The Evolution of Green Space:
A History of Urban Landscape in
Charlotte, North Carolina, 1890-1990
by
Brian W. C. Sturm
Honors Thesis, Department of History
University of North Carolina, 2000
Special note: I am deeply
indebted to Brian Sturm for taking the initiative to bring this manuscript
to my attention. Contrary to popular belief, man-made landscapes are
just as important as buildings to the preservationist. The essential
philosophy of historic preservation to which I aspire is that history must
stand at the heart of the movement, not urban design, not economic
development, not even neighborhood revitalization. Therefore, the
Commission's website seeks to make historical material easily accessible
to the public. It is most gratifying to place this
manuscript on the Commission's website. Indeed, I would urge other
students who study and write about Charlotte-Mecklenburg history to
contact me about having their manuscripts included on our website.
Dr. Dan L. Morrill
| Table of Contents
Introduction: Beginning Six Feet Beneath the Earth
Chapter One: Green Fringes Grace the Periphery
Chapter Two: Defining the Park for the Public
Chapter Three: Golf and the Charlotte Landscape
Chapter Four: Greenways and a Return to Landscape Ideology
Conclusion: Searching for Resting Space
Source Notes
Bibliography |
Introduction: Beginning Six Feet Beneath the Earth
Where do we go to find shade? Where do we go to run
barefoot in the grass? Why is Charlotte so proud of its many trees? Why do
the people of the city complain about a lack of parks and open space? Who
is responsible? Who is to blame? Who is to acclaim?
This paper attempts to answer these and other more
focused questions by examining a century of time in Charlotte's history,
from 1890 to 1990. This paper looks at much of the history of this city in
these years, though it is not simply a local history. It is intended to be
my senior thesis in history, though it is not solely an historical
examination. This paper discusses the landscape of a city and how it
changes over time. In my learning process I have been exposed to fields as
diverse and interesting as urban planning, landscape architecture and even
leisure studies. What the questions add up to is a concept I call the
evolution of green space. Green spaces are simply those pieces of land
that have been kept open and designed for human consumption. I have chosen
to talk about garden suburbs, public parks, golf courses and greenways as
examples. How these elements in any urban landscape come about is a
curious process. I contend that green space cannot thrive without strong
human agency and landscape ideology. These human and ideological
components are what drive this urban history.
I want to introduce you the reader to my methodology in
this paper before going into a deeper discussion of this evolution and
green space itself. Examining one piece of land in the same manner as I
eventually do throughout the paper will acquaint you with my methods and
highlight some important aspects of this green evolution. A good place to
start is on the grounds of the earliest green space in the city of
Charlotte. As in many other American cities this was to be found in the
cemetery.
In the last decades of the 19th century
Charlotte experienced unprecedented growth. The amount of green space
within the city, however, remained a constant: Settlers' and Elmwood
cemeteries. In the small gridiron that had always constituted the city,
these were then the only green blocks. Throughout America, cemeteries were
some of the first urban green spaces. The "rural cemetery" has
been credited as the forerunner to the rural park and greater Park
Movement. During the 19th century burial grounds once attached
to churches and situated within the limits of a town were moved outside
the town under a collection of influences. These carefully planned and
artfully designed cemeteries outside the city acted as a health
precaution, provided visitors with a more serene atmosphere, and ensured
more space for the internment of the deceased. Rural cemeteries like Boston's
Mount Auburn and Philadelphia's Laurel Hill gained favor in America in
the 1830s and 40s for these reasons.1
 |
 |
|
Settlers' Cemetery |
Elmwood Cemetery |
The lives of Settlers' and Elmwood Cemeteries partly
reflect this transformation. Settler's, a cemetery that seems to have no
specific origin, has rested on nearly an entire block in the center of
downtown for over two centuries. The oldest known grave dates to 1776, and
the last burials took place in 1867. In 1855, Elmwood Cemetery opened on a
set of hills outside of the downtown gridiron. City leaders anticipated
that Settlers' would soon meet its capacity.2 At present, Elmwood
still accounts for 100 acres of grassy hills but is now enclosed by an
urban infrastructure of office buildings and interstate highways. As of
1990, the cemetery, one of several public burial grounds in Charlotte,
held 60,000 total graves and still offered some 100 unsold plots.3
Figure
1: John Nolen's 1906 plan for Settlers' Cemetery. This
renovation created the system of pathways that still exist today within
this urban oasis. (Source: Charlotte Observer, May 7, 1906, 6.)
