service Records, RG 79, Landscape Architects' Reports to the Chief Architect through the Superintendent, Box 1, "Crater Lake National Park 1929-34," National Archives and Records Center, San Bruno, CA.

46. A.M. Doerner to the Chief Architect, 25 August 1934, National Park Service Records, RG 79, Landscape Architects' Reports to the Chief Architect through the Superintendent, Box 1, "Crater Lake National Park 1929-34," National Archives and Records Center, San Bruno, CA.

47. Unrau, 496.

48. Greene, 222, 233; Unrau, 496-7.

49. Merel Sager to the Chief Architect, 13 October 1933, National Park Service Records, RG 79, Landscape Architects' Reports to the Chief Architect through the Superintendent, Box 1, "Crater Lake National Park 1929-34," National Archives and Records Center, San Bruno, Ca.

50. Francis Lange to the Chief Architect, August 1934 and 22 October 1934 (Part I), National Park Service Records, RG 79, Landscape Architects' Reports to the Chief Architect through the Superintendent, Box 1, "Crater Lake National Park 1929-34," National Archives and Records Center, San Bruno, Ca.

51. Francis Lange to the Chief Architect, September 1934, National Park Service Records, RG 79, Landscape Architects' Reports to the Chief Architect through the Superintendent, Box 1, "Crater Lake National Park 1929-34," National Archives and Records Center, San Bruno, Ca.

Francis Lange to the Chief Architect, August-September 1938, National Park Service Records, RG 79, Landscape Architects' Reports to the Chief Architect through the Superintendent, Box 2, "Crater Lake National Park 1935-38," National Archives and Records Center, San Bruno, CA.

53. Francis Lange to the Chief Architect, 1 July 1934, National Park Service Records, RG 79, Landscape Architects' Reports to the Chief Architect through the Superintendent, Box 1, "Crater Lake National Park 1929-34," National Archives and Records Center, San Bruno, Ca.

54. Dr. H.C. Bryant's Report on Crater Lake National Park, Summer 1935, 37, RG 79, 67A612, Box 4418, File 204, Inspections and Investigations (General), Federal Archives and Records Center, Seattle, Wa.

55. Francis Lange to the Chief Architect, 1 September 1936, National Park Service Records, RG 79, Landscape Architects' Reports to the Chief Architect through the Superintendent, Box 2, "Crater Lake National Park 1935-38," National Archives and Records Center, San Bruno, CA.

56. "Crater Lake National Park, Six Year Program, 1939-1944," RG 79, 67A614, Box 1, Folder "600-02 Six Year Program," Federal Archives and Records Center, Seattle, Wa.

57. "Superintendent's Monthly Report," 8 September 1933, Crater Lake National Park Archives, #1699, Box #15, 2.

58. "Report to Chief Architect," 1 July 1934.

59. "Superintendent's Monthly Report," 8 September 1933, Crater Lake National Park Archives, #1699, Box #15, 7.

60. "Report to Chief Forester on E.C.W. Conditions, Crater Lake National Park," by Shirley W. Allen, 15 August 1934, National Park Service Records, RG 79, Landscape Architects' Reports to the Chief Architect through the Superintendent, Box 1, "Crater Lake 1929-34," National Archives and Records Center, San Bruno, CA; "Report to Regional Landscape Architect on E.C.W. Work at Crater Lake National Park," by Francis Lange, 1 August 1936, National Park Service Records, RG 79, Landscape Architects' Reports to the Chief Architect, Box 2, "Crater Lake 1935-38," National Archives and Records Center, San Bruno, CA.

The "less elaborate" design was either the "Western Picnic" or variations of it, as found in A.O. Taylor's Camp Stoves and Fireplaces. USFS, 1937.

61. Francis Lange to the Chief Architect, 22

62. Francis Lange to the Chief Architect, 1 October 1935, National Park Service Records, RG 79, Landscape Architects' Reports to the Chief Architect through the Superintendent, Box 1, "Crater Lake National Park 1929-34," National Archives and Records Center, San Bruno, CA.

63. Francis Lange to the Chief Architect, 1 November 1935, National Park Service Records, RG 79, Landscape Architects' Reports to the Chief Architect through the Superintendent, Box 2, "Crater Lake National Park 1935-38," National Archives and Records Center, San Bruno, Ca.

64. One proposal for the Rim Campground that never came to fruition was suggested by the park Superintendent and Naturalist. In 1934, these individuals suggested that an open-air campfire be incorporated into the design of the campground development work. They believed that tourists should have the opportunity to, in their words, "witness" an outdoor program. The site they recommended had sloping ground, was surrounded by trees, and was well-protected from prevailing winds; in effect, it was a natural amphitheater. Although a drawing was going to be prepared by Francis Lange for submittal to the Western Field Office in San Francisco, the park staff's open-air campfire was never realized. [Lange Report to the Chief Architect, August 1934]

65. Report to the Chief Architect, 24 April-24 May 1937.

66. Francis Lange to the Chief Architect, 24 May-24 June 1937, National Park Service Records, RG 79, Landscape Architects' Reports to the Chief Architect through the Superintendent, Box 1, "Crater Lake National Park 1929-34," National Archives and Records Center, San Bruno, Ca.

67. Francis Lange to the Chief Architect, Final Report for 1937, National Park Service Records, RG 79, Landscape Architects' Reports to the Chief Architect through the Superintendent, Box 2, "Crater Lake National Park 1935-38," National Archives and Records Center, San Bruno, Ca.

68. Francis Lange to the Chief Architect, 1 October 1935 and 25 June-25 July 1938, National Park Service Records, RG 79, Landscape Architects' Reports to the Chief Architect through the Superintendent, Box 2, "Crater Lake National Park 1935-38," National Archives and Records Center, San Bruno, Ca.

69. "Report to Regional Landscape Architect on E.C.W. Work at Crater Lake National Park," by Francis Lange, 24 September 1936, National Park Service Records, RG 79, Landscape Architects' Reports to the Chief Architect, Box 2, "Crater Lake 1935-38," National Archives and Records Center, San Bruno, CA.

70. Francis Lange to the Regional Landscape Architect, Final Report for E.C.W. Work, 1 November 1936, National Park Service Records, RG 79, Landscape Architects' Reports to the Chief Architect through the Superintendent, Box 2, "Crater Lake National Park 1935-38," National Archives and Records Center, San Bruno, Ca.

71. Francis Lange to the Chief Architect, Final Narrative Report on the CCC, November/December 1937, National Park Service Records, RG 79, Landscape Architects' Reports to the Chief Architect through the Superintendent, Box 2, "Crater Lake National Park 1935-38," National Archives and Records Center, San Bruno, CA.

