Beyond	City	Beautiful:	
Interpreting	Cultural	Landscapes	at	the	International	Rose	Test	
Garden	and	Laurelhurst	Park	in	Portland,	Oregon	
	
Lindsay	Tran	
M.S.	Historic	Preservation	|	University	of	Oregon	|	June	2023	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
BEYOND	“CITY	BEAUTIFUL”	
	
INTERPRETING	CULTURAL	LANDSCAPES	AT	THE	INTERNATIONAL	ROSE	TEST	GARDEN	
AND	LAURELHURST	PARK	IN	PORTLAND,	OREGON	
	
	
By	Lindsay	J.	Tran	
	
Graduate	Advisory	Committee	
	
Larissa	Rudnicki,	M.S.	
Committee	Chair	
Architectural	Historian	at	Oregon	Department	of	Transportation	
	
Laurie	Matthews,	M.L.A.	
Committee	Member	
Director	of	Preservation	Planning	&	Design	at	MIG	
	
Kirk	Ranzetta,	Ph.D.	
Committee	Member	
Senior	Architectural	Historian	at	AECOM	
	
Presented	in	partial	fulfillment	of	the	requirements	for	the	degree	of	
Master	of	Science	in	Historic	Preservation	
University	of	Oregon	
	
June	2023	
	 	
	
	
ABSTRACT	
Historical	interpretation	(alternately	referred	to	in	this	research	as	“heritage	
interpretation	and	“public	interpretation”)	often	limits	the	narratives	that	are	highlighted	
for	public	consumption	in	places	of	historical	importance.	I	argue	via	discussion	of	cultural	
landscape	theory	and	material	rhetoric	(the	idea	that	discourse	is	material,	i.e.	that	beyond	
content,	the	format	of	a	piece	of	communication	carries	a	rhetorical	power	of	its	own)	that	
such	limitations	are	a	choice,	not	an	inevitability—especially	with	cultural	landscapes,	
which	thanks	to	their	relationship	with	time	are	historic	resources	of	a	particularly	
dynamic	character.	Treating	public	parks	as	cultural	landscapes	that	evolve	over	time,	
rather	than	as	historic	sites	wedded	to	a	discrete	period	of	significance,	allows	for	a	more	
flexible	interpretation	of	their	historical	meaning.	When	parks	are	treated	as	cultural	
landscapes,	their	significance	to	many	people	and	many	groups	throughout	history	
presents	as	a	coherent	narrative,	rather	than	a	haphazard	and	seemingly	unrelated	
collection	of	events.	Using	the	inductive	process	of	grounded	theory	as	a	methodological	
approach,	I	critically	examine	the	extant	interpretive	infrastructure	in	two	case	studies,	
Laurelhurst	Park	and	the	International	Rose	Test	Garden.	I	explore	the	material	form	of	
each	park’s	historical	interpretation	as	a	series	of	rhetorical	choices,	and	then	suggest	
expansions	based	on	each	park’s	respective	history	and	the	material	rhetoric	of	the	existing	
interpretive	infrastructure.			
	 	
University of Oregon Historic Preservation Program 
Terminal Project Approval Page 
Student: Lindsay Tran 
Title: Beyond City Beautiful: Interpreting Cultural Landscapes in Laurelhurst 
Park and the International Rose Test Garden in Portland, Oregon 
This Terminal Project has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of 
the requirements for the Master of Science degree in the Historic Preservation 
Program by: 
Committee Chairperson: ~ Date: e;-/2+ / z,, '3 
Committee Membe,: Jl{,,,i Date, c'½;;J,, .:, I 1 ;;l.O'13 
Committee Member: --1~-,.LJAA&:<.%.....c.._ ________D ate: c1W<R rx.._1,)___();:8 
Degree awarded: June 2023 
	
Table	of	Contents	
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS	.......................................................................................................................................................	iii	
INTRODUCTION	.......................................................................................................................................................................	1	
LITERATURE	REVIEW	...........................................................................................................................................................	4	
City	Beautiful	Movement	.......................................................................................................................................................................	5	
Cultural	Landscapes	.................................................................................................................................................................................	8	
Rhetoric	and	Historical	Interpretation	.........................................................................................................................................	11	
RESEARCH	DESIGN	..............................................................................................................................................................	15	
Motivation	of	Study	...............................................................................................................................................................................	15	
Research	Question	Development	....................................................................................................................................................	18	
Methodological	Approach:	Grounded	Theory	...........................................................................................................................	19	
THEORY:	CULTURAL	LANDSCAPES	................................................................................................................................	28	
The	Development	of	a	Concept	........................................................................................................................................................	28	
Regulatory	Definition	...........................................................................................................................................................................	31	
THEORY:	MATERIAL	RHETORIC	AND	HISTORICAL	INTERPRETATION	.............................................................	33	
Heritage	Interpretation	as	Rhetoric	...............................................................................................................................................	34	
What	Is	Rhetoric?	...................................................................................................................................................................................	37	
What	Is	Material	Rhetoric?	................................................................................................................................................................	38	
Freeman	Tilden	and	the	Craft	of	Interpretation	.......................................................................................................................	40	
Tilden	and	Rhetoric	...............................................................................................................................................................................	42	
HISTORIC	CONTEXT	............................................................................................................................................................	44	
Olmsted	Brothers	...................................................................................................................................................................................	45	
The	Olmstedian	Landscape	................................................................................................................................................................	47	
City	Beautiful	Movement	Formation	.............................................................................................................................................	49	
“Portland	Parks	Plan”	...........................................................................................................................................................................	52	
E.T.	Mische	and	Implementation	Woes	........................................................................................................................................	54	
CASE	STUDY	NO.	1:	LAURELHURST	PARK	....................................................................................................................	56	
Extant	Interpretation	...........................................................................................................................................................................	57	
Historic	Background	.............................................................................................................................................................................	66	
Landscape	Characteristics	.................................................................................................................................................................	67	
i 
INTERPRETIVE	POTENTIAL	.............................................................................................................................................	76	
Rhetorical	Implications	.......................................................................................................................................................................	77	
“A	minor,	unsettling	segment”:	Hippies	in	Laurelhurst	Park	..............................................................................................	79	
Material	Properties	...............................................................................................................................................................................	81	
CASE	STUDY	NO.	2:	INTERNATIONAL	ROSE	TEST	GARDEN	...................................................................................	82	
Extant	Interpretation	...........................................................................................................................................................................	85	
Historic	Background	.............................................................................................................................................................................	99	
Landscape	Characteristics	...............................................................................................................................................................	108	
INTERPRETIVE	POTENTIAL	..........................................................................................................................................	115	
Rose	Testing:	A	Brief	Explanation	................................................................................................................................................	116	
Katherine	Dunn	(1945-2016)	.........................................................................................................................................................	118	
Rhetorical	Implications	.....................................................................................................................................................................	125	
Material	Properties	.............................................................................................................................................................................	129	
CONCLUSION	.......................................................................................................................................................................	133	
WORKS	CITED	....................................................................................................................................................................	138	
IMAGE	CREDITS	.................................................................................................................................................................	150	
	
ii 
 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
	
	 Thank	you	to	my	committee	advisors	Larissa	Rudnicki,	Laurie	Matthews,	and	Kirk	
Ranzetta,	for	their	multifaceted	support	this	year;	
	
to	Professor	Chad	Randl,	for	carrying	our	program	on	his	back	and	for	helping	me	keep	
things	in	perspective;	
	
to	Robert	Olguin	at	the	Oregon	SHPO,	for	lengthy	brainstorms	over	Zoom	and	for	delving	
many	times	into	the	SHPO’s	database;	
	
to	Crystal	Willer	and	Zoe	Maughan	at	the	Lewis	&	Clark	Special	Collections	&	Archives,	
Madeleine	Moya	at	the	City	of	Portland	Archives	&	Records	Center,	and	Scott	Daniels	at	the	
Oregon	Historical	Society;	
	
to	Rachel	Burlington,	curator	at	the	International	Rose	Test	Garden,	and	Peggy	Glascock	
with	the	Friends	of	Laurelhurst	Park;	
	
to	Marty	Stock	and	Tate	White	at	the	City	of	Portland;	
	
to	Laura	Park	and	Amelia	Shields	for	their	gracious	permission	to	reproduce	their	work;	
		
to	Dr.	Eli	Dapolonia	for	permission	to	reproduce	images	of	his	mother	and	of	her	writing;	
	
and	to	Cab	Tran,	whom	I	love.	
	
	
Cover	images	courtesy	of	the	Katherine	Dunn	estate	(bottom	right)	and	Portland	Parks	&	
Recreation	(bottom	left)	
	 	
iii 
 


INTRODUCTION	
The	trees	are	bare	on	a	dreary	winter’s	day	in	Laurelhurst	Park	in	southeast	
Portland,	but	the	landscape	is	buzzing	with	activity.	Dogs	frolic	in	the	off-leash	area;	small	
groups	stroll	or	jog	along	the	meandering	asphalt	pathways.	A	person	in	a	thick	coat	stands	
before	a	sign	scrawled	with	graffiti.	They	spray	the	panel,	then	scrub	it	vigorously	with	a	
sponge.	A	bearded	individual	sits	on	a	bench	under	a	meager	ray	of	sunshine	and	absently	
strums	a	guitar.	Children	stand	around	the	pond,	exclaiming	over	the	ducks	and	sometimes	
teetering	precariously	over	the	water	for	a	closer	look.	
Some	of	the	activities	described	above	were	anticipated	by	Laurelhurst	Park’s	
designers,	the	Olmsted	Brothers	landscape	architecture	firm	and	Portland	parks	
superintendent	(1908-1914)	Emanuel	Tillman	Mische	(E.T.	Mische).	The	longevity	of	these	
uses	is	closely	tied	to	the	physical	properties	of	the	park’s	landscape,	and	the	same	uses	are	
discussed	in	the	park’s	interpretive	infrastructure—the	materials,	both	digital	and	physical,	
that	narrate	the	park’s	history	to	the	public.		
Public	interpretation	of	a	historic	landscape	reflects	a	narrative	or	narratives	that	
have	been	cultivated	and	curated	over	time	by	a	community	with	a	cultural,	emotional,	or	
financial	investment	in	the	landscape.	At	the	same	time,	heritage	interpretation	rarely	
reflects	all	possible	stories	that	can	be	told	about	a	historic	resource.	For	this	reason,	
interpretive	material	needs	to	be	critically	examined,	especially	when	it	comes	to	public	
spaces	that	are	by	their	nature	open	to	many	uses	and	many	users.		
As	public	spaces,	city	parks	are	generally	accessible	avenues	for	interpretation.	A	
park’s	real	level	of	accessibility	depends	on	several	factors,	and	multiple	cases	both	historic	
and	contemporary	can	be	pointed	to	as	examples	of	public	parks’	inaccessibility.	The	fact	
1 
 
remains	however	that	parks	are	open	public	spaces,	a	quality	that	theoretically	creates	a	
more	accessible	interpretive	venue	than	a	busy	street	corner	downtown,	a	National	
Register	of	Historic	Places	(NRHP)	plaque	in	front	a	private	residence,	or	a	museum.	By	
virtue	of	being	public	spaces,	public	parks	are	available	to	diverse	users,	which	often	
implies	a	change	in	both	form	and	use	patterns.1	When	multiple	communities	use	a	park	
simultaneously,	these	uses	can	conflict	with	or	supplant	each	other.	Additionally,	not	every	
use	of	a	landscape	leaves	behind	visible	evidence	or	depends	on	physical	infrastructure	in	
an	orthodox	way.	Rather,	the	uses	are	layered	on	top	of	each	other,	drawing	upon	the	
landscape	in	ways	that	may	or	may	not	be	discussed	in	extant	historical	interpretation.	
Figure	1:	The	International	Rose	Test	Garden	(IRTG)	sits	in	the	hills	of	Washington	Park	on	
the	west	side	of	the	Willamette	River,	while	Laurelhurst	Park	sits	on	the	east	side	of	the	
river.	Base	image	Google	Earth	
1	J.B.	Jackson,	“The	American	Public	Space,”	in	The	Public	Face	of	Architecture:	Civic	Culture	and	Public	Spaces,	
ed.	Nathan	Glazer	and	Mark	Lilla	(New	York:	The	Free	Press,	1987),	287.	
2 
I	posit	that	while	Laurelhurst	Park	and	the	International	Rose	Test	Garden	both	host	
interpretive	infrastructure	that	represents	and	highlights	narratives	contemporaneous	
with	Portland’s	City	Beautiful	period,	this	infrastructure	does	a	demonstrably	poorer	job	of	
highlighting	narratives	that	demonstrate	each	cultural	landscape’s	“multiple,	coexisting	
texts”	or	“competing	fragmentary	expressions.”2	In	the	interests	of	affording	regulatory	
protections	to	cultural	landscapes,	historic	preservation	as	a	field	favors	“theories	of	
landscape	that	regard	it	as	a	material	thing,”	a	“material	thing”	that	retains	observable	
similarities	to	its	past	appearance.	But	“such	survival	is	the	result	of	stasis,	occurring	only	
when	there	has	been	little	change	to	a	building	or	landscape	over	time.”3	Cultural	
geographer	Julie	Riesenweber	makes	this	remark	in	relation	to	historic	preservation’s	
traditionally	inflexible	understanding	of	integrity	(which	is	discussed	later	under	the	“data	
analysis”	section),	but	her	observation	relates	just	as	aptly	to	addressing	the	need	for	more	
expansive	interpretation	of	cultural	landscapes.	
The	all-pervasiveness	of	rhetoric	is	used	in	this	research	as	a	foundation	for	
examining	the	material	manifestations	of	public	interpretation	in	cultural	landscapes.	
Heritage	interpretation	is	not	an	impartial	collection	of	facts,	but	a	subjective	presentation	
of	a	narrative.	As	such,	heritage	interpretation	is	a	rhetorical	phenomenon,	and	is	the	result	
of	several	choices	made	regarding	theme,	language,	and	presentation.	I	evaluate	the	
material	properties	of	each	case	study	park’s	interpretive	infrastructure	as	a	series	of	
rhetorical	choices,	where	the	interpretation’s	location,	format,	material,	and	inclusion	of	
 
2	Paul	Groth,	“Frameworks	for	Cultural	Landscape	Study,”	in	Understanding	Ordinary	Landscapes,	ed.	Paul	
Groth	and	Paul	Bressi	(New	Haven:	Yale	University	Press,	1997),	7.	
3	Julie	Riesenweber,	“Landscape	Preservation	and	Cultural	Geography,”	in	Cultural	Landscapes:	Balancing	
Nature	and	Heritage	in	Preservation	Practice,	ed.	Richard	Longstreth	(Minneapolis:	University	of	Minnesota	
Press,	2008),	29.	
3 
 
images	reflect	stakeholder	interests	and	cater	to	discrete	audiences.	I	then	propose	
historical	interpretation	for	each	park	based	on	the	park’s	history	and	less	conspicuous	
narratives	associated	with	the	landscape.	Treating	public	parks	as	cultural	landscapes	that	
evolve	over	time,	rather	than	as	historic	sites	wedded	to	a	discrete	period,	allows	for	a	
more	flexible	interpretation	of	their	historical	meaning.	
LITERATURE	REVIEW	
This	literature	review	is	divided	into	three	thematic	sections	that	support	
investigation	of	the	research	questions.	The	first	section	relates	to	establishing	a	historic	
context	for	the	City	Beautiful	movement,	as	this	provides	a	baseline	of	comparison	for	
expanded	interpretive	themes.	The	second	section	includes	literature	that	builds	a	theory	
of	cultural	landscape	and	how	a	cultural	landscape	derives	its	meaning	or	significance	from	
both	design	and	use.	The	last	section	addresses	literature	that	establishes	the	importance	
of	public	interpretation	at	historic	sites	and	describes	interpretation	as	a	series	of	
rhetorical	choices.		
While	this	research	draws	on	a	variety	of	primary	and	secondary	sources,	the	
literature	review,	in	the	interest	of	addressing	themes,	debates,	and	gaps	in	existing	
academic	research,	is	confined	to	secondary	resources.	These	secondary	sources	include	
scholarly	books,	articles,	NRHP	nominations,	and	historic	contexts.	Primary	sources	are	
discussed	in	later	sections	where	their	analysis	is	most	pertinent.	The	sources	for	
uncovering	the	landscape’s	significance	are	used	in	an	iterative	way—meaning	that	they	
were	referred	to	several	times	over	the	course	of	the	research	as	the	thesis	developed	and	
were	also	analyzed	under	multiple	lenses	(relating,	for	example,	to	both	City	Beautiful	
4 
history	and	cultural	landscape	theory).	Primary	sources	such	as	news	clippings	and	
archival	resources	are	interwoven	throughout	the	case	study	section.	
City	Beautiful	Movement			
In	The	City	Beautiful	Movement,	American	history	scholar	William	H.	Wilson	delivers	
a	thorough	and	critical	overview	of	the	movement’s	manifestations	throughout	the	United	
States.	The	book’s	four	sections	explore	the	general	origins	and	ideology	of	the	movement,	
the	design	of	early	City	Beautiful	parks,	the	design	of	later	City	Beautiful	parks,	and	the	
legacy	of	the	movement	on	a	national	level.	Intrinsic	to	the	historic	context	for	this	research	
is	Wilson’s	analysis	of	City	Beautiful	ideology,	wherein	he	refutes	two	popular	and	
reductive	portrayals	of	City	Beautiful	advocates	at	work	throughout	the	United	States:	that	
of	good	Samaritans	who	acted	solely	for	the	collective	benefit,	and	that	of	capitalist	barons	
who	weaponized	public	spaces	to	solidify	inequalities	along	lines	of	class	and	race.	
“The	City	Beautiful	Movement	and	Civic	Planning	in	Portland,	Oregon	1897-1921”	
Multiple	Property	Submission	(hereafter	referred	to	as	a	Multiple	Property	Document	or	
“the	MPD,”	per	the	most	recently	established	nomenclature	for	similarly	structured	NRHP	
nominations)	establishes	a	context	for	assessing	the	influence	of	City	Beautiful	ideology	on	
Portland’s	built	environment.	The	document’s	main	tools	for	assessing	this	influence	are	
the	Olmsted	Plan	of	1903	and	Edward	Bennett’s	Greater	Portland	Plan	of	1912.	The	MPD	
also	provides	a	typological	breakdown	and	integrity	guidelines	for	assessing	the	eligibility	
of	Portland’s	City	Beautiful	resources	for	the	NRHP.	
Joan	Hockaday’s	Greenscapes:	Olmsted’s	Pacific	Northwest	describes	in	detail	John	
Charles	Olmsted’s	creative	relationship	with	Oregon’s	landscapes.	His	impressions	of	the	
varied	landscapes	throughout	the	state	translated	into	imaginative	park	designs	that	
5 
 
adhered	to	his	father	Frederick	Law	Olmsted’s	general	design	tenets,	but	that	were	also	
distinct	to	the	Pacific	Northwest.	This	specific	interpretation	of	John	Charles	Olmsted’s	
work	process	contributes	to	a	more	complete	historic	context.	
Sources	discussing	Portland’s	broader	history	of	park	development	include	two	
historic	contexts	produced	by	the	city	of	Portland,	“City	of	Portland:	Civic	Planning,	
Development,	&	Public	Works,	1851-1965”	and	“Open	Space	and	Park	Development,	1851-
1965.”	The	first	of	these	contexts	establishes	a	chronological	history	of	Portland’s	urban	
development,	including	a	chapter	on	public	planning	and	Progressive	Era	politics	from	
1900-1930.	This	source	helps	to	contextualize	the	discussion	on	the	larger	City	Beautiful	
movement	in	Portland.	The	second	historic	context,	“Open	Space	and	Park	Development,	
1851-1965,”	focuses	specifically	on	parks	and	reserves,	and	includes	a	chapter	on	trends	in	
parks	acquisition	and	development	during	the	City	Beautiful	era.		
In	The	Legacy	of	Olmsted	Brothers	in	Portland,	Oregon,	local	historian	William	
Hawkins	discusses	the	long-range	history	of	Portland’s	parks,	extending	his	discussion	
beyond	the	City	Beautiful	era.	Hawkins’	discussion	of	the	City	Beautiful	movement	mirrors	
in	less	detail	much	of	what	is	in	the	MPD.		Hawkins’	work	contributes	value	to	this	research	
with	more	detailed	descriptions	of	individual	parks	than	those	included	in	the	two	historic	
contexts	discussed	above.	Further	information	on	both	case	study	parks	(Laurelhurst	Park	
and	the	test	garden)	came	from	several	entries	in	the	Oregon	Encyclopedia,	park	
information	pages	on	the	city	of	Portland’s	website,	and	NRHP	nominations	for	Laurelhurst	
Park	and	the	Washington	Park	Reservoirs.	These	sources	all	helped	to	provide	detailed	
descriptions	of	landscape	characteristics	and	helped	to	contextualize	the	histories	of	both	
landscapes.		
6 
 
Additional	sources	contribute	as	much	to	the	discussion	of	cultural	landscapes	and	
public	interpretation	as	they	do	to	the	development	of	the	historic	context.	In	The	Politics	of	
Park	Design:	A	History	of	Urban	Parks	in	America,	Galen	Cranz	offers	a	sociological	history	of	
parks	development	in	the	United	States.	Cranz	outlines	four	models	that	in	her	estimation	
dominated	park	design,	each	for	a	period	of	thirty	to	thirty-five	years	between	1870	and	
the	present	day:	Pleasure	Grounds,	Reform	Parks,	Recreation	Facilities,	Open	Space	
Systems,	and	a	new	emerging	addition,	Sustainable	Parks.	She	argues	that	the	shape	and	
use	of	parks	is	influenced	by	a	specific	social	problem	on	people’s	minds	at	the	time.	Cranz’	
work	helps	to	flesh	out	the	historic	context	for	this	research	in	that	she	clearly	indicates	
how	park	use	and	design	respond	to	societal	change.	Her	focus	on	use	changes	contributes	
to	the	argument	for	assessing	parks	as	cultural	landscapes	that	call	for	broader	historical	
interpretation	that	accounts	for	evolving	uses	over	time.	
In	her	article	“Urban	Public	Parks,	1840-1900:	Design	and	Meaning,”	Hilary	Taylor	
unpacks	how	the	design	of	nineteenth-century	parks	reflects	the	aspirations	and	
achievements	of	the	time.	Taylor	analyzes	how	the	debates	and	values	of	the	mid-	to	late-
nineteenth	century	are	embodied	in	the	design	and	layout	of	Victorian	public	parks.	These	
debates	include	the	design	tenet	of	rus	in	urbe,	or	the	countryside	introduced	into	the	city;	
inclusion	of	specimen	trees	and	plants	for	scientific	exhibition;	the	“ennoblement”	of	nature	
via	art;	and	the	park	as	“an	image	of	a	virtuous	society.”4	Many	of	these	same	debates	
carried	over	into	the	Progressive	Era	and	found	purchase	in	the	design	of	City	Beautiful	
parks–and	consequently,	in	the	ways	that	they	are	interpreted	for	the	public	today.	
4	Hilary	A.	Taylor,	“Urban	Public	Parks,	1840-1900:	Design	and	Meaning,”	Garden	History	23,	no.	2	(1995):	
https://doi.org/10.2307/1587078,	213.	
7 
In	his	master’s	thesis,	“Portland’s	Olmsted	Vision	(1897-1915):	A	Study	of	the	Public	
Landscapes	Designed	by	Emanuel	T.	Mische,”	Kenneth	Guzowski	focuses	on	the	park	
designs	executed	by	Mische	during	his	tenure	as	park	superintendent	in	1908-1914.	
Guzowski	identifies	“what	is	historic”	in	these	parks	and	offers	treatment	
recommendations	for	the	preservation	of	these	features.5	Guzowski	assesses	a	City	
Beautiful	park’s	primary	historic	value	as	a	resource	emblematic	of	Olmstedian	design	
principles.	While	this	point	is	uncontentious,	the	phrase	“what	is	historic”	as	used	in	the	
abstract	suggests	that	park	elements	not	native	to	the	City	Beautiful	era	may	be	construed	
as	somehow	less	historic	or	less	significant.	The	intellectual	contradictions	of	this	position,	
especially	when	preservationists	are	actively	seeking	to	engage	with	history	in	a	more	
holistic	and	interdisciplinary	way,	illustrates	the	need	for	work	that	analyzes	public	parks	
as	dynamic	cultural	landscapes	subject	to	shifting	uses	and	layered	significance	over	time.	
Cultural	Landscapes		
	 Several	disciplines	have	longstanding	investment	in	how	cultural	landscapes	are	
defined.	The	literature	reviewed	for	this	research	demonstrates	these	interdisciplinary	
concerns.	From	cultural	geography	and	public	history	to	historic	preservation	and	ecology,	
academics	and	professionals	across	multiple	fields	have	emphasized	the	need	for	a	more	
holistic	conception	of	cultural	landscape.		
	 In	the	introduction	to	the	multi-author	volume	Understanding	Ordinary	Landscapes	
(1997),	Paul	Groth	discusses	the	seminal	influence	of	writer	and	Landscape	magazine	
editor	John	Brinckerhoff	Jackson	(“J.B.	Jackson”)	in	the	field	of	cultural	landscape	studies.	
 
5	Kenneth	Guzowski,	“Portland’s	Olmsted	Vision	(1897-1915):	A	Study	of	the	Public	Landscapes	Designed	by	
Emanuel	T.	Mische	in	Portland,	Oregon”	(master’s	thesis,	University	of	Oregon,	1990),	Proquest	(1341372),	4.	
8 
 
Jackson	promotes	the	phenomenon	of	the	ordinary	or	vernacular	landscape	as	worthy	of	
study	and	focuses	less	on	formal	design	and	high	architecture	than	he	does	on	the	
interactions	of	people	with	their	everyday	surroundings.	Groth	acknowledges	that	cultural	
landscape	theory	as	a	field	has	evolved	beyond	Jackson’s	initial	concepts	and	enumerates	
several	tenets	that	he	himself	considers	to	be	foundational	to	the	field.	These	include	the	
importance	of	“ordinary,	everyday	landscapes”;	the	worthiness	of	both	rural	and	urban	
landscapes	as	subjects	of	study;	the	importance	of	recognizing	both	universal	patterns	and	
local	diversity;	the	need	for	accessible,	“popular”	writing	styles	to	reach	as	broad	an	
audience	as	possible;	the	intrinsic	interdisciplinarity	of	the	field;	and	the	primacy	of	visual	
and	spatial	data.6	
	 The	most	recent	scholarship	on	cultural	landscapes	pursues	a	broader	
understanding	of	the	term	“cultural	landscape”	across	diverse	fields.	Sources	referenced	for	
this	research	include	“Cultural	Landscape	Theory	and	Practice:	Moving	from	Observation	
to	Experience,”	a	chapter	by	Julian	Smith	in	the	multi-author	volume	Understanding	
Heritage:	Perspectives	in	Heritage	Studies	(2013).	Smith	observes	that	cultural	landscapes,	
unlike	historic	landscapes,	exist	just	as	much,	if	not	more	so,	in	the	“cultural	imagination”	
as	they	do	in	the	physical	world.	Despite	widespread	recognition	among	cultural	heritage	
professionals	that	landscape	characteristics	like	land	use	and	traditional	practice	may	not	
always	create	physical	traces,	the	methodology	these	professionals	employ	continues	to	
rely	on	physical	evidence	of	practices,	rather	than	the	practices	themselves,	as	proof	of	
their	importance.		
 
6	Groth,	“Frameworks	for	Cultural	Landscape	Study”	in	Groth	and	Bressi,	Understanding	Ordinary	Landscapes,	
3-15.	
9 
 
Also	of	note	are	a	selection	of	conference	papers	presented	at	the	Fourth	National	
Forum	on	Historic	Preservation	in	2004,	which	were	published	as	Cultural	Landscapes:	
Balancing	Nature	and	Heritage	in	Preservation	Practice	and	edited	by	architectural	
historian	Richard	Longstreth.	In	“Landscape	Preservation	and	Cultural	Geography,”	cultural	
geographer	Julie	Riesenweber	describes	historic	preservationists’	responsibility	to	
evaluate	and	interpret	cultural	landscapes	in	a	more	holistic	way.	She	asserts	that	
longstanding	methodologies	from	the	field	of	cultural	geography	can	help	historic	
preservationists	to	expand	their	own	understanding	and	treatment	of	these	landscapes.	In	
the	same	volume,	Robert	Melnick	asks	in	“Are	We	There	Yet?”	whether	the	codification	
required	for	regulatory	protection	of	cultural	landscapes	primes	cultural	resource	
professionals	to	overlook	or	misunderstand	a	landscape’s	complexity.		
	 Two	sources	provide	some	intriguing	insights	on	how	to	conceptualize	cultural	
landscapes	as	a	phenomenon	of	both	space	and	time.	In	her	article	“Time	and	Landscape”	
published	in	Current	Anthropology	in	2002,	anthropologist	Barbara	Bender	asserts	that	
landscape	is	“time	materializing,”	and	that	that	in	contemporary	Western	discourse	(also	a	
problematic	concept	that	she	evaluates),	all	definitions	of	landscape	incorporate	the	idea	of	
“‘time	passing.’”7	She	acknowledges	that	different	types	of	time—e.g.	linear,	seasonal,	
ceremonial,	global,	local,	“clock	time”—are	not	mutually	exclusive,	but	exist	in	tandem	with	
one	another	in	a	subjective	way.	“Subjective”	here	does	not	refer	to	cultural	relativism,	but	
to	Bender’s	observation	that	while	landscape	and	time	do	exist	outside	of	human	
understanding,	their	existence	as	concepts	is	inextricable	from	politics,	social	relations	(of	
 
7	Barbara	Bender,	“Time	and	Landscape,”	Current	Anthropology	43,	no.	S4	(2002):	S103,	
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/339561.	
10 
 