Some contrasts in the designs of these two spaces
suggest Elmwood was intended to be a bucolic rural cemetery. Settlers'
is a singular square plot of land while Elmwood is a spacious lot void of
corners and varied in terrain. Settlers' rests across the street from
one of the city's oldest churches First Presbyterian, and though the
grounds have never been owned by that church or any particular
denomination it has been popularly known as the "Presbyterian Burial
Ground."4 Elmwood was placed away from the beaten path of
townspeople and church goers thus taking the reminder of death out from
under their feet and into the country. Elmwood also exhibits many more
mausoleums and monuments than does Settlers' likening it more to the
Classical rural cemeteries being designed elsewhere at the time.
A more practical view suggests that Elmwood was simply
a solution to problems caused by Charlotte's growth. Sources do not
indicate this newer cemetery was ever professionally designed in the
manner of contemporary burial grounds. Historian David Schuyler has
described the work of horticulturist John Jay Smith at Laurel Hill
Cemetery as an attempt "to unite the works of man and of nature, to
create a 'tout ensemble' of scenery, landscape design,
architecture, and sculpture."5 Very little French influence is
felt by a visitor to Elmwood. There is no original architecture aside from the
grave monuments themselves nor is there a system of curvilinear paths to
enhance the viewing of graves. What is more likely is that the city sought
a larger and more sanitary site for burials and Elmwood satisfied these
aspects.
Both these pieces of land continue to evolve within the
center of the city. Elmwood, of course, is still an active burial ground
and maintained by the city. Settlers' Cemetery has experienced a more
checkered past in the last century enduring neglect amidst periods of
restoration. In 1906 the Charlotte Park and Tree Commission took charge of
preserving and beautifying the land. The commission added a wrought iron
gate and hired a young landscape architect by the name of John Nolen to
design brick walkways. For years, a small group of women under the
Daughters of the American Revolution Auxiliary Committee for Cemetery
Square cared for the grass and gravestones.6 In 1950, Mayor Victor
Shaw began another beautification project that invested $10,000 in
lampposts, a new fountain and stone benches.7 The cemetery acquired
its present morphology in 1968 when the city spent $40,000 under a
citywide urban renewal program to build yet a bigger fountain, restore
Nolen's pathways and clean all the monuments.8 Today, Settlers'
is more a living park than a resting-place for the dearly departed.
These two pieces of land neatly illustrate several
themes to be discussed later in this paper and provide an introduction to
the concept of green space evolution. Settlers' and Elmwood are by
definition green space because they are open spaces of land that have been
designed with the public in mind. Green space does not just have to be a
nature preserve void of man-made elements like tombstones. Neither does it
have to be intended for any specific use such as golf or gardening.
Settlers' and Elmwood both have been created to house the deceased and
those mourning them in a landscaped setting.
Both cemeteries also exhibit the change inherent in any
piece of green space. As alive as the grass and worms therein, a piece of
green space rarely retains its original design or purpose. Over the years,
Elmwood has grown to accommodate more and more burials and funerary art.
Settlers' has become less important as a gravesite as it has an oasis
among the skyscrapers. When the cemetery reached capacity, rather than
dying, it lived on, beautified into a park.
This living process of evolution, in all examples of
green space, revolves around two factors: human agency and landscape
ideology. As ironic as it may seem, green space is part of the built
environment in a city. Humans must determine the need for it, design it
and make room for it in their cities. Not only is green space not
spontaneous in its generation but it can cause quite a headache for the
people that advocate its creation. Seeing spaces like Settlers' fall
into disrepair, the town aldermen and leading industrialists created the
Charlotte Park and Tree Commission in 1905. In Chapter Two, this municipal
guardian of the green receives attention under the topic of public parks.
The case of Settlers Cemetery also highlights a case in which a private
form of human agency, the D. A. R., made a strong contribution to
furthering the urban landscape. What this case does not show, as others in
successive chapters do, is that private initiative has typically mustered
more financial support, public attention and efficiency than has public
agency in creating and altering the green space of Charlotte.