72. Lange to Regional Landscape Architect, 1 November 1936.

73. Unrau, 497-8.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Applegate, Elmer I. "Plants of Crater Lake National Park." The American Midland Naturalist 22, No. 2 (1939): 225-311. Photocopy reproduction.

2. Crater Lake National Park. Archives. Superintendents' Monthly Narrative Reports, 1931-1959. Crater Lake, Oregon.

3. _____, Historical Files. Crater Lake, Oregon.

4. _____, Historic Photograph and Drawing Collection. Crater Lake, Oregon.

5. Erigero, Patricia. Historic Building Inventory, Crater Lake National Park, Crater Lake, Oregon. Unpublished National Park Service document, July 1984.

6. Franklin, Jerry F. and C.T. Dyrness. Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Portland, Oregon: Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, United States Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, 1973.

7. Good, Albert H. Park and Recreation Structures. Parts I-III. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1938.

8. Greene, Linda W. Historic Resource Study, Crater Lake National Park, Oregon. Denver, CO: Denver Service Center, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1984.

9. Harrison, Laura Soulliere. Architecture in the Parks, National Historic Landmark Theme Study. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1986.

10. Hitchcock, C. Leo and Arthur Cronquist. Flora of the Pacific Northwest: An Illustrated Manual. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1973.

11. Hubbard, Henry V. and Theodora Kimball. An Introduction to the Study of Landscape Design. New York: MacMillan Co., 1924.

12. Lange, Francis G. Interviews with Crater Lake National Park Historian Stephen R. Mark. Vacaville, California, August 1987; 12-14 September 1988. Typed fieldnotes on file in park.

13. Mark, Stephen R. 1989-90. Physical History Chronology of the Crater Lake Lodge. Crater Lake National Park, Oregon. Typed manuscript on file in park.

14. Morrison, John. 1987. Rustic Stone Architecture of Crater Lake National Park. National Park Service. Typed manuscript (unfinished) on file in park.

15. National Park Service. Architectural Character Guidelines, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. Government Printing Office, 1989.

16. San Bruno, California. National Archives and Records Center. Record Group 79, Records of the National Park Service, Landscape Architects' Monthly Narrative Reports, 1929-1938.

17. Schaffer, Jeffrey P. Crater Lake National Park and Vicinity. Berkeley, CA: Wilderness Press, 1983.

18. Seattle, Washington. National Archives and Records Center. Record Group 79, Records of the National Park Service, Crater Lake National Park.

19. Shiltgen, Lora. "Managing a Rustic Legacy: A Historic Landscape Study and Management Plan for Longmire Springs Historic District, Mount Rainier National Park." Master's thesis, University of Oregon, 1986.

20. Tweed, William C. and Laura E. Soulliere, Henry G. Law. National Park Service Rustic Architecture: 1916-1942. San Francisco, CA: National Park Service, 1977.

21. United States Department of the Interior. Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service, 1917-63. Washington, D.C.

22. _____. Park Structures and Facilities. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 1935.

23. Unrau, Harlan D. Administrative History, Crater Lake National Park, Oregon. Volumes I-II. Denver, CO: Denver Service Center, National Park Service, United States Department of the Interior, 1987.

24. Waugh, Frank Albert. Landscape Gardening. New York: Orange Judd., 1919.

25. Wheeler, David L. and Thomas Atzet. Guide to Common Forest Plants: Rogue River. Siskiyou. and Umpqua National Forests. Seattle, WA: Pacific Northwest National Parks and Forests Association, 1987.

26. Whitehall, Lucinda Adele. Historic Grounds Report and Management Plan: Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site. Brookline, MA. Boston, MA: North-Atlantic Region, National Park Service, 1982.

27. Yocum, Charles F. Shrubs of Crater Lake National Park. San Francisco, CA: 1964.

APPENDIX A

APOLOGIA

Lamentable is the fact that during the six days given over to Creation, picnic tables and fireplaces, foot bridges, toilet facilities, and many another of man's requirements even in natural surroundings, were negligently and entirely overlooked. This grave omission, his persistent efforts have long endeavored to supply, with varying success, or lack of it, as one may choose to view it.

Confronted with this no less than awesome task of assuming to supply these odds and ends undone when the whistle blew on Creation, man may well conclude, pending achievement of greater skill and finesse, that only the most persistent demands for a facility shall trap him into playing the jester in Nature's unspoiled places. He may well realize that structures, however well designed, almost never truly add to the beauty, but only to the use, of a park of true natural distinction. Since the purpose of setting aside these areas is to conserve them as nearly as possible in their natural state, every structure, however necessary, can only be regarded as an intruder. Confronted with the so-called development of such areas for his own greater use and enjoyment, he has on occasion recognized these first principles, to the masterly accomplishment of rejecting, sometimes with a semblance of consistence, the temptation to embellish Nature's canvas. He has sometimes even confined himself to building only such structures as long and thoughtful consideration demonstrates he can not do without. The success of his achievement is measurable by the yardstick of his self-restraint.

In frequent cases his artistry has almost matched this developing repression. He has come slowly to sense that, if the trespass is unavoidable, it can be done with a certain grace. The need proved, his undertaking is somehow legitimized, or not, by harmony or the lack of it. He is learning that harmony, is more likely to result from a use of native materials. He shows signs of doubting the propriety of introducing boulders from a distance into a setting where nature failed to provide them, or of incorporating heavy alien timbers into structures in treeless areas. He sometimes even indicates a faltering of faith in the precision materials produced by his machines, and so evidences, along with a creditable humility, his growing understanding of the fitness of things.

As he comes vaguely to sense that he cannot improve on Nature, but rather can only facilitate the way to his understanding and enjoyment of her manifestations, he tends to a kindred humility toward the remote past. He becomes aware of the unvoiced claims of those long gone races and earlier generations that tracked the wilderness, plains or desert before him. In fitting tribute he graces his encroachments by adapting to his structures such of their traditions and practices as come within his understanding. In consequence, the heritage from the early settlers, English and Dutch, still points the way along the Atlantic seaboard; something of the influence of Old France lingers along the trail of Père Marquette and the fur traders who followed him. Reaching up from the mouth of the Mississippi, from Florida, and Old Mexico, Spanish traditions and customs rightfully flourish. Over the covered wagon routes the ring of the pioneer's axe is echoed in the efforts of today. The habits and primitive ingenuity of the American Indian persist and find varied expression in park construction over wide areas. All these influences contribute to a growing variety in expression promising eventual high attainment.