class,	race,	gender,	etc.),	and	historical	particularities.8	Bender	uses	three	case	studies	in	
rural	England	and	northern	Ireland	to	illustrate	the	methodological	challenges	for	cultural	
landscape	studies	that	arise	from	time	being	a	social	construct.	
The	second	source	that	explores	the	interstices	of	time	and	landscape	is	Helen	
Erickson’s	master	thesis	in	landscape	architecture,	“The	Factor	of	Time	in	the	Analysis	and	
Interpretation	of	Cultural	Landscapes,”	which	happens	to	also	be	concerned	specifically	
with	landscape	interpretation.	Erickson	argues	that	change	is	as	much	a	defining	
characteristic	of	the	landscape	as	any	discrete	physical	feature	associated	with	the	
determined	period	of	significance	for	the	landscape,	or	with	the	later	or	earlier	uses	that	
have	left	the	most	visually	predominant	traces	on	the	landscape.	Like	Bender,	Erickson	
includes	three	case	studies	(the	Faraway	Ranch	and	Tucson	Community	Center,	both	in	
Arizona,	and	the	“topography	of	terror”	no-man’s	land	in	occupied	Berlin	after	WWII)	to	
illustrate	how	methodologies	for	interpreting	landscapes	can	be	expanded,	enriched,	or	
otherwise	altered	to	better	reflect	the	quality	of	change	over	time.	
Rhetoric	and	Historical	Interpretation	
Two	sources	are	used	to	establish	the	nature	of	rhetoric	and	material	rhetoric.	
Firstly,	the	ontology	of	material	rhetoric	is	explored	in	a	blog	article	in	an	online	national	
directory	of	graduate-	and	doctoral-level	degree	programs	in	academic	fields	related	to	
communication.	Ben	Clancy	provides	an	overview	of	material	rhetoric’s	development	as	a	
field	of	scholarship	from	the	1980s	onwards.	Clancy	explains	how	material	rhetoric	
challenges	the	status	quo	in	rhetorical	studies,	specifically,	“the	idea	that	persuasion	can	be	
8	Bender,	“Time	and	Landscape,”	S104.	
11 
analyzed	through	textual	analysis	alone.”9	They	review	different	interpretations	of	“what	it	
means	for	rhetoric	to	be	material,”	and	then	offer	in-depth	analysis	of	the	three	main	types	
of	materialist	scholarship:	“research	focused	on	the	importance	of	context,	criticism	that	
explores	the	materiality	of	discourse,	and	rhetorical	criticism	interested	in	how	the	
material	operates	rhetorically.”10	My	research	on	historical	interpretation	draws	primarily	
on	this	last	type	of	scholarship—how	materials	and	their	visual,	tangible,	or	otherwise	
physical	qualities	carry	rhetorical	power.	
In	Democracy’s	Lot:	Rhetoric,	Politics,	and	the	Places	of	Invention,	Professor	Candice	
Rai	contends	that	the	rhetoric	of	democracy	expresses	itself	not	only	via	language	(in	
speeches,	manifestos,	etc.)	but	via	space	and	the	ways	that	people	use	space	to	assert	
themselves	and	enact	their	struggles	with	each	other.	Rai	employs	the	case	study	of	Wilson	
Yard,	an	empty	lot	in	a	Chicago	neighborhood	known	for	its	ethnic	diversity	and	history	of	
social	upheaval	(which	continues	today	in	the	form	of	gentrification).	Rai’s	focus	on	the	
“rhetorical	force”	of	public	spaces	speaks	particularly	well	to	the	ways	that	people	have	
used	city	parks	in	Portland,	whether	as	emblems	for	civic	boosterism	or	as	gathering	points	
for	public	demonstrations.	Pier	Park	in	north	Portland	was	the	site	of	a	longshoremen	
strike	in	1934,	and	Dawson	Park	(as	discussed	in	the	“motivation	of	study”	section)	served	
as	the	departure	point	for	a	civil	rights	march	in	1963.	In	2020,	both	Laurelhurst	Park	and	
Peninsula	Park	hosted	public	protests	after	the	murder	of	George	Floyd.11	
9	Ben	Clancy,	“Material	Rhetoric,”	Topics	in	Rhetorical	Studies	(blog),	Masters	in	Communication,	accessed	
March	20,	2023,	https://www.mastersincommunications.com/research/rhetorical-studies/material-
rhetoric.	
10	Clancy,	“Material	Rhetoric.”	
11	Suzette	Smith	and	Justin	Yau,	“Amid	Nightly	Protests,	Pipe	Bombs	Explode	in	Laurelhurst	Park,”	Willamette	
Week,	August	10,	2020,	https://www.wweek.com/news/courts/2020/08/09/amid-nightly-protests-pipe-
bombs-explode-in-laurelhurst-park;	“Parks	in	Context:	A	Community	History	of	Peninsula	Park,”	Public	
12 
In	other	sources,	historical	interpretation	is	itself	established	as	a	rhetorical	
exercise.	National	Park	Service	(NPS)	consultant	Freeman	Tilden	wrote	Interpreting	Our	
Heritage	in	1957,	a	short	book	recognized	as	a	seminal	guide	on	how	to	create	and	present	
historical	interpretation.	Though	Tilden	does	not	use	the	word	“rhetoric”	to	describe	
historical	interpretation,	he	does	present	interpretation	as	an	art,	a	skill,	and	a	tool—all	
words	that	apply	just	as	easily	to	the	way	people	use	rhetoric	in	everyday	situations.	In	an	
article	published	by	the	International	Association	for	Research	on	Textbooks	and	
Educational	Media	(IARTEM),	Iben	Jørgensen	uses	rhetoric	to	evaluate	the	collective	
cultural	memory	created	and	evoked	by	heritage	sites.	She	focuses	on	the	“mediated	
rhetoric”	of	these	sites,	mediated	rhetoric	being	specified	as	websites	and	digital	exhibits.	
Jørgensen	takes	as	a	case	study	the	website	for	New	Lanark,	a	historic	cotton-mill	company	
town	and	heritage	site	in	Scotland.	She	indicates	how	elements	including	photographs,	
other	visual	elements,	and	the	foregrounding	of	specific	topics	helps	to	establish	rhetorical	
agency,	positioning	the	heritage	site	as	an	ideological	or	identity-shaping	text	with	a	crafted	
awareness	of	its	audience’s	desires	and	preconceptions.	12	Finally,	in	the	introduction	to	
Heritage	Keywords:	Rhetoric	and	Redescription	in	Cultural	Heritage	(2015),	Kathryn	Lafrenz	
Samuels	homes	in	on	two	concepts	that	are	often	at	odds:	cultural	heritage	itself	as	a	kind	
of	rhetoric	or	“persuasion”;	and	the	rhetoric	of	cultural	heritage,	or	the	use	of	“certain	
binding	words	for	heritage,	e.g.	cultural	property,	intangible	heritage,	authenticity”	to	
History	PDX:	A	Project	of	the	Portland	State	University	History	Department,	July	18,	2022,	
http://publichistorypdx.org/2022/07/18/parks-in-context-a-community-history-of-peninsula-park.	
12	Iben	Brinch	Jørgensen,	“The	Face	of	the	Factory	Girl:	Educational	Rhetoric	in	the	Mediation	of	an	Historical	
Place,”	IARTEM	E-Journal	4,	no.	1	(August	4,	2011):	2,	13,	https://doi.org/10.21344/iartem.v4i1.779.	
Jørgensen	discusses	how	the	tourist	brings	their	own	social	context,	personal	nostalgia,	and	other	
preconceptions	to	their	experience	of	the	website.	In	this	way,	the	visual	rhetoric	of	historical	interpretation	
(e.g.	iconic	photographs)	can	have	multiple	and	sometimes	opposing	rhetorical	effects—the	effect	intended	
by	the	interpreter,	and	the	effect	experienced	by	the	audience.	
13 
codify	and	standardize	the	field	of	cultural	heritage.13	Lafrenz	theorizes	that	rather	than	
being	an	insurmountable	limitation,	the	“coded”	language	of	cultural	heritage	is	simply	a	
symptom	of	the	language’s	provisional	nature;	cultural	heritage	is	in	fact	a	flexible	and	
ever-evolving	field.14	
	In	a	similar	vein,	Neil	Silberman	argues	in	his	chapter	in	Understanding	Heritage:	
Perspectives	in	Heritage	Studies	(2013)	for	an	understanding	of	heritage	interpretation	as	a	
kind	of	discourse.	He	emphasizes	the	importance	of	the	nonprofessional	stakeholder	in	
developing	interpretation	of	heritage	sites	(cultural	landscapes	are	not	specifically	called	
out).	He	references	the	use	of	hermeneutics,	or	the	study	of	how	language	is	interpreted,	to	
help	reimagine	what	constitutes	“successful”	historical	interpretation.	Though	professional	
interpreters	may	feel	that	their	success	lies	in	convincing	the	audience	of	“correctly”	
understanding	their	message,	Silberman	views	the	audience	as	being	more	active	
participants.	Audience	members	use	their	own	perspectives	to	process	interpretive	
material,	and	as	such	may	have	an	experience	in	a	cultural	landscape	that	“adds,	meshes,	or	
clashes	with	their	personal	understandings	of	human	nature	and	history.”15		 	
13	Kathryn	Lafrenz	Samuels,	“Heritage	as	Persuasion,”	in	Heritage	Keywords:	Rhetoric	and	Redescription	in	
Cultural	Heritage,	ed.	Trinidad	Rico	and	Kathryn	Lafrenz	Samuels	(Denver:	University	Press	of	Colorado,	
2015),	4.	
14	Lafrenz	Samuels,	“Heritage	as	Persuasion,”	5.	Though	Lafrenz	Samuels	continues	to	focus	on	rhetoric	as	a	
discursive	phenomenon,	she	also	points	to	its	flexibility	and	malleability	as	a	tool.	She	points	out	that	rhetoric	
can	be	used	not	only	to	enforce	the	status	quo,	but	also	to	“[transform]	prevailing	heritage	vocabularies,	
[encourage]	alternate	meanings,	and	[innovate]	new	technologies.”	
15	Neil	Silberman,	“Heritage	Interpretation	as	Public	Discourse:	Towards	a	New	Paradigm”	in	Understanding	
Heritage:	Perspectives	in	Heritage	Studies,	ed.	Marie-Therese	Albert,	Roland	Bernecker,	and	Britta	Rudolff	
(Berlin:	De	Gruyter,	2013),	24.	
14 
RESEARCH	DESIGN	
This	section	details	the	methodological	system	and	theoretical	concepts	used	to	
direct	the	research.	Inspiration	for	the	research	is	discussed	in	the	section	on	“motivation	
of	study.”	Grounded	theory	and	its	various	constraints	are	elaborated	upon	as	a	
methodological	approach,	and	two	theoretical	frameworks—cultural	landscapes	theory,	
and	the	theory	of	material	rhetoric—are	related	to	the	research	topic	of	historical	
interpretation.	
Motivation	of	Study	
Impetus	for	this	study	came	from	an	interest	in	exploring	the	practice	and	logistics	
of	interpreting	historic	landscapes.	Public	interpretation	is	an	integral	step	in	historic	
preservation,	as	it	can,	when	carried	out	effectively,	help	the	public	understand	the	
importance	of	historic	preservation.	My	choice	to	focus	on	public	parks	as	a	subject	of	
historical	interpretation	is	a	personal	one,	as	parks	throughout	the	city—Mt.	Tabor,	
Laurelhurst,	Forest	Park,	and	Wilshire—are	places	I	have	visited	almost	every	day	since	
moving	to	Portland	in	2021	for	graduate	school.	Parks	are	one	of	the	few	places	within	
walking	distance	of	my	home	where	I	have	been	able	to	relax	and	take	a	break	from	the	
sensorial	overload	of	the	city.	
Ongoing	efforts	in	Portland	to	expand	historical interpretation	in	at	least	two	city	
parks	provide	precedent	for	this	research.	Thanks	to	impetus	from	community	
stakeholders,	Dawson	Park	in	the	Albina	neighborhood	in	north	Portland	already	
incorporates	broad	interpretation	that	considers	the	park	as	a	cultural	landscape	with	
diverse	uses	and	meanings	that	have	shifted	over	time.	From	the	early-twentieth	century	
through	the	1960s,	the	vast	majority	of	African	American	Portlanders	lived	in	Albina	due	to	
15 
redlining	policies	that	restricted	the	sale	of	homes	or	land	to	non-White	consumers	in	other	
parts	of	the	city.	In	the	1950s	and	1960s,	urban	renewal	projects	in	Albina	that	included	the	
development	of	I-5,	the	unrealized	expansion	of	Legacy	Emanuel	Hospital,	and	the	
construction	of	the	Memorial	Coliseum,	displaced	people	from	their	homes.16	Although	
many	families	now	live	much	farther	east,	the	neighborhood’s	public	parks	still	act	as	vital	
recreational	spaces	for	the	Black	community.17		
Among	these	parks	is	Dawson	Park,	a	two-acre	area	at	the	northwest	corner	of	
North	Stanton	Street	and	North	William	Avenue,	dedicated	in	1921	at	the	tail	end	of	the	
City	Beautiful	movement.	With	the	input	of	community	stakeholders,	the	interpretive	
infrastructure	was	overhauled	to	better	reflect	the	many	ways	that	the	Black	community	
has	used	Dawson	Park	since	the	late	1940s.18	Robert	Kennedy	gave	a	speech	here	in	1963	
before	a	civil	rights	march,	for	example,	and	the	park	hosted	a	thriving	neighborhood	
market	for	years.	Twelve	boulders	inscribed	with	the	names	of	important	people	and	
events	were	installed	in	the	park.	The	oldest	extant	piece	of	historical	interpretation	in	
Dawson	Park	is	the	Hill	Block	Building	cupola.	The	rooftop	ornament	was	salvaged	and	
relocated	to	the	park	in	1978	during	anticipatory	demolition	for	the	Legacy	Emanuel	
expansion	project.	
Dawson	Park’s	interpretive	infrastructure	serves	two	purposes	and	two	audiences;	
it	is	both	educational	for	the	public	at	large	and	community-affirming	for	Portlanders	of	
16	Cathy	Galbraith	et	al.	“African	American	Resources	in	Portland,	Oregon,	from	1851	to	1973,”	Multiple	
Property	Submission	National	Register	Nomination,	2020,	
https://www.portland.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/mpd_final.pdf,	E-12,	E-32.	
17	Casey	Parks,	“North	Williams	Gentrified.	Its	Park	Didn’t.	How	Dawson	Park	Survived	as	a	Black	Hub,”	
Oregonian,	September	10,	2016,	https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2016/09/dawson_park	
_gentrification_por.html.	
18	Portland	Parks	&	Recreation,	“Dawson	Park,”	website	of	the	City	of	Portland,	accessed	May	14,	2023,	
https://www.portland.gov/parks/dawson-park.	
16 
African	American	and	Black	descent.	The	interpretation	at	Dawson	Park	provides	an	
example	of	interpreting	uses	of	the	cultural	landscape	that	have	less	to	do	with	the	park’s	
particular	design,	and	more	to	do	with	the	park’s	setting,	location,	and	relationship	to	a	
specific	community.19	
Broader	interpretation	has	also	been	installed	at	Peninsula	Park	thanks	to	Professor	
Catherine	McNeur,	the	Portland	State	University	Public	History	Lab,	and	their	2022	
collaboration	with	the	Friends	of	the	Peninsula	Park	Rose	Garden.	In	the	wake	of	the	2020	
Black	Lives	Matter	marches	and	vigils	that	started	in	Peninsula	Park,	the	Friends	sought	to	
expand	the	park’s	historical	interpretation	to	better	represent	how	different	communities	
have	used	the	park	in	various	ways	over	time.	McNeur’s	students	drew	upon	several	
resources	to	extract	narratives	from	the	park’s	past	that	have	been	neglected	or	
unrecognized	by	White,	upper-class	history.	They	compiled	this	new	interpretation	into	a	
zine	available	to	parkgoers	digitally	and	physically	at	the	park	visitor	center.	McNeur	
asserts	that	interpretive	infrastructure	at	other	Portland	parks	could	benefit	from	similar	
thematic	expansion.20	In	an	effort	to	contribute	to	this	conversation,	I	chose	to	focus	my	
research	on	the	material	rhetoric	of	the	interpretation,	rather	than	its	thematic	content.	
The	goal,	however,	is	the	same—to	expand	upon	the	narratives	presented	to	the	public	
about	the	meaning	and	the	historical	importance	of	Portland’s	public	parks.	
19	Portland	Parks	&	Recreation,	“Dawson	Park	Improvements	Phase	2,”	website	of	the	City	of	Portland,	August	
26,	2022,	https://www.portland.gov/sites/default/files/2022/2022_0826-public-outreach-event.pdf.	
20	“Parks	in	Context,”	Public	History	PDX.	
17 
Research	Question	Development	
What	began	as	an	inquiry	into	the	interpretive	themes	addressed	in	City	Beautiful-
era	parks	across	the	city	has	evolved	into	an	examination	of	the	rhetorical	properties	of	
extant	interpretation	at	two	City	Beautiful-era	parks,	Laurelhurst	Park	and	the	
International	Rose	Test	Garden.	
RQ1:	What	are	the	rhetorical	properties	of	[the	park’s]	interpretive	infrastructure?	
RQ2:	Where	and	how	can	the	interpretive	infrastructure	be	expanded	to	narrate	a	
more	complete	history	of	the	park	as	a	cultural	landscape?	
My	consideration	of	rhetoric	extends	to	the	interpretation	I	propose	for	each	park	
based	on	each	park’s	evolving	use	and	meaning	in	the	context	of	Portland’s	history.	
Examining	the	rhetorical	properties	of	historical	interpretation	constitutes	the	
“theoretical	sampling”	phase	of	research.	I	realized	the	need	for	analyzing	the	
interpretation	from	a	rhetorical	perspective	when	it	became	clear	that	a	mere	summary	
or	overview	of	the	interpretive	themes	alone	would	not	be	enough	to	set	the	stage	for	an	
engaging	discussion	on	why	historical interpretation	matters	in	cultural	landscapes.	
Additionally,	I	realized	that	limiting	the	case	studies	to	two	parks	instead	of	half	a	dozen,	
as	initially	planned,	would	allow	for	more	in-depth	discussion	and	analysis,	given	
limitations	on	time	and	resources	over	the	course	of	the	research.	These	same	limitations	
inspired	several	constraints	described	in	the	research	parameters.	
18 
Methodological	Approach:	Grounded	Theory	
	 This	research	adopts	grounded	theory	as	a	methodological	approach.	In	grounded	
theory,	the	systematic	gathering	and	interpretation	of	data	helps	the	researcher	to	discern	
patterns.	The	subsequent	grouping	of	these	patterns	into	larger	categories	allows	the	
researcher	to	draw	conclusions	that	are	“grounded”	in	the	initial	data	set.	These	
conclusions	may	provide	clear	answers	to	the	hypothesis	but	may	just	as	likely	serve	as	a	
conduit	for	further	questioning	and	exploration	of	the	research	topic.	Hence,	the	
“conclusions”	drawn	from	the	research	may	themselves	be	more	of	a	theoretical	vehicle	
than	they	are	definitive	answers	to	any	given	question.21	
Although	explanatory	graphics	in	many	academic	papers	belie	the	circular	
trajectory	of	generating	a	grounded	theory,	the	process	is	not	a	linear	one.	Gathering	data	is	
the	starting	point	of	the	research,	and	the	articulation	of	a	theory	is	the	culmination	of	the	
process,	but	both	these	steps	and	all	the	interim	steps	can	happen	at	any	point,	and	often	
happen	over	and	over	as	the	researcher	retraces	their	steps	and	returns	to	the	field	to	
explore	their	ideas	more	deeply.22	Themes	and	patterns	are	identified	inductively,	meaning	
that	the	specifics	(data	points)	precede	the	generalizations	(patterns,	themes,	and	theory).	
Inductive	reasoning	differs	from	deductive	reasoning	in	that	the	latter	takes	as	its	goal	the	
testing	of	a	theory	rather	than	the	generation	of	a	theory.	Though	inductive	reasoning	is	
 
21	Helen	Noble	and	Gary	Mitchell,	“What	Is	Grounded	Theory?”	Evidence-Based	Nursing	19,	no.	2	(April	1,	
2016),	https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2016-102306,	34;	Kathy	Charmaz,	Constructing	Grounded	Theory:	A	
Practical	Guide	Through	Qualitative	Analysis	(London:	SAGE	Publications,	2006),	2.	
22	Noble	and	Mitchell,	“What	is	grounded	theory?”	35;	Charmaz,	Constructing	Grounded	Theory,	10.	
19 
 
not	necessarily	a	less	linear	process,	grounded	theory	makes	use	of	the	“constant	
comparative”	method,	which	entails	making	comparisons	at	every	stage	of	the	research	
process.	For	this	reason,	grounded	theory	is	a	less	efficient	but	arguably	more	thorough	
approach	than	methods	more	commonly	associated	with	quantitative	research.23	
In	the	1960s,	grounded	theory	was	developed	by	academics	in	the	social	sciences	to	
handle	qualitative	data	in	a	systematic	and	presumably	more	“credible”	way.	At	the	time,	
the	growing	preference	for	methodologies	that	“legitimized	reducing	qualities	of	human	
en 
en n--a,  0 
_[ r J ~ 
- ::::, a, r+ 
·.>.-..,  n 0 
3 
ii JI 
.u
0 
...,  <-·  
C Analysis 
CD-- 
Analysis "'C 
""'I 
i-- f Ji 
Figure	2:	Grounded	theory	involves	a	“constant	comparative”	treatment	of	the	data,	which	entails	
periodic	revisitation	of	both	the	data	and	the	researcher’s	conclusions.	
 
23	Charmaz,	Constructing	Grounded	Theory,	5.	
20 
 
experience	to	quantifiable	variables”	also	meant	that	the	scientific,	legitimate	researcher	
adopted	a	stance	of	impartiality,	objectivity,	and	distance	from	the	research	topic.	The	
interpretation	(i.e.	the	construction	of	meaning)	necessary	for	dealing	with	qualitative	data	
was	increasingly	viewed	as	impressionistic,	unsystematic,	and	methodologically	unsound.	
Sociologists	Barney	G.	Glaser	and	Anselm	L.	Strauss	wrote	The	Discovery	of	Grounded	
Theory	(1967)	as	a	challenge	to	prevailing	perceptions	on	qualitative	research.	They	
advocated	for	an	epistemological	reconsideration	of	qualitative	research,	and	most	
importantly,	offered	practical	guidelines	for	conducting	qualitative	research	in	a	systematic	
way.24	
Today,	the	legitimacy	of	grounded	theory	as	a	methodology	is	widely	recognized	
and	applied	in	both	qualitative	and	mixed	method	studies	in	the	social	sciences.	Qualitative	
research	is	an	especially	fruitful	application,	as	the	analytical	strategies	used	in	grounded	
theory	allow	for	discerning	patterns	that	may	otherwise	remain	obscured.	Data	collection	
and	analysis	happen	at	the	same	time	and	continue	through	all	subsequent	stages	of	
research.	The	researcher	may	only	realize	their	need	for	additional	data	and	detail	once	
they	have	begun	conceptualizing	the	new	theory.	This	step	of	grounded	theory	is	called	
theoretical	sampling.	Additional	data	must	also	be	collected	and	interpreted	in	a	systematic	
way,	but	with	the	added	goal	of	supporting	or	refuting	the	categories	identified	in	the	
previous	analysis.	Research	questions	are	also	adjusted	as	the	theory	builds	upon	itself	and	
the	researcher	narrows	and	deepens	their	focus.	The	categories	themselves	also	become	
 
24	Charmaz,	4.	
21 
 
more	“theoretical”	as	research	progresses,	as	tentative	ideas	for	themes	become	more	
complex	with	additional	layers	of	analysis.25		
Research	Parameters	
Research	parameters	are	intended	to	manage	the	scope	of	the	research	in	light	of	
anticipated	constraints	and	unanticipated	challenges.	Similarly	to	the	research	questions,	
the	parameters	evolved	as	limitations	and	opportunities	arose	during	the	research.	Key	
research	parameters	include	the	following:	
1) Selection	of	the	two	case	study	parks	was	based	on	their	affiliation	with	the	
City	Beautiful	movement	in	Portland.	Laurelhurst	Park	is	one	of	only	two	city	
parks	in	Portland	listed	in	the	NRHP,	so	documentation	of	its	City	Beautiful	
history	is	extensive	and	well-established.	The	International	Rose	Test	Garden	
is	not	listed	in	the	NRHP	but	is	included	in	a	Portland	Parks	Intensive	Level	
Survey	(ILS)	commissioned	by	the	city	in	2006.	The	ILS	describes	the	test	
garden	as	being	potentially	eligible	under	the	MPD,	and	primary-source	
literature	provides	evidentiary	support	of	the	garden’s	alignment	with	City	
Beautiful	ideology.	
2) The	interpretive	infrastructure	analyzed	was	limited	to	infrastructure	that	is	
apparent	to	the	public,	“apparent”	being	defined	here	as	locatable	online	with	
a	simple	search	engine	inquiry,	or	visible	to	the	casual	parkgoer	who	visits	
the	park	with	little	to	no	preexisting	knowledge	of	the	park’s	history	or	the	
City	Beautiful	movement.	Though	the	words	“apparent”	and	“visible”	bring	
 
25	Charmaz,	3.	
22 
 
up	the	question	of	how	to	define	accessibility	for	park	visitors	with	first	
languages	other	than	English,	or	diverse	physical	and	cognitive	abilities,	
discussion	of	accessibility	in	this	respect	is	beyond	the	scope	of	this	project.	
3) Discussion	with	individuals	associated	with	each	park	was	limited	to	the	
goals,	successes,	and	challenges	of	interpretive	projects.	Explicit	discussion	of	
the	interpretation’s	rhetorical	elements	was	avoided	to	maintain	the	
integrity	of	field	observations	made	before	these	informal	interviews.	Using	
data	culled	from	informal	interviews	would	compromise	the	aim	of	this	
research,	which	is	to	experience	the	interpretive	infrastructure’s	rhetoric	at	
face	value,	without	additional	interpretation	or	explanation.	Discussion	with	
stakeholders	who	have	extensive	knowledge	or	personal	investment	in	
extant	interpretive	infrastructure	could	have	compromised	my	theoretical	
sensitivity	in	the	research,	the	point	of	which	is	to	assess	through	my	own	
experience,	analysis,	and	review	of	the	literature,	the	rhetorical	character	of	
the	interpretation	available	to	the	public.	
Data	Collection	and	Analysis	
In	grounded	theory,	data	analysis	also	goes	by	the	term	“qualitative	coding.”	The	
coding	process	involves	the	separating,	sorting,	and	synthesizing	of	data	gathered	during	
the	data	collection	step	of	research.		Coding	entails	“attaching	labels”	to	discrete	data	
segments	that	describe	what	each	piece	of	data	is	about.26	In	the	context	of	this	research,	
the	data	points	are	the	physical	attributes	of	the	interpretive	infrastructure	(visuals,	
 
26	Charmaz,	3.	
23 
 
materials,	format,	and	location	within	the	landscape).	The	“codes”	or	categories	derived	
from	analysis	of	these	attributes	helped	to	inform	the	organization	of	the	subcategories,	
which	include	intended	audience,	the	benefits	and	shortcomings	of	the	interpretation’s	
design,	and	signified	meaning	of	the	interpretation	in	the	context	of	the	landscape’s	history	
(and	Portland’s	history	in	general).			
Data	collection	occurred	both	in	the	field	and	online.	Interpretive	materials	about	
the	parks	were	located	via	search	engine	queries	and	following	links	from	individual	park	
pages	on	the	City	of	Portland	website,	Friends	of	the	Washington	Park	International	Rose	
Test	Garden	website,	and	the	Laurelhurst	Neighborhood	Association	website.	Online	data	
collection	was	ongoing	throughout	the	research	process	to	ensure	a	thorough	review	of	
available	materials.	Fieldwork	occurred	over	several	sessions	between	December	2022	and	
February	2023.	Time	spent	in	the	field	lasted	from	an	hour	to	three	hours	per	session,	
depending	on	the	focus	of	the	data	collection	(locating	interpretive	infrastructure;	
observing	park	uses;	sketching	for	site	mapping;	evaluating	landscape	characteristics).	
Laurelhurst	Park	was	visited	on	December	12,	2022,	February	5,	2023,	and	February	7,	
2023.	The	IRTG	was	visited	on	December	14,	2022,	February	17,	2023,	March	1,	2023,	and	
April	29,	2023.		
Data	analysis	occurred	in	part	through	the	writing	of	the	landscape	characteristics	
section	for	each	case	study	park.	Following	the	parameters	outlined	in	NPS	publications	
about	the	treatment	and	evaluation	of	cultural	landscapes,	I	experienced	the	parks	through	
a	critical	lens	and	made	connections	between	the	park’s	history	and	its	extant	landscape	
characteristics	that	may	not	have	occurred	to	me	otherwise.	This	step	in	the	data	analysis	
helped	to	bolster	my	argument	for	reading	public	parks	as	cultural	landscapes	with	broad	
24 
 
interpretive	potential	across	time.	For	the	purposes	of	evaluating	how	extant	
interpretation	at	each	park	treats	the	theme	of	City	Beautiful	history,	this	research	required	
an	evaluation	of	the	City	Beautiful	elements	still	present	on	the	landscape.	The	MPD	details	
which	aspects	of	integrity	must	be	demonstrated	to	merit	inclusion	in	the	NRHP.27	The	
MPD	however	does	not	treat	parks	as	cultural	landscapes,	so	does	not	draw	the	connection	
between	the	aspects	of	integrity	per	National	Register	Bulletin	18	for	all	historic	resources,	
and	the	13	landscape	characteristics	detailed	in	Preservation	Brief	36	for	cultural	
landscapes.	To	better	understand	the	rhetorical	nature	of	the	extant	historical	
interpretation	in	each	park,	this	research	draws	an	explicit	connection	between	the	
landscape	characteristics	and	the	aspects	of	integrity	as	defined	by	the	NPS.	
As	a	practice	and	a	theory,	historic	preservation	treats	the	built	environment	as	the	
point	of	departure	for	establishing	a	narrative	about	the	past.	NPS	guidelines	for	the	
evaluation	of	cultural	landscapes	are	informed	by	this	overarching	precept.	While	the	
historical	significance	of	the	landscape	is	not	itself	limited	to	its	observable	features,	the	
“integrity”	of	the	landscape	must	reflect	the	appearance	of	the	landscape	during	the	period	
of	significance	to	be	considered	eligible	for	inclusion	in	the	NRHP.	Secretary	of	the	Interior	
(SOI)	standards	mandate	attributing	a	discrete	and	demonstrable	historic	significance	to	
any	historic	property	listed	in	or	determined	eligible	for	the	NRHP.	As	defined	by	the	NPS	
in	the	National	Register	Criteria	for	Evaluation,	this	historic	significance	must	manifest	in	at	
27	Lutino	et	al.	“The	City	Beautiful	Movement	and	Civic	Planning	in	Portland,	Oregon	1897-1921,”	Multiple	
Property	Document	National	Register	Nomination,	2000,	https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/GetAsset/NRHP	
/64500499_text,	F-26.	Aspects	of	historic	integrity	that	must	be	demonstrated	include	integrity	of	location,	
design,	setting,	materials,	and	association.	The	aspect	of	design	is	especially	important,	as	Olmstedian	design	
must	be	apparent,	even	if	the	park	was	not	mentioned	by	Olmsted	Brothers	in	their	1903	or	1907	parks	
reports.	The	authors	also	note	that	regular	replacement	or	maintenance	of	play	equipment	or	park	vegetation	
ought	not	be	equated	with	a	loss	of	integrity.			
25 
least	one	of	four	ways	as	described	in	the	footnote	below.28	Moreover,	this	significance	
must	be	demonstrated	by	what	are	called	the	seven	aspects	of	integrity,	which	are	the	
resource’s	properties	both	tangible	(material,	design,	workmanship,	location,	and	setting)	
and	intangible	(association	and	feeling).	29		Cultural	landscapes	generally	allow	much	more	
flexibility	when	assessing	their	integrity	than	do	other	historic	resources	like	buildings.	
Landscapes	are	dynamic,	sensitive	to	gradual	and	systemic	change,	and	are	expected	from	
the	onset	to	evolve	over	time.30		
The	public	does	not	recognize	historic	“significance”	and	“integrity”	in	the	same	way	
as	cultural	resource	professionals.	Individuals	and	communities	value	landscapes	for	uses	
and	meanings	not	conveyed	by	either	of	these	concepts	as	defined	by	the	National	Park	
Service	(NPS).	Riesenweber	describes	the	general	public’s	investment	in	a	landscape	in	this	
way:	“what	is	important	is	not	that	which	is	unique	and	monumental,	fits	into	some	canon,	
or	has	remained	unchanged	but	that	which	most	decisively	shapes	how	we	view	and	interact	
with	the	world.”31		
 
28	National	Park	Service,	“National	Register	Bulletin	15:	How	to	Apply	the	National	Register	Criteria	for	
Evaluation,”	1990,	2.	Historic	properties	must	be	significant	for:	association	with	events	that	have	a	made	a	
significant	contribution	to	the	broad	patterns	of	our	history;	association	with	the	lives	of	persons	significant	
in	the	past;	embodiment	of	distinctive	architectural	qualities;	or	a	demonstrated	potential	for	yielding	
important	historical	or	prehistorical	information.	These	definitions	are	not	verbatim.	
29	National	Park	Service,	“National	Register	Bulletin	15,”	44.		
30	Riesenweber,	“Landscape	Preservation,”	29.	
31	Riesenweber,	30.	Emphasis	is	mine.	
26 
 
The	limitations	of	evaluating	historic	resources	for	their	significance	and	integrity	
have	been	amply	discussed	in	both	the	academic	and	professional	realms	of	historic	
preservation.	I	do	not	intend	to	limit	my	own	evaluation	of	historical	interpretation	in	
Portland’s	public	parks	to	a	rehashing	of	this	debate.	The	interpretive	potential	of	the	
cultural	landscape	interests	me	more	than	critiquing	historic	preservation’s	shortcomings	
as	a	discipline.	Suffice	to	say	that	when	interpretation	of	a	landscape	is	limited	to	only	that	
which	is	readily	visible	or	explicitly	recognized	in	an	NRHP	nomination,	the	cultural	
landscape’s	richness	of	meaning	risks	getting	overlooked.	
Cluster arrangement 
Cultural traditions Archaeological sites 
Feeling Assocation Setting 
Land use 
Natural systems & 
Workmanship Spatial organization features 
Constructed water features 
Views & vistas 
Circulation Topography 
Buildings & structures Design 
Material Small-scale features Location 
Vegetation 
Figure	3:	The	relationship	between	the	13	landscape	characteristics	(in	pink)	and	the	seven	aspects	of	
integrity	(in	green)	is	dynamic	and	subject	to	interpretation.	
	
Theoretical	Sensitivity	
	 Characterized	as	the	researcher’s	individual	insight,	theoretical	sensitivity	helps	the	
grounded	theory	researcher	to	understand	the	data,	imbue	it	with	meaning,	and	sort	data	
by	its	relevance	as	the	developing	theory	grows	more	refined.	Influences	on	theoretical	
27 
 
sensitivity	include	a	review	of	the	literature;	personal	and	professional	experiences	of	the	
researcher;	and	the	analytic	process	itself,	which	develops	according	to	the	research	
focus.32	A	major	component	of	my	own	theoretical	sensitivity	is	my	prior	knowledge	of	and	
respect	for	Katherine	Dunn’s	writing,	and	a	belief	in	the	value	of	providing	the	public	with	
engaging	historical	interpretation	about	her	life	and	work.	While	grounded	theory	
discourages	development	of	a	theory	before	all	data	is	gathered	and	analyzed,	it	does	as	a	
methodology	consider	the	difficulty	in	avoiding	theoretical	preconceptions.33	
THEORY:	CULTURAL	LANDSCAPES	
	 This	part	of	the	theoretical	framework	concerns	cultural	landscapes:	the	conceptual	
development	of	cultural	landscape	theory;	overlapping	or	conflicting	understandings	of	
cultural	landscapes	across	disciplines;	the	need	to	recognize	both	intangible	meanings	and	
the	passage	of	time	in	cultural	landscapes;	and	the	anatomy	of	the	NPS’	regulatory	
definition	of	a	cultural	landscape.	
The	Development	of	a	Concept	
Discussion	of	the	everyday	landscape	as	a	social	phenomenon	worth	examining	
dates	back	in	the	United	States	to	J.B.	Jackson	and	his	Landscapes	magazine,	first	published	
in	1951.34	Jackson	asserts	that	“the	landscape	is	not	a	work	of	art,”	but	rather	a	social	
construct	resulting	from	human	activity	upon	an	environment.35	Jackson	valued	ordinary	
landscapes	as	much	as,	if	not	more	than,	carefully	designed	landscapes.	His	methodology	
 
32	Noble	and	Mitchell,	“What	is	grounded	theory?”	35.	
33	Noble	and	Mitchell,	35.	
34	Groth,	“Frameworks,”	2.	
35	Groth,	21.	
28 
 
also	involved	combining	visual	data	with	information	gleaned	from	his	other	senses	(smell,	
touch,	and	sound).	Jackson	was	in	turn	influenced	by	cultural	geographer	and	“Berkeley	
school”	founder	Carl	Sauer,	who	as	early	as	the	1920s	espoused	several	research	
methodologies	now	intrinsic	to	cultural	landscape	assessment.36	Sauer	recognized	the	
importance	of	social	forces	upon	the	landscape	but	maintained	a	focus	on	landscape	as	an	
array	of	visible,	material	forms.	Cultural	geographer	Denis	Cosgrove	expanded	upon	
Sauer’s	interpretation,	interpreting	landscape	as	something	more	than	the	sum	of	its	
material	elements.37	Riesenweber	picks	up	this	idea	and	runs	with	it,	asserting	that	“by	
placing	concepts	such	as	significance	and	integrity	firmly	within	the	realm	of	socially	
constructed	meaning,	recent	geographical	thought	challenges	historic	preservation’s	
assertion	that	materiality	carries	historical	authenticity.	This	position	also	suggests	that	the	
preservation	movement	itself	is	socially	constructed.”38	
Cultural	landscapes	are	obviously	recognized	by	cultures	all	over	the	world,	but	
academic	discussion	on	the	nature	and	significance	of	cultural	landscapes	centers	around	
the	questions	that	ostensibly	preoccupy	more	leaders	in	the	Western	world	intellectually,	if	
not	emotionally:	how	can	the	wellbeing	of	marginalized	and	oppressed	communities	be	
better	protected?	How	can	the	effects	of	climate	change	on	historically	important	
landscapes	be	mitigated?	A	landscape	is	not	only	a	material	site,	but	also	an	epistemology,	
“a	way	in	which	Europeans	have	represented	to	themselves	and	to	others	the	world	about	
them	and	their	relationships	with	it.”	39	This	is	not	to	dismiss	the	importance	or	complexity	
 
36	Groth,	13.	
37	Riesenweber,	“Landscape	Preservation,”	26-27.	
38	Riesenweber,	29-30.	Emphasis	is	mine.	
39	Riesenweber,	26.	
29 
 
of	the	discussion	around	cultural	landscapes,	but	rather	to	present	the	cultural	landscape	
itself	as	a	social	and	political	phenomenon.		
What	everyone	seems	to	still	agree	on	is	that	a	cultural	landscape	is	an	encounter	
between	humans	and	the	natural	world.	(The	dichotomy	between	the	natural	world	and	
humanity	is	a	given	in	all	the	reviewed	literature.	There’s	debate	about	the	soundness	of	
this	basic	dichotomy,	but	this	question	is	beyond	the	scope	of	this	research.)		What	is	not	
always	explicitly	discussed	however	is	the	cultural	landscape’s	inherent	quality	to	allow	for	
and	anticipate	change	in	a	way	that	other	resource	typologies	do	not.	The	symbiotic	
relationship	between	time	and	space	in	a	cultural	landscape	is	what	lends	the	latter	its	
dynamic	quality,	as	explained	by	landscape	architect	Garrett	Eckbo	in	the	1960s.40		It	
should	also	be	noted	here	that	the	discussion	of	time’s	effects	on	cultural	landscapes	are	
rooted	in	a	Western	philosophy	of	time,	and	thus	do	not	encompass	all	possible	
understandings	of	what	constitutes	a	cultural	landscape.41		
This	is	not	to	say	that	defining	a	period	of	significance	for	a	public	space	or	for	any	
cultural	landscape	is	unnecessary.	Assigning	a	period	of	significance	is	essential	to	ensuring	
a	resource’s	protections	under	cultural	resource	regulatory	systems	at	every	level	of	
government.	It	is	simply	meant	to	assert	that	a	period	of	significance	with	a	discrete	start	
date	and	end	date	limits	our	perception	of	a	landscape,	because	a	landscape	exists	as	much	
in	our	imaginations	and	memories	as	it	does	in	physical	space.42		
 
40	Helen	Breslich	Erickson,	“The	Factor	of	Time	in	the	Analysis	and	Interpretation	of	Cultural	Landscapes”	
(master’s	thesis,	The	University	of	Arizona,	2012),	https://repository.arizona.edu/handle/10150/263192,12.	
41	Bender,	“Time	and	Landscape,”	S105.	
42	Julian	Smith,	“Cultural	Landscape	Theory	and	Practice:	Moving	from	Observation	to	Experience”	in	
Understanding	Heritage:	Perspectives	in	Heritage	Studies,	ed.	Marie-Therese	Albert,	Roland	Bernecker,	and	
Britta	Rudolff	(Berlin:	De	Gruyter,	2013),	57.	
30 
 
Regulatory	Definition	
The	idea	of	the	“cultural	landscape”	is	not	a	new	one,	but	in	the	context	of	federal	
regulation,	it	presents	as	a	novelty.	That	it	took	nearly	30	years	after	passage	of	the	
National	Historic	Preservation	Act	(NHPA)	of	1966	for	the	NPS	to	recognize	the	cultural	
landscape	as	a	significant	historic	typology	speaks	not	only	to	the	innate	challenges	of	
preserving	historic	resources	in	general,	but	also	to	how	contentious	and	unorthodox	the	
very	concept	of	“cultural	landscape”	is	within	the	field	of	historic	preservation.	
Per	NPS	guidelines,	a	cultural	landscape	is	“a	geographic	area,	including	both	cultural	and	
natural	resources	and	the	wildlife	or	domestic	animals	therein,	associated	with	a	historic	
event,	activity,	or	person,	or	exhibiting	other	cultural	or	aesthetic	values.”43	To	apply	this	
definition	to	municipal	parks	built	during	the	City	Beautiful	movement,	this	definition	
needs	to	be	broken	down	into	its	elemental	parts	and	adapted	to	the	context	of	the	parks’	
design	and	ideological	origins.		
For	purposes	of	the	NRHP,	the	“geographic	area”	of	the	city	park	cultural	landscape	
consists	of	its	legal	property	boundaries.	Compared	to	other	cultural	landscapes	that	may	
be	larger,	less	clearly	defined,	or	deriving	historic	significance	from	use	patterns	over	an	
extended	period,	city	parks	for	regulatory	purposes	tend	to	have	strict	and	visually	
identifiable	boundaries.	
“Cultural	and	natural	resources”	in	city	parks	are	identifiable	from	among	several	
landscape	characteristics	enumerated	by	the	NPS	in	their	publications	regarding	cultural	
landscapes.	These	13	characteristics	include	natural	systems	and	features,	land	use,	
 
43	Charles	Birnbaum,	Preservation	Brief	36,	“Protecting	Cultural	Landscapes:	Planning,	Treatment,	and	
Management	of	Cultural	Landscapes”	(Washington,	D.C:	National	Park	Service,	1994),	1.	
31 
 
cultural	traditions,	spatial	organization,	circulation,	topography,	views	and	vistas,	
constructed	water	features,	vegetation,	archaeological	sites,	cluster	arrangements	(the	
grouping	of	buildings	or	other	material	features	in	the	landscape),	small-scale	features,	and	
buildings	and	structures.	The	NPS	defines	landscape	characteristics	as	“the	physical	
expressions	of	both	tangible	and	intangible	aspects	of	a	place	that	have	either	influenced	
the	history	of	a	landscape's	development,	or	are	products	of	its	development.”44	Some	NPS	
publications	distinguish	between	processes	and	components	on	the	landscape;	the	first	
four	characteristics	(natural	systems,	land	use,	spatial	organization,	and	cultural	traditions)	
are	called	processes,	whereas	all	other	characteristics	are	deemed	components.	Yet	other	
NPS	publications	distinguish	between	intangible	characteristics	(natural	systems,	land	use,	
cultural	traditions,	spatial	organization,	circulation,	cluster	arrangements)	and	tangible	
characteristics	(topography,	views	and	vistas,	constructed	water	features,	vegetation,	
archaeological	sites,	small-scale	features,	buildings	and	structures).	For	purposes	of	this	
research,	the	difference	between	process	and	component	will	not	be	specified	in	the	
landscape	descriptions	for	the	case	studies,	nor	will	the	difference	between	tangible	and	
intangible	characteristics	be	emphasized.	This	simplification	of	the	landscape	
characteristics	analysis	helps	to	keep	discussion	focused	on	interpretation	rather	than	on	
the	minutiae	of	the	physical	landscape.	45	
“Association	with	a	historic	event,	activity,	or	person”	is	usually	derived	from	the	
park’s	relationship	to	the	wider	City	Beautiful	movement	and	its	political	underpinnings,	or	
from	the	park’s	embodiment	of	Olmstedian	design	principles.	Within	the	bounds	of	a	NRHP	
 