Why, or why not, these individuals and groups of people
insist on green space depends upon landscape ideology. This intellectual
factor in the evolution of landscaped earth is centered on the philosophy
and aesthetics behind green space. Simply put, if a block of grass and
trees is to survive in a city of sidewalks and towers it must have meaning
to it. The meaning attached to green space can be planned, such as the
purposes behind greenways discussed in Chapter Four, or may be
unintentional, like the sentiment for Eastwood Golf Club in Chapter Three.
Cemeteries are some of the most intensely meaningful pieces of land in a
city because they hold our dearest history. The meaning attached to
Settlers' Cemetery compelled the Daughters of the American Revolution to
care for the plot of land when no other group would. The ideology imparted
on or cultivated within a piece of green space is the lifeblood in its
evolution.
To study the evolution of green space in the urban
environment is to borrow from several disciplines in the social sciences.
Urban history will get you only so far. Urban historians like Gunther
Barth may only discuss the Park Movement of the nineteenth century that
saw architects like Andrew Jackson Downing and naturalists like Frederick
Law Olmsted apply their senses of aesthetics and progressivism to
landscape architecture and park planning. Olmsted and Calvert Vaux's
1858 design for Central Park in New York captures this spirit. Other
historians like Kenneth Jackson discuss the rise of the American suburb
and its significance to our culture. The works of city planners provide
more information on the design of these suburbs, parks or greenways. To
understand the role green space has played in much of the twentieth
century it is necessary to consult the field of leisure studies. An expert
such as Douglas Sessoms explains more modern efforts such as the
Playground Movement or the role of the Second World War on recreation in
America. Landscape architecture also contributes as an academic field to
this work including details on park horticulture and golf course
construction. Few works discuss together the history of all these forms of
landscape. None discusses the story of all forms in a single city.9
The layout of this work is designed to expose the
reader to as many types of green space as possible. Each chapter focuses
on a different form of green space and the evolution that particular form
has undergone. It is my suspicion that Charlotteans and urbanites around
America are not aware of the total landscape that makes up much of their
fair cities. This nation has come a long way in one hundred years in terms
of preserving and providing for such spaces in the city. We are at least
no longer confined to going to the cemetery - not that this is entirely
bad. If someone makes a judgment about the green space or open space in
any city, as I have chosen to do, that someone needs to cover as much
ground as possible. The green alternatives in any city abound and I
consider four: garden suburbs, public parks, golf courses, and greenways.
Thereby this paper is not simply a piece singularly about parks or
neighborhoods or baseball diamonds but as I like it, about a complete
urban landscape.
Each of these chapters deserves some treatment and
definition. Chapter One studies those planned neighborhoods that made the
overall landscape and horticulture of the final product an objective in
their development. These are the garden suburbs. Charlotte is a city of
subdivisions that include homes with lawns, some modest and some grand.
Garden suburbs, such as Dilworth and Myers Park, are distinct because they
have made a positive contribution to the aesthetics and planning of this
city. The second chapter deals with a form of land quite difficult to
isolate, the public park. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Park and Recreation
Department maintains public land parcels ranging from neighborhood parks
to land preserves and greenways to golf courses. The public park refers to
those spaces that by and large dominate the system, the grassy fields of
several dozen acres with maybe a soccer field, a playground unit and some
shady picnic spots. The public park is a form of green space that the city
and county have been trying to perfect for years. For the sake of this
chapter, its design is not so important as its purpose. Chapter Three is
on golf courses and looks at one public and one private course in
Charlotte. The discussion of greenways finishes the paper. Greenways in
Charlotte are managed by the city-county park and recreation department
but still constitute a land form distinct from public parks. They not only
represent a different era in park ideology but also are an entirely unique
concept in land-use planning. Thus they merit a separate and,
appropriately, final chapter.
Besides exhibiting different forms of landscape, these
chapters in succession show a chronology of Charlotte's landscape
priorities. Through the last century, the city seems to have grasped onto
each form of open space at a different time. These chapters follow this
progression. The paper tries to cover each topic in its full historical
context but emphasizes the heyday of each landform. The concept of the
garden suburb, for instance, was in its height of development in this city
from about 1890 to 1920. The public park system saw its greatest growth in
Charlotte between 1940 and 1960. Though golf is as popular today as ever,
most locals play on courses first constructed between 1960 and 1980.