The style of architecture which has been most widely used in our forested National Parks, and in other wilderness parks, is generally referred to as "rustic." It is, or should be, something more than the worn and misused term implies. It is earnestly hoped that a more apt and expressive designation for the style may evolve, but until it appears, "rustic," in spite of its inaccuracy and inadequacy, must be resorted to in this discussion. Successfully handled, it is a style which, through the use of native materials in proper scale, and through the avoidance of rigid, straight lines, and over-sophistication, gives the feeling of having been executed by pioneer craftsmen with limited hand tools. It thus achieves sympathy with natural surroundings and with the past.

In high, mountainous and forested regions the various structural elements of rustic construction - logs, timbers, rocks - must be reasonably overscaled to the structure itself to avoid being unreasonably underscaled to surrounding large trees and rough terrain. In less rugged natural areas, the style may be employed with less emphasis on oversizing. For pleasing harmony, the scale of the structural elements must be reduced proportionately as the ruggedness and scale of the surroundings diminish. Then this recession in scale reaches a point at which there is any hint of "twig" architecture masquerading under the term "rustic," the understanding designer will sense immediately its limitations and take refuge in some widely different style.

That the so-called "rustic" style offers, if anything, more pitfalls to failure than do the more sophisticated expressions, is not widely enough understood. And while generally speaking it lends itself to man, semi-wilderness regions perhaps better than the others, its use is by no means appropriate to all park areas. This is instantly demonstrated by recalling the wide range of dominant characteristics of our parks. Spectacular snow-covered mountain peaks, dramatic primeval forests, open expanses of arid desert or limitless prairie, shifting sand dunes gently rolling woodland and meadow, semi-tropical hammock, are not to be served appropriately by a single structural expression. A range of architectural styles as varied as these backgrounds must be employed before our park architecture will have come of age.

Nothing is more indicative of lack of a proper sense of values in park technique than the frequently expressed determination to "make a feature" of a shelter or other park structure. The features to be emphasized and stressed for appreciation in parks with which we are here concerned are the natural features, not the man-made. After all, every structural undertaking in a natural park is only a part of a whole. The individual building or facility must bow deferentially before the broad park plan, which is the major objective, never to be lost sight of. The park plan determines the size, character, location and use of each and every structure. Collectively, these should be properly interrelated; at the same time they must be closely and logically related to the park plan to insure its workability and harmony. Otherwise, there will result, as someone has expressed it, a costly but in effectual collection of "spare parts."

Although a park structure exists solely for the use of the public, it is not required that it be seen from some distance. In its most satisfying expression, the park structure is designed with a view to subordinating it to its environment, and it is located so that it may profit from any natural screening that may exist. Suitable signs marking the way to a particular park building which has been appropriately retired are to be preferred to the shock of finding a building intruding at a focal point or visible for great distance.

The subordination of a structure to environment may be aided in several ways. One of these is to screen the building by locating it behind existing plant material or in some secluded spot in the terrain partly screened by some other natural feature. In the absence of such screening at a site otherwise well suited for the building's function, an adequate screen can be planted, by repeating the same plant material which exists nearby. Preferably, structures will be so located with reference to the natural features of the landscape that it is unnecessary to plant them out.

The color of the exteriors, particularly the wooden portions of park structures, is another most important factor in assimilation. Naturally such colors as occur in, and are commonest to, the immediate surroundings serve best. In general, warm browns will go far toward retiring a wooden building in a wooded or partly wooded setting. A light driftwood gray is another safe color. Where contrast is desired to give architectural accent to minor items, such as window muntins, a light buff or stone color may be sparingly used. Strangely enough, green is perhaps the hardest of all colors to handle, because it is so difficult to get just the correct shade in a given setting and because it almost invariably fades to a strangely different hue. A green roof might be expected to blend with the green of the surrounding trees, yet because a mass of foliage is an uneven surface, intermingling other colors, and broken up by patches of deep shadow and bright openings, and because a roof is a flat plane which reflects a solid continuous color, anything but harmony results. Brown or weathered gray roofs, on the other hand, blend with the colors of earth and tree trunks to much happier results.

While structures should be so designed and so located that it will not be necessary to plant them out, the proper introduction of vegetation along the foundations will gracefully obliterate the otherwise unhappy line of demarcation between building and ground. Rough rock footings artfully contrived to give the impression of natural rock out croppings, are a means of blending the structure to the site. A batter to a stone wall, with skillful buttressing of the corners, if done with true finesse, will often bring to the building that agreeable look of having sprung from the soil. Park structures giving that impression are of the elect.

Some park structures give hint of their designers long dalliance in cities, where architectural design has become a matter of one facade. It should be remembered that park buildings will be viewed from all sides, and that design cannot be lavished on one elevation only. All four elevations will be virtually front elevations, and as such merit careful study. Admittedly, one side of major park buildings will always provide for service, and while enclosures on park areas are to be deplored and only installed where necessary, a palisade or some other suitable enclosure on this side of the building should completely screen all service operations.

As a rule, park structures are less conspicuous and more readily subordinated to their settings when horizontal lines predominate and the silhouette is low. Vertically will therefore be avoided wherever possible. This usually calls for a roof low in pitch, perhaps not more than one-third. Too frequently, roofs needlessly dominate both structure and setting.

The degree of that sought-for primitive "character" in park structures that native materials can contribute depends entirely on intelligent use. The quality, not the fact, of "nativeness" of materials is of value. Local stone, worked to the regularity in size and surface of cut stone or concrete block, and native logs fashioned to the rigid counterpart of telephone poles or commercial timber, have sacrificed all the virtue of being native.

Rock work needs first of all to be in proper scale. The average size of the rocks employed must be sufficiently large to justify the use of masonry. Rocks should be placed on their natural beds, the stratification or bedding planes horizontal, never vertical variety of size lends interest and results in a pattern far more pleasing than that produced by units of common or nearly common size. Informality vanishes from rock work if the rocks are laid in courses like brick work, or if the horizontal joints are not broken. In walls the larger rocks should be used near the base, but by no means should smaller ones be used exclusively in the upper portions. Rather should a variety of sizes be common to the whole surface, the larger predominating at the base. Rock should be selected for its color and hardness.