44	“Cultural	Landscapes	101,”	website	of	the	National	Park	Service,	accessed	February	15,	2023,	
https://www.nps.gov/articles/cultural-landscapes-101.htm.	
45	“Cultural	Landscapes	101.”	
32 
 
nomination,	these	two	conditions	line	up	respectively	with	criteria	A	and	C	(respectively,	
“[association]	with	events	that	have	made	a	significant	contribution	to	the	broad	patterns	
of	our	history,”	and	“[embodiment	of]	the	distinctive	characteristics	of	a	type,	period,	or	
method	of	construction,	or	that	represent	the	work	of	a	master,	or	that	possess	high	artistic	
values,	or	that	represent	a	significant	and	distinguishable	entity	whose	components	may	
lack	individual	distinction”).	These	two	measures	represent	two	of	the	four	criteria	used	to	
evaluate	the	historic	significance	of	historic	landscapes	per	NPS	standards.46	For	select	
parks,	including	Laurelhurst	Park	in	Portland,	significance	stems	from	both	criteria.	The	
“exhibition	of	cultural	or	aesthetic	criteria”	is	tied	up	in	both	criteria	A	and	C.	City	Beautiful	
parks	are	part	of	a	manipulation	of	the	built	environment	that	reflects	the	concerns	of	a	
particular	moment	in	American	history–-the	moment	being	when	a	critical	mass	of	civic	
leaders	across	the	country	subscribed	to	the	idea	that	living	conditions	in	dense	urban	
areas	could	be	improved	with	the	addition	of	public	spaces	designed	for	mental	restoration	
and	physical	recreation.	
THEORY:	MATERIAL	RHETORIC	AND	HISTORICAL	INTERPRETATION	
This	part	of	the	theoretical	framework	concerns	the	relationship	between	the	theory	
of	material	rhetoric	and	the	theory	and	practice	of	heritage	interpretation.	In	this	research,	
extant	interpretation	is	assessed	for	its	rhetorical	properties,	and	proposed	interpretation	
is	conceived	of	in	rhetorical	terms.	Analyzing	heritage	interpretation	as	a	form	of	rhetoric	is	
a	methodological	choice	to	help	frame	the	discussion	of	both	the	existing	and	suggested	
interpretation	at	both	case	study	parks.	Historical	interpretation	is	not	always	discussed	in	
 
46	Timothy	Keller	and	Genevieve	Keller,	National	Register	Bulletin	18,	“How	to	Evaluate	and	Nominate	
Designed	Historic	Landscapes”	(Washington,	D.C:	National	Park	Service,	n.d.),	6.	
33 
 
rhetorical	terms—in	fact,	a	vast	amount	of	literature	on	heritage	interpretation	focuses	
mostly	on	thematic	expansions	in	the	interest	of	making	interpretation	more	inclusive	and	
less	representative	of	a	hegemonic	history	(e.g.	White,	cis,	male,	middle-	or	upper-class).	
Theme	or	content	is	of	course	itself	a	rhetorical	property,	as	theme	speaks	to	both	who	is	
creating	the	interpretation	and	who	is	consuming	it.	Theme,	however,	is	only	one	rhetorical	
property	among	many.	Physical	properties	like	location,	format,	and	material	may	also	
interpreted	rhetorically,	and	together	constitute	a	material	context	that	can	help	to	make	a	
piece	of	historical	interpretation	more	persuasive.	In	other	words,	“rhetorical	appeals	are	
not	simply	transmitted	through	a	given	medium;	the	medium	of	persuasion	is	indissociable	
from	the	message.”47	All	rhetorical	elements,	both	textual	and	material,	play	a	part	in	
framing	the	public’s	experience	of	a	historic	place.	Or,	as	the	cultural	geographers	James	
and	Nancy	Duncan	assert	when	describing	landscapes	as	“texts	of	concretized	ideologies,”	
“texts	are	not	‘innocent.’	[…]	They	are	not	transparent	windows	through	which	reality	may	
be	unproblematically	viewed.”48	As	a	rhetorical	text	in	both	textual	and	material	ways,	
heritage	interpretation	is	not	innocent,	either.	
Heritage	Interpretation	as	Rhetoric	
	 When	a	visitor	engages	with	historical	interpretation,	no	matter	what	that	
interpretation’s	form—a	fiberglass	panel,	an	in-person	tour,	or	a	digital	exhibit—they	
typically	do	not	question	or	critically	consider	the	way	in	which	the	interpretation	is	
presented.	When	complaints	surface	about	the	appearance	of	interpretive	infrastructure,	
they	are	framed	less	as	questions	of	rhetoric	than	they	are	as	questions	of	convenience	and	
 
47	Clancy,	“Material	Rhetoric.”	
48	Riesenweber,	“Landscape	Preservation,”	27.	
34 
 
accessibility.	(Both	these	qualities	are	part	of	the	larger	issue	of	material	rhetoric.)	
Rhetorical	elements	noticed	by	visitors	could	include	the	presence	or	absence	of	visuals,	
the	amount	of	text,	or	how	the	physical	material	of	a	plaque	or	panel	affects	the	
interpretation’s	legibility	or	its	conspicuity	on	the	landscape.	Evaluating	heritage	
interpretation	through	the	lens	of	material	rhetoric	simply	allows	for	a	more	academic	
discussion	of	what	are	frankly	very	straightforward	and	visually	apparent	qualities	that	
most	visitors	already	appreciate	on	a	consumer	level.	
It’s	also	important	to	note	that	in	the	contexts	of	this	research,	landscape	
characteristics	in	and	of	themselves	do	not	figure	as	part	of	the	interpretive	infrastructure.	
“Reading”	a	landscape	is	a	common	practice,	but	not	in	the	way	as	practiced	by	
professionals	in	historic	preservation,	landscape	architecture,	archaeology,	and	other	
related	fields.	Humans	have	historically	read	landscapes	for	the	sake	of	locating	resources,	
identifying	threats,	and	exploring	a	terrain’s	suitability	for	human	use–habitation,	farming,	
and	hunting,	among	other	uses.	Attention	to	one’s	surroundings	wouldn’t	be	an	unusual	or	
difficult	behavior	for	the	typical	visitor	to	engage	in	while	in	the	test	garden–although	as	a	
society	we	have	fallen	out	of	the	habit	for	many	reasons	that	cannot	be	adequately	
described	within	the	contexts	of	this	research.	
At	the	same	time,	the	typical	visitor,	however	curious	or	enthusiastic,	cannot	
reasonably	be	expected	to	appreciate	the	nuances	of	the	test	garden’s	landscape	as	would	a	
professional	who	sets	out	to	“read”	a	landscape	for	its	historical	elements	because	they	
have	been	trained	to	do	so.	This	is	not	to	dismiss	the	intellectual	capacities	of	the	typical	
visitor	to	the	test	garden,	nor	to	suggest	that	heritage	professionals	have	superior	ways	of	
perceiving	the	landscape.	But	if	observational	skill	is	innate,	analytical	skills	are	often	not–
35 
 
these	must	be	honed	through	training,	education,	and	practice,	and	it	cannot	be	assumed	
that	any	given	visitor	to	the	site	has	access	to	or	interest	in	the	tools	and	habits	required	for	
reading	landscapes	in	the	way	that	heritage	professionals	do.	To	bridge	the	gap	between	
the	public’s	observational	powers	and	the	elements	that	convey	the	test	garden’s	status	as	
a	cultural	landscape,	effective	heritage	interpretation	is	essential.	And	for	this	interpretive	
infrastructure	to	be	maximally	impactful	and	helpful	to	the	greatest	number	of	visitors,	the	
interpretation’s	material	rhetoric	requires	as	much	consideration	and	planning	as	its	
thematic	content.	
In	each	case	study,	extant	interpretive	infrastructure	is	evaluated	for	the	material	
properties	that	contribute	to	its	rhetorical	power.	These	properties	include	the	following	
attributes:	location;	material;	format	(physical	or	digital);	and	visual	elements.	These	
attributes	were	inspired	in	part	by	the	“rhetorical	situation”	described	earlier,	and	in	part	
by	the	physical	properties	assessed	in	a	sign	inventory	included	in	Appendix	B	of	a	2012	
Portland	Parks	&	Recreation	interpretation	strategy	report;	this	inventory	was	written	in	
2010	by	intern	Lisa	Frank	under	the	supervision	of	senior	planner	Emily	Roth.	The	five	
elements	of	the	rhetorical	situation–purpose,	writer,	audience,	content,	and	context–are	
never	visually	apparent,	but	they	can	all	be	inferred	from	a	visual	analysis	of	the	
interpretive	infrastructure,	paired	with	a	knowledge	of	the	interpreted	site’s	historic	
context.		
Similarly,	the	four	visually	apparent	qualities	considered	in	the	inventory–content,	
appearance,	condition,	and	location–convey	rhetoric	through	their	material	being.	They	are	
properties	that,	while	not	explicitly	encompassed	in	Aristotle’s	definition,	prove	rhetorical	
within	the	context	of	interpretive	infrastructure.	These	four	qualities	were	synthesized	
36 
 
from	several	principles	determined	in	this	report	to	be	intrinsic	to	the	quality	of	an	
interpretive	sign.	The	goal	of	the	2012	sign	inventory	was	to	assess	any	given	sign’s	
“effectiveness,”	which	can	be	restated	as	a	combination	of	how	visually	attractive	the	sign	is	
and	to	what	degree	the	sign’s	physical	properties	help	or	hinder	in	conveying	an	intended	
message.49			
What	Is	Rhetoric?	
	 In	philosophical	and	professional	contexts,	rhetoric	is	understood	to	be	the	
communication	choices	made	by	a	speaker	or	writer	with	the	intent	to	persuade	an	
audience	of	their	position.	Aristotle	defined	rhetoric	as	“the	faculty	of	observing	in	any	
given	case	the	available	means	of	persuasion.”50	This	definition	in	and	of	itself	is	a	neutral	
one,	but	as	popularly	used	and	understood	today,	the	word	has	several	negative	
connotations.	Rhetoric	is	associated	with	coercion,	manipulation,	and	dishonesty,	or	at	
best,	“mere	words,	flowery	language,	vacuous	discourse,	or	utilitarian	strategies	of	
persuasion.”51	When	a	politician,	for	example,	is	described	as	speaking	with	langue	de	bois	
(“wooden	tongue”	in	French,	a	pejorative	expression	used	to	describe	eloquent	yet	evasive	
speech),	at	issue	is	their	perceived	unwillingness	or	inability	to	grapple	with	the	problems	
that	impact	the	lives	of	their	constituents.	Their	rhetorical	style	may	be	full	of	tautologies,	
inappropriate	metaphors,	and	a	tendency	to	gloss	over	nuance	using	a	multitude	of	tactics.	
A	politician’s	rhetorical	skills	and	choices	can	help	to	convince	their	audience	of	the	
 
49	Lisa	Frank,	Appendix	B	in	“Interpretation	Strategy:	Media	Format,”	by	Brett	Horner	et	al.,	city	of	Portland	
website,	January	2012,	https://www.portland.gov/sites/default/files/2020/interpretation-strategy-
2012.pdf.	
50	“Quotations	on	Rhetoric,”	website	of	University	of	Wisconsin-Milwaukee,	accessed	June	2,	2023,	
https://uwm.edu/rhetorical-leadership/program/quotes-on-rhetoric.	
51	Candice	Rai,	Democracy’s	Lot:	Rhetoric,	Politics,	and	the	Places	of	Invention	(Tuscaloosa:	University	of	
Alabama	Press,	2016),	5.	
37 
 
politician’s	credibility,	competency,	and	aptitude	for	leadership.	Their	rhetorical	style	
however	can	just	as	equally	prevent	them	from	achieving	this	goal.	Based	on	how	they	
communicate–their	word	choice,	body	language,	tone,	and	formality	or	lack	thereof–critics	
and	supporters	alike	will	find	grounds	to	portray	them	in	a	multitude	of	ways:	aggressive,	
ineffectual,	sincere,	level-headed,	etc.		
All	things	considered,	the	impact	of	any	rhetorical	output	depends	as	much	on	the	
audience	as	it	does	on	the	speaker.	A	communication	style	appreciated	and	welcomed	by	
one	audience	might	be	deemed	distasteful	or	dishonest	by	another.	For	this	reason,	
consideration	of	one’s	audience	and	their	motivations	prove	integral	when	devising	an	
effective	rhetorical	strategy.	Both	the	audience	and	the	speaker	(or	writer)	are	elements	in	
the	“rhetorical	situation,”	a	term	used	to	describe	and	encapsulate	all	the	elements	that	
must	be	considered	when	analyzing	any	piece	of	communication	for	its	rhetorical	nature	or	
effectiveness.	
What	Is	Material	Rhetoric?	
The	understanding	of	“rhetoric”	as	described	above	considers	language	(written	or	
spoken)	as	the	most	influential	element	in	a	piece	of	communication.	This	makes	sense	
given	the	Aristotelian	origins	of	the	term.	Although	it	is	up	for	debate	what	Aristotle	meant	
exactly	when	he	said	that	man	is	not	the	only	“political	animal,”	but	by	far	the	most	
complex	and	advanced	one,	many	scholars	have	identified	the	ways	that	humans	use	
speech	as	the	principal	reason	for	our	advantages	over	other	species.	Though	the	reasoning	
for	this	argument	is	circular	and	flawed,	its	focus	on	spoken	language	as	the	most	effective	
38 
 
form	of	communication	seems	an	appropriate	reason	for	the	popular	association	of	
rhetoric	with	speech.52	
In	the	1960s,	poststructuralism	and	Marxist	philosophy	challenged	what	was	
characterized	as	the	discursive	idealism	of	the	traditional	school	of	thought	on	rhetoric.	
Poststructuralism	takes	as	one	of	its	core	tenets	that	language	is	not	inherently	powerful,	
but	rather	derives	its	power	from	the	relationship	between	the	speaker	(or	writer)	and	
their	audience.	In	virtually	all	relationships,	there	is	a	power	differential	that	affects	how	
we	communicate	with	each	other.	Therefore,	language	cannot	be	taken	at	face	value	and	
“nothing	is	what	it	says”—in	other	words,	nothing	means	what	it	purports	to	mean	once	
you	consider	two	important	elements:	who	is	saying	it,	and	whom	it’s	directed	toward.	
“Discursive	idealism”	refers	to	the	assumption	that	it	is	through	discourse	(or	
language)	that	we	build	our	understanding	of	the	world,	and	that	in	this	way,	we	also	
create	the	world.	The	world	as	we	know	it	is	a	product	of	our	understanding.53	Material	
rhetoric	does	not	necessarily	call	this	a	misguided	assumption,	but	certainly	an	incomplete	
one.	Analyzing	rhetoric	in	this	way	leaves	people	with	the	perception	that	language	is	the	
most	important	rhetorical	element	of	any	given	piece	of	persuasive	communication.	What	
this	analysis	ignores,	scholars	of	material	rhetoric	argue,	is	the	role	that	non-linguistic	and	
even	non-human	properties	play	in	persuasive	communication.	One	popular	focus	of	
material	rhetoric	analysis	is	that	of	memorials	and	monuments.	The	materials,	colors,	
surroundings,	visuals,	and	layout	of	a	space	all	influence	how	people	experience	the	
message	at	a	place	of	memory.	From	these	two	examples—memorials	and	monuments—it	
 
52	Refik	Güremen,	“In	What	Sense	Exactly	Are	Human	Beings	More	Political	According	to	Aristotle?”	Filozofija	
i	Drustvo	29,	no.	2	(2018):	170–81,	https://doi.org/10.2298/FID1802170G.	
53	Clancy,	“Material	Rhetoric.”	
39 
 
is	not	hard	to	make	the	jump	to	heritage	interpretation	as	a	general	field,	whether	the	
subject	of	interpretation	is	removed	from	its	context	(as	in	a	museum) 	or	embedded	in	its	
context	(as	upon	a	cultural	landscape.)	 In	a	time	when	we	consume	information	from	
screens	in	unprecedented	amounts	and	communicate	virtually	more	often	than	we	do	in-
person,	evaluating	the	non-human	attributes	of	a	piece	of	communication	becomes	an	even	
more	urgent	exercise–not	only	because	of	the	rise	in	AI-generated	content	and	the	
pervasiveness	of	social	media,	but	also	because	of	the	ecological	impacts	of	digital	
communication.54		
Like	all	rhetoric,	material	rhetoric	does	not	aim	to	“convince	the	audience	logically	
about	a	specific	version	of	the	past.	Instead,	the	various	rhetorical	elements	[visuals,	
physical	material,	geographic	location]	lead	us	to	pay	attention	to	and	cooperate	in	
constructing	certain	identifies	of	place,	and	of	ourselves	as	audience.”55	Material	rhetoric	
consists	of	elements	that	exist	in	the	physical	world	and	in	this	respect	has	a	quality	of	
visual	objectivity.	But	material	rhetoric	is	still	no	less	imbued	with	unspoken	agendas	than	
any	other	type	of	rhetoric.	
Freeman	Tilden	and	the	Craft	of	Interpretation	
While	contracted	with	the	NPS	as	a	cultural	consultant,	Freeman	Tilden	wrote	a	
book	that	aimed	to	synthesize	his	experience	in	developing	historical	interpretation	
into	a	set	of	iterative,	teachable	principles.	In	Interpreting	Our	Heritage, he avoids defining
54	Clancy,	“Material	Rhetoric”;	Dustin	Edwards,	“Digital	Rhetoric	on	a	Damaged	Planet:	Storying	Digital	
Damage	as	Inventive	Response	to	the	Anthropocene,”	Rhetoric	Review	39,	no.	1	(January	27,	2020):	58–72,	
https://doi.org/10.1080/07350198.2019.1690372,	67.	
55	Jørgensen,	“The	Face	of	the	Factory	Girl,”	17.	
40 
“heritage	interpretation,”	explaining	that	such	a	wide-ranging	concept	cannot	be	reduced	
to	a	single	definition.	That	being	said,	he	does	provide	what	he	calls	a	“dictionary	
definition”	to	satisfy	any	hypothetical	critics:	“An	educational	activity	which	aims	to	reveal	
meanings	and	relationships	through	the	use	of	original	objects,	by	firsthand	experience,	
and	by	illustrative	media,	rather	than	simply	to	communicate	factual	information.”56	Other	
terms	Tilden	employs	to	characterize	heritage	interpretation	are	
“elective	education,”	“a	public	service,”	“a	growth	whose	effectiveness	depends	upon	a	
regular	nourishment	by	well-directed	and	discriminating	research,”	and	“the	revelation	of	a	
larger	truth	that	lies	behind	any	statement	of	fact.”57	Tilden	organizes	his	insights	into	six	
principles:	
1) Any	interpretation	that	does	not	somehow	relate	what	is	being	displayed	or
described	to	something	with	the	personality	or	experience	of	the	visitor	will
be	sterile;
2) Information,	as	such,	is	not	interpretation.	Interpretation	is	revelation	based
upon	information.	But	they	are	entirely	different	things.	However,	all
interpretation	includes	information;
3) Interpretation	is	an	art,	which	combines	many	arts,	whether	the	materials
presented	are	scientific,	historical,	or	architectural.	Any	art	is	in	some	degree
teachable;
4) The	chief	aim	of	interpretation	is	not	instruction,	but	provocation.
56	Freeman	Tilden,	Interpreting	Our	Heritage,	(Chapel	Hill:	University	of	North	Carolina	Press,	1957),	33.	
57	Tilden,	Interpreting	Our	Heritage,	25-33.	
41 
5) Interpretation	should	aim	to	present	a	whole	rather	than	a	part	and	must
address	itself	to	the	whole	man	rather	than	the	phase;
6) Interpretation	addressed	to	children	(say,	up	to	the	age	of	twelve)	should	not
be	a	dilution	of	the	presentations	to	adults	but	should	follow	a	fundamentally
different	approach.	To	be	at	its	best	it	will	require	a	separate	program.58
Much	of	what	Tilden	observes	is	so	well-integrated	into	interpretive	programing	
today	that	it	feels	overwrought	to	extract	any	of	these	elements	as	discreet	“principles”	that	
merit	sustained	analysis.	It	may	strike	anyone,	including	professional	interpreters,	as	
needlessly	complicated	that	the	craft	of	interpretation	be	described	in	such	a	theoretical	
way–we’re	used	to	hearing	it	being	described	as	storytelling,	a	ritual	used	for	so	long	by	
humanity	that	we	often	take	storytelling	for	an	intuitive	capacity	rather	than	a	skill	
acquired	through	practice	and	habit.	Tilden	also	describes	interpretation	as	“storytelling,”	
so	doesn’t	deny	this	aspect	of	the	practice;	he	just	seeks	to	codify	the	how	and	why	of	the	
stories’	framework.59		
Tilden	and	Rhetoric	
It’s	interesting	that	Tilden	published	Interpreting	Our	Heritage	in	1957,	right	around	
the	time	that	poststructuralist	thought	was	destabilizing	the	traditionally	discursive	way	of	
thinking	about	rhetoric.	With	his	laser	focus	on	the	importance	of	language,	Tilden	is	
concerned	with	nothing	if	not	discursive	idealism.	(He	does	acknowledge	the	importance	of	
other	rhetorical	aspects	of	interpretive	infrastructure,	listing	“composition”	and	“location”	
58	Tilden,	18.	
59	Tilden,	55.	
42 
as	important	factors	in	an	audience’s	receptiveness	to	a	piece	of	interpretation.)	60	Though	
Tilden	does	not	explicitly	mention	the	term	“rhetoric,”	several	of	his	principles	are	
concerned	with	rhetorical	questions:	who	is	my	audience,	and	what	do	they	want?	How	can	
I	present	my	message	persuasively?	What	is	the	context?	What	is	on	the	audience’s	minds,	
and	what	is	affecting	their	lives?	How	can	I	tweak	the	delivery	to	reach	different	audiences	
more	effectively?	Tilden	comes	closest	to	addressing	the	issue	of	rhetoric	in	Chapter	8,	“The	
Written	Word,”	when	he	itemizes	the	key	elements	of	an	interpretive	text.	He	describes	it	
as	common	error	for	an	interpreter	to	start	with	the	question,	“‘What	is	it	I	wish	to	say?’”	It	
is	too	early	to	ask	this,	Tilden	asserts;	instead,	a	better	question	is,	“what	would	the	
prospective	reader	wish	to	read?	And	what	can	I	say,	in	brief,	inspiring,	and	luring	terms	
about	this	area	in	language	that	he	will	readily	comprehend?”61		
Tilden’s	last	sentence	about	the	need	to	write	in	language	that	“[the	audience]	
readily	comprehends”	sounds	condescending,	which	is	an	interesting	rhetorical	choice	on	
his	part.	But	the	fact	remains	that	Tilden	is	not	incorrect.	Though	the	interpreter	(or	writer,	
or	speaker)	may	have	a	message	they	ardently	wish	to	get	across	to	their	audience,	the	
message	has	no	chance	of	making	the	desired	impact	if	delivery	isn’t	carefully	considered.	
Of	course,	this	isn’t	always	something	that	can	be	controlled;	some	messages,	depending	on	
their	content	and	the	audience,	never	have	a	chance	of	landing	well.	But	that	is	the	
challenge	faced	by	interpreters,	and	by	speakers	and	writers	in	general,	in	virtually	every	
piece	of	work:	what	is	my	motivation	for	controlling	this	message’s	impact,	and	how	can	I	
 
60	Tilden,	90-98.	
61	Tilden,	92.	
43 
 
do	it?	In	this	way,	an	interpreter	always	considers	their	own	desires,	along	with	the	desires	
of	their	audience.		
What	does	the	audience	want	to	know,	anyway?	This	is	in	itself	a	difficult	question	
to	answer.	In	public	interpretation,	there	are	always	multiple	audiences	with	diverse	
histories,	value	systems,	and	investments	in	a	specific	place.	What	one	audience	wants	to	
know	or	expects	to	hear	may	not	line	up	with	what	everyone	wants	to	know	to	hear.	Or	the	
audience’s	desire	may	not	be	explicit;	it	is	rather	implicit	in	how	they	express	their	values	
by	their	interactions	with	their	environment	and	people	around	them.	Maybe	an	even	
better	question	to	ask	when	developing	interpretation	would	be,	“How	can	the	audience’s	
expectations	be	subverted,	and	their	knowledge	expanded	in	unexpected	ways?”	The	
visitor	may	through	their	own	experience	and	perspective	come	to	understand	something	
about	a	historic	place	or	cultural	landscape	wholly	unanticipated	by	the	interpreter,	yet	
directly	facilitated	by	the	latter’s	work.	This	may	be	part	of	what	Tilden	means	when	he	
describes	interpretation	as	an	act	of	provocation.	
HISTORIC	CONTEXT	
	 The	historic	context	for	this	research	focuses	on	the	manifestations	of	the	City	
Beautiful	movement	in	Portland	around	of	the	turn	of	the	twentieth	century.	The	general	
history	of	the	Olmsted	Brothers	and	the	evolution	of	Olmstedian	design	principles	
44 
 
intersects	with	the	narrative	of	the	City	Beautiful	movement	and	the	formative	years	of	the	
public	park	system	in	Portland.		
Olmsted	Brothers	
Credited	as	the	father	of	modern	American	landscaping,	Frederick	Law	Olmsted,	Sr.	
(FLO)	established	practices	and	a	landscaping	philosophy	that	initiated	the	American	parks	
movement	and	later	informed	the	evolution	of	the	City	Beautiful	movement.	His	sons	John	
Charles	Olmsted	and	Frederick	Law	Olmsted,	Jr.	eventually	succeeded	him	as	directors	of	
the	firm.	FLO	designed	Central	Park	in	1857	in	New	York	with	his	partner	Calvert	Vaux.	
Central	Park	is	recognized	as	the	first	urban	landscape	park	in	the	United	States,	thanks	in	
large	part	to	the	intentional	design	forwarded	by	the	two	landscape	architects.62	Six	
hundred	acres	(the	size	of	Central	Park)	seemed	excessive	for	a	parks	system	at	the	time,	
but	FLO	writes	that	by	1870,	the	amount	of	land	reserved	for	parks	had	tripled	with	public	
demand	for	more.63		
In	his	essay	“Public	Parks	and	the	Enlargement	of	Towns,”	FLO	expounds	upon	his	
beliefs	in	why	public	parks	are	necessary	to	city	infrastructure.	He	observes	that	American	
cities	were	growing	haphazardly,	and	plans,	where	they	existed,	were	based	on	existing	
property	lines	and	speculator	interests	rather	than	the	interests	of	residents.	Streets,	
buildings,	railcars,	and	other	elements	of	the	built	environment	went	up	as	needed,	with	
 
62	Setha	Low,	Dana	Taplin,	and	Suzanne	Scheld,	Rethinking	Public	Parks:	Public	Space	&	Cultural	Diversity	
(Austin:	University	of	Texas	Press,	2005),	20.	
63	Frederick	Law	Olmsted,	“Public	Parks	and	the	Enlargement	of	Towns,”	in	The	Public	Face	of	Architecture:	
Civic	Culture	and	Public	Spaces,	ed.	Nathan	Glazer	and	Mark	Lilla	(New	York:	The	Free	Press,	1987),	259.	
45 
 
little	regard	to	the	need	for	future	population	growth.64	It	was	a	reactive	approach	to	
development	rather	than	a	proactive	one.		
FLO	draws	an	analogy	between	the	house	and	the	city,	and	in	this	way	argues	for	a	
separation	of	spheres—namely,	a	separation	between	commercial	and	residential	zones.	
He	notes	that	in	medieval	times,	tradesmen	lived	under	the	same	roof	as	their	shops,	but	
that	this	custom	has	since	changed,	with	homes	now	standing	on	their	own	apart	from	
places	of	business.	In	discussing	the	“conditions	of	corruption	and	of	irritation,	physical	and	
mental”	that	commercial	spaces	have	on	urban	citizens,	he	asks:	“Now	that	our	towns	are	
built	without	walls,	and	we	can	have	all	the	room	that	we	like,	is	there	any	good	reason	why	
we	should	not	make	some	similar	difference	between	parts	which	are	not	likely	to	be	dwelt	
in,	and	those	which	will	be	required	exclusively	for	commerce?”65	Although	parks	
obviously	go	up	in	commercial	as	well	as	residential	areas,	the	idea	of	designing	any	part	of	
the	city	to	make	the	environment	more	livable,	rather	than	expediting	commercial	
processes,	was	a	novel	idea.	FLO	presents	parks	as	the	natural	next	step	up	from	tree-lined	
streets	for	the	aesthetic	and	infrastructural	improvement	of	the	city.	In	providing	facilities	
for	people’s	pleasure,	FLO	aims	to	also	assuage	the	mental	state	of	citizens	whose	
behaviors	are	conditioned	by	“the	devouring	eagerness	and	intellectual	strife	of	town	
life.”66	He	also	does	not	fail	to	mention	the	more	quantitative	and	fiscally	interesting	benefit	
 
64	Olmsted,	“Public	Parks,”	235-237.	
65	Olmsted,	237.	
66	Olmsted,	244.	
46 
 
of	public	parks:	they	make	the	city	more	appealing	to	visitors,	which	both	supports	
commerce	and	increases	the	taxpayer	base	by	attracting	new	residents.67	
The	Olmstedian	Landscape	
	 FLO	delineates	several	traits	that	a	large	public	park	must	have	to	fulfill	its	role	as	a	
restorative	space.	These	include	adequate	size	to	shield	the	park	user	from	the	noise	and	
view	of	the	surrounding	city;	separation	of	spaces	for	different	types	of	recreation;	and	
strategic	placement	of	“artificial	objects”	to	balance	infrastructure	for	organized	recreation	
with	the	public	park’s	“true	purpose”	to	support	public	wellbeing.68	Today,	this	sounds	like	
a	false	dichotomy—recreation	and	relaxation	are	deemed	an	essential	part	of	mental	and	
physical	health,	and	not	mutually	exclusive	from	“public	wellbeing.”	
Although	FLO	was	staunchly	against	incorporating	playgrounds	into	his	designs,	he	
describes	open	public	spaces	as	necessary	for	“spiritual	restoration.”		This	term	sounds	
vague	and	unfounded	in	scientific	observation	from	a	twenty-first	century	perspective.	But	
by	mid-nineteenth	century	standards,	when	the	idea	of	miasmas	(foul	odors	that	were	
themselves	carriers	of	disease)	was	still	firmly	entrenched	in	the	medical	field,	and	the	
social	effects	of	overcrowding	in	cities	were	only	just	beginning	to	be	perceived	(let	alone	
measured),	FLO’s	call	for	some	sort	of	relief	from	urban	living	conditions	was	prescient.	He	
observes	that	by	1870	that	the	financial	advantages	of	living	in	cities	were	compelling	
 
67	Olmsted,	256.	
68	Olmsted,	256.	
47 
 
people	to	leave	rural	America	in	droves.	At	the	same	time,	he	asserts	that	living	conditions	
in	cities	at	the	time	were	harmful	to	people	on	physical,	mental,	and	spiritual	levels.69	
	 One	of	the	key	tenets	of	Olmstedian	design	is	the	planning	ahead	for	park	
development.	FLO	advocated	for	adopting	a	proactive	strategy	that	anticipates	urban	
growth,	rather	than	building	parks	after	a	neighborhood	has	already	developed	beyond	its	
infrastructural	capacity.	Planning	is	so	central	to	the	philosophy	of	modern	urban	planning	
that	it	sounds	disingenuous	to	call	the	principle	out	as	an	innovation.	But	when	FLO	was	
working,	proactive	planning	was	an	innovative	concept,	especially	in	the	American	West,	
where	an	overriding	perception	of	limitless	space	influenced	how	speculators	acquired	
land	and	planned—or	didn’t	plan—for	population	growth.	
	 Olmstedian	landscapes	fall	into	one	of	two	aesthetic	categories,	picturesque	and	
pastoral.	Picturesque	landscapes	incorporate	and	highlight	natural	elements	already	
present	on	the	landscape,	such	as	streams,	rocky	outcroppings,	and	wooded	areas.	Though	
picturesque	landscapes	are	also	heavily	modified	by	intentional	design,	they	do	not	reflect	
their	planned	nature	as	readily	as	other	designed	landscapes.70	In	Portland,	an	example	of	a	
picturesque	landscape	is	Forest	Park,	where	natural	streams	crisscross	the	landscape	and	
re-grading	has	been	limited.	Per	FLO’s	philosophy,	picturesque	landscapes	are	intended	to	
incorporate	more	visual	variety	and	to	provide	for	multiple	or	changing	experiences	as	a	
visitor	moves	through	the	landscape.	Pastoral	landscapes,	on	the	other	hand,	are	built	“as	a	
specific	antidote	to	the	artificiality	of	the	city.”71	Central	Park	is	a	prime	example	of	the	
pastoral	landscape.	Large	clearings,	expanses	of	flat,	still	water,	and	a	relatively	flat	
 
69	Olmsted,	233-234.	
70	Olmsted	and	America’s	Urban	Parks	(PBS,	2011).	
71	Olmsted	and	America’s	Urban	Parks.	
48 
 
topography	all	combine	to	make	the	parkland	appear	“bigger	than	it	actually	is,”	which	in	
theory	augments	the	beneficial	effects	of	the	park	on	the	visitor’s	psyche	and	health.72	
Although	Laurelhurst	Park	retains	native	Doug	firs	and	integrates	heavily-planted	areas	to	
divide	the	park	into	distinct	sections,	its	numerous	clearings	and	constructed	pond	make	it	
more	of	a	pastoral	landscape	than	anything	else.	
City	Beautiful	Movement	Formation		
In	1903,	the	American	League	for	Civic	Improvement	(ALCI)	and	the	American	Park	
and	Outdoor	Association	(APOAA)	combined	forces	to	create	the	American	Civic	
Association	(ACA).	The	ACA	is	recognized	as	the	entity	that	promulgated	City	Beautiful	
projects	in	a	widespread	and	semi-organized	way	across	the	United	States.	The	City	
Beautiful	movement	started	coalescing	around	the	end	of	FLO’s	life	and	incorporates	many	
principles	and	practices	that	transcend	Olmstedian	landscape	philosophy.	Nevertheless,	the	
movement	remains	heavily	propelled	by	Olmstedian	principles,	the	World’s	Columbian	
Exposition	in	1893	in	Chicago;	and	the	motivations	and	membership	of	the	ACA.	73		
The	most	crucial	difference	between	Olmstedian	philosophy	and	the	City	Beautiful	
movement	comes	down	to	differing	opinions	on	whether	the	American	city	could	be	saved	
from	itself.	FLO	believed	cities	to	be	not	just	unhealthy,	but	unattractive:	from	an	aesthetic	
standpoint,	the	city	was	beyond	redemption.	Meticulously-planned	parks	were	people’s	
closest	semblance	to	an	escape	from	their	intolerable	surroundings.	City	Beautiful	
advocates,	on	the	other	hand,	held	that	the	city	could	be	made	beautiful	through	civic	
improvement	projects.	This	belief,	more	than	any	specific	reform	or	social	issue,	was	their	
 
72	Olmsted	and	America’s	Urban	Parks.	
73	Lutino	et	al.	"The	City	Beautiful	Movement,"	E3-E6.	
49 
 
raison	d’etre.74	Both	FLO	and	the	ACA	encouraged	the	participation	of	nonprofessionals	in	
civic	planning	decisions.	Although	practicing	landscape	architects	and	park	
superintendents	constituted	a	large	part	of	the	ACA’s	membership,	“sympathetic	
laypersons”	were	instrumental	in	raising	funds	and	promoting	projects	to	the	public.75		
Many	critics	argue	that	the	motives	of	these	“sympathetic	laypersons”—the	
business	owners,	philanthropists,	and	industrial	leaders	in	favor	of	civic	improvement	
projects—cannot	be	taken	at	face	value,	as	FLO	proclaims.	In	his	1897	address	to	the	
APOAA,	John	Charles	Olmsted	describes	his	views	on	the	purpose	of	large	public	parks	and	
their	benefit	to	the	public.	He	emphasizes	several	different	design	principles	that	dictated	
how	the	parks	were	to	be	used.	His	very	diction	in	this	speech	reveals	a	certain	level	of	
paternalism	that	undergirds	Olmstedian	rhetoric.76	Recent	scholarship	has	produced	more	
critical	readings	of	the	City	Beautiful	movement	and	of	how	parklands	in	the	early	
twentieth	century	were	acquired,	designed,	and	managed.	According	to	many	critiques,	
problematizing	park	design	as	a	social	phenomenon	helps	to	illustrate	how	City	Beautiful	
advocates	used	parks	development	and	other	civic	improvement	projects	for	their	own	
personal	financial	gain.77		
In	The	City	Beautiful	Movement	(1989),	American	history	scholar	William	H.	Wilson	
questions	this	genre	of	criticism	as	potentially	misplaced.	Attributing	the	movement’s	
 
74	Lutino	et	al.,	E11.	
75	Lutino	et	al.,	E6.	
76	Like	father,	like	son.	Both	FLO	and	John	Charles	Olmsted	made	assertions	and	used	descriptors	that	drip	
with	paternalist	condescension.	“The	lives	of	women	and	children	too	poor	to	be	sent	to	the	country,	can	now	
be	saved	in	thousands	of	instances,	by	making	them	go	to	the	Park.”	In	his	1897	address	to	the	APOOA,	John	
Charles	Olmsted	lamented	that	“there	are	many	workers	in	a	city	who	suffer	more	or	less	from	nervous	strain,	
though	often	they	are	not	fully	aware	of	it.”	John	Charles	Olmsted,	“The	True	Purpose	of	a	Large	Public	Park,”	
Reprints,	Winter	2010,	https://www.olmsted.org/storage/documents/Reprints_Winter_2010_Vol_12_	
No_2.pdf,	4.	
77	William	H.	Wilson,	The	City	Beautiful	Movement	(Baltimore:	Johns	Hopkins	University	Press,	1989),	83.	
50 
 
overwhelmingly	White	and	upper-class	advocates	with	motives	of	social	control,	Wilson	
argues,	is	to	adhere	to	preconceptions	of	sociopolitical	determinism	based	on	the	former’s	
race	and	class.	He	explains	that	while	City	Beautiful	rhetoric	may	have	alluded	to	sweeping,	
transformative	aspirations,	with	the	inevitable	paternalistic	stroke,	the	reforms	achieved	
were	quite	modest:	building	playgrounds	at	neighborhood	parks,	implementing	street	
cleaning	schedules,	and	centralizing	city	services	such	as	trash	collection.	And	lest	scholars	
point	to	even	these	small	reforms	as	evidence	of	wealthy	community	leaders	acting	to	strip	
lower-class	citizens	of	political	agency	within	their	neighborhoods,	Wilson	points	out	that	
all	City	Beautiful	projects	happened	only	with	public	support	in	the	form	of	votes.	Voters	
are	the	deciding	party	on	the	approval	of	bonds,	which	provide	the	public	funds	required	
for	municipal	infrastructural	projects.	Moreover,	Wilson	remarks	that	reforms	aimed	at	
centralizing	bureaucracy	do	not	automatically	impede	local	autonomy,	as	neighborhood	
authority	and	“small-scale	democracy”	continued	to	be	exercised	by	voters	during	the	City	
Beautiful	era.78	He	adds	that	the	proponents	and	opponents	of	City	Beautiful	reforms	did	
not	divide	neatly	along	class	lines—many	of	the	movement’s	most	vocal	opponents	were	
cut	from	the	same	upper-class	cloth	as	its	staunchest	advocates.	Wilson	ultimately	asserts	
that	“interclass	arguments	over	park	facilities”	are	not	so	much	evidence	of	a	classist	and	
 