Greenways are the latest trend in green space evolution to reach
Charlotte, beginning with the first county master plan in 1980 and
continuing on to the very present.
As the paper progresses I try to build not only a
fuller history of this southern town and its landscape but also a fuller
discussion of this evolution. There have been many different hands
involved in the development of Charlotte's green space. There have also
been many different approaches and ideas involved. All of these provide
possibilities for future projects in parks neighborhoods and golf courses.
Most importantly, I hope this history paper describes not a story that is
complete and final but one that is destined for perpetual growth and life.

Source Notes
Introduction
1 David Schuyler, The
New Urban Landscape (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins UP, 1986), 37-56.
2 Dan L. Morrill, "Old
Settlers' Cemetery," Survey and Research Report, 1984,
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission, Charlotte, 3-4.
3 Charlotte
Observer, December 31, 1990, 1-2B.
4 Morrill 3.
5 Schuyler 45.
6 Morrill 5.
7 Charlotte News, March 27, 1950, 1B.
8 Morrill 5.
9 Gunther Barth, City
People (New York: Oxford UP, 1980), Kenneth T. Jackson, Crabgrass
Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States (New York: Oxford
UP, 1985), Douglas H. Sessoms, Leisure
Services, 6th ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall,
1984). Each of these texts, I
feel, are exemplary in the comprehensive views they offer on their
respective fields.
Chapter One
1 John Archer, "Country and City
in the American Romantic Suburb," Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 42.2 (1983),
154-6.
2 Margaret Supplee Smith, "The
American Idyll in North Carolina's First Suburbs: Landscape and
Architecture," Early Twentieth
Century Suburbs in North Carolina, ed. Catherine W. Bishir and
Lawrence S. Early (Raleigh: NC Dept. Cultural Resources, 1985), 25.
3 Archer 139-56.
4 Smith 24.
5 David R. Goldfield, "North
Carolina's Early Twentieth Century Suburbs and the Urbanizing South," Early
Twentieth Century Suburbs in North Carolina, ed. Catherine W. Bishir
and Lawrence S. Early (Raleigh: NC Dept. of Cultural Resources, 1985), 12.
6 Ibid.
15.
7 Charlotte
Chronicle, March 28, 1891, 4, Dan L. Morrill, "Edward Dilworth Latta
and the Charlotte Consolidated Construction Company (1890-1925): Builders
of a New South City," North
Carolina Historical Review 62.3 (1985), 295.
Latta's five other original partners in the Four C's were
Charlotte Mayor F. B. McDowell, Dr. M. A. Bland, E. K. P. Osborne, J. L.
Chambers, and E. B. Springs.
8 Morrill 297.
9 Charlotte
News, May 19, 1891, 3.
10 Morrill 293-5.
11 Charlotte
Chronicle, March 28, 1891, 4.
12 Ibid.,
March 22, 1891, 4.
13 Thomas W. Hanchett, "Before
Olmsted: The New South Career of Joseph Forsyth Johnson," Atlanta
History 39.3-4 (1995), 16-20.
14 Ibid.
13-15.
15 Charlotte
Chronicle, May 19, 1891, 3, Charlotte
News, May 20, 21, 22, 1891.
16 Charlotte
Chronicle, May 20, 1891, 1.
17 Ibid.,
May 22, 1891, 6.
18 Mary Norton Kratt and Thomas W.
Hanchett, Legacy The Myers Park
Story (Charlotte: Myers Park Foundation, 1986), 18-23.
19 Ibid.
23-24.
20 Other prominent citizens who
engaged Nolen for these services were Col. W. B Rodman, W. C. Maxwell, C.
Graham, Dr. S. M. Crowell, O. A Robbins, Luther Snyder, and C. M.
Patterson.
21 Thomas W. Hanchett,
"Charlotte's Neighborhood Planning Tradition," Unpublished essay,
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission, Charlotte, 3,
Kratt 26.
22 John L Hancock, John
Nolen: A Biographical Record of Achievement (Ithaca, NY: Program in
Urban and Regional Studies, 1976), 13-4.