Logs should never be selected because they are good poles. There is nothing aesthetically beautiful in a pole. Logs desirable in the park technician's viewpoint are pleasingly knotted. The knots are not completely sawed off. The textural surface of the log after removal of the bark is duly appreciated and preserved. Strong as may be the immediate appeal of structures built of logs on which the bark is left, we do well to renounce at once this transitory charm. If the bark is not intentionally stripped, not only will this process naturally and immediately set in, but the wood is subjected to aggravated deterioration through the ravages of insects and rot. It is in the best interests of the life of park structures, as well as in avoidance of a long period of litter from loosening bark, and of unsightliness during the process, that there has come about general agreement that the bark should be entirely sacrificed at the outset.

This outline of the factors which make for the desirable and appropriately rugged, handcrafted character of park structures would be woefully incomplete if consideration of roof texture were left unconsidered The heavy walls of rock and timber which are urged as fitting to a natural environment are assuredly created in vain unless crowned with roofs having related character. Surmounted with roofs trivial in aspect and thin in fact, the heavy walls appear robbed of justification. Verge members in gables should tend to be oversized, eave lines to be thick, and the roofing material to appear correspondingly heavy and durable. Where wood shingles or shakes are used on a roof, these should be fully an inch in thickness if possible. and the doubling of every fifth course or so, unless the building is quite small, will bring the roof texture into more appropriate scale with the structure itself and with the other materials that compose it. The primitive character we seek to create is furthered tremendously if we shun straight rigid eave and course lines in favor of properly irregular, wavering, "freehand" lines. The straight edge as a precision tool has little or no place in the park artisan's equipment.

The structures necessary in a park are naturally less obtrusive if they are reasonably unified by a use of one style of architecture, limited construction methods, and not too great variety in materials. When a truly inappropriate style of architecture already exists in a park in which new work is contemplated, it is urged that the new buildings do not stubbornly carry on the old tradition. The best judgment available should be consulted to determine upon the style most appropriate to the area, and this then frankly and courageously launched. If the new style is the more appropriate one, it will prevail. In course of time the earlier, inappropriately styled buildings, will, in the very fitness of things, be eliminated.

Since structures exist in parks through sufferance, it follows that it is highly desirable in every area to keep down the number of them. A small area can be ruined by a clutter of minor buildings which, however necessary their purpose, seem to have been forced into every vista to inflict a consciousness of the hand of man. Two functions, or even more, where closely related at a given location, should be combined under one roof. This is not in defense of excessively large buildings. It is sound practice only within reasonable limits. It is based on a belief that a localizing of infection is preferable to an irritating rash of trivial structures all over an area. The grouping of two or more facilities under one roof tends to bring welcome variety to park structures generally. The limited range of expression of any simple, one-purpose building is vastly widened as other purposes are combined with it.

Confronted with the privilege of presenting examples of representative structures and facilities that have found place in our natural park areas, many decisions have been necessary in determination of a proper approach. Should such a compilation assume in the reader no fundamental knowledge of the subject, and become a park primer treating the subject "from the ground up" literally and figuratively? Should it seek to embrace in all detail every subject of possible interest to the park-minded, from the many linked but varied viewpoints of the architectural, landscape and engineering professions, assuming in the reader a consuming appetite for knowledge in bulk? Need it concern itself with formulae and tables, diagrams and charts, rules of thumb and rules of fact? Should it become a repository of material, both technical and aesthetic, elementary and advanced, and already available, albeit from scattered sources?

The conclusion of the editing committee is that the call is for none of these things. It is firmly of the opinion that the aim should be toward a comprehensive presentation of structures and appurtenances in which principles held in esteem by park planners, landscape designers, engineers, and architects, have been happily combined in adequate provision for man's needs with minimum sacrifice of a natural setting.

By avoiding any tendency to be a primer, an encyclopedia, or a handbook of the subject, it has been hoped to focus more directly on the current trend in park structures and facilities. It is believed that by making the subjects herein widely available for comparative study, the influence engendered by each in itself will be widened to merge into a forceful composite, to the advancement of park technique.

The structures and facilities shown are usually existent in, or suited to, natural parks, as distinguished from naturalistic or formalized city parks. These latter are considered to be a field in themselves, very different in major concept. and better treated independently of the natural park areas as exemplified by our National and many of our State Parks. Examples, however, from Metropolitan and County Parks, which in their expression would be equally at home in a completely natural environment, are in some instances included for the completeness of the collection.

The subject matter has suggested three varieties of presentation. There are minor facilities, developed to a pleasing and thoroughly satisfying expression within certain utilitarian or technical limitations, which might with propriety be duplicated in many localities. In such instances, it has been the endeavor to provide information in such complete detail that close adaptation is made possible. This is by no means so much an invitation to indiscriminate copying, as a suggestion that little objects once well done are often a more satisfactory solution to a recurring problem than a new creation claiming the sole and debatable distinction of originality.

Another group embraces subjects eminently suited to particular locations, but promising little success with outright transplanting into another environment. Detail of such subjects is purposely limited, and they are included simply in the hope that they may exert an influence by conveying the charm and fitness of the subjects in their specific settings and expressions, while flying a warning against too literal translation where some other dialect, or an entirely different language, might better be used. It is intended to offer the spirit but not the letter of such examples. Only reliance on the best professional advice can reasonably insure against structures appropriate in one locality be coming hideous caricatures elsewhere. Only consummate skill and rare good judgment in adaptation can limit the spread of half-caste offspring, the very counterfeit exactness of which is pathetic testimony of the bar sinister relationship.

The third presentation is of successful accomplishments of highly individual problems, the factors fixing which are unlikely ever to be approximated in another problem. These are included in recognition of worthy attainment, to inspire in those to whom the more complex park structures may be entrusted in the future, a high purpose to approach their specific problems with equally refreshing individuality, ingenuity, and forthrightness. Plagiarism, subtle or obvious, in structures within this category would be a crowning stupidity.

It is felt that inclusion of examples of extraordinarily complex structures in parks would bring little to the practical usefulness of this collection. The more involved and extensive the structure, the more evident that it is the result of an altogether unique interplay of needs, topography, traditions, materials and many other factors. Beyond the borders of utter simplicity lie innumerable possible patterns, complex in varying g degree. The duplication of any one such pattern is without rime, the approximation of it without reason. Readers will note the absence of many well-known and admired large-scale buildings of incontestable park character. These are held to be sanctified in a sense by their very success. They are omitted to avoid possible inference that they are imitable material.

The placing of some of the combination structures herein presented, within the chapter classifications established, may stand in need of explanation and defense. Such combination buildings are so numerous, that to create a separate classification for them would result in one very bulky and but loosely related group, at the expense of, and out of reasonable balance with, most of the other classifications. For this reason the allocation of a so-called combination structure to that heading which seems best to define the apparently dominant use of the building is the chosen alternative.