78	Wilson,	The	City	Beautiful	Movement,	76.	Wilson	does	not	provide	specific	examples	of	what	he	means	by	
“small-scale	democracy,”	though	it’s	reasonable	to	infer	that	he’s	referring	for	one	to	union	organizing	within	
a	neighborhood	or	ethnic	community.	
51 
 
racist	agenda	as	they	are	evidence	that	the	decision	to	spend	public	funds	on	public	parks	
was	a	democratic	process	that	happened	in	a	relatively	transparent	way.79	
This	is	all	to	say	that	there	are	competing	perceptions	of	the	origins	and	
consequences	of	the	City	Beautiful	movement.	On	one	hand	is	the	longstanding	
presentation	of	the	City	Beautiful	movement	as	an	admirable	and	well-meaning	
achievement	by	upper-class	White	business	leaders	and	politicians	in	the	early	twentieth	
century.	On	the	other	hand	is	an	understanding	of	the	City	Beautiful	movement	as	a	force	of	
social	destruction	and	exclusionary	policing	of	the	urban	landscape:	uprooting	Black	and	
Brown	communities	from	their	homes,	and	preemptively	excluding	these	same	
populations,	then	and	now,	from	benefitting	from	the	parks	in	the	same	way	that	White	
Americans	do.80	And	somewhere	in	the	middle	is	Wilson’s	position:	the	Progressive	politics	
of	the	time	engendered	inequity	as	a	matter	of	course,	and	the	contradictions	of	the	City	
Beautiful	rhetoric	stem	primarily	from	this	context,	rather	than	from	an	agenda	specific	to	
the	City	Beautiful	movement.	
“Portland	Parks	Plan”	
	 In	1903,	Olmsted	Brothers	accepted	a	commission	from	the	City	of	Portland	to	
provide	roadmaps	for	two	ambitious	projects:	the	site	development	for	the	1905	Lewis	&	
Clark	Exposition,	and	the	design	for	a	city-wide	parks	system.	John	Charles	Olmsted	came	
to	Portland	in	the	summer	of	1903	to	draw	up	the	plans.	Though	he	did	it	remarkably	
efficiently—executing	plans	for	both	projects	in	only	three	weeks—his	time	in	Portland	
 
79	Wilson,	76-77.	
80	"Democracy	for	Whom?	Contextualizing	Social	Reform	Movements	of	Olmsted	and	his	Peers,”	Good	for	
Whom?	Olmsted,	Parks,	and	Public	Good,	accessed	May	25,	2023,	https://sites.google.com/view	
/contextualizing-olmsted200/home/democracy-for-whom?authuser=0.	
52 
 
apparently	left	its	mark	on	his	creative	spirit.	He	was	immersed	in	the	verdant	native	
vegetation	of	the	Willamette	Valley	and	was	especially	enamored	of	the	views	of	Mount	
Hood	and	Mount	Saint	Helens	from	the	elevations	of	City	Park	(today’s	Washington	Park).	
The	juxtaposition	of	a	still	relatively	wild	environment	with	the	recognizably	urban	
architecture	of	the	city’s	business	district	was	startling	to	a	man	from	the	East	coast,	and	
Olmsted’s	recommendations	to	the	Portland	Parks	Board	for	expansion	of	their	system	
reflect	what	an	impression	this	contrast	left	on	him.81	
	 To	maintain	an	Olmstedian	aesthetic	while	paying	homage	to	Portland’s	existing	
landscape,	John	Charles	Olmsted	recommended	planting	a	mix	of	native	and	imported	
vegetation	throughout	each	park.	He	also	called	for	an	interconnected	parks	system	in	east	
Portland,	with	greenways	linking	the	parks	to	one	another	along	major	arterial	
thoroughfares	like	Burnside	Street.	Finally,	he	advised	the	city	to	speedily	acquire	parkland	
before	the	inevitable	rise	in	property	values.	John	Charles	Olmsted	appreciated	Portland’s	
downtown	in	two	ways:	first	for	the	relative	impressiveness	of	its	architecture;	and	second,	
as	an	indication	of	the	immense	growth	just	over	the	horizon	for	Portland.82	FLO	expressed	
a	similar	rationale	for	a	city	acquiring	land	as	early	as	possible,	while	it	was	still	cheap:	“It	
 
81	Lutino	et	al.	“The	City	Beautiful	Movement,"	E14-E15;	Joan	Hockaday,	Greenscapes:	Olmsted’s	Pacific	
Northwest	(Pullman,	Washington:	Washington	State	University,	2009),	8-11.	
82	Portland	Park	Board,	Report	of	the	Park	Board,	Portland,	Oregon,	1903,	with	the	report	of	Messrs.	Olmsted	
Bros.,	landscape	architects,	outlining	a	system	of	parkways,	boulevards	and	parks	for	the	city	of	Portland,	
Portland,	OR:	The	Board,	1903,	19-64.	
53 
 
must	be	remembered,	also,	that	the	Park	is	not	planned	for	such	use	as	is	now	made	of	it,	
but	with	regard	to	[its]	future	use...”83	
E.T.	Mische	and	Implementation	Woes	
In	the	wake	of	the	Lewis	&	Clark	Exposition	and	with	John	Charles	Olmsted’s	master	
plans	in	hand,	a	coalition	of	park	advocates	and	business	owners	lobbied	for	the	passage	of	
a	$1	million	bond	issue	for	park	development.	By	June	1907,	John	Charles	Olmsted	was	
called	upon	again	to	write	a	revised	parks	report	for	Portland’s	park	commissioners	in	June	
1907;	this	second	iteration	of	the	report	included	budget	proposals	for	the	$1	million	
public	bond	that	voters	had	recently	approved	by	a	narrow	margin.84	By	1907,	however,	
property	values	had	increased	so	sharply	thanks	to	Portland’s	population	boom,	especially	
on	the	east	side	of	the	Willamette	River,	that	Olmsted	recommended	against	his	initial	idea	
of	an	interconnected	parks	system.85	
Emanuel	T.	Mische–a	protégé	of	Frederick	Law	Olmsted,	and	the	landscape	architect	
charged	with	executing	the	Olmsted	Brothers’	vision	for	Portland’s	park	system–was	
nominated	by	John	Charles	Olmsted	in	1908	for	the	position	of	parks	superintendent.86	
Mische	set	out	to	implement	Olmsted’s	acquisitions	proposal	as	outlined	in	the	second	
Portland	Parks	Report	of	1907.	Mt.	Tabor	was	the	keystone	park	in	east	Portland	and	was	
to	be	complemented	by	several	smaller	parks	east	of	the	Willamette.87	Parklands	acquired	
 
83	Portland	Park	Board,	Report	of	the	Park	Board,	1903,	255.	
84	William	Willingham,	“Open	Space	&	Park	Development	1851-1965,”	2010,	https://www.portland.gov/sites	
/default/files/2020/open-space-and-park-developement-1851-to-1965-2010.pdf,	11.	
85	Hockaday,	Greenscapes,	18;	William	Willingham,	“City	of	Portland	Civic	Planning,	Development,	&	Public	
Works,	1851-1965,”	2009,	https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/8907	
/Portland_Civic_Planning_Historic_Context_2009.pdf,	25.	Portland’s	population	more	than	doubled	between	
1900	and	1910,	from	approximately	90,000	to	over	207,000	residents.	
86	Guzowski,	“Portland’s	Olmsted	Vision,”	174.	
87	Hockaday,	Greenscapes,	18.	
54 
 
in	this	first	phase	eventually	became	Kenilworth,	Ladd	(Laurelhurst),	Mt.	Tabor,	Sellwood	
and	Peninsula	Parks.88		
The	funding	from	the	$1	million	bond	ran	out	by	1910,	and	voters	rejected	a	second	
$2	million	bond	issue	in	both	1912	and	1913.	These	financial	obstacles	prompted	a	pause	
in	land	acquisition	and	a	failure	to	implement	the	sweeping	infrastructural	improvements	
called	for	in	the	1912	Bennett	Plan.	All	the	same,	Mische	and	the	Park	Board	continued	to	
install	new	construction	in	the	newly-built	parks,	including	Firwood	Lake	and	improved	
pathways	at	Laurelhurst	Park.89	
A	geographic	division	between	east	and	west	Portland	also	proved	a	political	
division	when	it	came	to	parklands	investment.	Portlanders	on	the	east	side	of	the	
Willamette	River,	where	most	of	the	residential	growth	was	concentrated,	supported	the	
acquisition	and	development	of	neighborhood	parks.	On	the	west	side	of	the	river,	where	
land	proved	scarce	between	an	expanding	downtown	and	already-dense	(and	often	
affluent)	residential	districts,	landowners	were	less	receptive	to	parks	expansion.90			
In	1917,	voters	approved	a	yearly	tax	of	0.4	mill	for	the	acquisition	and	
development	of	playground	parks,	the	first	of	which	had	been	built	in	Portland	as	early	as	
1906.91	Voter	desire	for	playgrounds	aligns	with	the	national	trend	of	the	playground	
 
88	Christine	Curran,	“Laurelhurst	Park”	National	Register	Nomination,	1999,	https://catalog.archives.gov/id	
/77848404,	section	8,	page	9.	
89Carl	Abbott,	Portland	in	Three	Centuries:	The	Place	and	the	People	(Corvallis,	Oregon:	Oregon	State	
University	Press,	2011),	85;	Willingham,	“Open	Space	&	Park	Development,”	15-16;	William	Hawkins,	The	
Legacy	of	Olmsted	Brothers	in	Portland,	Oregon	(Portland,	OR:	self-published,	2014),	69.	Edward	H.	Bennett	
was	the	associate	of	Daniel	Burnham,	who	had	planned	infrastructural	overhauls	in	Chicago	and	San	
Francisco.	The	Greater	Portland	Plan	of	Edward	H.	Bennett	included	recommendations	for	improving	
Portland’s	transportation	system	to	handle	higher	auto	traffic.	Bennett	suggested	making	Burnside	Street	into	
a	major	east-west	arterial,	with	connections	to	the	Park	Blocks	and	an	“elaborate	terminus”	at	the	entrance	to	
Washington	Park.	
90	Hockaday,	Greenscapes,	18.	
91	Willingham,	“Open	Space	&	Park	Development,”	12-22.	
55 
 
movement,	which	paralleled	the	City	Beautiful	movement	but	whose	advocates	pushed	for,	
among	other	things,	parks	centered	on	active	(e.g.	playgrounds,	organized	sports)	over	
passive	recreation	(the	Olmstedian	landscape	parks	that	encouraged	walking,	picnicking,	
and	more	low-key	activities).92	The	Sellwood	Park	YMCA	was	acquired	the	same	year	and	
converted	into	the	Sellwood	Community	Center	by	1920.	The	International	Rose	Test	
Garden,	the	second	case	study	for	this	research,	was	also	developed	in	1917.	In	1919,	
voters	finally	approved	a	second	bond	issue	for	land	acquisitions	and	parks	improvements,	
and	the	city	promptly	purchased	seven	additional	sites	in	1920	(Buckman	Field,	Creston	
Park,	Irving	Park,	Johnson	Creek	Park,	Rose	City	Golf	Course,	Rose	City	Park,	and	Wallace	
Park).93	
CASE	STUDY	NO.	1:	LAURELHURST	PARK	
Acquired	by	the	city	of	Portland	in	1909	under	the	name	“Ladd	Park,”	Laurelhurst	
Park	sits	in	a	lower	corner	of	the	Laurelhurst	historic	district	in	southeast	Portland.	The	
original	park	footprint	totals	26.81-acres	and	extends	east-west	from	Southeast	Thirty-
third	Avenue	to	Southeast	Cesar	E.	Chavez	Boulevard,	and	north-south	from	Ankeny	Street	
to	Oak	Street.	The	park’s	main	entrances	are	at	the	corners	of	Southeast	Ankeny	Street	and	
Southeast	Cesar	E.	Chavez,	the	corner	of	Southeast	Oak	Street	and	Southeast	Cesar	E.	
Chavez,	and	on	Southeast	Ankeny	(two	entrances).	Nine	secondary	entrances	connect	with	
SE	Cesar	E.	Chavez	(one),	Southeast	Oak	four),	Southeast	Thirty-third(two)	and	Southeast	
Ankeny	(two).94		
 
92	Lutino	et	al.	“The	City	Beautiful	Movement,”	E21.	
93	Willingham,	“Open	Space	&	Park	Development,”	22.	
94	Curran,	"Laurelhurst	Park,"	section	7,	page	1.	
56 
 
Laurelhurst	Park	earned	designation	to	the	NRHP	in	2001	in	the	area	of	Landscape	
Architecture	for	significance	under	criterion	A,	for	its	association	with	the	City	Beautiful	
movement,	and	under	criterion	C,	for	its	embodiment	of	Frederick	Law	Olmsted’s	design	
principles.	Laurelhurst	Park	also	meets	the	registration	requirements	for	a	Neighborhood	
Park	as	outlined	in	the	City	Beautiful	Multiple	Property	Submission	prepared	for	the	City	of	
Portland	in	1999.95	
Extant	Interpretation	
Overall,	Laurelhurst	Park’s	extant	interpretation	focuses	on	the	Olmstedian	design	
expressed	in	the	park’s	landscape	characteristics,	the	importance	of	which	is	expressed	in	
the	NRHP	nomination	for	the	park.	The	interpretation	also	aligns	with	the	history	of	the	
Laurelhurst	neighborhood	at	large,	the	significance	of	which	is	expressed	in	a	separate	
NRHP	nomination	for	the	Laurelhurst	historic	district	prepared	in	2018.	The	map	on	the	
following	page	indicates	the	location	of	extant	interpretation	in	the	park.	The	large	pink	
circles	indicate	standalone	pieces	of	interpretive	infrastructure	(a	NRHP	plaque	and	a	
 
95Lutino	et	al.	“The	City	Beautiful	Movement,”	F26.	As	discussed	earlier	on	page	28,	registration	requirements	
for	the	NRHP	are	based	on	the	aspects	of	integrity	as	defined	by	the	NPS.	“To	qualify	for	listing,	nominated	
properties	must	be	intact	examples	of	the	following	subtypes:	1)	urban	or	neighborhood	parks	and	2)	rural	or	
suburban	parks.	Urban	or	neighborhood	parks	are	the	more	numerous	of	the	two	subtypes	and	will	thus	
compose	most	nominated	properties.	Eligible	resources	must	have	integrity	of	location,	design,	setting,	
materials,	and	association.	Normal	maintenance	or	replacement	of	park	features	such	as	play	equipment	or	
original	plantings	should	not	detract	from	the	property's	integrity.	Heavy	use	as	well	as	safety	issues	
pertaining	to	certain	kinds	of	play	equipment	or	facilities	can	require	the	replacement	or	update	of	park	
features	so	that	original	features	may	not	be	fully	intact.	In	some	cases,	original	plantings	may	have	been	
replaced	due	to	variables	such	as	disease	or	later	unavailability	of	plantings.”	
57 
 
bulletin	board),	and	the	small	pink	squares	indicate	the	location	of	concrete	tree	markers,	
which	are	concentrated	along	the	park’s	walking	paths.	
Figure	4:	In	situ	extant	interpretation	(pink)	at	Laurelhurst	Park,	spring	2023.	Base	image	Google	Earth	
Element	 Location	 Material	 Format	 Visuals?	
Bulletin	Board	 Main	entrance	 Composite,	plastic	 Physical	 Y	
Tree	Markers	 Throughout	park	 Concrete,	Metal	 Physical	 N	
NRHP	Plaque	 Main	entrance	 Stone,	Metal	 Physical	 N	
Walking	Tour	 N/A	 N/A	 Digital	 Y	
Table	1:	Extant	historical	interpretation	at	Laurelhurst	Park,	spring	2023	
58 
 
Bulletin	Board	&	Laurelhurst	Tree	Map		
Just	southeast	of	the	Ankeny	Street	comfort	station	stands	a	cork	bulletin	board	with	
a	locking	plastic	shield	to	protect	its	contents	from	the	elements.	This	board	is	the	most	
visually	prominent	interpretive	infrastructure	in	Laurelhurst	Park,	as	it	stands	at	the	park’s	
main	entrance,	is	elevated	above	the	ground,	and	unlike	the	other	interpretive	elements	
discussed	below,	does	not	seem	built	to	blend	into	its	environment.	The	45-inch	x	35-inch	
board	sits	in	a	frame	of	gray	composite	material	that	stands	78	inches	tall.	A	bulletin	board	
has	two	benefits	as	a	material	form	for	interpretive	infrastructure.	It	is	physically	present	
in	the	park	(highly	visible,	but	with	all	the	entailed	vulnerabilities	to	the	elements	and	
graffiti)	and	offers	more	flexibility	in	changing	out	materials	than	a	more	permanent	
fixture.	
Figure	5:	The	bulletin	board	is	located	prominently	at	the	main	entrance	of	the	park,	February	2023	
59 
 
Included	on	this	bulletin	board	are	several	informational	items	for	visitors:	
emergency	contact	phone	numbers;	contact	for	personnel	at	the	city	parks	department;	
guidance	for	interacting	with	ducks;	dog	park	etiquette;	and	volunteer	opportunities	with	
various	organizations.	The	main	interpretive	element	on	this	bulletin	board	is	a	tree	map	of	
Laurelhurst	Park,	created	in	2009	by	the	Center	for	Spatial	Analysis	and	Research	at	
Portland	State	University.	The	map	focuses	on	the	trees	found	in	Laurelhurst	Park,	denoted	
by	symbols	for	deciduous	trees,	coniferous	trees,	and	individual	species	found	abundance.	
The	latter	include	Western	red	cedar	(Thuja	plicata),	Douglas	fir	(Pseudotsuga	menziesii),	
Grand	fir	(Abies	grandis),	Giant	sequoia	(Sequoiadenddron	giganteum),	London	planetree	
(Platanus	x	acerifolia),	Linden	(Tilia	dasystyla),	and	Western	red	oak	(Quercus	rubra).	(The	
map	lists	the	trees’	common	and	Latin	names;	both	are	included	here	to	convey	more	
accurately	the	rhetoric	of	the	interpretation).	Below	this	key	and	the	park	map	is	a	list	of	
110	additional	species.	Text	below	the	key	clarifies	that	the	tree	map	is	a	“snapshot”	of	the	
park’s	vegetation	as	of	summer	2008,	and	explains	that	trees	regularly	die,	fall,	or	are	
removed	for	different	reasons.	This	short	paragraph	is	the	closest	that	the	park’s	historical	
interpretation	comes	to	explicitly	acknowledging	Laurelhurst	Park	as	a	dynamic	landscape	
undergoing	constant	change.	
The	tree	map	is	in	conversation	with	concrete	tree	markers	discussed	below	and	
offers	visitors	a	physically	interactive	way	of	exploring	the	park’s	trees.	The	back	of	this	
map	contains	a	short	historical	text	about	Laurelhurst	Park,	but	since	the	map’s	reverse	
side	is	neither	visible	on	the	bulletin	board	nor	readily	available	online,	this	part	of	the	map	
will	not	be	discussed	as	a	part	of	the	park’s	interpretive	infrastructure.	
60 
 
:, 
0 
' 
~ 
1...,.,, 
	
Figure	6:	Tree	map	of	Laurelhurst	Park	in	summer	2008.		
Courtesy	of	Center	for	Spatial	Analysis	and	Research	at	Portland	State	University	
	
61 
 
Tree	Markers	
Concrete	markers	with	metal	plaques	are	found	at	the	base	of	trees	throughout	the	
park.	These	markers	are	rectangular	in	shape	and	are	buried	in	the	earth	to	various	depths	
so	that	the	angled	end	with	the	metal	plaque	remains	exposed.	Scattered	throughout	the	
landscape	are	approximately	25	tree	markers	(one	is	affixed	to	the	trunk	of	the	Katsura	
tree	in	the	southeast	corner	of	the	park	by	the	horseshoe	pit).	Of	these	25	markers,	two	are	
completely	missing	the	metal	plaques	listing	the	tree’s	name	and	three	are	otherwise	in	a	
state	of	disrepair.	A	blank	marker	not	included	in	the	count	has	been	dug	up	and	
abandoned	in	the	vegetation	in	the	southwest	corner	of	the	park.	
	 	
	
	
	
	
	
	 Figure	7:	Tree	markers	throughout	the	park	are	conspicuously	low	to	the	ground	and	blend	with	their	surroundings,	spring	2023.	The	markers	are	buried	in	the	earth	to	a	considerable	depth	(see	right	image	
of	exposed	marker).	
	
The	physical	properties	of	these	markers	connote	both	permanence	(concrete	
material,	buried	in	the	earth)	and	harmony	with	the	landscape	(they	are	inconspicuous,	
being	at	ground	level	and	blending	into	the	colors	of	their	surroundings).	Despite	their	
damage,	these	markers	exhibit	most	aptly	the	parks	department’s	ambition	to	support	
interpretive	infrastructure	that	does	not	disrupt	the	visual	integrity	of	a	landscape.	96		
 
96	Frank,	Appendix	B	in	“Interpretation	Strategy,”	Horner	et	al.		
62 
 
National	Register	Plaque	
	 Also	located	near	the	park’s	main	entrance	on	the	west	side	of	the	comfort	station	is	
a	boulder	with	a	bronze	plaque	that	explains	Laurelhurst	Park’s	historic	significance	as	
recognized	in	the	NRHP.	This	boulder	is	roughly	42-inches	wide	and	21-inches	tall,	and	
blends	in	(perhaps	too)	harmoniously	with	its	surroundings,	set	in	the	earth	and	
underneath	a	bush	in	a	planted	island	at	the	intersection	of	two	paths.	When	leafed	out,	the	
bush	obscures	the	marker	even	more.		
Figure	8:	The	boulder	bearing	the	NRHP	plaque	sits	on	a	planted	island	and	is	obscured	by	vegetation	for	much	of	the	
	 year,	February	and	May	2023	
	
The	bronze	plaque	reads:	“This	property	has	been	placed	on	the	National	Register	of	
Historic	Places,	U.S.	Dept.	of	the	Interior,	National	Park	Service,	February	2001.	In	1903,	
John	Olmsted	identified	this	30	acres	on	the	William	Ladd	farm	as	a	future	park.	In	1909	it	
was	acquired	by	the	city	of	Portland.	Called	Ladd	Park,	it	was	designed	in	1910	by	Portland	
park	superintendent	Emanuel	Mische	in	the	Olmsted	naturalistic	style.	Renamed	
Laurelhurst	Park	in	1912	and	completed	in	1916,	it	featured	lighted	pathways,	landscaped	
63 
 
areas,	Firwood	Lake,	and	the	Ankeny	Street	comfort	station.	Laurelhurst	Neighborhood	
Association,	July	2006.”	
	 Again,	the	use	of	stone	and	metal	as	materials	lend	a	sense	of	permanence	and	
significance	to	this	piece	of	interpretation.	Like	the	tree	markers,	the	boulder	blends	into	
its	surroundings,	and	the	lack	of	images	on	the	plaque	make	it	even	more	inconspicuous	
upon	the	landscape.	Despite	this	interpretation’s	subtle	presence,	the	location	near	the	
park’s	main	entrance	adds	to	its	rhetorical	weight,	conveying	the	message	that	the	park’s	
origins	and	early	years	constitute	a	significant	period	in	the	park’s	history.	
Walking	Tour	
Besides	the	QR	code	on	the	bulletin	board	linking	to	the	tree	inventory	map	on	the	
city	website,	the	walking	tour	of	Laurelhurst	Park	is	the	only	digital	interpretive	material	
linked	specifically	to	Laurelhurst	Park.	Though	a	neighborhood	group’s	website	describes	
the	tour	(both	PDF	and	audio)	as	available	on	the	website	of	the	Laurelhurst	Neighborhood	
Association	(LNA),	the	links	to	these	documents	could	not	be	located	on	the	LNA	website	at	
the	time	of	writing.	A	PDF	of	the	walking	tour	was	uploaded	to	a	local	real	estate	website,	
but	the	audio	tours	appear	irretrievable.	The	difficulty	of	locating	the	tour	online	impacts	
its	rhetorical	effectiveness	as	a	part	of	the	park’s	interpretation.97		
Created	by	Amelia	Shields,	at	the	time	of	writing	a	student	at	Grant	High	School,	the	
printed	tour	is	available	to	download	and	constitutes	the	second	half	of	a	larger	walking	
tour	of	the	Laurelhurst	historic	district.	The	tour	includes	11	stops	within	the	park	
 
97	Erika	George	and	Kari	McGee,	“New	Walking	Tour	Explores	History	of	Laurelhurst,”	The	Living	Room	Blog,	
website	of	Living	Room	Realty,	September	17,	2019,	https://www.livingroomre.com/education/new-
walking-tour-explores-history-of-laurelhurst;	“A	Walking	Tour	of	Laurelhurst,”	website	of	Historic	
Laurelhurst,	July	25,	2019,	ttps://www.historiclaurelhurst.com/single-post/2019/07/28/a-walking-tour-of-
laurelhurst.	
64 
 
boundaries,	including	one	in	the	park	annex	across	SE	Oak	Street.	A	color	map	of	the	park	
indicates	the	location	of	the	stops,	which	are	each	contextualized	with	a	description	of	the	
pertinent	history	and	historic	photographs.	Stops	include	Rhododendron	Hill,	the	comfort	
station,	Firwood	Lake,	Plateau	Meadow/Heritage	Tree	#160	(the	Katsura	tree	thought	to	
be	planted	in	the	1950s),	the	Park	Annex,	the	Franz	Brothers’	Homes	(on	SE	Oak	Street,	
outside	the	park	boundaries),	Picnic	Grove,	Broad	Meadow,	Children’s	Lawn,	and	Concert	
Grove.	The	tour	totals	six	pages,	and	includes	photo	credits,	information	about	the	author,	
email	contact,	and	a	social	media	hashtag.	
	
l offtt<kri<kUwQlmst,:d.Jr)M ll\tJ'arl:AnntXaN'OQOai,:l,lr«C [nglu:11 Cotug,:, .i)ic pop.'1u at the 
OIMse,e,f1'planlorapwksysttm ..1 11a.dd(od ln~r 11mc"scanbe1ttn lnlloutt11all 
lnl'\)r'(bMidt-nofltdlot-atlonl M~~Lturtlt,untPan: O-.ffLtuttlhurst). 
forlhlrty-ae-,~~~ 
omcomp,asa,rd wttl\ln a propo,sNI ~.~::::::.:::.'ri!".:= 
l)'>lffllolllt-~parb. carh ha\,.thtlro..nddton.n 32) Flrwood Lake 
~ np,;rb.ll«ril<,rc:,tr\~ ctiarxtcrandarcKp,;tMcd from OriglnaUyJmo,o.nbylocaha1Ladd'1 
f1l)'~.parh'a')'S,and cao(Chothcrbytheor\giNl('()tl('rttt Pond.rt.wood l.,u~"'(lllld 
bouln-ar,t..andlndurkd~U rootp:.thsystnntNoldr(ubtn l'OmC tobtJmo,o.n. w.u not mutll 
a,com~,onsthcpurd\ulnga tllrou(hout the parl<. mo,1:tllanpuddk,"1ththo:odd 
IJWMllPY, lornlnl wm,:r olW~liam Altll,;,ughM.,.;hclkJignN dUS1crolca1~1b-fr<,Q\itlllcdby 
S,Ladd'sdw)'~ Uurtlhu<Jt P.,rt. In 1910, lntk ~ 
Allhctl-,thecilf'•--Uf~ tllandcbrlsckaringllappencdat :~:-u.:.=....~:~ 
ontheupconu,c'-"'tJandClark thr1lttlllal)'nrd\itlOfund,ng 1hrpondbydccp,cnmg~and 
f.:xltib,\ion,tobthckllll l90S,and shomgn.Construction~,n man~tlleground,aroun 
the ,m. ....... ,..ry rite In land values tamol in 1912 with 1hc g,»clmg of ii.. Boomcnng 1,1,,nc1 ~~ ~ 
ductothccxhibitionpm,-cntcdlhc W>11lk,,,~,1hcgn,d,ngandt«d1"1 ..... 
l'Mt&oardfromtt:aliz,ngOlmouid's ollawns.andtllelnsWbtionoflog lnc»fyy,tarslaround1918).W 
plan for the udd fann or for any ,tt.,..Likclherc,1,1oflaurtlhur1,1, pond.,•patrollrdbya,.-hitcswan 
ol1hcothct"1hll"ly-slxpropo,,:d m,nlmalg,»cl1ngW>..sdonc10 namcdCcnc-nlPrrshmc-"-hoWllll 
parl.llil.es. llw,sn~ um~Onobtt crc~tcthcpa,t,uutcadbuild,ng Aid to kc1'p l,111!: clilldrcn from 
ofl909,I.Ullkr1hedlrtct,onof tlleparkaround1ho:1Qtunl approad,ingtoo<'losctotho:~trr 
S..pcnntcndcnt E-ucl T. Mi,chc, «inlou.,,olthrland. • ibcPan:lluruucvcnwc111aof11 
thao:thel'onlandP~rl,.lloud utoopcnal,.bl.rimoniallluttauin 
pun,~lhc>tttionofbndlhat 1919 to http find Ptr'Shing • ltWt. Jn 
"-ould become Lturclhurst Part 30) Rhododendron Hill IM'1'ycara,ablack·bcakro,blad:-
fromtheL.auttllumCompany Thos hil C'Ofllain1 ..h a! pad tonl swan namNI Big Boy took O.ff 
for$92,-t82.IO lk:siptr Emano.>d T. ).\oS<'hr foraumoelnthcl920tand30I,, 
F.ll\llnurlM,,chcbroogt,ta drtcribnlaslhc·stttperarc;,s• 1llcll,;>tcFH1MIIQuttn"1~lon 
nm.a~ tal'lf' olc~c olll'wpatl"h.K'h"l'ttlObc tooll~inll'wpondonfloaung 
and $kill to !he Ponbnd P...tc Board. "<kvolcdtoar1:>orMusandd,rubby i-t1andd«on,ltdnl'u,drawing 
:;,!_.S)~~~=:: •·~ionManappropna,1cuscol tllous;lndsol~rs. 1hcgroundand1oaddanfflric111nC 
S<,hoolbcfo«,NU'Qllmglnthc titmtnl and ont lnWRi"fl lilt co,t 
=:~i::u.:.:::::.: olm;,intt..,,ntt" M,s,chrpbntrothc artaprof~lywilh~ 
WN,icaPla1n,Ma.ssachUWH-in azak:as,W«t....,hcmloct.and 
1894,rcct+,·,ngaschol~rshop~ !896 
to:.ttttldthcRoy.a,IIIM.ani<'GardtM ~o;,s_u!':;a~.:a':s 
atKni',England,andfOl"lflO"'Olk con«nuat<'d In the ttntcr oltlle 
forOlmstnlBr(,thr"' ,nl89S. Wbntaroundailri"flof51n.igl'II• 
DufinChdc,ght~ars,. ._h run brick ,wni tlla! ruM rrom the 
Olmstnl Rrothcn, M,s,:t,e ab5ort>(d bastoftho:lllltoAnktnyS!rttt 
thcphilotophoestNl~rcd 
thcwor1<olthcOlmstnlfam~ 
Mbchc~shc;»1tylnfhxlltt'dby 31) Comfort Station 
1hcOlmo1cd1«hnlQ!,IColdn·lding lnt914,Porllandard>,t«u 
roti«hbomoodpMli into.cct,ons Whitchousoeandroulihowc 
ford,ffcrn>llypnof....,._,.,. dcsillfncd a men·• comfonst~toon 
origln,llydnlgnnl.thrrt"''tnsix lorl..,.ttlhun1Park.ibcb\lild1,c 
ma;o,sectionsofiandYl•il,h,n(he ra.ce1Ankcn)'Strccc.rrwbngooe 
part:: C""""n Crow, •n<>Od ukc oftho:pM1(1maonnit,ancn.and 
andtheChildrtnil.aYITl,PblC:JU cvrnntlylloldsrn1room,andthc 
Meadow, Broad Meadow. Picnic ~•aadmll'listl'all'"toffict,.lt,."U 	
C""'-c.andllhododcndronlliD. ~••S1mplc•-c™'-"'of1ho: 
Figure	9:	Shields'	walking	tour	includes	a	park	map,	written	content,	and	historical	photos.		
	 Images	courtesy	of	Amelia	Shields	
	
Of	the	extant	interpretive	material	available	to	the	public,	this	walking	tour	
represents	the	most	cohesive	history	of	the	park’s	evolution.	Different	periods	in	the	park’s	
development	are	discussed,	including	the	changing	wildlife	in	the	pond,	the	acquisition	of	
the	park	annex	in	1921-22,	and	association	with	the	Rose	Festival	throughout	the	1920s	
65 
 
and	1930s.	Historic	photos	serve	to	illustrate	the	diverse	ways	that	Portlanders	have	used	
the	park’s	amenities	over	the	decades;	the	choice	to	include	numerous	photos	and	a	map	of	
the	park	contributes	to	the	tour’s	accessibility	and	effectiveness	as	a	piece	of	interpretation.	
The	primary	focus	however	remains	on	the	park’s	early	history,	which	is	reflected	in	the	
rhetorical	choice	to	align	the	tour’s	stops	with	locations	explicitly	related	to	the	park’s	
original	design.	
Historic	Background	
	 When	parks	superintendent	Emanuel	T.	Mische	began	implementing	Olmsted’s	
1903	proposal	for	the	development	of	Portland’s	city	park	system,	Laurelhurst	Park,	
originally	known	as	Ladd	Park,	was	among	the	first	five	parks	acquired	by	1909.	Civic	
leader	William	S.	Ladd,	twice	mayor	of	Portland	and	founder	of	the	city’s	first	bank,	passed	
away	in	1893	and	left	a	significant	estate	to	his	son	William	M.	Ladd.	Included	in	the	assets	
was	Hazel	Fern	Farm,	a	486-acre	farm	and	dairy	in	east	Portland.	In	1908,	the	settlement	of	
Ladd’s	estate	resulted	in	Ladd	selling	the	Hazel	Fern	Farm	to	the	Ladd	Estate	Company,	a	
firm	established	by	himself	and	his	brothers	to	manage	their	inherited	land	holdings.	In	
October	1909,	the	Portland	Park	Association	under	Mische’s	leadership	bought	the	
southeast	corner	of	Hazel	Fern	Farm	for	$92,482.10.98		
Ladd	privately	hired	Olmsted	in	1906	to	help	with	the	design	of	a	new	streetcar	
suburb	on	the	site	of	Hazel	Fern	Farm.	John	Charles	Olmsted’s	personal	involvement	in	the	
Laurelhurst	suburb’s	design	proved	instrumental	to	its	final	form.	Though	Olmsted	
Brothers	was	ultimately	not	contracted	to	build	the	plans	they	had	designed,	Olmstedian	
 
98	Curran,	“Laurelhurst	Park,”	section	8,	pages	9-10.	
66 
 
principles	play	out	in	the	neighborhood’s	curvilinear	layout,	tree-shaded	streets,	and	
overall	park-like	atmosphere.99	As	an	early	streetcar	suburb	of	Portland,	Laurelhurst	was	
one	of	several	outlying	districts	that	served	as	a	middle-class	retreat	from	the	urban	center.	
Laurelhurst	was	especially	distinguished	in	this	regard	for	the	inclusion	of	covenants	in	the	
land	deeds	that	prohibited	sale	to	buyers	of	African	American,	Asian	or	Asian	American	
descent.100		
By	1920,	Laurelhurst	consisted	of	700	homes,	and	the	following	years	would	see	the	
addition	of	a	public	school,	along	with	a	playground	addition	to	Laurelhurst	Park	(outside	
of	the	original	park	footprint	on	the	far	side	of	Southeast	Oak	Street—remember	that	the	
playground	movement	was	still	going	strong	at	this	point,	and	east	Portland’s	population	
was	exploding).	By	1935,	only	10%	of	the	land	formerly	known	as	Hazel	Fern	Farm	
remained	undeveloped.	In	1949,	racial	covenants	were	deemed	unconstitutional	in	the	
state	of	Oregon,	but	by	this	time,	the	die	was	cast	for	Laurelhurst’s	demographics	and	for	its	
image	to	the	rest	of	the	city.101	
Landscape	Characteristics	
Of	the	13	landscape	characteristics	denoted	by	the	NPS	as	key	to	establishing	the	
integrity	of	a	cultural	landscape,	Laurelhurst	Park	exhibits	at	least	eight	characteristics.	
Intangible	characteristics	include	natural	systems	&	features;	circulation;	spatial	
organization;	topography;	vistas;	and	land	use.	Tangible	characteristics	include	buildings	&		
	
 
99	Curran,	section	8,	page	9.	
100	Abbott,	Portland	in	Three	Centuries,	80-84.	
101	Abbott,	84.	
67 
 
• -"" ~ft 
-~~~ 
Figure	10:	Preliminary	plan	for	Laurelhurst	Park,	October	1910.	All	present	main	areas	of	the	park	are	named.	
Note	the	series	of	small	ponds	throughout	the	west	half	of	the	park—these	were	never	developed.		
Courtesy	of	Multnomah	County	Library	
	
68 
 
structures;	vegetation;	and	constructed	water	features.	The	NRHP	does	not	assess	
landscapes	for	any	of	these	specific	characteristics;	landscapes	are	evaluated	in	terms	of	
the	seven	aspects	of	integrity	like	any	other	historic	resource.	The	eight	landscape	
characteristics	that	apply	to	Laurelhurst	Park	fit	neatly	under	the	denoted	aspects	of	
integrity	listed	in	the	2001	NRHP	nomination.	These	aspects	include	location,	design,	
setting,	materials,	and	association.		
Design	(circulation,	spatial	configuration,	topography,	constructed	water	features,	vistas)	
	 Laurelhurst	Park’s	circulation	system	closely	follows	the	original	circulation	pattern	
of	Mische’s	1910	plans	(see	figure	10).	All	main	paths	are	represented	in	the	original	plans	
and	comprise	a	loop	around	the	park’s	perimeter,	with	intersecting	paths	through	the	
park’s	center	that	help	to	divide	the	park	into	its	seven	distinct	areas.	(Interestingly,	Mische	
anticipated	how	use	of	the	park	would	result	in	wear	and	tear	on	the	landscape;	instead	of	
intersecting	in	straight	lines,	all	walking	paths	through	the	park	meet	in	triangles	to	
prevent	pedestrians	from	shortcutting	across	the	grass.)102	The	undulating,	curvilinear	
paths	create	mini-vistas	within	the	park,	as	the	pedestrian	rounds	a	corner,	ascends	or	
descends	in	elevation,	or	emerges	from	behind	a	wall	of	vegetation.	The	park’s	seven	main	
areas	include	Concert	Grove,	Firwood	Lake,	Children’s	Lawn,	Plateau	Meadow,	Broad	
Meadow,	Picnic	Grove,	and	Rhododendron	Hill.103	These	areas	reflect	the	preliminary	plans	
for	the	park,	and	so	demonstrate	the	integrity	of	the	landscape’s	spatial	configuration.		
Mische	was	so	enamored	of	the	old	Doug	fir	trees	just	outside	the	park	as	proposed	
by	John	Charles	Olmsted,	he	elected	to	expand	the	park’s	footprint	to	include	these	trees.		
 