23 Kratt 24.
24 Hanchett, "Planning Tradition," 2.
25 John Nolen, New
Towns for Old (Boston: Marshall Jones, 1927), 9.
26 It should be noted that
Stephen's and Abbott's Southern States Trust Company was a forerunner to
North Carolina National Bank which, of course, has survived as Bank of
America. Based in Charlotte
as the largest bank in the country, this is also a legacy of Stephens'
but its mention must be sacrificed in the body of the paper.
27 The Southern Power Company
actually leased office space on the same floor of the Southern States
Trust Building as Stephens and Abbott and this is no doubt how Draper came
to know the two. Today the
Southern Power Company is known as Duke Energy, one of largest utility
corporations in the nation.
28 Kratt 33-6.
29 Hanchett, Sorting
Out the New South City, 174.
30 Nolen, 104.
31 Ibid.
105.
32 Ibid.
105-10.
33 Kratt 19-20.
34 Hanchett, 178-81.
35 Hanchett, "Planning
Tradition," 3.
36 John Nolen, Charlotte
Civic Survey (1917), 17-8, box 18, Nolen papers.
Nolen's extensive papers form collection 2903 in the Department
of Manuscripts and Archives at Cornell University.
This is the only surviving copy of this work.
37 John Nolen to T. L. Black,
February 14, 1918, folder 10, box 98, Nolen papers.
38 T. L. Black to John Nolen, March
16, 1918, E. N. Farris to John Nolen, August 7, 1918, folder 10, box 98,
Nolen papers.
39 Farris to Nolen, February 8,
1919, folder 10, box 98, Nolen papers.
40 John Nolen to Clarence Kuester,
September 15, 1922, folder 10, box 98, Nolen papers.
41 Kuester to Nolen, January 18,
1923, folder 10, box 98, Nolen papers.
42 Nolen to Kuester, January 12,
1924, folder 11, box 98, Nolen papers.
Chapter Two
1 Frederick Law Olmsted, Public
Parks and the Enlargement of Towns (Cambridge, MA, 1870), 25-30.
2 Thomas W. Hanchett, Sorting
out the New South City: Race, Class and Urban Development in Charlotte,
1875-1975 (Chapel Hill, NC: UNC Press), 152-3.
3 Quoted in the Charlotte
Observer, May 17, 1981.
4 Dan L. Morrill, "Independence
Park." Survey and Research
Report, 1980. Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Historical Properties Commission, Charlotte, 3.
5 Charlotte
Observer, March 6, 1904, 6.
6 Ibid.,
August 2, 1904, 5.
7 Ibid.,
November 8, 1904, 6.
8 Ibid.,
June 6, 1905, 5.
9 Douglas H. Sessoms, Leisure
Services, 6th ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall,
1984), 45-7.
10 John Nolen, Charlotte
Civic Survey (1917), 17-8, box 18, Nolen papers.
This is the only surviving copy of this work.
11 Charlotte
Observer, June 8, 1915, 3.
12 Ibid.,
February 28, 1950, 4C.
13 Sessoms 50-1.
14 Galen Cranz, The
Politics of Park Design (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1982), 77-80.
15 Sessoms 17.
16 Charlotte
News, July 14, 1942, 1B.
17 Ibid.,
November 17, 1942, 1B.
18 Ibid.,
January 16, 1943, 2A, May 14, 1943, 1B.
19 Ibid.,
February 2, 1943, 6B.
20 Ibid., March 30, 1943, 1B.
21 Ibid., January 30, 1943, 1B.
22 Cranz 66-7, Charlotte
Observer, May 16, 1943, 1B.
23 Charlotte
News, August 28, 1944, 1B.
24 Ibid.,
August 21, 1944, 2B.
25 Ibid.,
March 7, 1945, 5A.
26 Ibid.,
August 21, 1944, 2B.
27 Ibid.,
March 24, 1945, 7B.
28 Ibid.,
July 14, 1942, 5B.
29 Ibid.,
August 1, 1944, 1B, February 6, 1945, 1B.
30 Ibid.,
August 30, 1948.