On one major point in the selection of material the editing committee failed to agree. The question, long debated, centered around honesty in the use of materials in that wide-ranging style in park structures which we loosely identify, and as loosely term, "rustic" or "pioneer." One opinion insisted that park buildings should not appropriate the semblance of primitive structures without appropriating as well all the primitive elements and methods of the prototypes. It was held that there is no allowable compromise with true log construction; it must be rigidly adhered to in every detail if employed at all. Contrary opinion argued that there are not at hand today the seemingly inexhaustible resources of pioneer days, that to insist on the use of logs in today's park structures in the spendthrift fashion of our forefathers, might be logic in the aesthetic abstract, but in practice wastes those resources the conservation of which is at the very roots of the impetus toward park expansion. A straddling pacifist proposed that only the more important park structures should faithfully reproduce pioneer log construction, with the objective of preserving for observation and study the fast disappearing frontier construction methods. Minor and oft-repeated units such as cabins, he argued, might well utilize some more economical, even though less picturesque and durable, method.

Here was an age-old controversy in a new setting. Taking into account the demands of present day economy and conservation principles, how far might we properly recommend departure from the forthright but prodigal construction of the pioneers? Dared we urge recourse to substitutes as a recommended or even acceptable wall surface finish for park buildings? Is there justification in the fact that the amount of timber stock required for one true log structure will provide material for three or four more or less adequate and pleasing structures to bloom or blight (the partisan reader may choose his own verb) in its place?

Only threats to turn the key on the jury until a verdict would be reached moved the proponents of the several schools of thought. Beyond all doubt every member of the committee was coerced through sheer horror at the prospect of enduring longer the enforced company of six others of heretical belief. At any rate, the perfect settlement was suavely reached by unanimous agreement to leave the matter unsettled. The committee remains stubbornly off the record on this controversial point. In offering herein examples that provoke argument and supply rebuttal for every viewpoint, it tosses the debate to partisan readers in the remote hope of an eventual conclusive opinion.

The intent in publication of this collection will be misconstrued if it is interpreted as providing source material for park structures, denying need for competent professional assistance in the creation of park buildings that may follow. The intent is the very opposite. The most completely satisfying subjects included herein are so, not as a result of chance, but because training, imagination, effort and skill are conjoined to create and fashion a pleasing structure or facility appropriate to a particular setting. Who then, but those of professional training and experience are equipped to decide that a perfect structural interpretation for one setting will sanction adaptation for another, and in what detail or degree modification will make the most of the conditions presented by another environment. If an existing structure is so admired that it persuades duplication, careful analysis will inevitably demonstrate that admiration springs from a nice perfection of the subject within one circumstantial pattern. As that pattern changes so must the structure change. To venture in translation without benefit of technical idiom foredooms to mediocrity if not to failure.

In connection with the subjects illustrated be discovered a varied practice in the matter of credit lines. This proceeds, not from conscious intent to withhold credit where credit is due, but from a lack of enabling information. The editing committee regrets that the names of countless artisans, technicians and agencies whose talents and cooperation have brought distinction to the structures, and to the National Park Service the privilege of compiling this collection, go unrecorded. To all contributors, who with high purpose may have produced an entire park system, a skillful planting, well-fashioned log, a photograph of character, a salute is offered. To those who herein must remain anonymous, an extra salvo!

APPENDIX B

February 28, 1989
MEMORANDUM

To: Kent Taylor, Chief of Interpretation
From: Steve Mark, Historian

Subject: Origin and Size of Rockwork at Rim Village

The position paper stemming from the meeting of 11/10/87 at PNRO stressed that the exterior design of the proposed interpretive center/hotel at Rim Village should harmonize with the rustic architecture theme already established for Crater Lake National Park. In the 1920s and 1930s, NPS landscape architects incorporated stone masonry as a design element for buildings, retaining walls, walkways, and service facilities at Rim Village and Munson Valley. The evolution of stone masonry as part of rustic architecture in the park is important in understanding what is appropriate for the proposed structure.

The earliest use of stone in structures at Crater Lake was by concessioners. Stone from the area of Garfield Peak was used in the construction of the Crater Lake Lodge. Deficiencies in the original building (particularly with the masonry) are detailed in various reports, such as Haner (1953), Arbogast, et. al. (1982), and BOOR/A (1986). The condition of the masonry in the annexes is in somewhat better condition (Superintendent's memorandum to the Director, 9/26/84), though some of the mortar is as poor as that used in the original building. The builder of the annexes, F.P. Salter, used stone from a site on the old west rim drive (probably the Watchman) and received some oversight from the NPS.

Salter built two log ranger stations at the east and west entrances to the park in 1917 that Tweed, et. al. (1977, p. 23) say are the earliest NPS buildings that are identifiably rustic. He was also the contractor for the Kiser Studio, built in 1921. Salter suggested the use of stone for the exterior of the structure in 1920 and drew plans accordingly. During the summer that the Kiser Studio was constructed, the NPS built a stone comfort station east of the lodge to service the surrounding tent houses. It followed a design that "makes the new station conform exteriorly to the architecture of the lodge and the studio..." (Director's Annual Report, 1921).

There is little evidence that the NPS ever planned to extend the type of rockwork present in the Kiser Studio to future construction. In 1926, Thomas Vint was touring the western parks and made development plans for Crater Lake. That year a small warehouse was constructed in Munson Valley, "an attractive building of rough stone walls with [a] second story of rough boards, battened with a shake roof; this is the type of building evolved for use in all future construction here..." (C.J. Thomson, Superintendent, to the Director, 8/31/26). The rough, almost piled stone in the original warehouse building matched that used in the construction of Standard Oil's rustic gas station in Munson Valley which was built at the same time. (The gas station was demolished in 1958).

Although a prototype had been established, stone masonry varies considerably in buildings constructed at the park between 1927 and 1930. There was some effort to match the type, color, and pattern of rockwork in adjacent buildings in Munson Valley and Rim Village. "Drift" stone, not quarried rock, from various sites in Munson Valley was used to construct the Cottages (buildings #30, #31, #32), comfort station (#36), messhall (#3)*, and meathouse (#13). At Rim Village, the west rim drive area was used to obtain stone for the original portion of the cafeteria, built in 1928. The cafeteria's larger stone with less cement mortar in evidence contrasts sharply with the masonry of the Kiser Studio and the lodge . A comfort station with rockwork to match that of the cafeteria's was built in 1930 to service the rental cabins. This building is located behind the cafeteria.