102	Curran,	"Laurelhurst	Park,"	section	7,	page	2.	
103	Curran,	section	7,	page	2.	
69 
 
Figure	12:	The	old-growth	firs	shown	in	the	background	are	original	to	the	park	and	were	
retained	by	Mische	as	part	of	his	design,	November	2022	
Figure	11:	Meandering	paths	at	Laurelhurst	Park	contribute	the	park’s	internal	viewsheds	and	
the	sense	of	discovery	that	FLO	liked	to	cultivate	in	his	designed	landscapes,	November	2022	
7	0 
 
The	fir	grove	stands	in	what	is	now	Laurelhurst	Park’s	southeast	corner,	the	highest	
elevation	area	of	the	park.	Mische	was	adamant	that	the	rest	of	the	park’s	layout	be	a	
harmonious	response	to	the	focal	point	created	by	the	Doug	firs	already	standing	in	the	
park’s	highest	elevated	area.	Laurelhurst	Park’s	natural	topography	received	minimal	re-
grading	under	Mische’s	direction,	which	resulted	in	a	design	subject	to	the	tract’s	natural	
topography–largely	flat	through	the	center,	almost	like	a	valley,	with	higher	slopes	in	the	
northwest	corner	and	along	the	south	edge.	This	topography,	along	with	the	abundantly	
planted	trees,	helps	to	hide	views	of	the	adjacent	streets	and	so	contributes	to	the	feeling	of	
an	interior	park	shielded	from	the	surrounding	urban	environment.104	FLO	recognized	the	
importance	of	both	interior	views	and	scenic	vistas	in	what	were	called	“scenic	
reservations,”	areas	of	100	to	1000-plus	acres.105	Though	Laurelhurst	Park	is	not	large	
enough	to	be	a	scenic	reservation,	the	creation	of	a	“series	of	enclosures”	with	the	
circulation	system	and	the	ensuing	focus	on	interior	views	stands	out	as	a	key	landscape	
characteristic.106	
Materials	(buildings	&	structures,	vegetation,	constructed	water	features)	
	 From	the	towering	Doug	firs	in	the	southeast	corner	of	the	park,	to	Rhododendron	
Hill	on	the	north	slope	below	Ankeny	Street,	Laurelhurst’s	predominant	landscape	
characteristic	remains	the	Olmsted-inspired	planting	scheme	that	incorporates	a	variety	of	
trees,	shrubs,	flowering	pushes,	and	smaller	perennial	flowers.	The	park	contains	over	100	
species,	some	of	which	are	original	to	the	park’s	initial	development	under	Mische	in	1910.	
 
104	Curran,	section	8,	pages	10-11.	
105	Guzowski,	“Olmsted’s	Portland	Vision,”	129.	
106	Guzowski,	170.	
71 
 
Mische	included	both	native	and	non-native	species,	though	many	of	the	latter	were	
imported	from	the	southeastern	United	States	and	have	not	survived	to	the	present.		
Nonetheless,	the	sheer	diversity	of	plant	species	in	the	park	and	their	relative	
planting	to	each	other	reflects	the	original	design	principles	envisioned	by	Olmsted	and	
executed	by	Mische,	who	had	a	“fascination	for	diversity.”107	Native	tree	species	include	
Western	redcedar,	Western	hemlock,	vine	maple,	Sitka	spruce,	red	alder,	Port	Orford	cedar,	
Pacific	yew,	Pacific	dogwood,	Oregon	white	oak,	Oregon	myrtle,	Oregon	ash,	Noble	fir,	
mountain	hemlock,	incense	cedar,	Grand	fir,	Douglas-fir	(Mische	planted	265	in	addition	to	
the	100	he	left	intact	throughout	the	park),	Cascara	buckthorn,	and	Bigleaf	maple.108	
Nonnative	species	include	American	beech,	American	elm,	American	hophornbeam,	
American	yellowwood,	Northern	white-cedar,	Ashe’s	magnolia,	Austrian	black	pine,	bald	
cypress,	Bigleaf	snowbell,	Bird	cherry,	black	oak,	black	tupelo,	black	walnut,	blue	Atlas	
cedar,	Brewer	spruce,	Camperdown	elm,	cedar	of	Lebanon,	coast	redwood,	Colorado	blue	
spruce,	common	hackberry,	common	horsechestnut,	Cornelian	cherry,	crape	myrtle,	
cucumber	magnolia,	Dawn	redwood,	Deodar	cedar,	Eastern	dogwood,	Eastern	white	oak,	
English	laurel,	English	oak,	English	yew,	European	beech,	European	hornbeam,	European	
larch,	European	mountain	ash,	European	white	birch,	flowering	plum,	giant	Sequoia,	
Harlequin	glory	bower,	Japanese	flowering	cherry,	Japanese	maple,	Japanese	snowbell,	
littleleaf	linden,	largeleaf	linden,	London	plane	tree,	magnolia,	Norway	maple,	Northern	red	
oak,	ornamental	crabapple,	paper	birch,	Tibetan	cherry,	Portuguese	laurel,	scarlett	oak,	
silver	linden,	southern	magnolia,	sugar	maple,	swamp	white	oak,	sweetgum,	and	sycamore	
 
107	Curran,	“Laurelhurst	Park,"	section	7,	page	5,	and	section	8,	page	10.	
108	Andy	Meeks,	“A	tree	walk	through	history	in	Laurelhurst	Park,”	Friends	of	Trees	website,	April	9,	2010,	
friendsoftrees.org/blog/a-tree-walk-through-history-in-laurelhurst-park.	
72 
 
maple.109	Flowering	bushes	and	perennials	include	the	rhododendrons,	fuschia,	daphne,	
forsythia,	daffodils,	and	hellebore.110	
	 Per	Olmstedian	design	principles,	the	buildings	in	Laurelhurst	Park	are	subordinate	
to	the	natural	elements	of	the	park’s	landscape.111	The	only	building	within	the	original	
park	is	the	Ankeny	Street	comfort	station,	designed	in	1914	by	Portland	architects	
Whitehouse	and	Foulihoux	and	standing	just	inside	the	park’s	north	entrance	on	Ankeny	
Street.	Clad	in	green-painted	stucco,	the	cross-gabled	single-story	building	remains	visually	
discreet	on	the	landscape	thanks	to	its	size	and	color.	The	comfort	station’s	English	cottage	
style,	with	vergeboards	and	boxed	eaves,	also	help	it	to	blend	into	the	overall	pastoral	
aesthetic	of	the	park.112		
Firwood	Lake	is	the	park’s	only	constructed	water	feature,	occupying	a	great	
portion	of	Laurelhurst	Park’s	eastern	half.	The	lake	is	surrounded	by	a	lush	mix	of	
deciduous	and	coniferous	species,	many	of	which	date	back	to	the	original	planting	scheme	
of	1913-1914.113	The	lake’s	inclusion	in	the	park	design	is	indicative	of	yet	another	
Olmstedian	design	principle,	the	incorporation	of	still	or	running	water	elements	into	a	
park’s	design.	These	elements	could	either	be	pre-existing	at	the	site	or	could	be	added	
during	the	engineering	part	of	the	project.	In	the	case	of	Laurelhurst	Park,	the	addition	of	
Firwood	Lake	to	the	park’s	landscape	contributes	to	the	park’s	overall	pastoral	ambiance.	
 
109	Portland	Parks	&	Recreation,	“Park	Tree	Inventory	Data,”	website	of	the	City	of	Portland,	accessed	May	25,	
2023,	https://www.portland.gov/trees/get-involved/treeinventory#toc-data-reports-and-maps.	
110	Curran,	“Laurelhurst	Park,”	section	8,	pages	10-11.	
111	Curran,	section	8,	page	15.	
112	Curran,	section	7,	page	2.	
113	Curran,	section	7,	page	3.	
73 
 
Figure	13:	The	Ankeny	Street	comfort	station	is	the	only	building	inside	the	park's	original	
footprint,	November	2022	
Figure	14:	Firwood	Lake	dominates	the	east	side	of	Laurelhurst	Park	and	is	home	to	a	
healthy	population	of	waterfowl,	November	2022	
	 	
74 
 
Throughout	the	park’s	history,	Firwood	Lake	took	on	additional	designed	elements	
that	reflected	changes	in	park	use.	A	rock	staircase	with	railings,	along	with	railings	along	
the	terraces	at	the	lake’s	east	end,	were	added	in	the	1920s	and	1930s	to	improve	
accessibility.114	
	
Figure	15:	In	earlier	decades,	Portland	winters	occasionally	dropped	to	
temperatures	that	supported	a	skating	rink	on	Firwood	Lake.	Here,	parkgoers	in	
1949	enjoy	a	rare	wintertime	diversion.	Image	courtesy	of	Oregon	Historical	
Society	Research	Library	
 
Association	(land	use)	
The	seven	sections	of	Laurelhurst	Park	retain	the	names	bequeathed	to	them	by	
Mische	in	his	original	design.	As	an	ensemble,	these	sections—Concert	Grove,	
Rhododendron	Hill,	Picnic	Grove,	Broad	Meadow,	Plateau	Meadow,	Children’s	Lawn,	and	
 
114	Curran,	“Laurelhurst	Park,"	section	7,	page	3.	
75 
 
Firwood	Lake—constitute	a	major	feature	of	Laurelhurst	Park’s	design	and	play	into	the	
integrity	aspect	of	association.	The	separation	of	these	areas	spoke	to	the	use	patterns	
encouraged	by	Olmstedian	design,	and	the	extant	interpretation	largely	reflects	this	aspect	
of	the	park’s	history.	The	envisioned	use	patterns	were	associated	with	the	middle	class	at	
the	time,	i.e.	recreation	of	a	more	passive	nature	(as	opposed	to	active	recreation	like	team	
sports,	and	certainly	as	opposed	to	protests,	camping,	or	activities	at	odds	with	how	FLO	
envisioned	public	parks	serving	a	community).	The	MPD	makes	no	mention	of	how	
continuity	of	use	patterns	might	contribute	to	a	park’s	eligibility	for	the	NRHP–or,	for	that	
matter,	how	a	change	in	use	patterns	might	or	might	not	detract	from	said	eligibility.		
Though	the	mention	is	not	extensive,	the	NRHP	nomination	for	Laurelhurst	Park	
does	hint	at	changing	use	patterns	over	time.	The	authors	mention	Park	Superintendent	
Keyes’	purchase	of	a	city	block	on	the	south	side	of	Oak	Street	in	1921-1922.	This	block	was	
acquired	for	the	express	purpose	of	building	a	playground,	rec	center,	wading	pool,	and	
tennis	courts.	Relegating	these	recreational	elements	to	a	newly-acquired	one-block	area	
helped	to	retain	the	park’s	original	design–a	turn	of	events	that	ultimately	contributed	to	
Laurelhurst	Park’s	historic	integrity	as	determined	by	the	MPD	and	its	ultimate	listing	in	
the	NRHP.115		
INTERPRETIVE	POTENTIAL	
	 The	possibilities	for	expanded	historical	interpretation	at	Laurelhurst	Park	are	
plentiful.	Though	the	Olmstedian	design	of	Laurelhurst	Park	was	intentionally	left	intact	
when	the	city	acquired	the	annex	property,	this	early-1920s	expansion	ties	Laurelhurst	
 
115	Curran,	section	8,	pages	13-14.	
76 
 
Park	to	the	nationwide	“playground	movement,”	which	sought	to	require	additional	
recreational	facilities	in	public	parks.	Another	possibility	for	public	interpretation	lies	at	
Firwood	Lake,	which	was	used	for	ice-skating	from	the	park’s	beginnings	through	the	
1980s,	and	which	was	also	the	testing	grounds	for	a	wildly	unsuccessful	“Adopt	a	Duck”	
program	attempted	by	the	city	parks	department.116	Once	the	ambition,	however,	is	
articulated	as	expanding	the	interpretive	infrastructure	in	a	way	that	uniquely	
distinguishes	Laurelhurst	Park	in	the	context	of	Portland	history,	the	options	narrow.	
Portland	is	of	course	not	distinct	among	cities	for	its	stunning	displays	of	class	disparity,	
but	Laurelhurst	Park	is	certainly	distinct	among	Portland	parks	for	reflecting	so	neatly	in	
such	a	contained	space	conditions	of	both	class	privilege	and	the	lack	thereof.	
Rhetorical	Implications	
As	indicated	by	the	playground	advocates	from	the	Sunnyside	Men’s	Business	Club,	
Laurelhurst	Park	has	been	a	public	space	since	its	inception.	Geographically,	it	feels	
encapsulated	within	the	labyrinthine	street	grid	of	the	Laurelhurst	suburb,	a	community	
that	was	developed	with	the	intent	of	maintaining	its	geographic,	racial,	and	socioeconomic	
distinction	from	other	parts	of	the	city.	This	apparent	encapsulation	though	is	nothing	
more	than	symbolic.	To	give	just	one	example,	the	decline	in	property	values,	the	ascent	of	
the	counterculture,	and	the	hippies’	move	from	Lair	Hill	to	Laurelhurst	Park	in	the	1960s	
indicates	how	the	neighborhood	is	not	an	impervious	bubble—it	is	and	always	has	been	a	
part	of	the	city.	
 
116	Portland	Parks	&	Recreation,	“Laurelhurst	Park,”	website	of	the	city	of	Portland,	accessed	May	25,	2023,	
https://www.portland.gov/parks/laurelhurst-park.	
77 
 
The	selection	of	Laurelhurst	Park	for	this	first	case	study	has	much	to	do	with	the	
predominant	reputation	that	the	Laurelhurst	neighborhood	has	in	Portland	history	and	in	
Portland	politics	today.	Historically,	Laurelhurst	is	perceived	as	having	been	spared	the	
infrastructural	and	social	upheavals	that	have	transformed	other	parts	of	the	city.	Whether	
or	not	this	image	reflects	reality	is	a	different	question,	but	it’s	not	the	question	at	stake	in	
this	research.	Juxtapose	this	with	Laurelhurst	Park	as	a	visual	“flashpoint”	of	the	entire	
city’s	ongoing	homelessness	crisis,	and	the	changes	made	to	the	park’s	infrastructure	in	
response	to	longstanding	encampments	at	the	park’s	boundary.	It	is	through	the	
intersection	of	these	two	phenomena	that	the	importance	of	interpreting	Laurelhurst	Park	
Figure	16:	A	section	of	SE	Oak	Street	was	in	early	2023	incorporated	into	the	park	as	a	
pedestrian-only	zone	with	a	small	skate	park	and	other	recreational	amenities.	
Incorporating	this	block-long	section	of	the	street	into	the	park's	footprint	extends	to	this	
section	of	street	the	city	ban	on	camping	in	municipal	parks,	November	2022	
78 
 
as	a	public	space	both	within	the	Laurelhurst	neighborhood	and	in	Portland	at	large	
becomes	clear.117	
“A	minor,	unsettling	segment”:	Hippies	in	Laurelhurst	Park	
	 At	the	end	of	the	summer	of	love,	the	Oregonian	ran	an	article	on	Laurelhurst’s	
newest	residents,	whose	presence	in	the	neighborhood	was	not	appreciated	by	everyone.	
Lair	Hill	Park	in	southwest	Portland	was	recognized	as	the	focal	point	for	the	city’s	hippie	
community.	But	in	the	summer	of	1969,	some	people	began	to	gather	in	Laurelhurst	Park	
on	a	regular	basis	when	Lair	Hill	was	anecdotally	taken	over	by	motorcycle	gangs	and	
“peddlers”	(i.e.	drug	dealers).	Characterized	as	“shop-worn	teeny-boppers”	seduced	by	the	
promise	of	an	existence	unfettered	by	the	constraints	of	consumer	culture,	these	young	
hippies	(“for	lack	of	a	better	word”)	told	the	reporter	that	they	did	not	use	drugs,	and	that	
witnessing	increased	drug	use	was	in	fact	what	had	compelled	them	to	leave	Lair	Hill.	
Longtime	residents	of	Laurelhurst	were	not	convinced	by	the	claims	of	this	“minor,	
unsettling	segment”	of	Portland’s	population.	One	resident	admitted,	“’I	can’t	say	they’ve	
done	anything	wrong,	so	far	[…]	But	they	can’t	be	up	to	any	good,	either.’”	In	this	same	
article,	police	described	the	landscape	of	Laurelhurst	Park	with	its	shrubbery	and	winding	
paths	as	being	more	conducive	than	Lair	Hill	for	drug-related	activities.118	Even	before	the	
 
117	Jenny	Young,	“Pickleball	Courts	to	Replace	Homeless	Camps	at	Laurelhurst	Park,”	website	of	KOIN	6	News,	
November	1,	2022,	https://www.koin.com/news/pickleball-courts-to-replace-homeless-camps-at-
laurelhurst-park;	KATU	Staff,	“Lost	Ground:	Investigation	Examines	Effects	of	COVID-19	on	Portland’s	
Homeless	Crisis,”	website	of	KVAL	News,		February	25,	2021,	https://kval.com/lost-ground-katu-
documentary-2021;	Rebecca	Ellis,	“Laurelhurst	Residents	Pressure	Portland	City	Lawyers	to	Remove	
Homeless	Camp	near	the	Park,”	Oregon	Public	Broadcasting,	September	19,	2022,	
https://www.opb.org/article/2022/09/19/portland-oregon-street-camping-homelessness-laurelhurst-park-
tents-trees.	
118	Early	Deane,	“Hippies	Leave	Lair	Hill	for	Laurelhurst	Park	Area,”	Oregonian,	September	4,	1969,	
NewsBank.	
79 
 
September	1969	article,	several	dozen	Laurelhurst	residents	spoke	against	the	licensing	of	
a	pool	room	kitty-corner	from	the	park	at	the	corner	of	Southeast	39th	Avenue	(now	
Southeast	Cesar	E.	Chavez	Boulevard)	and	Southeast	Stark	Street;	their	fear	was	that	the	
business	would	attract	the	“so-called	hippie	element”	and	would	place	children	in	danger	
when	they	walked	to	and	from	school.119		
'Hippies Leave Lair Hill 
For Laurelhurst Park Area 
• ~1 
JIU IOE)ff5 -~• l')U,,,."J') 1. .w Nll ..r .11'11.o~ ~•<fl .i111oCkod: - 411.lJ!Plllll• l ~ , !Gf.N, l,l w " " ,>., ., "'"~I""\• '"'"'C ,.tlr, ~ ,n, ,..WC.:, 
. J t ~, hiJt,iu. - • _,~ t-., ._,, • ':'o-4 t ho ,.~;-,. • •,,.,. ..,,, . ,I••• •• l'f""'-o<•:, ''"'•'l"\'.....:'t 1n s.., .. ,, ..A ,Ol'fl p:,n;. ,..t l-C~-
lt ~~:i." 511 ~~1 ,..;~, ·•~• .. ., ~JI".!," I. p(>:.c:: ~:~~f l~I!. 11,.,.i,n"rlt: 1J, :i:.!.,'ii,lw 
I' "' "'" .. •:~ .t-lt.lC hJM ...,.:.,  ........,  ,. .·. ~·:_, ·•~ ·,, -"·"·':" -M ., 11,~ "' 1M, !It!- p•~l .a;: ~\, :::~•. ~. ;.~ - - ,. -~, ....... ... ~-
~;:~\..,:~:.: •. -:.;",t~~.~ ·,.., •• , ·,. , ··., .,. ... , ~ 1-,L, If.I. 
~ r.:oll lno 111C1. cth111,;, l,'J. d, ~ 11; ·-~ ~ i»~,·;:;~~-~ 
,,no:- i:l1t~?/'"YJ '.1>I~ 
:r,::~ :,,: ... l >ol~ I( •~i.ri••• 
11, ~• ~• ~;, .. ~,h-. ;,. '·, ,.. .~.,...rt .:~.¥.::~-, ·~~f. :!; ~~:::::-~~i ~::~lf "; 4!,l' l :lti. ,~ ,'c,,~1>, .... 
, •, •m. l·; ...,..,111,-:· •••I ~-- ~, ~~ 1-6.:p 1;1(' ·= 
:.~ ..;, i1~-i:.. . ~ ~t111~~17~~.:·;.~"' :.1i~ 1,;,. "' 11"' :.: .···7_·'~~~:p : t~ 
.. s,., '.l i.'11 !) 'l'IU.11) -~t ~ 1,""11: t: t~··~ ..: ;.:rr:.~ 
n: :~'.) '1:~ " ' "'~" .. ... n' Mil~ :, .... ~'(lk t.lm Mr- , L::i. .:,,.;,a J • .....,. -,J ~' """ 
,- ~. ··, ,,I ,;,,;,,,1-,h "'' 11.·, II,~~!;," lie ; •id. -..¥. ic ~ ; tt.1 ;•. llbl tm 
,,, .,,,. ',_.J .T: H :~, r.l •·.:ol ' •i\,~'N!'•l' n,.~ ~ vl f'I :-,,, .. , ,.~ ~•t :. I~ GI Pt e<::~ .:O« 
·,t ,. .. ·1•3" ! ........,  .-1<~ , • •, ., .,,.,. ~:~ 
.~:. ~ •: :r·;:.:·:~: . ·- ~~ " ,..,, "~·· ..,  ...... . _. •• ,o, I•: 7~ A • .,... ... •, • Ml: •. . ~ • t;t~~;~: :•i£:~;:,~·:t --~~·v:.~~~ ~.-:~::~; iilUY Jtl..r ·;,'" -,,:~lor ~,1y., U\IP',;"X":~-~•,-,:11 •~ ~~.:~•t~~'ln~\~}; ~ 
"'"''-' ,i biN 1WI !lffllrr.- , ... \ i;,:i, ,.,,.,, y.,,. ~ ..,  :.,~~1.~;;~,t :!•~~~; '~~~.~ :';..~:!,"~/;i ~·  1111(1Jllk1 n:C,p1.-;ic,:;.;id 
, ii, illlla l:l'lll".!: .l.-'""lt..r>l >t.frf,;, ·, l.;110.K P'T.UIO.• 
~ - •~ • t ..i r H.I: P-11111 :IJnprcl~lllll~"lf ~~~tr. ~·~~; ;1:i'l-'~1: ,:;:; ~.~\~~t ..~ ·, j, ..,  ph;n -.... 
,..,.~-l!GIIIFSIIIMDII" - ~ ;,:1-, •-:· ,1 ,. ~.-- ~~/ ;.:.~~~ .w ~ ~~:~~:~:•~~~a ' J NII~ lhilll9''n' h•r1 · pilt,;-11-•c1>-e1~. .... llih.:~I. ~ D~)"" ~ t"~"'I' ~ lh! f"" L 
i:,,ov,.,-.d,Dl t9kiotl1 9"'1'. p:t dllJ...tif......, 4 11,1, ,.,_ 1l:lf.t1r kiU: a 1~" ""' ··r •• 1uo.:~tc11- t:i/;:. ;-::t~·~::~ it~ 
Figure	17:	In	September	1969,	The	Oregonian	ran	an	article	on	the	feelings	of	
Laurelhurst	homeowners	regarding	the	appearance	and	behavior	of	young	
parkgoers	or	"hippies	(for	lack	of	a	better	word)."	Courtesy	of	NewsBank	
	
	 While	some	Laurelhurst	residents	expressed	dissatisfaction	with	the	hippies’	
presence,	decrying	how	their	presence	“[inhibited]	the	use	of	the	park,”	not	all	Portlanders	
felt	similarly.	One	Oregonian	reader	wrote	to	the	paper,	“Unfortunately	or	fortunately	
(however	you	look	at	it),	Laurelhurst	is	a	public	park.	The	word	public	means	everyone,	
 
119	“Poolroom	Plan	Ires	Laurelhurst	Park	Residents,”	Oregonian,	March	21,	1969,	NewsBank.	
80 
 
even	though	they	don’t	have	calluses	on	their	hands,	or	have	their	hair	long	or	what.”120	
This	quote	captures	the	essence	of	why	this	period	in	Laurelhurst	Park’s	history	merits	
being	addressed	in	the	park’s	interpretive	infrastructure:	Laurelhurst	Park	is	and	always	
has	been	a	public	space,	in	addition	to	(and	transcending)	its	status	as	an	Olmstedian	
landscape	and	one	of	Portland’s	most	prominent	links	to	one	of	the	most	prestigious	names	
in	American	landscape	architecture.	
Material	Properties	
	 Considering	the	material	rhetoric	of	the	park’s	extant	interpretation,	any	new	
historical	interpretation	ought	to	be	just	as	inconspicuous	upon	the	landscape.	Using	
Figure	18:	Most	tree	markers	in	Laurelhurst	Park	are	placed	within	eyesight	of	the	paved	
walking	paths,	May	2023	
 
120	John	Osterberg,	“Calluses?”	Oregonian,	September	21,	1969,	NewsBank.	
81 
 
materials	that	harmonize	with	their	surroundings,	as	well	as	considering	placement	that	
does	not	disrupt	viewsheds	but	also	stands	a	good	chance	of	being	seen.	In	the	interests	of	
all	these	priorities,	an	appropriate	location	for	interpretation	about	Laurelhurst	Park	in	the	
late	1960s	would	be	on	plaques	along	the	walking	paths,	like	the	markers	already	installed,	
but	in	a	different	shape	or	different	material	as	a	way	for	the	public	to	visually	distinguish	
between	the	two	“narratives”	(trees	of	the	Olmstedian	landscape,	and	hippies	of	the	late	
1960s).	The	advantage	of	this	form	would	be	accessibility,	as	park	visitors	are	already	
accustomed	to	seeing	the	tree	markers,	and	many	visitors’	uses	of	the	park	confines	them	
to	the	paths.	In	either	case,	it	would	be	up	to	a	stakeholder	group	and/or	Portland	Parks	&	
Recreation	to	determine	the	exact	material,	number,	and	installation	of	these	plaques.	
CASE	STUDY	NO.	2:	INTERNATIONAL	ROSE	TEST	GARDEN	
One	of	eleven	test	gardens	across	the	country	associated	with	the	American	Rose	
Growers	Society	(AGRS),	the	International	Rose	Test	Garden	(hereafter	referred	to	as	“the	
IRTG”	or	“the	test	garden”)	sits	within	the	bounds	of	Washington	Park	in	southwest	
Portland.	The	first	site	was	developed	in	1917	and	sat	on	the	slope	above	the	current	test	
garden,	either	in	the	present	parking	lot	or	where	the	tennis	courts	are	located	today	on	
SW	Kingston	Avenue.	City	landscape	architect	Florence	Holmes	Gerke	designed	the	test	
garden’s	present	site,	which	officially	opened	in	1924.	The	new	test	garden	was	expanded	
to	include	additional	sub-garden	areas	and	an	amphitheater,	all	aimed	at	a	broader	
recreational	use	for	residents	and	visitors.121	The	IRTG	is	not	listed	in	the	NRHP,	although	a	
draft	nomination	was	prepared	in	1985.		
 
121	Portland	Parks	&	Recreation,	“Washington	Park,”	website	of	the	city	of	Portland,	accessed	May	26,	2023,	
https://www.portland.gov/parks/washington-park.	
82 
 
Florence	Holmes	Gerke	(1896-1964)	was	the	first	female	landscape	architect	to	
practice	in	Oregon	and	was	one	of	only	four	known	women	in	the	country	practicing	
professional	landscape	design	when	she	designed	the	test	garden.	Born	in	Portland,	she	
obtained	her	degree	in	“landscape	gardening”	from	Oregon	Agricultural	College	(now	
Oregon	State	University).	Gerke	began	her	career	during	WWI	as	a	contractor	for	the	
federal	government	at	an	airbase	in	Washington.	She	traveled	and	studied	in	Europe	after	
the	war,	began	but	did	not	finish	a	program	at	the	Cambridge	School	of	Architecture	and	
Landscape	Architecture	in	Boston,	and	returned	to	Portland	where	she	started	her	own	
practice.	In	1922,	she	married	horticulturalist	Walter	H.	Gerke,	with	whom	she	established	
a	firm	and	worked	on	several	highly	visible	landscaping	projects	throughout	the	state,	
including	Dammasch	State	Hospital	in	Wilsonville,	the	headquarters	of	the	Bonneville	
Power	Navigation	Project	on	the	Columbia	River,	and	Lloyd	Center	in	Portland.122	
While	contracted	as	Portland’s	city	landscape	architect,	Gerke	designed	the	plans	for	
the	International	Rose	Test	Garden	and	Washington	Park	Amphitheater	in	1921,	
presumably	with	considerable	input	from	the	test	garden’s	first	curator	Jesse	A.	Currey	and	
the	parks	bureau.	Gerke	also	served	as	the	garden	editor	for	The	Oregon	Journal,	the	same	
paper	that	Currey	wrote	for	until	his	death	in	1927.		Holmes	was	an	inspiration	and	
occasional	mentor	to	up-and-coming	women	in	the	field,	including	Elizabeth	Lord	and	
Edith	Schryver,	who	would	themselves	become	well-respected	landscape	architects	after	
establishing	a	firm	in	Salem.	Gerke’s	work	was	well-regarded	not	just	by	her	peers,	but	by	
 
122	Valencia	Libby,	The	Northwest	Gardens	of	Lord	&	Schryver,	Corvallis:	Oregon	State	University	Press,	2021,	
60-62.	
83 
 
the	public.	Shortly	after	the	development	of	the	test	garden,	she	was	quietly	commissioned	
by	the	city	government	of	Scappoose	to	design	their	city	parks	system.	123	
If	the	test	garden	were	to	be	nominated	or	determined	eligible	for	the	NRHP,	an	
appropriate	historic	significance	would	encompass	both	Gerke’s	contributions	to	its	design	
and	the	test	garden’s	material	contribution	to	Portland’s	image	as	the	“City	of	Roses,”	a	
branding	effort	that	aligns	closely	with	the	motivations,	principles,	and	period	of	the	City	
Beautiful	movement.	
Figure	19:	Extant	interpretation	(in	pink)	at	the	test	garden	is	scattered	throughout	the	landscape	but	
concentrated	at	the	south	end	in	the	Royal	Rosarian	and	Gold	Medal	sub-gardens.	Base	image	Google	Earth	
 
123	Libby,	The	Northwest	Gardens,	60-62;	Ibid.;	“Town	Hall	Gossip:	Gleaned	by	the	Gossiper,”	Oregon	Journal,	
September	16,	1923,	NewsBank.	
84 
 
Extant	Interpretation	
	 The	interpretive	elements	described	below	are	listed	in	order	of	location	in	the	
garden,	starting	at	the	southwest	corner	and	proceeding	clockwise	around	the	garden.	
Online	interpretive	materials	are	described	last,	not	for	lack	of	importance,	but	because		
they	cannot	be	described	as	“visible”	on	the	landscape.	Since	the	focus	of	this	research	is	on	
the	interpretation	of	cultural	landscapes,	which	themselves	are	overwhelmingly	assessed	
in	visual	terms,	the	in	situ	interpretive	infrastructure	is	the	format	most	accessible	to	the	
greatest	number	of	people	when	moving	through	the	landscape.	
Element	 Location	 Material	 Format	 Visuals?	
Royal	Rosarian	Statue	 Royal	Rosarian	Garden	 Bronze	 Physical	 Y	
Jesse	A.	Currey	Bench	 Royal	Rosarian	Garden	 Stone	 Physical	 Y	
Kiosk	 West	entrance	 Wood,	plastic	 Physical	 Y	
Queen’s	Walk	 Bottom	terrace	 Bronze,	brick	 Physical	 N	
Self-Guided	Tour	 N/A	 N/A	 Digital	 N	
QR	Codes	 N/A	 Metal,	plastic	 Digital	 Y	
Volunteer	Tours	 N/A	 N/A	 N/A	 N	
Table	2:	Extant	interpretation	at	the	test	garden	comes	mostly	in	physical,	in	situ	form.	
85 
 
Royal	Rosarian	Statue	
	 Dedicated	in	2011,	the	Royal	Rosarian	statue	in	the	southwest	corner	of	the	test	
garden	is	the	third	bronze	statue	erected	in	Washington	Park.	The	Royal	Rosarians	donated	
the	statue	to	the	city	to	mark	the	centennial	of	the	Royal	Rosarians’	founding.124	The	statue	
depicts	a	man	dressed	in	a	suit	and	tie,	wearing	a	brimmed	hat	and	lifting	his	arm	as	though	
greeting	visitors	descending	the	staircase	at	the	south	end	of	the	garden.	The	statue	sits	in	
the	Rosarian	sub-garden	on	a	concrete	pad	along	the	promenade.	Inset	in	the	brick	is	a	
bronze	plaque	that	summarizes	the	history	of	the	relationship	between	the	Royal	Rosarians	
and	the	City	of	Portland.125	On	the	brick	walkway	adjoining	the	statue’s	pad	are	nine-inch	
square	bronze	plaques,	each	inscribed	with	the	names	of	the	organization’s	past	Prime	
Ministers	(or	presidents).	
	 Although	the	statue’s	bronze	color	makes	the	five-feet,	eight-inch	statue	a	
harmonious	feature	in	the	garden,	the	statue’s	location	on	the	promenade	and	at	the	base	
of	an	entry	staircase	contribute	to	its	overall	visual	impact.	The	statue’s	interpretive	
function	in	the	IRTG	derives	from	its	location	and	its	explicit	connection	with	an	
organization	intimately	connected	with	the	garden’s	early	history.	The	statue	itself	
functions	as	a	visual	marker,	and	the	text	on	the	plaque,	though	relatively	brief,	asserts	the	
Royal	Rosarians’	importance	to	the	City	of	Portland.	The	text	on	the	plaque	is	difficult	to	
 
124	Mary	Hottle,	“Royal	Rosarians	Unveil	Bronze	Statue	to	Mark	Upcoming	Centennial	Year,”	Oregonian,	
October	9,	2011,	https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2011/10/royal_rosarians_unveil_bronze.html.	
125	The	plaque	reads:	“Since	1912	the	Royal	Rosarians	have	served	as	the	Official	Greeters	and	Ambassadors	
of	Goodwill	for	the	City	of	Portland.	This	statue	marks	the	100	years	of	service	to	the	City	of	Portland.	
Wearing	their	white	suits	that	have	not	changed	in	a	century,	they	tip	their	straw	hats	to	salute	visitors.	The	
Royal	Rosarians	have	traveled	worldwide	spreading	their	slogan,	‘For	You	a	Rose	in	Portland	Grows.’	Along	
the	pathway	in	the	Royal	Rosarian	Garden	are	the	Prime	Minister’s	plaques.	Adjacent	to	each	plaque	is	the	
rose	under	which	the	Prime	Minister	was	knighted.	Royal	Rosarian	Jesse	A.	Currey	was	the	founder	and	first	
rose	curator	of	the	International	Rose	Test	Garden.	Donated	by	the	Royal	Rosarians	to	the	City	of	Portland	on	
October	9,	2011	Bill	Bane,	Portrait	Sculptor.”	
86 
 
read,	partly	due	to	the	small	font	size	and	normal	wear	on	the	plaque’s	surface,	but	also	due	
to	the	plaque’s	positioning	at	the	statue’s	base.	
The	cultural	landscape	of	the	IRTG	serves	as	an	evocative	setting	for	this	statue.	
Though	arguments	could	be	made	for	the	relevance	of	other	areas	of	the	city,	such	as	in	
front	of	City	Hall,	the	statue’s	current	surroundings	imbue	it	with	a	thematic	resonance	that	
might	not	find	purchase	if	it	were	located	elsewhere.	In	this	case,	the	statue’s	location	at	the	
_:ih-~-
~ ."""-......._ 1=._  _.._J ___. ..............- -l.l1--L--l~i._..-~.:....-.l..--~---
Figure	20:	The	Royal	Rosarian	statue	greets	visitors	at	the	south	entrances	to	the	test	
garden,	March	2023	
test	garden	entrance	constitutes	a	rhetorical	property.	The	prominent	location	effectively	
conveys	an	impression	of	the	Royal	Rosarians’	important	role	in	the	establishment	of	the	
test	garden.	Upon	closer	consideration	of	the	text	on	the	statue’s	accompanying	plaque,	the	
explicit	theme	of	the	statue	seems	to	be	on	the	relationship	between	the	city	and	the	Royal	
Rosarians,	rather	than	the	Royal	Rosarians	ongoing	involvement	with	the	test	garden.	But	if	
87 
 
the	statue	itself	is	taken	as	the	signifier,	the	signified	meaning	(by	the	statue’s	location	near	
two	garden	entrances	and	its	visual	distinctiveness	on	the	landscape)	is	that	the	Rosarians	
(by	way	of	their	relationship	with	Currey)	were	instrumental	in	establishing	the	test	
garden.	The	test	garden’s	importance	to	Portland’s	history	also	conveys	the	importance	of	
the	Rosarians	to	Portland’s	history.	The	entire	IRTG	itself	thus	becomes	a	symbol	of	the	
relationship	between	the	city	and	the	Royal	Rosarians.126		
 