31 Ibid.
32 Radio station WGIV broadcast
featuring Dr. W. L. Halberstadt, Mr. Foster Blaisdell, and Miss Alice
Suiter, ts., 10 June 1949, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Department of Parks and
Recreation, Charlotte, 1.
33 Cranz 119-121.
34 Radio broadcast 3-4.
35 Charlotte
Observer, February 28, 1950, 4C
36 Charlotte
News, June 18, 1969, 16C.
37 Cranz 106-110.
38 Charlotte
News, March 7, 1960, 1B.
39 Charlotte
Observer, April 22, 1969, 1, 4C.
40 Charlotte
News, June 18, 1969, 16B.
41 Ibid.,
June 21, 1969, 1B.
42 Whitney North Seymour, Jr.,
introduction, Small Urban Spaces,
ed. Whitney North Seymour, Jr. (New York: NYU Press, 1969), 9.
Chapter Three
1 harlotte News, May 15, 1962,
13.
2 Geoffrey S. Cornish and Ronald
E. Whitten, The Golf Course (New
York: Rutledge Press, 1981), 44.
3 Ibid.
16.
4 Ibid.
18.
5 Donald J. Ross, Golf
Has Never Failed Me: the Lost Commentaries of a Legendary Golf Architect
(Chelsea, MI: Sleeping Bear Press, 1996), 194.
6 Cornish 16.
7 Ibid.
22.
8 Ibid.
49-50.
9 Ross 35.
10 Cornish 44-7.
11 Ross was not the initial
architect for either of these courses but remodeled them each several
times. He worked on the
course at Charlotte Country Club three separate times in 1925, 1942 and
1947. In the case of Myers
Park, Earle Sumner Draper was actually the architect for the original 9. Ross remodeled these and added 9 in 1930 and also altered the
course in 1945 and again in 1947. Cornish
229-312, Ross 238-9.
12 Charlotte
Observer, February 23, 1999, 2B, 5B.
13 Ibid.
14 Charlotte
Observer, November 3, 1999, 2M, February 23, 1999, 2B, 5B.
15 Ibid.,
July 28, 1998, 1B.
16 Morris Speizman, A
Short History of the Carolina Golf and Country Club, ts., 1979,
Carolina Golf and Country Club, Charlotte, 1.
17 Ibid.
1-3.
18 Ibid.
19 Ibid.
20 Ibid.
21 Ibid.
5-10.
22 Daniel DiPastena, telephone
interview, 22 February 2000.
Chapter Four
1 Joan Sigmon, Mecklenburg County
Park and Recreation Commision. Final Report of the Greenway Site Selection Committee, Charlotte,
June 16, 1980. The copy in I
hold my possession I obtained from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Park and
Recreation Department.
2 Charles A. Flink and Robert M.
Searns, Greenways: A Guide to
Planning, Design and Development (Washington, D.C.: Island Press,
1993), xv.
3 The term is a nice one but I
cannot claim it. See Chapter
4 in Galen Cranz, The Politics of
Park Design (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1982).
4 Ibid.
137.
5 Ibid.
137-8.
6 Ibid.
144-7.
7 Flink xii.
8 Ibid.
4-5.
9 The Charles M. Graves
Organization, Charlotte-Mecklenburg
County Master Plan for Recreation, Atlanta, 1966, quoted in Sigmon 2.
10 Flink 5.
11 Sigmon 3.
12 Sigmon 4-5.
13 Flink 121-2.
14 Ibid.
122-7.
15 Ibid.
167-73.
16 Sigmon 2.
17 Ibid.
2-3.
18 Ibid.
8-9.
19 Ibid.
12.
20 Ibid.
16-9.
21 Ibid.
20-1.
22 Mecklenburg County, Mecklenbug
County Park and Recreation Commission, Mecklenburg County Greenway Master Plan, Charlotte, May 18, 1999.
In 1991, the Charlotte-Meckenburg Planning Commission drafted an
update to the 1980 plan that was never approved.
23 Ibid.
vii-viii.
24 Ibid.
10.
Conclusion
1 Whitney North Seymour, Jr.,
introduction, Small Urban Spaces,
ed. Whitney North Seymour, Jr. (New York: NYU Press, 1969), 9-10.
2 Charlotte
Observer, May 16, 1975, 1B.