When Vint was formulating his development plan for Rim Village in 1926, he foresaw a promenade that was to be bounded by a roadway and the rim. A retaining wall for the promenade was needed, so a Bureau of Public Roads design was adapted by the NPS for use at Rim Village (see CRLA Maintenance Division drawings dated April 1926, June 1927, and 9/30/29; also DSC microfiche 106-812). In 1929, three retaining walls were constructed across small washes at different Points in the Rim Village area. They were joined together over the next three construction seasons to form a wall that runs the entire length of the promenade. Rock for the wall was obtained in various parts of the park, loaded into trucks by hoist, hauled to Rim Village, and then cut to the proper size and shape by masons. Work on the stone curbing for the roads and walks of Rim Village lasted from 1932 to 1936. The stone was obtained from the north slope of the Watchman because it was found to split and trim better than any other in the park, while also being abundant and close to the road.

Construction of the Sinnott Memorial in 1930 is of importance to the evolution of rockwork in the park because this is where experimentation begins with large battered stone that often protrudes beyond a uniform masonry surface. The idea could have come from Herbert Maier, who had previously done museums at Yosemite and Yellowstone. Maier's Yavapai Station at the Grand Canyon served as the model for the Sinnott (Vint to the Director, 2/6/30). His one-time assistant and later resident landscape architect at Crater Lake, Francis Lange, has said that the rationale behind the decision to begin incorporating large boulders into building exteriors was that larger rock "aged better" (oral history interview 9/12/88).

Refinement of the large boulder idea can be seen in the two cottages (buildings #24 and #28) designed by Lange and constructed in 1931. Large boulders are used near the bottom of the exterior walls and the size of the stone gradually tapers off near the top. Another example of this can be seen in pictures of the small firehall constructed that year. When it was demolished in 1969, some of the boulders were said to be "as big as a small car" (in the Smith Brothers' Chronology) . Lange has also said that the purpose of the larger stone was to give a curved appearance to the structure, making it a better model of the terrain than construction emphasizing straight lines (oral history interview 8/8/87). An interesting demonstration of this idea might be the drinking fountain along the retaining wall near the Victor Rock Trail to the Sinnott Memorial. In 1931, a stone mason named Mancini produced a scale model of Crater Lake from a single boulder.

By 1932, the use of untrimmed boulders in construction at the park becomes a dominant feature. A "government contact building" was drawn that year for Rim Village (this type of building was later called a "museum" or a "visitor center") . Designed by NPS architect George Norgard (the man who had done the drawings for the Ranger Dormitory in Munson Valley), this building would have been situated next to the cafeteria on the plaza. It was to be built in two units, one in 1933 and the second in 1934. This two story structure was to replace the 1924 Community House, provide offices and space for public contact activities. It was to "conform with the present type of architecture used in park buildings" and cost almost twice the estimated amount to be expended upon the Superintendent's Residence ("Justification for Individual Cost Projects, 1933").

Proper use of the boulders in large buildings was not without problems. A 1934 report to Vint on the construction of the Administration Building in Munson Valley commented: "Some trouble was experienced in getting a good distribution of color in the rockwork, but the hardest thing was to keep out the unnatural shapes . One bad habit of many masons seems to be the desire to trim rocks around windows to resemble a pie with a slice missing. This awkward shape is also resorted to when fitting rocks together. The only way to avoid poor rockwork in many cases is to have an inspector constantly on the job, or else make detailed sheets showing each rock. This would prove very expensive construction when using natural shaped rocks." Despite these problems, Lange called the Administration Building in his final field report for 1935 "one of the most attractive structures of its kind in any of our national parks."

The rockwork in the Administration Building demonstrates some points made in the 1935 NPS publication Park Structures and Facilities: "In high mountainous and forested regions the various structural elements of rustic construction -- logs, timbers, rocks -- must be reasonably overscaled to the structure itself to avoid being reasonably underscaled to surrounding trees and rough terrain. . . Rocks should be placed on their natural beds, the stratification or bedding planes horizontal, never vertical. Variety of size lends interest and results in a pattern far more pleasing than that produced by units of common or nearly common size. . . In walls the larger rocks should be used near the base, but by no means should smaller ones be used exclusively in the upper portions. Rather should a variety of sizes be common to the whole surface, the larger predominating at the base. Rock should be selected for its color and hardness." More detail regarding what was considered good and bad rockwork of the period can be found in Audel's Manual of Stone Masonry and Camp Stoves and Fireplaces, a 1937 U.S. Forest Service publication.

Use of large untrimmed boulders in buildings and park facilities continued after the completion of the Administration Building, particularly on the rim. The north entrance checking kiosk conformed "to the general architectural treatment of Crater Lake National Park buildings, being built of massive stone with steep shake roof" (Final Construction Report, 11/15/37). Boulders are used in Lange's drawings as "seats" for the lighting standards proposed for the Rim Campground and drinking fountains that were placed at Rim Village (see DSC microfiche 106-3049 and 106-3057).

Probably the most convincing evidence concerning the size and type of rockwork preferred for Rim Village in the late 1930s is on a drawing of Lange's for the comfort station on the plaza. It bears a note: "The best accepted method of stone construction as applied to the New Park Administration Building will also apply to this Comfort Station" (see CRLA Maintenance Division drawing 2001, March 1937). In his field report of November 1937, Lange comments on the construction of the comfort station by stating: "Exterior stone work was done by skilled stonemason John D. Bowdish and represents an excellent piece of work. The type of stone work on this building will serve as a basis for future stone construction on later Rim buildings."

There should be no doubt that the NPS had established an "architectural treatment" for rockwork at Rim Village, and that this is linked to structures in Munson Valley. Subsequent rockwork (such as that on the 1970-1 additions to the cafeteria) is inappropriate as a model if the proposed interpretive center/hotel is to incorporate a rustic architecture theme in its exterior design. Serious reconsideration should also be given to the proposed removal of the comfort station on the plaza.

* Since this memo was written, a 1929 report (in FRC San Bruno) revealed that the original Messhall did contain largely quarried rock.