126	Clues	to	the	rhetorical	focus	on	this	relationship	are	found	in	the	diction	of	the	history	described	on	the	
plaque:	repetition	of	the	term	“City	of	Portland”	three	times	in	five	sentences;	description	of	the	Royal	
Rosarians’	role	as	Portland’s	“Official	Greeters”	and	providers	of	“100	years	of	service”	to	the	City.	Though	
generally	the	term	“City,”	when	capitalized,	refers	specifically	to	city	government,	it	is	unclear	in	this	context	
whether	“City	of	Portland”	refers	only	to	the	government	or	to	Portland	as	a	metropolitan	entity.	
88 
 
Figure	21:	The	Royal	Rosarian	statue	plaque	and	the	Prime	Minister	plaques	invite	visitors	
to	examine	the	garden's	pathways	at	close	range,	March	2023	
	 89 
 
Jesse	A.	Currey	Memorial	Bench	
At	approximately	ten	feet	long	by	three	feet	tall,	the	Jesse	A.	Currey	memorial	bench	
at	the	back	of	the	Royal	Rosarian	sub-garden	incorporates	the	least	amount	of	text	of	any	
physical	interpretive	element	in	the	garden.	Dedicated	by	the	Royal	Rosarians	in	1936,	the	
concrete	bench	bears	a	low-relief	profile	of	Jesse	A.	Currey	in	an	engraved	circular	inset.	
The	inscription	below	this	portrait	reads:	“Jesse	A.	Currey/1873-1927/Originator	of	
Portland	International	Rose	Test	Garden	1917.”	The	bench	appears	to	have	been	partly	
replaced	at	some	point,	as	the	seating	section	of	the	bench	is	noticeably	darker	and	more	
moss-covered	than	the	bench	back	and	arms.	The	bench	was	installed	in	1956;	its	unveiling	
by	the	Royal	Rosarians	was	accompanied	by	a	band	concert	and	attended	by	both	the	
present	and	former	mayors	of	Portland.127	
	 Memorials	constitute	interpretive	infrastructure	insofar	as	they	serve	to	link	a	
landscape	to	a	particular	person	or	event.	Even	when	memorials	serve	a	dual	role	as	
recreational	infrastructure	(e.g.	the	Currey	memorial	taking	the	form	of	a	bench),	they	
remain	part	of	the	interpretive	infrastructure	for	their	role	in	relaying	the	landscape’s	
story.	As	a	piece	of	historical	interpretation,	the	bench	thematically	supplements	the	text	at	
the	base	of	the	Royal	Rosarian	Statue.	Currey’s	role	in	the	Royal	Rosarian	Society	is	not	
explicitly	mentioned	in	the	bench	inscription,	so	the	material	and	textual	rhetoric	of	this	
piece	of	interpretation	focuses	on	the	test	garden	more	than	it	does	the	Royal	Rosarians’	
broader	civic	role.		
	 The	bench’s	concrete	material	sets	it	apart	from	the	brick	walkway	in	front	and	the	
thick	boxwood	hedge	behind.	Though	it	does	stand	out	more	from	its	surroundings	than	do	
 
127	“Bench	Memorial	to	Be	Unveiled,”	Oregonian,	June	11,	1936.	NewsBank.	
90 
 
the	other	wood-slat,	metal-frame	benches	throughout	the	IRTG,	this	memorial	bench	is	
notably	less	conspicuous	than	the	statue	due	to	its	location	off	the	main	promenade.	
Visitors	must	walk	through	the	Rosarian	Garden	to	reach	the	bench,	and	when	roses	are	
blooming	in	summertime,	the	bench	is	less	visible	from	the	promenade.	
Figure	22:	The	Jesse	A.	Currey	memorial	bench	fills	both	an	interpretive	and	functional	role	
in	the	garden,	inviting	visitors	to	sit	and	contemplate	the	Royal	Rosarian	Garden	while	
reading	about	Jesse	Currey.	March	2023	
Information	Kiosk	
	 Installed	by	the	Beach	family	in	1978,	the	same	year	the	Beach	Fountain	on	the	test	
garden’s	promenade	was	dedicated,	the	approximately	15-	feet	high	information	kiosk	sits	
at	the	bottom	of	the	middle	main	staircase	into	the	garden	from	the	parking	lot.	The	kiosk	
has	concrete	footings,	a	shake	(wood	shingle)	hip	roof,	and	four	panels	with	visuals	and	
text	set	behind	clear	plastic	shields,	one	on	each	side	of	the	structure.	The	west	panel	
91 
 
presents	a	brief	history	of	the	test	garden	with	historical	photos.	Descriptions	of	each	sub-
garden	are	below,	accompanied	by	contemporary	photos.	A	FAQ	section	includes	twenty	
questions	and	answers	regarding	garden	operation	and	the	roses.	Below	this,	the	Peninsula	
Park	rose	garden	and	Ladd’s	Addition	rose	garden	are	mentioned	as	worthy	of	a	visit.	A	
colorful	informational	sticker	about	protecting	pollinators	conceals	what	appears	to	be	a	
small	map	of	Washington	Park.	
	 The	south	panel	displays	a	vicinity	map	of	Washington	Park.	Most	of	the	map	is	in	
gray	and	white,	except	for	points	of	attraction	that	are	numbered	and	highlighted	in	green.	
Short	summary	descriptions	of	each	highlighted	area	take	up	the	panel’s	lower	half,	and	a	
legend	indicates	the	presence	of	recreational	infrastructure	like	restrooms,	parking,	
playgrounds,	and	picnic	areas.	Surrounding	roads	appear	in	white	are	labeled	by	name,	and	
the	trails	and	railway	that	traverse	the	park	are	indicated	by	dark	lines.	
	 The	east	panel	displays	a	printed	color	map	of	the	test	garden	with	an	inventory	of	
roses	and	their	location	in	the	garden;	this	inventory	is	updated	yearly	per	the	test	garden’s	
policy	of	continually	changing	out	specimens	according	to	their	commercial	availability	and	
growing	success	in	the	test	garden.	Sub-gardens	are	color-coded	(there	are	seven	distinct	
sections	according	to	this	map),	and	additional	recreational	infrastructure	like	the	picnic	
area	and	restrooms	are	noted.	This	panel	also	includes	a	list	of	“rose	type	definitions,”	
including	climbing	rose,	David	Austin	rose,	floribunda,	grandiflora,	hybrid	tea,	landscape,	
mini,	polyantha,	shrub,	and	tree.		
	 The	north	panel	summarizes	the	results	of	the	2019	Portland	Rose	Awards	and	the	
2019	Gold	Medal	Awards;	text	accompanies	the	photo	of	each	winner.	Each	rose	is	
92 
 
described	by	class,	hybridizer,	the	distributor	who	provided	the	garden	with	the	rose,	and	a	
short	physical	description.	The	rose’s	disease	susceptibility	and	bed	location	are	also	noted.	
	 The	strongest	aspect	of	the	kiosk’s	material	rhetoric	is	its	location	at	a	main	
entrance.	Other	rhetorical	aspects	of	the	kiosk	could	be	improved	to	take	advantage	of	its	
location,	such	as	the	inclusion	of	a	visual	timeline	of	the	garden’s	history,	larger	historical	
photos,	and	possibly	an	interactive	element	or	visual	guide	to	help	visitors	identify	the	
different	rose	types	detailed	on	the	east	panel.	
	
Figure	23:	The	information	
kiosk	includes	four	panels	with	
informative	text,	historical	
photos,	and	maps	of	the	test	
garden	and	Washington	Park.	
Clockwise	from	top	right:	Kiosk,	
view	southwest;	north	panel;	
east	panel;	south	panel;	west	
panel	(facing	the	main	entrance	
into	the	test	garden).	May	2023	
	
93 
 
Queen’s	Walk	
	 On	the	test	garden’s	lowest	north-south	thoroughfare	sits	the	Queen’s	Walk,	a	brick	
pathway	inset	with	square	bronze	plaques	bearing	the	names	of	Rose	Queens	throughout	
Portland’s	history	since	1907,	elected	from	among	the	city’s	high-school	students	during	
the	Portland	Rose	Festival	in	June	(aptly	enough,	the	first	Queen	was	named	“Flora”).	The	
Figure	24:	The	Queen's	Walk	runs	along	the	east	edge	of	the	test	garden,	March	2023	
eight-inch	square	plaques	(set	in	13-inch	square	concrete	tiles)	reveal	disruptions	to	the	
festival’s	continuity:	a	six-year	break	from	1907-1914,	(other	breaks).	These	breaks	
constitute	an	opening	for	interpretive	expansion	for	curious	visitors:	what	was	happening	
in	the	world	that	prevented	the	Rose	Festival	from	going	forward?	Connecting	the	
landscape	in	this	way	to	broader	events	outside	the	garden’s	boundaries	help	the	public	
94 
 
understand	a	little	bit	more	what	a	cultural	landscape	is–not	just	a	physical	space	made	up	
of	natural	elements,	but	a	space	that	derives	meaning	from	its	interaction	with	society.	
Gold	Medal	Garden	Plaques	
Labeled	on	Gerke’s	plans	as	the	area	dedicated	to	“old-fashioned”	roses,	the	Gold	
Medal	Garden	sits	on	the	middle	terrace,	directly	below	the	Rosarian	Garden.	The	Gold	
Medal	Garden	was	designed	and	named	in	1969	to	house	cultivars	that	have	won	the	Gold	
Medal	Award	given	annually	by	the	Portland	Rose	Society	since	1919.	Gold	Medal	winners	
are	scored	for	the	same	qualities	as	test	roses	but	are	selected	from	among	established	
cultivars	that	are	performing	well	throughout	the	entire	test	garden.	A	gazebo	donated	by	
the	society	in	1992	sits	at	the	west	edge	of	the	garden.	Low	brick	steps	lead	from	the	
gazebo	to	a	non-historic	brick	fountain	on	a	concrete	terrace	bordered	by	rose	beds.	
Bronze	plaques	with	the	names	of	Portland	Rose	Society	presidents	line	the	brick	
wall	leading	to	and	from	the	gazebo.	These	plaques	date	from	1889	to	2021,	and	each	is	6	
inches	by	3	inches.	Integrating	the	plaques	into	the	gazebo’s	wall	resembles	the	choice	to	
embed	the	Jesse	A.	Currey	memorial	into	a	bench.	Interpretive	infrastructure	can	double	as	
functional	infrastructure,	which	in	best-case	scenarios	makes	the	interpretation	easier	to	
access,	but	also	less	conspicuously	itself	on	the	landscape.	In	the	case	of	the	gazebo	plaques,	
the	interpretation	risks	getting	overlooked	because	of	its	placement	below	the	sightlines	of	
95 
 
upright	adults.		An	explanatory	plaque	about	the	award	program	is	posted	on	the	interior	
wall	of	the	gazebo,	also	below	eye	level.	
Figure	25:	The	Gold	Medal	Garden's	interpretive	infrastructure	is	
concentrated	around	the	gazebo	and	exedra	underneath.	Clockwise	from	
top	left:	gazebo	and	brick	wall;	Gold	Medal	plaque;	Rose	Society	president	
plaques,	each	6-inch	by	3-inch	in	size.	Included	among	these	plaques	is	
Georgiana	Pittock’s,	who	founded	the	Portland	Rose	Society	in	1889	and	
helped	to	sustain	the	organization	through	and	beyond	her	lifetime,	May	
2023	
Self-Guided	Tour	
Available	on	the	website	of	the	Friends	of	Washington	Park	International	Rose	Test	
Garden,	the	self-guided	tour	is	the	most	comprehensive	history	of	the	test	garden	available	
to	the	public.	The	tour	is	broken	up	into	ten	locations	throughout	the	garden,	beginning	at	
the	accessibility	ramp	by	the	Royal	Rosarian	Garden,	proceeding	clockwise	through	the	
entire	test	garden,	and	ending	inside	the	Gold	Medal	Garden.	In	line	with	this	organization,	
the	tour’s	content	is	broken	up	geographically	rather	than	thematically.	Bulleted	lists	under	
96 
 
each	sub-garden	name	present	historical	contexts	for	the	prominent	features	in	each	area	
and	are	preceded	by	short	walking	directions	in	italics.	An	explanation	of	the	testing	
process	is	included	under	“Stop	#5:	Testing	Roses.”	This	tour	does	not	make	use	of	images,	
which	may	make	it	less	attractive	to	some	readers.		
Figure	26:	Scattered	throughout	the	test	garden	south	of	the	amphitheater	are	ten	markers	
for	the	self-guided	tour	available	on	the	Friends	of	the	International	Rose	Test	Garden	
website,	March	2023	
QR	Codes	
The	most	recent	addition	to	the	test	garden’s	interpretive	infrastructure	is	a	
collection	of	200	markers	associated	with	specific	cultivars	throughout	the	garden.	
Initiated	by	city	horticulturalist	and	garden	curator	Rachel	Burlington,	these	new	markers	
include	the	rose’s	name	and	a	QR	code	that	provides	visitors	with	a	link	to	a	product	page	
on	the	Edmunds	Roses	website,	with	information	about	the	cultivar	and	its	growing	
97 
 
conditions.	This	interpretation	aligns	less	with	the	garden’s	history	and	more	with	its	role	
as	a	display	center	for	newly	available	varieties	that	visitors	may	be	interested	in	
purchasing.	
As	with	all	digital	interpretation,	accessibility	is	an	issue.	While	non-physical	
interpretation	helps	to	keep	it	from	being	too	noticeable	on	the	landscape,	digital	
Figure	27:	About	200	QR	code	markers	are	scattered	throughout	the	test	garden's	beds,	
March	2023	
interpretation	also	can	only	be	accessed	by	visitors	with	smartphones.	Visitors	must	also	
know	ahead	of	time	that	the	interpretation	exists	for	it	to	be	useful	on	their	visit;	coming	
across	it	on	their	visit,	as	they	would	with	a	plaque	or	a	printed	brochure,	is	not	likely,	
unless	the	digital	interpretation	is	accompanied	by	physical	infrastructure,	like	the	QR	code	
markers.	
98 
 
	 One	advantage	of	digital	interpretation	is	that	more	information	can	be	presented	in	
a	way	that	does	not	interrupt	the	landscape	and	requires	less	maintenance	than	physical	
infrastructure.128	Rhetorically	speaking,	digital	interpretation	is	often	developed	to	make	
information	more	accessible	and	to	appeal	to	a	broader	audience.	In	practice,	however,	the	
rhetorical	effects	are	anything	but	guaranteed–everything	is	dependent	on	the	audience,	
their	available	technological	tools,	and	how	personally	motivated	they	are	to	access	the	
interpretation.	 	
Historic	Background	
Though	fieldwork	for	this	case	study	focuses	exclusively	on	the	IRTG,	a	historic	
context	for	the	garden’s	significance	includes	discussion	of	Washington	Park’s	development	
and	significance,	as	the	cultural	landscape	of	Washington	Park	has	influenced	the	use	
patterns	of	the	IRTG	as	a	component	landscape	within	the	boundaries	of	a	larger	landscape.	
Washington	Park’s	status	as	a	retreat	from	the	chaos	of	downtown	has	ensured	that	the	
IRTG	holds	as	much	(if	not	more)	recreational	value	for	casual	parkgoers	as	it	does	
scientific	and	economic	value	for	horticulturalists.	
In	1871,	the	city	of	Portland	bought	40	acres	from	Amos	and	Melinda	King	for	use	as	
a	municipal	park.	The	40-acre	property	sat	on	a	hill	between	Canyon	Road	and	what	is	now	
West	Burnside	Avenue.	The	land	was	named	City	Park,	and	renamed	Washington	Park	in	
1912.129	Today,	Washington	Park	has	expanded	to	410	acres	and	encompasses	several	
smaller	attractions,	many	of	which	themselves	constitute	discrete	historic	structures,	
objects,	and	sites	within	Washington	Park.	These	additional	sites	include	the	Oregon	Zoo	
 
128	Frank,	Appendix	B	in	“Interpretation	Strategy,”	Horner	et	al.	
129	Hawkins,	The	Legacy	of	Olmsted	Brothers	in	Portland,	Oregon,	30.	
99 
 
(1888),	Hoyt	Arboretum	(1922),	Japanese	Garden	(1967),	World	Forestry	Center	(1971),	
and	the	Holocaust	Memorial	(2004).	Washington	Park	also	includes	seven	statues	and	
fifteen	miles	of	recreational	trails,	some	of	which	connect	with	the	walking	trails	in	Forest	
Park,	the	largest	city	park	in	the	United	States	located	northwest	of	Washington	Park.130	
	In	1894,	the	city	built	two	reservoirs	as	part	of	the	gravity-fed	Bull	Run	Water	
System	in	Washington	Park.	Along	with	four	reservoirs	at	Mount	Tabor	Park	in	southeast	
Portland,	Washington	Park’s	reservoirs	supplied	Portland	with	drinking	water	for	several	
decades.	Reservoirs	No.	3	and	No.	4	sit	in	the	eastern	part	of	Washington	Park	and,	along	
with	a	collection	of	contributing	buildings,	structures,	and	objects,	constitute	a	historic	
district	nominated	to	the	NRHP	in	2003.	Until	the	establishment	of	Mount	Tabor	Park	in	
southeast	Portland	in	1909,	City	Park	was	Portland’s	largest	public	green	space.131		
Portland’s	relationship	with	roses	began	decades	before	the	concept	of	a	test	garden	
took	root.	The	longevity	of	this	relationship	further	supports	the	argument	for	the	test	
garden’s	significance	to	the	City	Beautiful	movement	in	the	early-twentieth	century.	
Georgiana	Pittock	founded	the	Portland	Rose	Society	in	1889,	the	year	after	she	held	a	
rose-growing	competition	as	a	church	fundraiser.	In	preparation	for	hosting	the	Lewis	&	
Clark	Centennial	and	American	Pacific	Exposition	and	Oriental	Fair	in	1905,	popularly	
known	as	the	Lewis	and	Clark	Exposition,	the	city	planted	hundreds	of	imported	Madame	
Caroline	Testout	roses	along	several	main	thoroughfares.132	
 
130	Portland	Parks	&	Recreation,	“Washington	Park,”	https://www.portland.gov/parks/washington-park.	
131	Cascade	Anderson	Geller,	“‘Washington	Park	Reservoirs	Historic	District’	National	Register	Nomination,”	
2003,	https://catalog.archives.gov/id/77850851,	section	7,	page	1.	
132	Hockaday,	Greenscapes,	21.	
100 
 
	City	Beautiful	advocates	salivated	over	events	like	the	Lewis	and	Clark	Exposition:	
such	occasions	provided	an	opportunity	to	highlight	a	city’s	metropolitan	prowess,	paired	
with	a	good	reason	to	spend	money	on	improving	public	infrastructure.	At	the	Lewis	and	
Clark	Exposition,	Portland	mayor	Harry	Lane	called	for	the	next	big-scale	civic	event	in	the	
form	of	an	annual	Rose	Festival.	The	annual	Rose	Festival	began	two	years	later,	with	a	
parade	that	showcased	Portland’s	electrified	trolley	system.	In	1911,	a	group	of	Portland	
businessmen	founded	the	Royal	Rosarians,	an	organization	with	the	express	purpose	of	
promoting	the	Rose	Festival	and	the	city	in	general.	All	three	organizations–the	Portland	
Rose	Society,	the	Rose	Festival,	the	Royal	Rosarians–continue	to	be	active	agents	in	
maintaining	Portland’s	image	as	a	center	of	rose	growing	and	promoting	the	city’s	
attractions	to	visitors.133	
Support	for	a	test	garden	in	Portland	appears	in	the	historical	record	as	early	as	
1913,	when	Reverend	George	Schoener	espoused	the	civic	and	economic	benefits	of	a	
garden	dedicated	to	horticultural	experimentation.	A	well-respected	amateur	horticulturist	
whose	signature	hybrids	continue	to	be	cultivated	today,	Schoener	resided	south	of	
Portland	in	Brooks,	Oregon,	where	he	served	as	the	parish	priest	at	the	Church	of	the	
Assumption.	In	a	letter	to	Robert	Dieck,	Portland’s	Commissioner	of	Public	Works,	
Schoener	explains	that	the	installation	of	a	major	horticultural	garden	in	Portland	ought	
not	to	be	regarded	by	the	city	government	as	a	“curiosity	and	luxury,”	but	rather	as	an	
investment	in	the	economic	vitality	of	the	entire	state.134	Schoener	calls	out	western	
 
133	Erika	Weisensee,	“Portland	Rose	Festival,”	Oregon	Encyclopedia,	accessed	February	14,	2023,	
https://www.oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/portland_rose_festival.	
134	December	4,	1913	Letter	to	Robert	Dieck,	Parks	and	Recreation—Subject	Files—Plantings	
Correspondence,	[AF/32582],	City	of	Portland	(OR)	Archives.	
101 
 
Oregon’s	mild	climate	and	varied	topography	as	elemental	to	the	area’s	favorable	growing	
conditions.	He	goes	on	to	offer	several	apparently	unsolicited	opinions	on	the	required	
elements	of	a	viable	horticultural	garden	in	Portland.	Noteworthy	among	these	
components	include	a	size	of	at	least	200	acres,	a	diversity	of	terrain	and	soil	types,	and	the	
inclusion	of	various	shrubs,	flowers,	and	trees	to	showcase	the	commercial	value	of	the	
state’s	native	plant	species.135			
As	far	as	the	roses,	Schoener	focuses	his	attention	on	those	species	native	or	
naturalized	to	Oregon.	For	Schoener,	the	hybridization	of	“our	grand	species”	represented	a	
market	of	untapped	potential	for	the	state’s	economy.	Native	Oregon	rose	hybrids	are	
attractive	to	“fancy	[gardeners]”	across	the	country,	Schoener	argues,	offering	a	
homegrown	substitute	for	the	Asiatic	species	commonly	imported	for	hybridization	
purposes.	Native	hybrids	would	also	enable	Oregon	producers	to	bring	to	the	market	such	
products	as	the	Rosa	Olea	fragrance,	used	in	the	production	of	rose	oil	and	rosewater,	along	
with	rose	hips	for	jams	and	candies.	These	two	products	do	not	seem	too	impressive	in	the	
context	of	Oregon’s	vast	output	of	timber	and	agricultural	products,	but	the	rhetorical	aim	
of	Schoener’s	argument	is	to	convince	the	commissioner	of	the	garden’s	economic	value.	
Schoener	goes	so	far	as	to	suggest	Portland	may	be	undeserving	of	its	nickname,	as	popular	
appreciation	for	the	rose’s	true	potential	was	so	severely	lacking,	in	his	opinion.136		
Parks	superintendent	E.T.	Mische	faced	initial	pushback	on	the	idea	of	a	botanical	
garden	in	Portland.	The	Acting	Secretary	of	the	Department	of	Agriculture	pointed	out	in	
 
135	December	4,	1913	Letter	to	Dieck,		City	of	Portland	(OR)	Archives.	Schroeder	mentions	the	following	
native	species	as	candidates	for	inclusion	in	the	garden:	Oregon	grape,	wild	lilac,	dogwood,	oceanspray,	
arrowwood	(not	actually	a	native	species	of	Oregon),	wild	currant,	mock	orange,	and	five	evergreens,	
including	the	Port	Orford	cedar.	
136	December	4,	1913	Letter	to	Dieck,		City	of	Portland	(OR)	Archives.	
102 
 
1914	correspondence	to	State	Senator	Henry	Chamberlain	that	a	field	station	in	Portland	
would	result	in	exposure	to	such	a	locally	specific	and	abnormally	favorable	climate	that	
the	federal	government	would	be	misplaced	in	advocating	for	its	development.	The	Acting	
Secretary	pointed	out	in	this	same	correspondence	that	the	State	Experiment	Station	in	
Corvallis	allowed	for	testing	of	species	suited	for	the	entire	region,	and	that	establishing	a	
federal	test	garden	within	such	close	proximity	to	Corvallis	would	be	redundant.137	Instead	
of	giving	up	in	the	face	of	this	well-reasoned	opposition,	Mische	appealed	to	William	Kerr,	
the	president	of	the	Oregon	Agricultural	College	In	Corvallis	(today	Oregon	State	
University),	asking	for	his	expert	opinion	on	the	matter.	In	the	same	letter,	he	repeats	
Schoener’s	argument	that	the	economic	benefits	of	a	test	garden	in	Portland	would	be	
invaluable	to	the	entire	state.	Such	a	garden	would	ensure	that	Portland	maintained	a	
competitive	position	against	Seattle	in	the	bid	for	the	most	metropolitan	and	visit-worthy	
city	in	the	Pacific	Northwest.138	In	1915,	the	City	of	Portland	approved	the	IRTG’s	
development.	The	test	garden	officially	opened	in	1917	with	sponsorship	by	the	American	
Rose	Society	(ARS),	who	mandated	that	a	Portland	chapter	of	the	ARS	be	founded	to	help	
with	the	garden’s	management.139		
The	test	garden	is	popularly	understood	as	being	established	to	help	fill	the	gap	left	
by	European	test	gardens	forced	to	close	during	WWI.	Some	sources	trace	the	first	
 
137	March	9,	1914	Letter	to	George	Chamberlain,	Parks	and	Recreation—Subject	Files—Plantings	
Correspondence,	[AF/32582],	City	of	Portland	(OR)	Archives.		
138	Letter	to	George	Chamberlain,	City	of	Portland	(OR)	Archives;	March	11,	1914	Letter	to	William	J.	Kerr,	
Parks	and	Recreation—Subject	Files—Plantings	Correspondence,	[AF/32582],	City	of	Portland	(OR)Archives;	
William	Robbins,	“William	Jasper	Kerr	(1863–1947),”	July	19,	2022,	https://www.oregonencyclopedia.org	
/articles/kerr-william.	
139	George	Baker,	“Portland’s	Choice	as	Official	Rose	City	Is	of	Huge	Significance,”	Oregonian,	March	4,	1917,	
NewsBank.	
103 
 
suggestion	of	a	test	garden	in	Portland	to	several	years	later,	after	WWI	began.140	It	is	
notable	however	that	the	mission	to	“save”	European	cultivars,	though	repeated	several	
times	in	historical	interpretation	regarding	the	test	garden’s	origins,	logically	does	not	
appear	in	the	pre-war	correspondence	of	Schoener,	Currey,	or	Mische.	Though	the	effects	of	
WWI	on	Europe’s	stability	may	have	provided	additional	impetus	for	finally	establishing	
the	IRTG,	the	concept	and	initial	motivations	for	a	test	garden	in	Portland	predate	these	
events.	
Figure	28:	Royal	Rosarians	at	the	dedication	of	the	first	test	garden	in	1917.	Currey	is	
on	the	far	left,	and	Schoener	is	third	from	left.	Courtesy	of	Oregon	Historical	Society	
Research	Library	
 
140	Chad	Garland,	“History	in	Bloom	at	Portland’s	Rose	Garden,”	Spokesman-Review	(Spokane,	Washington),	
June	8,	2014,	https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/jun/08/history-in-bloom-at-portlands-rose-test-
garden.	This	article	in	a	major	newspaper	in	Spokane	describes	the	test	garden	as	having	first	being	
conceived	of	after	the	start	of	WWI.	
104 
 
As	Mische	was	petitioning	the	federal	government	for	a	horticultural	testing	site,	
another	champion	of	the	IRTG	was	penning	a	regular	home	gardening	article	in	The	Oregon	
Journal.	Jesse	A.	Currey,	manager	at	Trussed	Concrete	Steel	Company,	was	an	avid	gardener	
and	a	member	of	the	Royal	Rosarians	at	the	same	time	as	Reverend	George	Schoener	(see	
figure	28).	Given	this	intersection	of	circumstances,	it’s	no	surprise	that	Currey	became	an	
advocate	for	a	horticultural	garden	in	Portland.	Currey	was	instrumental	in	selecting	the	
original,	much	smaller	site	in	Washington	Park,	at	the	present-day	tennis	courts	that	sit	
above	the	IRTG;	this	was	the	test	garden’s	location	from	1917	until	1924.		
The	site	boasted	rich	clay	soil	and	had	ready	access	to	plentiful	manure	from	
resident	buffalo	and	elk	at	the	zoo	in	Washington	Park.	The	site	was	also	chosen	for	its	
eastern	exposure	and	resulting	shelter	from	western	sea-winds.	Currey	exclaimed	over	
Portland’s	200-day	growing	season;	even	the	way	it	rained	in	Portland	was	exceptional–a	
light,	enveloping	mist,	rather	than	destructive	downpours.	The	site	fit	the	bill	for	promoting	
to	national	and	international	visitors	the	natural	beauty	and	metropolitan	offerings	of	
Portland.	The	IRTG’s	hillside	location	offered	expansive	vistas	of	Mt.	Hood,	with	downtown	
Portland	in	the	foreground.	Both	the	favorable	growing	season	and	scenic	views	that	sold	
Portland	as	a	destination	factored	into	choosing	the	site.141	The	calculation	for	the	test	
garden’s	siting	aligns	particularly	well	with	the	City	Beautiful	ethos	that	informed	
Portland’s	civic	boosterism	at	the	beginning	of	the	twentieth	century;	playing	up	a	city’s	
most	attractive	aspects	was	a	core	tenet	of	City	Beautiful	design.	
 
141	“National	Rose	Test	Garden,”	Jesse	A.	Currey	Papers,	Mss	2803,	Oregon	Historical	Society	Research	
Library,	Portland,	Oregon.	
105 
 
Additions	to	the	test	garden	over	the	years	have	impacted	the	landscape’s	character	
and	use	patterns.	Although	the	Shakespeare	Garden	was	not	a	part	of	the	IRTG’s	original	
design,	it	has	been	a	part	of	the	garden	since	1946,	when	it	was	relocated	from	the	Crystal	
Springs	Rhododendron	Garden	in	southeast	Portland.	Test	garden	designer	Florence	
Holmes	Gerke	oversaw	creation	of	the	first	Shakespeare	Garden	at	this	location	in	1927	
and	was	contracted	again	in	1946	to	design	its	replacement	up	in	the	IRTG.	Gerke	included	
the	amphitheater	in	her	original	design	for	the	test	garden,	but	its	infrastructure	has	been	
expanded	over	the	decades.	The	amphitheater	appears	to	have	originally	been	a	simple	
grass	bowl	in	the	north	section	of	the	test	garden.	Two	sets	of	stone	stairs	descending	from	
the	promenade	were	added	in	1930.	Concrete	stadium-like	seating	walls	that	hug	the	
amphitheater’s	semi-circular	form	were	added	in	1975.	A	permanent	stage	was	added	in	
1979.	For	several	decades,	the	amphitheater	was	a	popular	venue	for	community	plays,	
concerts	(including	Johnny	Cash	in	the	1970s),	and	orchestral	performances.	Today,	indoor	
venues	with	larger	capacities	have	supplanted	the	Washington	Park	Amphitheater	as	
performance	spaces,	although	it	continues	to	be	used	for	a	week	at	the	end	of	each	summer	
for	outdoor	concerts.	Garden	visitors	still	use	the	amphitheater	for	picnicking	and	relaxing,	
and	the	site	can	be	rented	from	the	city	for	concerts	and	weddings.142	
 
142	City	of	Portland,	Historic	Resource	Inventory	0-482-00404,	“Washington	Park	Amphitheater,”	Portland,	
Oregon:	1981;	John	Ross	Ferrara,	“Is	the	Washington	Park	Amphitheater	Dying?”	website	of	KOIN	6	
	News,	October	23,	2022,	https://www.koin.com/news/portland/is-the-washington-park-amphitheater-
dying.	
106 
 
Figure	29:	Florence	Holmes	Gerke's	original	plans	for	the	expanded	
test	garden,	undated.	Note	the	building	at	the	south	end	in	the	
present-day	Royal	Rosarian	garden;	this	office/library/greenhouse	
space	was	never	constructed.	Image	courtesy	of	University	of	Oregon	
Special	Collections	&	Archives	
	
107 
 
Landscape	Characteristics	
	 At	725	feet	by	400	feet,	the	IRTG	is	roughly	rectangular	in	shape	and	covers	
approximately	4.5	acres	on	an	east-facing	slope	in	Washington	Park.	The	IRTG	is	both	a	
historic	designed	landscape	in	its	own	right	and	a	component	of	the	larger	landscape	of	
Washington	Park.	The	test	garden	is	bounded	by	SW	Rose	Garden	Way	to	the	west	and	
north,	and	an	unnamed	service	road	to	the	east	and	south.	Neighboring	amenities	include	
tennis	courts	and	Portland	Japanese	Garden	to	the	west.	The	west	boundary	of	the	garden	
is	also	delimited	by	a	parking	lot,	a	1924	comfort	station	(or	restroom),	and	a	picnic	area,	
all	within	the	boundaries	of	the	landscape.	The	boundary	excludes	the	non-historic	retail	
store,	restroom,	and	pavilion	to	the	southwest	of	the	test	garden.	The	test	garden’s	design	
combines	elements	of	naturalistic	and	rectilinear	planning	and	is	influenced	by	its	location	
between	two	affluent	neighborhoods,	Arlington	Heights	(replete	with	winding	roads	and	
irregular	block	shapes)	and	King’s	Heights	(an	older	neighborhood	with	a	typical	
rectangular	block	plan).143	
	 Unlike	Laurelhurst	Park,	the	International	Rose	Test	Garden	is	not	listed	in	the	
NRHP,	nor	has	its	eligibility	for	the	NRHP	been	officially	determined.	The	landscape	
characteristics	described	below,	and	their	affiliation	with	different	aspects	of	integrity,	do	
not	reflect	evaluations	that	have	been	reviewed	by	the	NPS.	Rather,	the	description	of	the	
landscape	characteristics	at	the	rose	garden	draws	upon	a	variety	of	other	sources:	a	1985	
NRHP	nomination	that	was	drafted	but	never	approved	by	the	Oregon	SHPO,	inventories	
conducted	as	part	of	the	2006	ILS	Portland	Parks	Survey,	and	my	own	observations	in	the	
 
143	Allen	T.	Denison,	“Portland	International	Rose	Test	Garden”	National	Register	of	Historic	Places	
Nomination	Form	(draft),	1985,	Oregon	State	Historic	Preservation	Office,	section	7,	page	1.	
108 
 
field.	The	below	evaluation	could	be	used	in	future	efforts	to	determine	the	eligibility	of	the	
site	for	the	NRHP,	or	as	a	foundation	for	a	more	comprehensive	cultural	landscape	report.		
Spatial	organization,	circulation	(design)	
The	rose	garden’s	overall	spatial	organization	and	circulation	patterns	have	not	
changed	dramatically	in	the	past	50	years.	Even	in	comparison	to	Gerke’s	original	design,	
changes	are	minor	and	do	not	detract	from	the	geometric	layout	of	the	garden.	The	test	
garden’s	three	terraces	allow	for	the	demarcation	of	smaller	sub-gardens	within	its	
boundaries.	Sub-gardens	include	the	Royal	Rosarian	Garden	on	the	upper	terrace,	the	Gold	
Medal	Rose	Garden	on	the	middle	terrace,	and	the	Shakespeare	Garden	on	the	lower	
terrace.	The	official	Test	Garden	and	display	gardens	occupy	the	remaining	sections	of	all	
three	terraces,	and	an	amphitheater	takes	up	the	test	garden’s	northeast	corner.	All	sub-
gardens	are	further	demarcated	by	planted	slopes	and	pipe	trellises,	which	serve	to	
reinforce	the	test	garden’s	geometric	spatial	organization.	
The	IRTG’s	circulation	system	largely	follows	the	geometric	rigidity	of	its	layout.	
Two	longitudinal	paths	cross	the	garden	from	south	to	north,	and	three	cross	paths	
descend	the	terraces	from	west	to	east,	beginning	at	the	three	random-course	ashlar	
flagstone	staircases	off	the	west	parking	lot	and	ending	at	the	east-most	longitudinal	path.	
All	cross	paths	are	of	exposed-aggregate	concrete	save	for	the	flagstone	staircases	
connecting	the	terraces.	The	upper	longitudinal	path,	also	known	as	the	promenade,	is	of	
trowel-finished	and	exposed-aggregate	concrete.	It	divides	the	upper	terrace	in	half,		
109 
 
extending	from	the	test	garden’s	south	boundary	in	the	Royal	Rosarian	Garden	to	a	grand	
entry	staircase	at	the	north	boundary.	The	lower	longitudinal	path,	of	exposed-aggregate	
concrete	and	brick,	extends	from	the	Shakespeare	Garden	to	an	intersection	with	the	
northernmost	cross	path,	which	curves	northwest	around	the	southern	edge	of	the	
amphitheater.	This	lower	longitudinal	path	is	bounded	by	a	low	stone	wall	to	the	east	and	
contains	the	Queen’s	Walk,	a	bricked	section	of	path	set	with	square	bronze	plaques	
bearing	the	names	of	past	Rose	Festival	Queens.	Smaller	circulation	systems	within	some	of	
the	sub-gardens	further	facilitate	access	to	the	garden.	Raised	and	in-ground	beds	
throughout	the	garden	are	mostly	rectangular	in	shape,	approximately	six	feet	in	width	and	
ranging	from	12	to	40	feet	in	length.	Beds	in	the	Royal	Rosarian	Garden	are	circular	and	
Figure	30:	The	geometric	rigidity	of	the	flowerbeds	is	exhibited	throughout	the	garden,	March	2023	
110 
 
rectangular,	and	beds	in	the	Gold	Medal	Garden	are	octagonal	and	square.	The	beds	in	the	
Shakespeare	Garden	are	irregular	in	shape	and	surround	the	perimeter	of	the	garden.	Beds	
in	the	display	gardens	and	test	garden	are	rectangular.	
Land	use,	views	and	vistas,	topography	(association,	setting,	feeling)	
Despite	some	alterations	and	additions	over	the	years,	Portland’s	test	garden	has	for	
the	last	century	consistently	fulfilled	a	dual	role	for	the	city:	serving	as	an	official	testing	
and	display	ground	for	commercially	available	cultivars;	and	playing	a	key	role	in	the	city’s	
image	to	visitors.	The	landscape’s	consistent	land	use	as	a	recreational	site	open	to	the	
public	reflects	this	dual	role.		
The	terraced	topography	follows	a	downward	slope	lent	by	the	test	garden’s	
location	atop	an	1894	landslide	that	rendered	the	site	unsuitable	for	residential	
development;	the	site	for	the	“new”	test	garden	in	1924	was	at	the	time	of	its	selection	
already	partially	terraced	from	failed	development	efforts	earlier	on.144	The	physical	
evidence	of	the	1894	landslide	constitutes	a	natural	feature	that	has	influenced	the	test	
garden’s	landscape.	Total	elevation	change	amounts	to	about	35	feet:	the	top	slope	at	the	
parking	lot	sits	at	450	feet	above	sea	level,	and	the	service	road	at	the	garden’s	east	
boundary	sits	at	415	feet	above	sea	level.145	Vistas	considered	in	the	site	selection	include	
 