3 Ibid.
Bibliography
Manuscript Collections:
Department of Manuscripts
and Archives, Cornell University, Ithaca NY
John Nolen Papers
Department of Special
Collections, Aitkens Library, University of North Carolina, Charlotte
Earle Sumner Draper interview
Landmark
Reports (Unpublished)
Hanchett, Thomas W.
"Charlotte's Neighborhood Planning Tradition." Unpublished essay, 1986.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission, Charlotte.
Morrill, Dan L.
"Independence Park." Survey
and Research Report, 1980. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historical
Properties Commission, Charlotte.
----. "Old
Settlers' Cemetery." Survey
and Research Report, 1984. Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Historic Properties Commission, Charlotte.
Government Publications:
Charlotte-Mecklenburg
County. Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Planning Commission.
Mecklenburg
County Greenway Master Plan Update.
Charlotte, November, 1991
Mecklenburg County.
Mecklenbug County Park and Recreation Commission.
Mecklenburg
County Greenway Master Plan. Charlotte,
May 18, 1999.
Sigmon, Joan.
Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation Commision. Final Report of the
Greenway Site Selection Committee.
Charlotte, June 16, 1980.
Pamphlets and Unpublished Sources:
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Parks
and Recreation Department scrapbooks.
DiPastena, Daniel.
Telephone interview. 22
February 2000.
Radio station WGIV broadcast featuring Dr. W. L.
Halberstadt, Mr. Foster Blaisdell, and
Miss Alice Suiter.
Ts., 10 June 1949. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Department of Parks and Recreation,
Charlotte.
Speizman, Morris.
A Short History of the
Carolina Golf and Country Club. Ts.,
1979.
Carolina
Golf and Country Club, Charlotte.
Wayne Weston. Personal
interview. 14 October 1999.
Newspapers:
Charlotte
Chronicle
Charlotte News
Charlotte
Observer
Books and Articles:
Archer, John "Country and
City in the American Romantic Suburb." Journal
of the
Society
of Architectural Historians
42.2 (1983): 139-56.
Barth, Gunther.
City People.
New York: Oxford UP, 1980.
Bishir, Catherine W. and
Lawrence S. Early, eds. Early Twentieth Century Suburbs in
North
Carolina. Raleigh: NC
Dept. of Cultural Resources, 1985.
Cornish, Geoffrey S. and
Ronald E. Whitten. The Golf Course. New
York: Rutledge Press,
1981.
Cranz, Galen.
The Politics of Park Design.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1982.
Flink, Charles A. and Robert
M. Searns. Greenways: A Guide to Planning, Design and
Development. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1993.
Hanchett, Thomas W.
"Before Olmsted: The New South Career of Joseph Forsyth Johnson."
Atlanta History 39.3-4 (1995):
12-27.
----. Sorting Out the New South City: Race, Class and Urban Development in
Charlotte,
1875-1975. Chapel Hill:
UNC Press, 1998.
Hancock, John L.
John Nolen: A Biographical
Record of Achievement. Ithaca, NY: Program in
Urban and Regional Studies, 1976.
Jackson, Kenneth T.
Crabgrass Frontier: The
Suburbanization of the United States.
New York: Oxford UP, 1985.
Kratt, Mary Norton and
Thomas W. Hanchett. Legacy: The Myers Park Story. Charlotte:
Myers Park Foundation, 1986.
Morrill, Dan L.
"Edward Dilworth Latta and the Charlotte Consolidated
ConstructionCompany
(1890-1925): Builders of a New South City." North
Carolina Historical
Review
62.3 (1985): 293-316.
Nolen, John.
New Towns for Old.
Boston: Marshall Jones, 1927.
Olmsted, Frederick Law.
Public Parks and the
Enlargement of Towns. Cambridge,
MA, 1870.
Ross, Donald J.
Golf Has Never Failed Me: the
Lost Commentaries of a Legendary Golf
Architect. Chelsea, MI: Sleeping Bear Press, 1996.
Schuyler, David. The
New Urban Landscape. Baltimore:
The Johns Hopkins UP, 1986.
Sessoms, Douglas H.
Leisure Services.
6th ed. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1984.
Seymour, Whitney North, Jr.,
ed. Small
Urban Spaces. New York:
NYU Press, 1969.
|