APPENDIX C

Memorandum

To: DSC Team Captain, Crater Lake Lodge Rehabilitation
Through: Chief, Cultural Resource Division and Regional Historical Architect, Pacific Northwest Region
From: Cathy Gilbert, Historical Landscape Architect, Pacific Northwest Region

Subject: Historic landscape resources and lodge rehab work

I. Issues

Construction activity associated with the rehabilitation of Crater Lake Lodge over the next four years has the potential to impact a variety of significant historic landscape resources in the vicinity of the lodge. For example, preliminary plans for a construction trench around the perimeter of the lodge have been developed in order to carry out structural stabilization and rehabilitation work beginning in FY 91. As proposed, the trench will extend around the lodge (approximately 830 linear feet), will be 3-5 feet wide and from 4-12 feet deep. Such a structure, however temporary, will have a tremendous impact on the integrity and survival of historic plant materials, because most of these resources are within ten feet of the building foundation. In addition, the need for unrestricted and open access to the building and areas immediately adjacent to the site during the four year period of construction will most likely create a condition of continuous ground and site disturbance. The purpose of this memorandum is to outline recommendations for mitigating potential impacts to the historic landscape, and to provide preliminary guidelines for preservation of significant landscape features.

II. Significant Landscape Resources

The primary historic landscape resources and features around Crater Lake Lodge include plant materials, rock walls, the promenade, secondary walkways and the entry plaza on the south side of the building. Recommendations for the stabilization, preservation or replacement of all significant landscape resources at rim village (including the lodge) will be included in the Historic Landscape Study, scheduled for review in December, 1989. Because the initial construction on the lodge, as discussed above, will have an immediate impact on historic vegetation, the following discussion and recommendations will address only plant materials around the lodge.

Plant Materials

A. Historic Values and Significance

Plant materials around Crater Lake Lodge were installed between 1931 and 1933 as part of the "naturalization" program for Rim Village (see HLR). Foundation plantings were planted around the perimeter of the lodge in order to minimize the "abrupt transition and demarcation" between the building and the landscape. The objective was to make the building appear as though it "grew out of the landscape" and was part of the natural setting. This landscape treatment -- massing plants around building foundations -- was a critical aspect of the rustic landscape design ethic expressed at Crater Lake. At the lodge, large coniferous trees (10-14 feet tall) were transplanted from other areas in the park and clustered at the building corners to give height and define the structure within a landscape context. Shrubs were massed along the building walls between major tree clusters to reflect indigenous plant associations and communities. Over the years, many of these plantings have matured to a size that reflects the original design intent of the planting program at Rim Village, and are significant historic landscape features, both individually and in terms of plant composition. Because of these values, preservation of these plant materials is strongly recommended.

B. Recommendations

Because lodge construction will involve the use of heavy equipment and both short term and long term ground disturbance over a four year period, it is anticipated that all of the plant materials adjacent to the lodge will either require extraordinary care to survive or, more likely, be destroyed during construction. With this in mind, two approaches for preservation of significant plant materials are possible;

a) remove and salvage existing plant materials with the intent of replacing them after construction and/or;

b) replace materials in kind after construction and as part of the redevelopment package for the site.

a) Salvage

Prior to construction and the removal of any vegetation around the lodge, a site visit by the project landscape architect and historical landscape architect will be necessary in order to document and assess individual plant materials and tag those specimens worthy of the salvage effort. While materials that are in poor condition will not be salvaged, they will need to be documented so that they can be replaced with appropriate materials. Removal and storage of mature coniferous specimens will require special handling and consultation with vegetation experts. In discussions on this topic with Nancy Dunkle, DSC, it may be possible to dig the root mass, prune the roots and box the root ball for long term storage (this was done historically with great success). Salvage of these materials is the preferred preservation strategy for significant historic plant materials, primarily because they represent original materials and mature plantings that have acclimated to the harsh conditions at the rim. With such short growing seasons at the site and other challenges to establishment including poor soils, severe microclimate and stress to plant materials from snow loads and visitor tramplings, reestablishment of all materials removed from the site will require special attention, whether replacing stored materials or installing new ones.

b) Replacing "in-kind"

If, for some reason, it is determined that it is not feasible to salvage existing plant materials around the lodge, then replacement of materials on a plant by plant basis will be required. The specific program for such an undertaking, including selection and transport of individual plant materials, soil preparation and amendment, planting techniques and maintenance will need to be developed as part of a historic landscape preservation guide or as a special issue/study in the overall rehab package.

C. Summary

The plant materials around Crater Lake Lodge are significant historic landscape resources and should be preserved. Because of future construction associated with the rehabilitation of the lodge, most of this material will be destroyed. Two options for preservation/replacement of these materials are recommended. The first, remove and salvage, is the preferred option. Although considerable work will be required to implement the proposal, the technology is available. In addition, because the original plants will be retained, overall historic site integrity will be enhanced and most importantly, plants will be better acclimated, improving the chances for survival. The second option, replacement in-kind, is acceptable but will require selecting and moving relatively large specimens in order to attain the necessary effect. This action also has the potential to reduce survival rates. Adequate monies for either treatment must be included in any overall project estimate. Both of these options, as well as preservation strategies for other significant historic landscape resources at the site will be addressed in detail as part of the historic landscape report for Rim Village.

If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to call.

APPENDIX D

REPORT ON
NATURALIZATION IN THE RIM AREA
Crater Lake National Park

by Merel S. Sager, Assistant Park Architect.

Landscape Division,
Field Headquarters, San Francisco, Calif.
November 18, 1932

NEED FOR NATURALIZATION

When visitors are brought into the national parks they must be transported to the points of greatest interest and they must be supplied with food, lodging, and recreation. It is obvious that certain lands, which we refer to as "developed areas", had to come into existence. It might be said that these areas have had to be "sacrificed" in the sense that they could not be "preserved unimpaired". Although these developed areas make up an extremely small per centage of the total park area, they are responsible for lasting impressions gained by every visitor. In too many instances, the park visitor sees only what can be viewed from these developed areas. How important it is then that we keep these areas in harmony with natural surroundings and diligently prevent the appearance of wear. although there are approximately 18 miles of Rim area at Crater Lake National Park, the term has come to refer more especially to the section from the foot of Garfield Peak to the cafeteria, a distance of about one-half mile. Every serious minded person who has the spirit of park preservation at heart regrets to see any area so intensively used by the visiting public that it becomes divested of vegetation. Only those visitors who return to the park a second time, after a period of years, notice and remark unfavorably about these changes.

The developed area in Crater Lake, known as the "Rim area", unquestionably had the same appearance many years ago as some other unmolested areas on the Rim have today. For example, Sun Notch, although it is accessible by foot trail, is so little visited that it bears no noticeable marks of human wear. In a large measure because of this fact, Sun Notch is commonly considered the most attractive point from which to view the lake. This opinion is shared by Mr. Wirth Ryder of the University of California Fine Arts Department and Mr. Gunnar Widforss, noted National Park artist. Here we find trees in abundance along the Rim, with open areas covered with grass, sedges and wild flowers. Here, in spite of sandy soil and extreme climatic conditions, nature has seen to it that beauty flourishes. The contrast in one's emotional reaction gained at Sun Notch as compared with one gained at the Rim area can not be adequately described. It must be experienced to be understood. It seems reasonable to believe that before the advent of the wear and tear of thousands of visitors, the Rim area was equally beautiful and inspirational.