144	Portland	Parks	and	Recreation,	“Washington	Park	Master	Plan,”	1981,	website	of	the	City	of	Portland,	
Oregon,	https://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/article/448289,	7;	Dennison,	“Portland	International	Rose	
Test	Garden,”	section	8,	page	2.	
145	“Planting	Plan	Shakespearean	Garden	Washington	Park,”	November	1945,	Walter	H.	and	Florence	Holmes	
Gerke	Landscape	Architecture	Drawings	and	Photographs	1934-1946,	Coll	144,	University	of	Oregon	Special	
Collections	and	University	Archives.	
111 
 
views	of	downtown	Portland	and	Mount	Hood	to	the	east,	although	these	views	have	been	
partially	obstructed	by	tree	growth	around	the	test	garden’s	perimeter.146		
	
Figure	31:	(left)	The	test	garden	as	viewed	from	the	hills	to	the	west	in	a	1960	photo	in	the	Oregon	Journal.	Image	
courtesy	Oregon	Historical	Society	Research	Library	(right)	The	test	garden’s	terraced	topography	dates	to	a	stymied	
effort	to	develop	the	area	for	residential	construction.	Image	courtesy	Portland	Parks	&	Recreation	
Vegetation,	Buildings	&	Structures,	Small-Scale	Features,	Constructed	Water	Features	
(material)	
	 Of	all	the	physical	aspects	of	the	test	garden,	the	vegetation	is	the	most	important	
material	element.	The	test	roses	rotate	out	every	two	to	three	years,	and	about	ten	to	
twenty	cultivars	throughout	the	garden	are	removed	each	year	as	they	fall	out	of	
commercial	distribution.	To	maintain	the	garden’s	appearance,	disease	and	loss	of	vigor	
 
146	“National	Rose	Test	Garden,”	1917,	Jesse	A.	Currey	papers,	Mss	2803,	Oregon	Historical	Society	Research	
Library.		
112 
 
will	also	result	in	a	plant’s	removal.	Curator	Rachel	Burlington	estimates	that	between	all	
these	factors,	but	primarily	due	to	that	of	commercial	availability,	the	average	rosebush	
lasts	about	seven	years	in	the	garden	(apart	from	the	heirloom	specimens,	including	a	
“Grande	Duchesse	Charlotte”	rose	that	was	the	AARS	selection	for	1943	and	planted	the	
same	year	by	the	Duchesse	Charlotte	of	Luxembourg	in	a	bed	next	to	the	Royal	Rosarian	
Garden).	
	 Apart	from	roses,	there	are	several	trees	in	the	test	garden,	mostly	concentrated	
around	the	perimeter	to	create	a	semi-formal	separation	from	the	surrounding	parkland.	
Tree	species	include	Douglas	fir,	Port	Orford	cedar,	bigleaf	maple,	Amur	maple,	Norway	
maple,	weeping	willow,	western	redcedar,	Kousa	dogwood,	Sawara	cypress,	ginkgo,	
incense	cedar,	Japanese	cedar,	magnolia,	hiba	arborvitae,	thujopsis,	Japanese	maple,	Italian	
cypress,	Hinoki	falsecypress,	Japanese	flowering	cherry,	Northern	red	oak,	southern	
magnolia,	and	Hartweg’s	pine.147	
Buildings	and	structures	in	the	test	garden	are	limited	to	a	historic	comfort	station	
(1924)	and	the	Washington	Park	amphitheater	(1925).	Above	the	middle	entry	stairway	off	
the	parking	lot	is	the	brick	comfort	station,	which	hosts	two	bathrooms	on	either	side	and	
the	former	curator’s	office	in	the	middle,	denoted	by	the	gable-roofed	extension	that	
protrudes	five	feet	from	the	west	elevation.	The	82	feet	by	16	feet	rectilinear	building	
features	rake-joint	brick	construction	and	a	Hermosa	tile	hipped	roof.	Abundant	mosses	
and	vegetation	coat	the	entirety	of	the	roof.148	The	semi-circular	amphitheater	sits	in	a	
 
147	“Tree	Inventory	Project	Web	App,”	January	2021,	website	of	the	City	of	Portland,	Oregon,	
https://pdx.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=b4671f4591144530b1c590731923b182.	
148	Drawing	1,	Comfort	Station,	Rose	Garden,	Washington	Park,	Portland,	Or.	Plans,	Mss	3104,	Oregon	
Historical	Society	Research	Library.	
113 
 
Figure	32:	Clockwise	from	top	left:	picnic	area	at	
northwest	corner	of	IRTG,	historic	comfort	station	in	
the	parking	lot,	and	the	Washington	Park	
amphitheater,	March	2023	
large	bowl-shaped	depression	in	the	northeast	corner	of	the	garden,	and	features	stone	
stairs,	concrete	seating	walls,	and	a	concrete	stage.		
Small-scale	features	scattered	throughout	the	test	garden	include	wood-slat	benches	
on	metal	frames,	exposed-aggregate	cylindrical	trash	cans,	and	two	drinking	fountains	(one	
non-historic	fountain	near	the	memorial	fountain,	and	one	apparently	historic	cast-iron	
fountain	next	to	a	bench	outside	the	Shakespeare	Garden).	Benches	are	primarily	placed	
beneath	walls,	underneath	trees,	and	along	walkways.	
	 The	main	constructed	water	feature	is	the	Frank	Beach	Memorial	Fountain	on	a	
sunken	area	of	the	promenade	just	south	of	the	middle	staircase.	Designed	by	artist	Lee	
Kelly	and	made	of	stainless-steel	posts	arranged	in	squares,	the	fountain	is	accompanied	by	
114 
 
Figure	33:	Posing	in	front	of	the	Frank	Beach	Memorial	Fountain	are	historian	Chet	Orloff	and	an	unidentified	
woman,	likely	his	coauthor	Norma	Catherine	Gleason,	with	whom	he	wrote	Portland's	Public	Art:	A	Guide	and	
History	(1986).	Image	courtesy	of	Oregon	Historical	Society	Research	Library	
two	matching	benches.	The	other	constructed	water	feature,	a	non-historic	brick	fountain	
with	a	circular	bowl,	sits	in	the	Gold	Medal	Garden.	
INTERPRETIVE	POTENTIAL	
The	cultural	landscape	of	the	test	garden	contributes	an	important	narrative	to	
Portland’s	history.	Interpreting	the	history	of	the	garden’s	origins	provides	visitors	with	an	
understanding	of	the	IRTG’s	importance	in	the	context	of	Portland’s	transformative	growth	
at	the	start	of	the	twentieth	century.	Although	extant	interpretation	could	be	more	explicit	
about	the	garden’s	importance	in	this	respect	(explicit	mention	of	the	City	Beautiful	
movement	and	Florence	Holmes	Gerke	are	both	noticeably	absent),	the	framework	for	an	
115 
 
overhaul	is	already	in	place:	existing	interpretation	focuses	on	the	garden’s	early	history	
and	original	design.	
Of	note	however	is	that	both	Gerke	and	the	City	Beautiful	link	already	fall	within	
what	would	be	considered	by	many	historic	preservationists	to	be	the	IRTG’s	most	
appropriate	period	of	significance	per	NRHP	precedent	(even	though	NRHP	language	in	
National	Register	bulletins	is	quite	flexible	and	can	easily	be	used	to	justify	wider	periods	
of	significance).	Interpretation	on	the	garden’s	later	history	is	virtually	absent.	Including	
interpretive	infrastructure	on	Portland	writer	Katherine	Dunn	and	her	relationship	with	
the	test	garden	in	the	1970s	pushes	the	envelope	on	the	public’s	expectations	of	how	this	
landscape	has	contributed	to	Portland	history.	This	unorthodoxy	is	not	only	desirable	from	
a	rhetorical	standpoint	(Tilden’s	principle	of	“interpretation	as	provocation”);	it	also	helps	
to	convey	the	phenomenon	of	how	a	cultural	landscape’s	meaning	changes	over	time	and	
transcends	the	rhetorical	constraints	(like	a	period	of	significance)	placed	upon	it	by	the	
NRHP.	While	Dunn’s	association	with	the	test	garden	does	not	align	with	the	period	of	
significance	that	would	likely	be	ascribed	to	the	test	garden	if	it	were	nominated	to	the	
NRHP,	her	association	is	a	significant	one	for	Portland’s	history,	and	an	important	one	to	
acknowledge	in	the	context	of	discussing	cultural	landscapes	for	their	inherent	fluidity	and	
intangible	qualities.	
Rose	Testing:	A	Brief	Explanation	
	 A	cursory	understanding	of	rose	cultivation	is	essential	for	understanding	Dunn’s	
interpretation	of	the	landscape	and	the	IRTG’s	significance	to	her	celebrated	cult	novel	
Geek	Love.	Why	are	roses	tested,	and	what	does	testing	entail?	New	rose	varieties,	or	
cultivars,	are	tested	to	assess	their	commercial	viability,	which	is	measured	by	several	
116 
 
qualities	including	their	disease	resistance,	fragrance,	bloom	abundance,	bloom	form,	
hardiness,	bloom	aging	quality,	and	foliage	proportion	and	attractiveness.		
The	process	of	creating	new	cultivars	is	called	hybridizing,	and	traditionally	
involves	manually	cross-pollinating	between	two	parent	flowers	that	each	have	traits	
considered	desirable	(e.g.	resistance	to	black	mildew,	abundant	repeat	blooming,	or	rich	
fragrance).	More	technologically	precise	genetic	engineering	techniques	have	been	
advanced	in	recent	years,	but	the	principles	remain	the	same.	Hybridizing	has	resulted	in	
diverse	growth	habits	that	can	be	seen	throughout	the	test	garden	and	that	all	are	a	
response	to	the	original	tea	rose	shrub’s	most	undesirable	trait:	a	weak	“neck”	that	could	
not	support	the	plant’s	large	blooms	and	that	allowed	flowers	to	snap	off	or	droop	
unattractively.	Hybrid	teas,	the	most	classic-looking	“rose”	of	all	the	hybrids,	have	longer	
stems	that	make	them	perfect	for	cut	flowers.	Floribundas	are	shorter	than	hybrid	teas	and	
boast	a	more	abundant	growth	habit	with	multiple	but	smaller	flowers	clustered	on	their	
stems.	The	grandiflora	is	a	cross	between	floribunda	and	hybrid	tea,	with	the	clustered	
flowers	of	the	former	and	the	large	blooms	of	the	latter.149		
The	IRTG	is	one	of	11	national	test	sites	associated	with	the	American	Garden	Rose	
Selections	(AGRS),	a	partnership	between	the	rose	industry	and	what	was	known	as	the	
American	Rose	Society	(ARS)	at	the	time	of	the	test	garden’s	founding.	The	ARS	was	
succeeded	by	the	All-American	Rose	Society	(AARS)	from	1943-2013.	The	AARS	was	in	
 
149	“What	the	Heck	is	the	Difference	Between	Hybrid	Tea,	Grandiflora	&	Floribunda	Roses?”	Sunnyside	
Nursery	(blog),	June	11,	2018,	https://www.sunnysidenursery.net/sunnyside-blogs/2018/6/11/what-the-
heck-is-the-difference-between-hybrid-tea-grandiflora-floribunda-roses.	
117 
 
turn	succeeded	by	the	American	Garden	Rose	Society	(AGRS),	a	trial	program	that	focuses	
more	intensively	on	evaluating	cultivars	for	their	suitability	to	a	specific	growing	region.150	
Katherine	Dunn	(1945-2016)	
Born	in	Garden	City,	Kansas,	on	October	24,	1945,	Katherine	Dunn	had	a	difficult	
childhood	that	informed	the	themes	of	her	writing.	Dunn’s	father	abandoned	the	family	
when	Katherine	was	two,	leaving	his	wife	Velma	Golly	to	care	for	their	five	children	alone.	
Velma	eventually	remarried	and	the	family	moved	several	times	before	settling	in	Portland.	
Dunn	endured	physical	abuse	from	her	mother	and	left	home	when	she	was	17.	Dunn’s	
younger	brother	recalled	their	mother	beating	his	sister	over	the	head	with	a	broom	as	
Dunn	walked	out	of	the	house	for	the	last	time.	Dunn	joined	a	traveling	team	of	young	con	
artists	who	sold	overpriced	magazine	subscriptions;	she	eventually	ended	up	passing	a	bad	
check	and	spent	time	in	a	Missouri	county	jail.	She	based	her	first	published	novel,	a	work	
of	autofiction	entitled	Attic	(1970),	on	this	experience.151	
Dunn	described	this	period	in	her	life	as	a	fork	in	the	road,	“where	my	choices	were	
a	life	of	petty	and	extremely	unglamorous	crime,	or	getting	my	sh–	together	in	a	major	
way.”152	She	came	back	to	Portland	and	enrolled	at	Portland	State	College,	paying	her	
tuition	by	hustling	pool	around	Portland.	She	eventually	earned	a	full	scholarship	to	Reed	
College,	where	she	studied	philosophy	and	psychology	while	writing	Attic.	In	1967,	she	
took	a	trip	to	San	Francisco,	met	an	aspiring	poet	named	Dante	Dapolonia,	and	dropped	out	
 
150	“Self-Guided	Tour,”	Friends	of	Washington	Park	International	Rose	Test	Garden,	May	2018,	
https://waparkrosefriends.org/self-guided-tour;	“Our	Trial	Gardens	and	Scoring	System,”	American	Garden	
Rose	Selections	website,	accessed	May	26,	2023,	https://www.americangardenroseselections.com/learn-
more.html.	
151	Douglas	Perry,	“How	Katherine	Dunn	Survived	Hard	Times	and	Became	a	Literary	Legend,”	The	Oregonian,	
December	3,	2017,	https://www.oregonlive.com/history/2017/12/the_rise_of_katherine_dunn_how.html.	
152	Perry,	“How	Katherine	Dunn	Survived.”	
118 
 
of	school.	Dunn	and	Dapolonia	traveled	together	through	Central	America	and	Europe;	
Dunn	published	a	second	novel	Truck	(1971)	and	gave	birth	to	their	son	Eli	in	Ireland.	
Dunn	and	Eli	returned	alone	to	Portland	in	the	mid-1970s,	where	Dunn	rented	a	studio	
apartment	in	Nob	Hill	and	supported	Eli	with	a	series	of	low-wage	jobs:	tending	bar,	
waitressing,	painting	houses,	and	doing	voice-overs	for	commercials.	She	worked	two	or	
three	jobs	at	once,	on	top	of	volunteering	at	a	food	co-op	in	exchange	for	free	groceries.153		
Although	both	her	published	novels	were	panned	by	critics,	Dunn	persisted	with	her	
writing	and	established	herself	as	a	respected	journalist.	By	1981,	she	was	penning	a	
regular	column	in	Willamette	Week	and	freelancing	for	The	Oregonian	and	the	New	York	
Times.		She	earned	a	reputation	as	an	authority	on	professional	and	amateur	boxing,	which	
was	rounded	out	by	her	own	training	as	a	boxer	(a	skill	that	came	in	handy	in	2009	when	
she	fended	off	a	would-be	mugger	outside	of	a	Trader	Joe’s	in	northwest	Portland).	Dunn	
won	the	2004	Dorothea	Lang-Paul	Taylor	Award	for	her	newswriting.154	She	was	so	well-
known	for	her	journalism	that	The	Washington	Post	called	her	Portland’s	“gonzo	queen,”	as	
much	for	her	prolific	output	as	for	her	irreverent	candor.155	When	Dunn	interviewed	
Rajneeshpuram	leader	Ma	Anand	Sheela	in	1988,	she	asked	the	mastermind	behind	Wasco	
County’s	most	infamous	spiritual	cult,	“If	you’re	so	smart,	why	are	you	in	jail?”156	
 
153	Perry,	“How	Katherine	Dunn	Survived.”	
154	Perry,	“How	Katherine	Dunn	Survived.”	
155	Angie	Jabine,	“Letters	from	Portland,”	The	Washington	Post,	November	3,	1991,	https://	
www.washingtonpost.com/archive/entertainment/books/1991/11/03/letters-from-portland/9	1b16ca-
6840-4ce4-9ea6-032de929e754.	
156	Aaron	Mesh,	“Thirty	Years	Ago,	‘Geek	Love’	Author	Katherine	Dunn	Scored	a	Jailhouse	Interview	With	
Rajneeshee	Mastermind	Ma	Anand	Sheela.	Fireworks	Ensued,”	Willamette	Week,	April	3,	2018,	
https://www.wweek.com/news/2018/04/03/in-1988-the-famous-portland-author-of-geek-love-sat-down-
with-rajneesh-cult-mastermind-ma-anand-sheela-heres-what-happened.	
119 
 
Figure	34:	Katherine	Dunn	in	her	twenties.	Image	courtesy	of	the	Katherine	Dunn	estate	
	 120 
 
Geek	Love	(1989)	
Journalism	paid	Dunn’s	bills,	but	it	was	her	fiction	that	engraved	her	name	on	the	
American	psyche.	Dunn’s	third	novel,	Geek	Love,	won	the	Bram	Stoker	Award	and	was	
nominated	for	the	National	Book	Award	in	1989.	Apart	from	its	critical	and	popular	
acclaim,	Dunn’s	novel	is	notable	for	going	against	the	grain	of	contemporary	mainstream	
publishing.	Literary	fiction	in	the	1980s	was	dominated	by	realism	from	writers	like	Saul	
Bellow,	John	Updike,	and	Philip	Roth.	Dunn’s	experiment	with	speculative	fiction	and	her	
generous	use	of	fantastical	tropes	came	out	of	left	field	for	the	publishing	industry.157	Geek	
Love	became	a	cult	classic	and	has	been	in	continuous	print	ever	since	its	first	publication.	
Dunn	earned	enough	from	her	royalties	to	purchase	a	sprawling	historic	home	in	
northwest	Portland,	with	several	rooms	she	rented	out	to	fellow	writers	and	other	
artists.158	
Geek	Love	is	the	dark	story	of	the	Binewskis,	a	carny	family	doomed	as	much	by	
circumstance	as	by	their	own	choices.	Parents	Al	and	Crystal	Lil	experiment	with	cocaine,	
amphetamines,	and	radium	to	genetically	“engineer”	their	children	for	use	as	sideshow	
attractions	in	the	family	business.	The	children	who	survive	their	substance	exposure	are	
Arturo,	born	with	flipper-shaped	limbs;	Elly	and	Iphy,	a	pair	of	Siamese	twins;	Chick,	a	
telekinetic	but	outwardly	unremarkable	boy;	and	the	protagonist	Oly,	a	hunchback	albino	
dwarf	who	vainly	strives	after	Arturo’s	affection	even	as	her	older	brother	grows	
increasingly	abusive	of	the	people	around	him.	Arturo	eventually	grows	a	following	of	
 
157	Caitlin	Roper,	“Geek	Love	at	25:	How	a	Freak	Family	Inspired	Your	Pop	Culture	Heroes,”	Wired,	March	7,	
2014,	https://www.wired.com/2014/03/geek-love.	
158	Aaron	Mesh,	“The	Strange	and	Beautiful	Life	of	Katherine	Dunn,	Portland’s	Beloved	Geek,”	Willamette	
Week,	May	17,	2016,	https://www.wweek.com/arts/2022/12/10/the-strange-and-beautiful-life-of-
katherine-dunn-portlands-beloved-geek.	
121 
 
“‘normies'”	who	trail	the	Binewskis	across	the	country	and	form	what	can	only	be	
described	as	a	cult	of	self-mutilation.	They	agree	to	amputate	their	extremities	one	by	one	
to	resemble	their	beloved	leader,	whose	arms	and	legs	have	been	deformed	from	birth.	
Arturo	promises	his	followers	that	their	undergoing	voluntary	amputation	will	be	what	
earns	them	transcendence	on	earth.	At	the	time	of	narration–years	after	the	cult	has	
disappeared–Oly	has	moved	to	Portland	to	watch	over	her	ailing	mother	and	her	own	
daughter,	whose	sole	genetic	mutation	is	a	tail-like	protrusion	on	her	lower	back,	a	physical	
trait	that	she	exploits	as	a	strip	artist	at	a	club	downtown.	All	three	women	live	in	a	
dilapidated	boarding	house,	but	Oly’s	mother	and	daughter	are	unaware	of	their	true	
relationship	to	Oly	or	to	each	other.	Dunn	uses	a	frame	narrative	to	structure	Geek	Love	by	
moving	between	the	past	and	the	present.	As	Oly	recounts	the	story	of	the	Binewskis,	she	
also	scrambles	to	protect	her	daughter	from	a	quack	surgeon	hellbent	on	“fixing”	young	
women’s	bodies	to	help	them	realize	their	full	potential.		
Dunn	relates	how	she	got	the	idea	for	Geek	Love	while	walking	in	the	International	
Rose	Test	Garden	in	the	late	1970s.	Eli	did	not	want	to	join	her,	so	she	sat	on	the	brick	steps	
alone	and	contemplated	the	hundreds	of	roses	that	swept	down	the	hillside,	“each	of	which	
had	been	bred	for	very	particular	qualities…I	started	thinking	about	a	topic	that	had	
engaged	me	for	a	long	time,	nature	vs.	nurture,	and	about	the	manipulation	of	genetic	
heritage.	It	occurred	to	me	that	I	could	have	designed	a	more	obedient	son.”159	From	that	
first	inkling	of	an	idea	to	publication,	it	took	Dunn	over	a	decade	to	finish	the	book,	but	as	
Dunn	describes	it,	she	was	inspired	while	contemplating	a	landscape	that	had	been	
 
159	Marlena	Williams,	“Katherine	Dunn	(1945–2016),”	Oregon	Encyclopedia,	October	14,	2022,	
https://www.oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/dunn-katherine.	
122 
 
conceived	of	and	designed	over	50	years	earlier.	Her	thoughts	about	the	landscape	find	
expression	in	the	first	pages	of	Geek	Love,	when	Papa	Binewski	narrates	his	own	visit	to	his	
children	(see	figure	36).160	In	a	clever	nod	to	the	novel’s	creative	reading	on	genetic	
modification,	a	writer	at	Portland	Monthly	reflected	upon	Dunn’s	death	that	Geek	Love	“has	
no	real	precursors,	and	no	real	offspring.”161	
Figure	35:	The	Binewski	children	as	conceived	of	by	their	parents.	Courtesy	of	Laura	Park	
 
160	Katherine	Dunn,	Geek	Love,	New	York:	Random	House,	1989,	9-10.	
161	Fiona	McCann,	“Four	Portland	Writers	Pay	Tribute	to	Geek	Love’s	Katherine	Dunn,”	Portland	Monthly,	May	
18,	2016,	https://www.pdxmonthly.com/arts-and-culture/2016/05/portland-writers-pay-tribute-to-i-geek-
love-i-s-katherine-dunn.	
123 
 
"Papa , " ea.id I'£fy . "Yee 11 
Ohair, £our arme el.iding t • 158.J.d. Elly. They 
o tang1 
black hair peering at hirn f 8 lu.e neck , two 
ron:i •1th 
"What aro you up to , G.irlioe er Bide. t 
down . 7 " He would 10.ush end P~ 
"Tell us how YOU thought Of ua .. 
leaned on hie knee and looltcd into h: s 
I begged , "Tell us the Roae Garden." 
And he would puff and tease 
and refuse and we wou1d 
Arty would be sitting in his la e.oou.n.d h i ~ 
P With Papa A1 ' s arms 
Chick would be in Li l y ' s lap , and Liiy • s shou1der 
I WOUld l ean against 
while Elly and Iffy sat croe l their £our anns 
s - egg ed on the floor with 
behind them like Gothic etru.t ehou1aers and 
8 supporting their hunched 
Al wouJ.d laugh and tell the story. 
"It was in Oregon , up in Portland , which they ca.11 the Rose City , 
though I never got in gear to do anything about it until a year or s o 
later when we were stuck in Port Lauderdale • " 
He had been restless one day, troubled by business boondoggles. 
He drove up into a park on a hillside and got out for a wa'lk • nyou could 
see for miles from up there . And there was a big rose garden with a.rbors 
and trellises and fountains . The paths were brick and wound in and out•" 
He sat on a step leading from one terrace to another and stared listlessly 
at the experimental roses . "It was a test garden and the colors were •·· 
designed . Striped and layered. One color inside the petal and another 
color outside . 
"I was mad at Maribelle. She was a pin head who'd been with your 
mother and me for a long while . She was trying to hold me up for a 
raise I couldn ' t afford . 11 
The roses started him thinking, how the oddity of them was 
beautiful and how that oddity was contrived to give them value . "It 
just struc'.c me - clear and complete all at once - No long figuring about 
it . 11 he realized that children could be desisned . 11 And I thought to 
myself, NoYI t.lli!! would be a rose garden worthy of a man I s interest 1" 
We childr en wou ld s mi l e and hu g h i m and he grinned a r ound at us 
and s en t the t wins f or a pot of cocaa from the drink wagon and me for a 
bag of p op c orn because t h e r e d-ha ired girls would just throw it out 
Figure	36:	Several	early	drafts	and	the	final	manuscript	of	Geek	Love	contain	a	description	of	the	test	
garden	and	its	most	distinctive	feature.	Courtesy	of	the	Katherine	Dunn	estate	
	
124 
 
Aftermath	of	Geek	Love	
Dunn	ended	her	column	at	the	Willamette	Week	after	Geek	Love’s	publication.	But	
she	continued	writing	regularly	for	the	Skanner,	kept	reporting	on	boxing,	and	started	work	
on	The	Cut	Man,	a	sequel	to	Geek	Love	that	she	would	never	finish.162	Dunn	also	worked	
with	other	freelance	writers	to	establish	Northwest	Writers	Inc.	in	1986,	a	bargaining	
collective	that	offered	dental	insurance	to	its	members.163	She	released	two	more	works	
during	her	lifetime:	The	Slice	(1989),	her	collected	columns	from	Willamette	Week;	and	a	
collection	of	her	sports	journalism,	One	Ring	Circus:	Dispatches	from	the	World	of	Boxing	
(2009).	Dunn	taught	in	the	creative	writing	program	at	Pacific	University	from	2013	until	
her	death	in	2016.	She	has	had	two	posthumous	publications,	On	Cussing:	Bad	Words	and	
Creative	Cursing	(2019),	and	Toad	(2022),	a	coming-of-age	novel	inspired	by	her	time	at	
Reed	College.	Dunn	wrote	Toad	before	Geek	Love	but	set	it	aside	indefinitely	after	failing	to	
find	an	interested	publisher.	The	manuscript	was	unearthed	in	2019	from	her	archives	at	
Lewis	&	Clark	College	and	published	in	late	2022.	Though	Dunn	has	always	had	a	cult	
following	since	Geek	Love,	the	publication	of	Toad	has	helped	to	rekindle	popular	interest	
and	demonstrates	what	an	influential	figure	she	remains	in	American	literature.	
Rhetorical	Implications	
Historical	interpretation	on	Katherine	Dunn	contributes	additional	layers	of	
meaning	to	the	test	garden’s	landscape	in	two	major	ways.	First,	such	interpretation	
illustrates	to	visitors	the	test	garden’s	continued	importance	throughout	Portland’s	history.	
 
162	Angie	Jabine,	“Letters	from	Portland,”	The	Washington	Post,	November	3,	1991,	
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/entertainment/books/1991/11/03/letters-from-
portland/911b16ca-6840-4ce4-9ea6-032de929e754/.	
163	Jabine,	“Letters,”	The	Washington	Post.	
125 
 
The	test	garden	does	hold	considerable	significance	for	its	association	with	Portland’s	
boom	years	in	the	early	twentieth	century,	and	for	its	affiliation	with	the	Royal	Rosarians,	
the	Portland	Rose	Festival,	the	Portland	Rose	Society,	and	all	these	organizations’	
intertwined	histories	with	Portland’s	image	as	“the	city	of	roses.”	Like	any	cultural	
landscape,	however,	the	test	garden	is	dynamic	and	subject	to	changes	in	form	and	
significance	over	time.	The	IRTG	has	been	an	intrinsic	part	of	Portland’s	image	for	decades,	
and	it	is	no	small	thing	that	Katherine	Dunn	drew	inspiration	for	her	creative	work	from	
the	test	garden.	Katherine	Dunn	is	a	historical	figure	of	such	importance	that	the	dearth	of	
public	interpretation	about	her	in	the	city	she	called	home	is	an	intriguing	oversight.	
Dunn’s	“use”	of	the	test	garden	as	a	site	of	inspiration	for	her	work	serves	to	illustrate	how	
the	motivating	purposes	for	the	IRTG’s	construction–horticultural	experimentation	and	
municipal	prestige–have	paved	the	way	for	other	uses	that	may	not	have	been	directly	
intended,	but	that	nevertheless	contribute	to	Portland’s	history	in	surprising	ways.	In	a	city	
historically	recognized	as	having	“an	ungodly	number	of	active	writers,”	the	overall	dearth	
of	public	interpretation	about	this	part	of	Portland’s	history	is	an	interesting	choice,	to	say	
the	least.164		
Granted,	Dunn	did	pass	away	only	seven	years	ago,	but	considering	the	imprint	she	
left	on	American	literature	and	on	Portland’s	image	(both	earned	and	somewhat	self-
perpetuated)	as	a	city	that	nurtures	creative	outcasts	like	it’s	a	full-time	job,	it	seems	that	
seven	years	is	an	adequately	healthy	time	to	wait.165	For	comparison,	children’s	author	
 
164	Jabine,	“Letters,”	The	Washington	Post.	
165Curt	Hopkins,	“The	Ends	of	the	Earth	–	How	the	Northwest	Came	to	Be	More	than	a	Little	Off-Center,”	
Seattle	Times,	June	6,	1993,	https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=19930606&slug=1705043;	
McCann,	“Four	Portland	Writers	Pay	Tribute,”	Portland	Monthly.	
126 
 
Beverly	Cleary,	still	living	and	whose	popular	Ramona	series	was	inspired	by	her	childhood	
in	northeast	Portland,	saw	a	citizen-funded	sculpture	garden	go	up	in	her	name	at	a	public	
park	in	1995.166	
Secondly,	Dunn’s	own	interpretation	of	the	test	garden’s	landscape	provides	an	
interesting	perspective	on	genetic	modification	and	could	serve	to	further	engage	visitors	
in	conceptualizing	and	understanding	the	practice	of	rose	cultivation.	When	describing	the	
practice	and	goals	of	rose	cultivation,	laymen-friendly	vocabulary	is	not	always	a	part	of	the	
delivery.	Though	the	process	of	rose	cultivation	can	be	as	simple	as	grafting	a	branch	from	
one	rose	to	the	root	graft	of	another,	the	science	behind	rose	cultivation	has	evolved	to	a	
genetics-level	discussion.	Interpretive	material	on	the	origins	of	Geek	Love	may	prove	more	
accessible	for	visitors	who	are	not	familiar	with	genetic	science,	roses,	or	gardening	in	
general.		
Garden	curator	Rachel	Burlington	reports	that	among	visitors’	most	frequently	
asked	questions	are,	“What	is	a	test	garden?	What	does	it	mean	to	test	roses?”	These	
questions	indicate	public	curiosity	and	an	opportunity	to	make	use	of	interpretation	to	
provide	an	answer.	Robert	Schoener	describes	rose	hybridization	as	a	trade	that	“cannot	be	
acquired	at	any	school.	It	is	personel	[sp].	There	are	no	textbooks	for	it	neither	[sp].	It	
means	the	application	and	experiments	of	theories,	the	Mendelian	law	of	heredity,	and	
[the]	DeVries	law	of	mutation	[...]	it	must	be	known	when	and	how	will	color	change	in	
seedlings	to	produce	new	shades.”167	Compare	this	with	Papa	Binewski’s	description	of	the	
roses’	contrived	oddity,	and	Dunn’s	literary	experiment	with	writing	characters	whose	
 
166	Portland	Parks	&	Recreation,	“Grant	Park,”	accessed	April	30,	2023,	https://www.portland.gov	
/parks/grant-park.	
167	December	4,	1913	Letter	to	Dieck,		City	of	Portland	(OR)	Archives.	
127 
 
physical	mutations	are	regarded	as	“freakish”	rather	than	conventionally	attractive.	The	
idea	of	breeding	a	rose	to	be	less	attractive	in	all	the	expected	ways–less	fragrant,	less	
colorful,	less	disease-resistant–seems	absurd,	but	this	is	exactly	the	question	of	Geek	Love:	
is	genetic	experimentation	not	inherently	absurd	and	horrifying,	regardless	of	the	
results?168	
Lastly,	Dunn’s	creative	experience	of	the	test	garden’s	landscape	is	an	unorthodox	
one.	Experience,	if	used	for	creative	production,	could	be	construed	as	a	type	of	“use”	(if	not	
by	NRHP	standards,	at	least	in	general;	in	the	context	of	how	“culture”	is	defined	by	the	
NPS,	Dunn’s	use	of	the	IRTG	does	not	constitute	a	cultural	significance,	but	her	significance	
to	American	literature	and	to	Portland	history	is	clear).169	Diverse	uses	are	what	make	
public	spaces	so	compelling,	and	are	also	what	makes	cultural	landscapes	such	fruitful	
vehicles	for	historical	interpretation.	Dunn’s	own	reinterpretation	of	the	test	garden’s	most	
distinctive	feature	exemplifies	the	intrinsic	complexities	of	understanding	and	defining	
cultural	landscapes.	
 
168	Not	everyone	appreciated	Geek	Love,	as	evidenced	by	a	book	review	printed	in	The	Disability	Rag	in	1989.	
Reviewer	Mary	Johnson	criticized	the	novel	not	for	the	quality	of	Dunn’s	writing,	but	for	the	premise	of	the	
plot	and	the	political	opinions	about	disability	rights	and	culture	that	Johnson	presumed	Dunn	to	hold.	
Similar	opinions	and	criticisms	can	be	considered	in	discussions	about	the	form	that	interpretation	would	
take.	But	these	opinions	and	criticisms	ought	not	to	be	used	as	grounds	for	altogether	excluding	
interpretation	about	Dunn	and	Geek	Love	from	the	test	garden.	Geek	Love	Book	Review	by	Mary	Johnson,	The	
Katherine	Dunn	Archives	(OLPb164DUN),	Lewis	&	Clark	College	Aubrey	Watzek	Library	Archives	&	Special	
Collections,	Portland,	Oregon.	
169	Patricia	Parker	and	Thomas	King,	“National	Register	Bulletin	38:	Guidelines	for	Evaluating	and	
Documenting	Traditional	Cultural	Properties,”	Washington,	D.C:	National	Park	Service,	1992,	1.	NRB	38,	
currently	under	revision,	acknowledges	that	while	there	exist	many	definitions	of	culture,	“in	the	National	
Register	programs	the	word	is	understood	to	mean	the	traditions,	beliefs,	practices,	lifeways,	arts,	crafts,	and	
social	institutions	of	any	community,	be	it	an	Indian	tribe,	a	local	ethnic	group,	or	the	people	of	the	nation	as	a	
whole.”	This	definition	is	meant	to	be	broadly	interpreted	when	evaluating	any	historic	property	for	the	
NRHP,	and	the	more	detailed	definition	found	in	Appendix	I	of	this	same	document	may	be	helpful	in	
evaluating	the	cultural	significance	of	Dunn’s	work	in	the	context	of	the	cultural	landscapes	as	defined	by	the	
NPS.	
128 
 
Material	Properties	
	 The	simplest	and	quickest	way	of	integrating	interpretation	about	Katherine	Dunn	
into	the	test	garden	would	be	to	include	mention	of	Geek	Love	on	the	summer	walking	tours	
conducted	by	volunteers.	But	based	on	the	evaluation	of	the	material	rhetoric	of	the	test	
garden’s	current	interpretive	infrastructure,	interpretation	of	Katherine	Dunn	and	Geek	
Love	would	be	most	effective	in	a	physical	form	upon	the	landscape.	The	visual	prominence	
of	the	Royal	Rosarian	Statue,	along	with	the	public	affection	for	the	Beverly	Cleary	
sculpture	garden	in	Grant	Park,	makes	it	clear	that	statues	are	an	impactful	and	effective	
form	of	interpretation.	The	physical	(or	virtual)	form	that	interpretation	takes	is	an	
important	rhetorical	element	to	consider	in	the	planning	stages.	Bronze	sculptures	of	the	
four	Binewski	siblings–Oly,	Arturo,	Chick,	and	Elly	and	Iphy–would	harmonize	with	the	
landscape’s	palette	year-round	and	complement	the	Royal	Rosarian	Statue’s	material.	At	
the	same	time,	installing	more	statues	in	the	garden	might	help	to	visually	signal	to	visitors	
that	the	garden’s	significance	to	Portland	history	extends	beyond	the	Royal	Rosarians	and	
the	early	twentieth	century.	
Interpretive	plaques	on	Dunn’s	life,	her	creative	work,	and	the	origins	of	her	idea	for	
Geek	Love	would	accompany	the	statues.	Unlike	the	plaque	on	the	Royal	Rosarian	statue,	
these	plaques	would	be	placed	in	the	statues’	arms,	likely	below	standing	adult	eye	level	
but	not	on	the	ground.	This	position	would	help	to	make	the	plaques	easier	to	read	from	a	
variety	of	positions	and	might	also	help	to	mitigate	some	of	the	wear	and	tear	from	foot	
traffic.	
	 The	statues’	specific	location	would	also	be	an	element	of	material	rhetoric	to	
consider.	Placing	the	statues	in	the	display	gardens	would	help	to	avoid	overshadowing	the		
129 
 
	specific	organizations	(the	Gold	Medal	Garden	with	the	Portland	Rose	Society	and	the	
Royal	Rosarian	Garden	with	its	namesake	organization).	The	statues	need	to	be	placed	
somewhere	where	they	will	not	impede	pedestrian	movement	on	the	lawn	between	the	
flowerbeds.	They	would	ideally	be	situated	in	proximity	to	the	testing	beds,	as	Dunn	
describes	that	her	inspiration	for	the	novel	came	from	considering	“the	manipulation	of	
genetic	heritage.”	A	possible	location	is	directly	east	of	the	information	kiosk,	flanking	the	
central	cross-path	that	leads	down	the	staircase	into	the	official	Test	Garden.	The	statues	
could	be	placed	on	concrete	pads	carved	out	from	the	lawn,	like	that	occupied	by	the	Royal	
Rosarian	statue.	This	location	would	help	to	ensure	visual	prominence	but	also	avoid	
impeding	circulation.	
130 
 
Figure	37:	(above)	Proposed	location	of	Geek	Love	statues	in	the	test	garden,	and	(below)	the	
Beverly	Cleary	sculpture	garden	at	Grant	Park,	May	2023	
	 131 
 
The	statues’	materiality	and	location	would	combine	to	create	an	enthymeme.	An	
Aristotelean	concept	traditionally	applied	to	the	verbal	tradition,	an	enthymeme	is	an	
incomplete	argument	wherein	the	listener	is	compelled	to	fill	in	the	gaps,	“a	process	of	
cooperation	which	can	of	course	be	used	manipulatively.”170	This	process	can	go	both	ways	
when	the	audience	is	treated	as	an	active	party	in	the	interpretive	process.	Both	interpreter	
and	listener	can	point	out	areas	of	significance	ignored	by	the	other,	and	both	parties	rely	
on	external	information	and	personal	perception	when	trying	to	“produce	a	convincing	
picture	of	a	particular	aspect	of	historical	reality.”171	When	paired	with	historical	panels	
about	Dunn	and	the	origins	and	premise	of	Geek	Love,	the	statues’	location	adjacent	to	the	
testing	beds	helps	visitors	to	understand	the	significance	of	the	IRTG	both	as	a	horticultural	
experimentation	site	and	as	an	important	cultural	landscape	in	Portland.	
The	statues’	location	next	to	the	Test	Garden	would	fulfill	two	rhetorical	purposes:	it	
would	serve	to	educate	the	public	about	Dunn	and	her	writing;	and,	perhaps	more	
importantly,	it	would	help	to	provoke	the	reader’s	imagination	in	conceptualizing	the		
significance,	if	not	the	detailed	science,	of	rose	cultivation.	This	last	strategy	would	also	
help	visitors	understand	more	deeply	the	work	and	importance	of	the	various	civic	groups	
affiliated	with	the	test	garden—the	Dunn	interpretation	would	enter	into	conversation	
with	the	existing	interpretation,	and	in	this	way	would	help	to	highlight	rather	than	
overshadow	the	latter.	
 
170	Jørgensen,	“The	Face	of	the	Factory	Girl,”	13.	
171	Silberman,	“Heritage	Interpretation,”	24.	
132 
 
CONCLUSION	
The	following	list	is	a	brief	how-to	guide	for	considering	the	material	rhetoric	of	a	
piece	of	interpretive	infrastructure.	Several	elements	of	material	rhetoric	can	be	
extrapolated	from	a	piece	of	historical	interpretation,	but	this	research	focused	on	four:	
location,	format,	material,	and	inclusion	of	visuals.	The	rhetorical	implications	of	these	four	
elements	may	be	deduced	via	several	questions,	including	but	not	limited	to	the	following:	
-Is	the	interpretation	physical	and	in	situ	upon	the	landscape,	or	is	it	digital/virtual?	
How	does	its	form	affect	its	accessibility	for	different	audiences?	
-If	the	interpretation	is	physical,	how	does	its	material	affect	its	readability?	Its	
conspicuity	on	the	landscape?	Its	durability?	
-if	the	interpretation	is	physical,	where	is	it	located	upon	the	landscape?	Is	it	along	a	
main	path,	or	tucked	away?	Where	is	it	located	in	relation	to	other	pieces	of	interpretation?		
-Does	the	interpretation	include	images?	If	so,	how	large	are	they	in	relation	to	the	
text?	What	kind	of	images	(photographs,	graphics,	etc.)?			
	
	 In	the	interests	of	transparency	and	clarification,	I	will	note	that	my	analysis	in	both	
case	studies	is	not	meant	as	a	dismissal	of	the	extant	historical	interpretation’s	importance,	
relevance,	or	accuracy.	Though	I	critique	the	existing	interpretation	via	the	lens	of	material	
rhetoric,	my	own	opinions	garnered	from	research	into	the	landscape’s	history	also	inform	
my	analysis	of	the	infrastructure’s	rhetorical	implications	and	of	its	potentiality.	Historian	
Hilary	Taylor	points	out	that	“as	a	self-consciously	public	arena,	the	urban	park,	perhaps	
more	than	other	kind	of	landscape,	is	redolent	of	the	aspirations	of	its	time.”172	By	
 
172	Taylor,	“Urban	Public	Parks,”	201.	
133 
 
extension,	accurate	interpretation	of	these	landscapes	ought	to	in	part	reflect	the	ideologies	
and	aspirations	that	informed	their	initial	design.	While	the	word	“ideology”	has	been	
rhetorically	used	as	a	political	slur,	an	ideology	is	nothing	more	and	nothing	less	than	a	
system	of	beliefs	and	values.173	Interpreting	cultural	landscapes	as	“texts	of	concretized	
ideology”	is	not	an	expression	intended	(in	my	view)	to	deride	any	one	system	of	beliefs	or	
values,	but	merely	to	recognize	that	ideology	is	inescapable	and	a	formative	part	of	every	
community	and	individual’s	worldview.	This	is	all	to	say	that	interpretation	of	multiple	
histories	ought	not	necessarily	deny	or	overshadow	any	other	history	of	the	landscape.	At	
the	same	time,	these	overlooked	or	excluded	histories	must	also	be	represented	in	the	
interpretive	infrastructure	in	ways	that	respect	their	own	significance.	
Neither	Katherine	Dunn’s	literary	interpretation	of	the	test	garden,	nor	the	tenure	of	
the	hippies	at	Laurelhurst	Park,	have	left	visible	traces	on	the	landscape	that	can	be	
measured	in	any	objective	way.	But	each	of	these	narratives	constitute	distinct	events	or	
uses	that	drew	upon	the	respective	landscapes	of	the	test	garden	and	Laurelhurst	Park	in	
different	ways—moreover,	they	present	as	unorthodox	or	unexpected	ways	when	
compared	to	the	customary	definition	of	“use”	by	historic	preservationists	and	
professionals	in	related	fields.	Dunn’s	reading	of	the	landscape	at	the	test	garden	was	
directly	informed	by	its	status	and	ensuing	design	as	an	experimental	horticultural	site;	
and	Laurelhurst	Park’s	pastoral	aesthetic,	with	its	meandering	paths,	open	clearings,	and	
abundant	vegetation,	not	to	mention	its	distance	from	downtown,	made	it	in	many	respects	
a	more	hospitable	landscape	for	recreation	than	Lair	Hill.	The	distinct	landscape	
characteristics	of	each	park	in	this	way	directly	inform	its	uses.	The	methodological	
 
173	Riesenweber,	“Landscape	Preservation,”	31.	
134 
 
approaches	of	historic	preservation	make	it	difficult	to	consider	a	cultural	landscape	as	
more	than	the	sum	of	its	parts,	but	both	uses	exemplify	how	the	meaning	of	cultural	
landscapes	does	exceed	what	is	immediately	visible	or	most	readily	interpreted.	
Creating	historical	interpretation	is	at	its	best	a	collaborative	effort	between	
community	stakeholders	and	professional	mediators	with	diverse	areas	of	expertise.	
Heritage	interpretation	is	not	a	product,	but	a	process	or	discourse.174	Stakeholders	do	not	
have	to	limit	heritage	interpretation	to	themes	deriving	from	the	NPS’	methodology	for	
evaluating	landscapes.	A	cultural	landscape’s	significance	often	transcends	its	physical	
attributes	and	the	tangible	attributes	visible	on	the	landscape.	There	is	no	systematic	way	
of	assessing	significance	not	directly	associated	with	physical	attributes,	simply	because	
the	nature	of	this	type	of	intangible	significance	varies	so	much	from	place	to	place.	
Methodologically,	such	assessment	involves	a	syntactical	approach,	layering	the	data	
uncovered	in	primary	sources	with	the	theories,	analysis,	and	conceptual	frameworks	
provided	by	secondary	literature.	What	is	clear	though,	as	discovered	through	the	research	
processes	for	the	case	studies	discussed	here,	is	that	it	takes	time	to	uncover	the	histories	
of	events	that	do	not	leave	visual	traces	on	landscapes,	and	that	assessing	the	meaning	of	
these	events	within	a	broader	context	takes	even	more	time.	
A	relevant	discussion	to	consider	is	the	feasibility	of	expanding	interpretive	
infrastructure.	Existing	logistical	constraints,	including	budgetary	priorities	and	
stakeholder	interest,	must	always	be	considered	when	implementing	new	interpretive	
projects.	Portland	Parks	&	Recreation	has	historically	relied	on	stakeholders	to	provide	the	
 
174	Silberman,	“Heritage	Interpretation,”	30.	
135 
 
funding	for	much	of	the	interpretive	infrastructure.175	In	light	of	budget	cuts	that	since	
2019	have	stymied	the	bureau’s	capacity	to	keep	up	with	regular	maintenance,	stakeholder	
support	of	historical	interpretation	is	more	important	than	ever.		As	of	the	time	of	writing,	
thousands	of	park	assets	are	going	out	of	commission,	representing	more	than	$600	million	
in	deferred	maintenance.	These	assets	include	basic	infrastructure	like	park	lighting,	which	
is	presently	getting	removed	from	several	parks	with	no	funding	or	timeline	to	replace	it.176	
Voter-approved	bonds	and	levies	have	been	the	traditional	source	of	park	
development	funds,	but	as	discussed	in	the	historic	context	for	this	research,	bonds	and	
levies	are	provisional	and	finite	solutions.	In	March	2023,	state	representative	Travis	
Nelson	(D-Portland)	presented	HB3515	to	the	state	legislature,	a	measure	that	would	allow	
Oregon	cities	of	more	than	600,000	(i.e.	Portland)	to	present	a	ballot	measure	that	would	
establish	a	special	municipal	tax	district	for	parks	funding.	Special	tax	districts	are	
generally	employed	in	rural	areas	without	a	significant	tax	base,	but	at	the	county	level,	the	
Multnomah	County	Library	District	provides	a	precedent	in	the	Portland	area.177	
While	historical	interpretation	falls	at	the	bottom	of	the	priority	list	in	parks	
development,	neglect	of	interpretive	infrastructure	comes	at	the	cost	of	leaving	the	public	
in	the	dark	about	their	community’s	history.	Historical	interpretation	that	considers	more	
complex	or	subtle	uses	of	the	parks	helps	Portlanders	and	visitors	understand	their	parks	
as	dynamic	cultural	landscapes	with	multiple	layers	of	meaning	and	uses.	Consideration	of	
 
175	Horner	et	al.	“Interpretation	Strategy,"	14.	
176	Claudia	Meza,	John	Notarianni	and	Sophie	Peel,	“Idaho’s	Brash	Move,	Paying	for	Parks,	and	Winter	Driving	
Fails,”	February	24,	2023,	in	City	Cast	Portland,	produced	by	John	Notarianni,	podcast,	34:45,	https://	
podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/city-cast-portland/id1655458573?i=1000601462241.;Katherine	Cook,	“City	
of	Portland	to	Remove	Hundreds	of	Lamp	Posts	from	Parks	Due	to	Safety	Issues,”	website	of	KGW8	News,,	
March	17,	2023,	https://www.kgw.com/amp/article/news/local/southeast-portland-removing-park-light-
poles/283-5d60c735-8eb6-48c2-b4e6-a75b9ed202ce.	
177	Meza	et	al.	“Idaho’s	Brash	Move.”	
136 
 
the	interests,	desires,	and	experiences	of	the	multiple	audiences	who	could	consume	the	
interpretation	ought	to	be	considered	in	the	development	of	this	interpretation,	both	
thematically	and	materially.178		
Interpreting	cultural	landscapes	as	layered,	complex	places	that	evolve	over	time,	
much	like	a	piece	of	writing,	speaks	to	the	Duncans’	stance	that	“texts	are	not	‘innocent.’	
They	are	not	transparent	windows	through	which	reality	may	be	unproblematically	
viewed.”179	Framing	cultural	landscapes	themselves	as	texts	of	fluctuation,	transformation,	
and	contradiction	allows	for	a	more	accurate	and	holistic	view	of	the	past.	Rather	than	
maintaining	a	“purely	curatorial	perspective”	and	treating	cultural	landscapes	as	static	
sites	with	fixed	meanings,	historical	interpretation	ought	to	itself	recognize	the	dynamic	
nature	and	layers	of	history	in	parks.180	The	value	and	impact	of	heritage	interpretation	
derives	more	from	perception	than	it	does	from	facts.	If,	as	geographer	F.	Pierce	Lewis	
asserted,	landscape	is	our	“unwitting	biography,”	then	the	interpretation	of	that	landscape	
is	our	attempt	to	make	that	biography	readable	and	engaging.	181		
	 	
 
178	Jørgensen,	“The	Face	of	the	Factory	Girl,”	13.	
179	Riesenweber,	“Landscape	Preservation,”	27.	
180	Silberman,	”Heritage	Interpretation,”	30.		
181	Groth,	“Frameworks,”	4.	
137 
 
WORKS	CITED	
Abbott,	Carl.	Portland	in	Three	Centuries:	The	Place	and	the	People.	Corvallis:	Oregon	State	
University	Press,	2011.	
Albert,	Marie-Therese,	Roland	Bernecker	and	Britta	Rudolf.	Understanding	Heritage:	
Perspectives	in	Heritage	Studies.	Berlin:	De	Gruyter,	2013.		
Anderson	Geller,	Cascade.	“‘Washington	Park	Reservoirs	Historic	District’”	National	
Register	Nomination,	2003.	https://catalog.archives.gov/id/77850851.	
“A	Walking	Tour	of	Laurelhurst.”	Website	of	Historic	Laurelhurst,	accessed	May	25,	2023.	
https://www.historiclaurelhurst.com/single-post/2019/07/28/a-walking-tour-of-
laurelhurst.	
Baker,	George.	“Portland’s	Choice	as	Official	Rose	City	Is	of	Huge	Significance.”	The	
Oregonian,	March	4,	1917.	NewsBank.	
“Bench	Memorial	to	Be	Unveiled.”	The	Oregonian,	June	11,	1936.	NewsBank.	
Bender,	Barbara.	“Time	and	Landscape.”	Current	Anthropology	43,	no.	S4	(2002):	S103–12.	
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/339561.	
Birnbaum,	Charles.	“Preservation	Brief	36:	Protecting	Cultural	Landscapes:	Planning,	
Treatment,	and	Management	of	Cultural	Landscapes.”	Washington,	D.C:	National	
Park	Service,	1994.	
Charmaz,	Kathy.	Constructing	Grounded	Theory:	A	Practical	Guide	Through	Qualitative	
Analysis.	London:	SAGE	Publications,	2006.	
City	of	Portland.	Historic	Resource	Inventory	0-482-00404,	“Washington	Park	
Amphitheater.”	Portland,	Oregon:	1981.	
City	of	Portland	(OR)	Archives,	[AF/32582].	
138 
 
Clancy,	Ben.	“Material	Rhetoric.”	Topics	in	Rhetorical	Studies	(blog).	Masters	in	
Communication,	accessed	March	20,	2023.-	https://	
www.mastersincommunications.com/research/rhetorical-studies/material-
rhetoric.	
Cook,	Katherine.	“City	of	Portland	to	Remove	Hundreds	of	Lamp	Posts	from	Parks	Due	to	
Safety	Issues.”	Website	of	KGW8	News,	March	17,	2023.	https://www.kgw.com	
/amp/article/news/local/southeast-portland-removing-park-light-poles/283-
5d60c735-8eb6-48c2-b4e6	a75b9ed202ce.	
Cranz,	Galen.	The	Politics	of	Park	Design:	A	History	of	Urban	Parks	in	America,	1989.	https://	
doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5469.001.0001.	“	
“Cultural	Landscapes	101.”	Website	of	the	National	Park	Service,	accessed	February	15,	
2023.	https://www.nps.gov/articles/cultural-landscapes-101.htm.	
Curran,	Christine.	“Laurelhurst	Park”	National	Register	Nomination,	1999.	https://	
catalog.archives.gov/id/77848404.	
Deane,	Early.	“Hippies	Leave	Lair	Hill	for	Laurelhurst	Park	Area.”	The	Oregonian,	
September	4,	1969.	NewsBank.	
Denison,	Allen.	“Portland	International	Rose	Test	Garden”	National	Register	of	Historic	
Places	Nomination	Form	(draft),	1985.	Oregon	State	Historic	Preservation	Office.	
Dunn,	Katherine.	Geek	Love.	New	York:	Random	House,	1989.	
Edwards,	Dustin.	“Digital	Rhetoric	on	a	Damaged	Planet:	Storying	Digital	Damage	as	
Inventive	Response	to	the	Anthropocene.”	Rhetoric	Review	39,	no.	1	(January	27,	
2020):	58–72.	https://doi.org/10.1080/07350198.2019.1690372.	
139 
 
Ellis,	Rebecca.	“Laurelhurst	Residents	Pressure	Portland	City	Lawyers	to	Remove	Homeless	
Camp	near	the	Park.”	Oregon	Public	Broadcasting,	September	19,	2022.	https://	
www.opb.org/article/2022/09/19/portland-oregon-street-camping-homelessness-
laurelhurst-park-tents-trees.	
Erickson,	Helen	Breslich.	“The	Factor	of	Time	in	the	Analysis	and	Interpretation	of	Cultural	
Landscapes.”	Master’s	thesis,	The	University	of	Arizona,	2012.	https://	
repository.arizona.edu/handle/10150/263192.	
Galbrath,	Catherine,	Caitlyn	Ewers,	Kerrie	Franey,	Matthew	Davis,	and	Brandon	Spencer-
Hartle.	“African	American	Resources	in	Portland,	Oregon,	from	1851	to	1973.”	
Multiple	Property	Submission	National	Register	Nomination,	2020.	
https://www.portland.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/mpd_final.pdf.	
Garland,	Chad.	“History	in	Bloom	at	Portland’s	Rose	Test	Garden.”	Spokesman-Review,	June	
8,	2014.	https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/jun/08/history-in-bloom-at-
portlands-rose-test-garden.	
George,	Erika	and	Kari	McGee.	“New	Walking	Tour	Explores	History	of	Laurelhurst.”	The	
Living	Room	Blog,	website	of	Living	Room	Realty,	September	17,	2019.	https://	
www.livingroomre.com/education/new-walking-tour-explores-history-of-
laurelhurst.	
Glazer,	Nathan	and	Mark	Lilla,	eds.	The	Public	Face	of	Architecture:	Civic	Culture	and	Public	
Spaces.	New	York:	The	Free	Press,	1987.	
"Democracy	for	Whom?	Contextualizing	Social	Reform	Movements	of	Olmsted	and	his	
Peers.”	Good	for	Whom?	Olmsted,	Parks,	and	Public	Good,	accessed	May	25,	2023.	
140 
 
https://sites.google.com/view/contextualizing-olmsted200/home/democracy-for-
whom?authuser=0.	
Groth,	Paul.	“Frameworks	for	Cultural	Landscape	Study.”	In	Groth	and	Bressi,	
Understanding	Ordinary	Landscapes,	1-21.	
Groth,	Paul,	and	Todd	Bressi,	ed.	Understanding	Ordinary	Landscapes.	New	Haven:	Yale	
University	Press,	1997.	
Güremen,	Refik.	“In	What	Sense	Exactly	Are	Human	Beings	More	Political	According	to	
Aristotle?”	Filozofija	i	Drustvo	29,	no.	2	(2018):	170-81.	
https://doi.org/10.2298/FID1802170G.	
Guzowski,	Kenneth.	“Portland’s	Olmsted	Vision	(1897-1915):	A	Study	of	the	Public	
Landscapes	Designed	by	Emanuel	T.	Mische	in	Portland,	Oregon.”	Master’s	thesis,	
University	of	Oregon,	1990.	ProQuest	(1341372).	
Hawkins,	William.	The	Legacy	of	Olmsted	Brothers	in	Portland,	Oregon.	Portland,	OR:	self-
published,	2014.	
Hockaday,	Joan.	Greenscapes:	Olmsted’s	Pacific	Northwest.	Pullman:	Washington	State	
University,	2009.	
Hopkins,	Curt.	“The	Ends	of	the	Earth	–	How	the	Northwest	Came	to	Be	More	than	a	Little	
Off-Center.”	Seattle	Times,	June	6,	1993.	https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive	
/?date=19930606&slug=1705043.		
Horner,	Brett,	Emily	Roth,	Lisa	Frank,	Randy	Webster,	Kathleen	Murrin,	Astrid	Dragoy,	
Lynn	Barlow,	et	al.	“Interpretation	Strategy:	Media	Format,”	January	2012.	https://	
www.portland.gov/sites/default/files/2020/interpretation-strategy-2012.pdf.	
141 
 
Hottle,	Mary.	“Royal	Rosarians	Unveil	Bronze	Statue	to	Mark	Upcoming	Centennial	Year.”	
The	Oregonian,	October	9,	2011.	https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2011/10	
/royal_rosarians_unveil_bronze.html.	
Jabine,	Angie.	“Letters	from	Portland.”	The	Washington	Post,	November	3,	1991.	https://	
www.washingtonpost.com/archive/entertainment/books/1991/11/03/letters-
from-portland/9	1b16ca-6840-4ce4-9ea6-032de929e754.	
Jackson,	J.B.	“The	American	Public	Space.”	In	Glazer	and	Lilla,	The	Public	Face	of	
Architecture,	276-291.	
Jørgensen,	Iben	Brinch.	“The	Face	of	the	Factory	Girl:	Educational	Rhetoric	in	the	Mediation	
of	an	Historical	Place.”	IARTEM	E-Journal	4,	no.	1	(August	4,	2011):	1–19.	
https://doi.org/10.21344/iartem.v4i1.779.	
KATU	Staff.	“Lost	Ground:	Investigation	Examines	Effects	of	COVID-19	on	Portland’s	
Homeless	Crisis.”	Website	of	KVAL	News,	February	25,	2021.	https://kval.com/lost-
ground-katu-documentary-2021.	
Lafrenz	Samuels,	Kathryn.	“Heritage	as	Persuasion.”	In	Heritage	Keywords:	Rhetoric	and	
Redescription	in	Cultural	Heritage.	Ed.	Trinidad	Rico	and	Kathryn	Lafrenz	Samuels	
(University	Press	of	Colorado,	2015),	3-28,	https://doi.org/10.5876	
/9781607323846.c001.	
Libby,	Valencia.	The	Northwest	Gardens	of	Lord	&	Schryver.	Corvallis:	Oregon	State	
University	Press,	2021.	
Keller,	Timothy	and	Genevieve	Killer.	“National	Register	Bulletin	18:	How	to	Evaluate	and	
Nominate	Designed	Historic	Landscapes.”	Washington,	D.C.:	National	Park	Service,	
n.d.	
142 
 
Longstreth,	Richard,	ed.	Cultural	Landscapes:	Balancing	Nature	and	Heritage	in	Preservation	
Practice.	Minneapolis:	University	of	Minnesota	Press,	2008.	
Low,	Setha,	Dana	Taplin,	and	Suzanne	Scheld.	Rethinking	Public	Parks:	Public	Space	&	
Cultural	Diversity.	Austin:	University	of	Texas	Press,	2005.	
Lutino,	Cielo,	Blake	Merker,	and	Robin	Green.	“The	City	Beautiful	Movement	and	Civic	
Planning	in	Portland,	Oregon	1897-1921.”	Multiple	Property	Submission	National	
Register	Nomination,	2000.	
McCann,	Fiona.	“Four	Portland	Writers	Pay	Tribute	to	Geek	Love’s	Katherine	Dunn.”	
Portland	Monthly,	May	18,	2016.	https://www.pdxmonthly.com/arts-and-
culture/2016/05/portland-writers-pay-tribute-to-i-geek-love-i-s-katherine-dunn.	
Meeks,	Andy.	“A	tree	walk	through	history	in	Laurelhurst	Park,”	Friends	of	Trees	website,	
April	9,	2010.	https://friendsoftrees.org/blog/a-tree-walk-through-history-in-
laurelhurst-park.	
Mesh,	Aaron.	“The	Strange	and	Beautiful	Life	of	Katherine	Dunn,	Portland’s	Beloved	Geek.”	
Willamette	Week,	May	17,	2016.	https://www.wweek.com/arts/2022/12/10/the-
strange-and-beautiful-life-of-katherine-dunn-portlands-beloved-geek.	
—	“Thirty	Years	Ago,	‘Geek	Love’	Author	Katherine	Dunn	Scored	a	Jailhouse	Interview	With	
Rajneeshee	Mastermind	Ma	Anand	Sheela.	Fireworks	Ensued.”	Willamette	Week,	
April	3,	2018.	https://www.wweek.com/news/2018/04/03/in-1988-the-famous-
portland-author-of-geek-love-sat-down-with-rajneesh-cult-mastermind-ma-anand-
sheela-heres-what-happened.	
Meza,	Claudia,	John	Notarianni	and	Sophie	Peel.	“Idaho’s	Brash	Move,	Paying	for	Parks,	and	
Winter	Driving	Fails,”	February	24,	2023.	City	Cast	Portland,	produced	by	John	
143 
 
Notarianni.	Podcast,	34:45.	https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/city-cast-
portland	/id1655458573?i=1000601462241.	
Minor,	Kristen.	“Laurelhurst	Historic	District.”	National	Register	Nomination,	2018.	
https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/GetAsset/NRHP/01000134_text.	
National	Park	Service.	“National	Register	Bulletin	15:	How	to	Apply	the	National	Register	
Criteria	for	Evaluation.”	Washington,	D.C:	National	Park	Service,	1990.	
Noble,	Helen,	and	Gary	Mitchell.	“What	Is	Grounded	Theory?”	Evidence-Based	Nursing	19,	
no.	2	(April	1,	2016):	34–35.	https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2016-102306.	
Olmsted	and	America’s	Urban	Parks.	PBS,	2011.	
Olmsted,	Frederick	Law.	“Public	Parks	and	the	Enlargement	of	Towns.	In	Glazer	and	Lilla,	
The	Public	Face	of	Architecture:	Civic	Culture	and	Public	Spaces,	222-261.	
Olmsted,	John	Charles.	“The	True	Purpose	of	a	Large	Public	Park.”	Reprints,	Winter	2010.	
https://www.olmsted.org/storage/documents/Reprints_Winter_2010_Vol_12_No_	
2.pdf.	
Osterberg,	John.	“Calluses?”	The	Oregonian,	September	21,	1969.	NewsBank.	
“Our	Trial	Gardens	and	Scoring	System.”	Website	of	American	Garden	Rose	Selections,	
accessed	May	26,	2023.	https://www.americangardenroseselections.com/learn-
more.html.	
Parker,	Patricia	and	Thomas	King,	“National	Register	Bulletin	38:	Guidelines	for	Evaluating	
and	Documenting	Traditional	Cultural	Properties,”	Washington,	D.C:	National	Park	
Service,	1992.	
Parks,	Casey.	“North	Williams	Gentrified.	Its	Park	Didn’t.	How	Dawson	Park	Survived	as	a	
Black	Hub.”	The	Oregonian,	September	10,	2016.	https://www.oregonlive.com	
144 
 
/portland/2016/09/dawson_park_gentrification_por.html.	
“Parks	in	Context:	A	Community	History	of	Peninsula	Park.”	Public	History	PDX:	A	Project	of	
the	Portland	State	University	History	Department,	July	18,	2022.	http://	
publichistorypdx.org/2022/07/18/parks-in-context-a-community-history-of-
peninsula-park.	
Perry,	Douglas.	“How	Katherine	Dunn	Survived	Hard	Times	and	Became	a	Literary	Legend.”	
The	Oregonian,	December	3,	2017.	https://www.oregonlive.com/history/2017/12	
/the_rise_of_katherine_dunn_how.html.	
“Poolroom	Plan	Ires	Laurelhurst	Park	Residents.”	The	Oregonian,	March	21,	1969.	
NewsBank.	
Portland	Park	Board.	Report	of	the	Park	Board,	Portland,	Oregon,	1903,	with	the	report	of	
Messrs.	Olmsted	Bros.,	landscape	architects,	outlining	a	system	of	parkways,	
boulevards	and	parks	for	the	city	of	Portland	(Portland,	OR:	The	Board,	1903).	
Portland	Parks	&	Recreation.	“Dawson	Park.”	Website	of	the	city	of	Portland.	Accessed	May	
14,	2023.	https://www.portland.gov/parks/dawson-park.	
—.	“Dawson	Park	Improvements	Phase	2.”	Website	of	the	city	of	Portland.	August	26,	2022.	
https://www.portland.gov/sites/default/files/2022/2022_0826-public-Outreach-
event.pdf.	
—.	“Grant	Park.”	Website	of	the	city	of	Portland.	Accessed	April	30,	2023.	https://	
www.portland.gov/parks/grant-park.	
—.	“Laurelhurst	Park.”	Website	of	the	city	of	Portland.	Accessed	May	25,	2023.	
https://www.portland.gov/parks/laurelhurst-park.	
145 
 
—.	“Washington	Park.”	Website	of	the	city	of	Portland.	Accessed	May	26,	2023.	
https://www.portland.gov/parks/washington-park.	
—.	“Park	Tree	Inventory	Data.”	Website	of	the	city	of	Portland,	accessed	May	25,	2023.	
https://www.portland.gov/trees/get-involved/treeinventory#toc-data-reports-
and-maps.	
“Quotations	on	Rhetoric.	Website	of	University	of	Wisconsin-Milwaukee,	accessed	June	2,	
2023.	https://uwm.edu/rhetorical-leadership/program/quotes-on-rhetoric.	
Rai,	Candice.	Democracy’s	Lot:	Rhetoric,	Politics,	and	the	Places	of	Invention.	Tuscaloosa:	
University	of	Alabama	Press,	2016.	
Riesenweber,	Julie.	“Landscape	Preservation	and	Cultural	Geography.”	In	Longstreth,	
Cultural	Landscapes,	23-34.	
Robbins,	William.	“William	Jasper	Kerr	(1863–1947),”	July	19,	2022.	https://	
www.oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/kerr-william.	
Roper,	Caitlin.	“Geek	Love	at	25:	How	a	Freak	Family	Inspired	Your	Pop	Culture	Heroes.”	
Wired,	March	7,	2014.	https://www.wired.com/2014/03/geek-love.	
Ross	Ferrara,	John.	“Is	the	Washington	Park	Amphitheater	Dying?”	Website	of	KOIN	6	
News,	October	23,	2022.	https://www.koin.com/news/portland/is-the-
washington-park-amphitheater-dying.	
“Self-Guided	Tour.”	Friends	of	Washington	Park	International	Rose	Test	Garden,	May	2018.	
https://waparkrosefriends.org/self-guided-tour.	
Silberman,	Neil.	“Heritage	Interpretation	as	Public	Discourse:	Towards	a	New	Paradigm.”	In	
Albert,	Bernecker,	and	Rudolff,	Understanding	Heritage,	21–33.	
146 
 
Smith,	Julian.	“Cultural	Landscape	Theory	and	Practice:	Moving	from	Observation	to	
Experience.”	In	Albert,	Bernecker,	and	Rudolff,	Understanding	Heritage,	49–66.	
Smith,	Suzette	and	Justin	Yau.	“Amid	Nightly	Protests,	Pipe	Bombs	Explode	in	Laurelhurst	
Park.”	Willamette	Week,	August	10,	2020.	https://www.wweek.com/news/courts	
/2020/08/09/amid-nightly-protests-pipe-bombs-explode-in-laurelhurst-park.	
Taylor,	Hilary	A.	“Urban	Public	Parks,	1840-1900:	Design	and	Meaning.”	Garden	History	23,	
no.	2	(1995):	201–21.	https://doi.org/10.2307/1587078.	
The	Katherine	Dunn	Archives	(OLPb164DUN).	Lewis	&	Clark	College	Aubrey	Watzek	
Library	Archives	&	Special	Collections.	Portland,	Oregon.	
Tilden,	Freeman.	Interpreting	Our	Heritage.	Chapel	Hill:	University	of	North	Carolina	Press,	
1957.	
“Town	Hall	Gossip:	Gleaned	by	the	Gossiper.”	Oregon	Journal,	September	16,	1923.	
NewsBank.	
Walter	H.	and	Florence	Holmes	Gerke	Landscape	Architecture	Drawings	and	Photographs	
1934-1946,	Coll	144.	University	of	Oregon	Special	Collections	and	University	
Archives.	
Weisensee,	Erika.	“Portland	Rose	Festival.”	Oregon	Encyclopedia,	February	24,	2023.	
https://www.oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/portland_rose_festival.	
“What	The	Heck	Is	The	Difference	Between	Hybrid	Tea,	Grandiflora	&	Floribunda	Roses?”	
Sunnyside	Nursery	(blog),	June	11,		2018.	https://www.sunnysidenursery.net	
/sunnyside-blogs/2018/6/11/what-the-heck-is-the-difference-between-hybrid-
tea-grandiflora-floribunda-roses.	
147 
 
Williams,	Marlena.	“Katherine	Dunn	(1945–2016).”	Oregon	Encyclopedia,	October	14,	
2022.		https://www.oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/dunn-katherine.	
Willingham,	William.	“City	of	Portland	Civic	Planning,	Development,	&	Public	Works,	1851-
1965,”	2009.	https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794	
/8907/Portland_Civic_Planning_Historic_Context_2009.pdf.	
—.	“Open	Space	&	Park	Development	1851-1965,”	2010.	https://www.portland.gov/sites	
/default/files/2020/open-space-and-park-developement-1851-to-1965-2010.pdf.	
Wilson,	William.	The	City	Beautiful	Movement.	Baltimore:	Johns	Hopkins	University	Press,	
1989.	
Young,	Jenny.	“Pickleball	Courts	to	Replace	Homeless	Camps	at	Laurelhurst	Park.”	Website	
of	KOIN	6	News,	November	1,	2022.	https://www.koin.com/news/pickleball-
courts-to-replace-homeless-camps-at-laurelhurst-park.	
	 	
148 
 
	
	 	
149 
 
IMAGE	CREDITS	
Figure	1:	Base	image	courtesy	of	Google	Earth	
Figure	4:	Base	image	courtesy	of	Google	Earth	
Figure	6:	Courtesy	of	Center	for	Spatial	Analysis	and	Research	at	Portland	State	University	
Figure	9:	Courtesy	of	Amelia	Shields	
Figure	10:	Courtesy	of	Multnomah	County	Library	
Figure	15:	Courtesy	of	Oregon	Historical	Society	Research	Library	
Figure	17:	Courtesy	of	NewsBank	
Figure	19:	Base	image	courtesy	of	Google	Earth	
Figure	28:	Courtesy	of	Oregon	Historical	Research	Library	
Figure	29:	Courtesy	of	University	of	Oregon	Special	Collections	and	Archives	
Figure	31:	Courtesy	of	Oregon	Historical	Research	Library	and	Portland	Parks	&	Recreation	
Figure	33:	Courtesy	of	Oregon	Historical	Society	Research	Library	
Figure	34:	Courtesy	of	the	Katherine	Dunn	estate	
Figure	35:	Courtesy	of	Laura	Park	
Figure	36:	Courtesy	of	the	Katherine	Dunn	estate
150