For years, it has been the ambition of the Landscape Division to restore the area so that it will assimilate much of its original beauty and plan it so that thousands of visitors may use it without further permanent damage.

Up to 1928 parking was unrestricted. It was common practice for motorists to park their autos anywhere along the Rim, and some were parked dangerously close. The result of this practice, along with the poor, sandy condition of the soil, rendered the entire area between the road and the Rim an unattractive sand waste. The soil is composed of a high per centage of volcanic tuff, which was constantly being shifted by the wind. The fact restricts, to a great degree, the number of species of shrubs and trees which can be expected to grow. This elevation is also conducive to certain extremes in weather and climate, which are a constant hindrance to abundant plant growth. Even after the restriction of auto parking, the condition of the soil and the fact that no cross walks were there to guide pedestrian traffic, this area has not and could not of its own accord again become covered with vegetation.

LANDSCAPING - SEASON OF 1930

In the summer of 1930 some naturalization was done between the head of the Lake Trail and the plaza. The soil was first made ready by removing one foot of the sand and replacing it with good soil and peat moss. Where trees and shrubs were planted, the soil, of course, was prepared deeper. During this first year several methods of ground cover planting were tried. One area was raked fine and sowed in the fall with seeds of native wild flowers and grass. Another area was similarly prepared and planted in the spring. In the latter case Kentucky bluegrass seed was mixed with the native seeds. The fall sowing resulted in an abundance of high, straggly grass, not entirely satisfactory in appearance, since there was no variety in size or kind. The spring sowing gave a more pleasing effect. Many kinds of grass became established, including the Kentucky bluegrass, as well as a variety of flowers. The Kentucky bluegrass, however, became quite bunchy.

Other portions were sodded, and after observation it appeared that this method was the most effective in that the final appearance could be controlled. Much of the sod was composed of several native sedges, which, of course, are grass-like in appearance, but tougher, and capable of withstanding considerable tramping.

The shape of the area to be naturalized was long and narrow. It was decided to keep the view across the area reasonably free from obstruction. Trees were planted in small groups occasionally to lend variety, and not in great enough numbers to cause and obstruction to the view of the lake from the road. The trees planted were the mountain hemlock, Tsuga mertensiana and several kinds of firs, Abies concolor, Abies nobilis and Abies lasiocarpa.

APPENDIX E

CRATER LAKE NATIONAL PARK
LIST OF CLASSIFIED STRUCTURES
RIM VILLAGE

STRUCTURE NUMBERIDLCSNAME
06700241Sinnott Memorial
56522999Crater Lake Lodge

APPENDIX F

April 17, 1990
Memorandum

To: Chief of Interpretation
From: Stephen R. Mark, Historian

Subject: Historic sign types and their application

Since its establishment, Crater Lake National Park has used wood, metal, and plastic for sign material. Historically, eleven "types" of signs have been employed. Four types were wood, five have been metal, and two plastic. A description of each is below and is followed by a number in brackets for reference.

The first wood signs had dark letters (black or green) painted on a white background. These were prevalent from about 1905 to 1935.[1] In the early 1930s, several log sections with routed letters (some had green letters painted on a white background) were placed around Rim Village.[2] These were discontinued in favor of a type most closely associated with the park's rustic architecture theme. The "rustic" sign was pressurized wood impregnated with oil and carved so that the letters were raised. A dark brown sign with yellow-orange lettering (for visibility) resulted and became dominant in the park from 1935 to 1957.[3] Rustic signs have given way to a routed type that was instituted at the beginning of Mission 66. These latter signs are generally brown with creme white lettering, though a variety of colors have been utilized for interpretive purposes.[4] I know of two examples that would have to be classified as "miscellaneous" since there is only one historic occurrence associated with each. One was a wood sign with white lettering that was placed over the south entrance arch in 1925. The other was a circa 1928 branchwork sign that read "Cascade Divide" on West 62.

Plaques were the earliest use of metal in Crater Lake signs. The first were on the 1908 boundary monuments (west and south entrances) and were followed by plaques at Discovery Point (1925), for the Mather Memorial (1930), and the Sinnott Memorial (1931).[5] Metal signs with a white background and raised blue or green lettering appeared along the park's boundaries and trails in the 1930s.[6] Enamel signs first appeared in 1928 and were used into the 1950s. They were often used alongside the wood rustic signs, but they had a white background and green lettering (one interpretive sign had white letters on a green background). Their design was not individualized (as was the case with rustic wood signs) and they had an affinity with Forest Service signs of the same period.[7] In the 1950s, these were replaced by signs with black letters and a metallic background. In contrast to the enamel, many of these signs were used for interpretation.[8] Reflecting signs have been in use (generally for traffic) since the 1940s.[9]

Plastic signs have been more recent. A white mylar sign with blue lettering was used to post boundaries in the early 1970s.[10] Interpretive signs presently used along roads are multi-colored and usually fitted to a rock base.[11]

The various sign types can be categorized by their historical functions. Below are seven applications followed by the type number in brackets.

a. Buildings [3,4,7]
b. Identification of natural features [1 ,3,4]
c. Interpretive [4,5,6,8,11]
d.Trails [2,4,6]
e. Traffic [1,7,9]
f. Directional [1,3,4,6,7]
g. Boundaries [3,5,6,9]

Sign locations have varied only slightly once the present road and trail system was completed in 1940. Master plans did not include the locations of signs but a circa 1940 map showing sign locations has been found. Some tracings and sign drawings exist in the park's maintenance files. Although incomplete, there is some photographic record of sign type and location. The best represented are types 3,4, and 7. Examples are included in the attached photocopies.

Nine of the eleven sign types are represented by extant examples. Only one of them (the log sections) might have a longevity problem. The others have, at times, been left up all year.

Appropriate design should be an important part of the proposed sign program. Although types 5,8, and 11 were designed as part of past or present interpretive programs, there is no indication that they were intended as models for wider application. Only type 3 signs were designed specifically for parkwide application at Crater Lake; their size, placement, and appearance were determined individually by a resident landscape architect who saw them as part of individual site design. Wood rustic signs were intended to be adaptable to various functions and are still used to a much greater extent by Lassen, a park whose site design bears great similarity to that at Crater Lake.