19世紀のボルチモアにおけるガーデン•スクエアの建設とその変容に関する研究

摘要

「ガーデン•スクエア」は、18世紀以降のイギリスの都市型住宅地開発でみられた緑地で、その空間は鍵付きの鉄製の柵で囲われ、権利を持つ周辺住民のみが利用できるという特徴があり、美観の維持そして独占的空間利用への願望がデザインに示された例としてとりあげられる。この形式の緑地は、19世紀のアメリカでもニューョーク、ボストンやメリーランド州ボルチモアといった大都市で例があったことが確認されているが、それほど多くが作られないうちに一般に開放される緑地「公園」に取って代られた。これらのうちボルチモアについては全体像が把握されておらず、また当初ガーデン•スクエアとして建設されたものが現在までに柵のない公園になったという独自性があるが、その経緯も確認されていない。本研究では、同市でのガーデン•スクエアの概要と変容の過程を明らかにし、また海外の緑地整備の傾向と比較してその位置付けを行う。%This paper's subject is the garden square in 19th century Baltimore, which originated from the ones built in urban residential areas in London. These gardens were originally characterized by exclusive use and maintenance of beauty in urban spaces as demonstrated by their private ownership and enclosed locked railings. First, I show an overview of the development of Baltimore's garden squares by examining newspaper articles, contemporaneous books, and existing research. These gardens began to be built in the first half of the 19th century just as development of row houses began to emerge, and began to decline after larger parks flourished under the initiative of the city government and after suburban detached homes began to rise in prominence. Nine garden squares, three boulevard type squares (in which the center space of major streets were greened and enclosed by railings) were built at the initiative of the residential developers and landowners; however, the grounds were later donated to the city, which paid construction expenses, and open to the public. It is revealed that landowners expected to make these residential development projects successful without paying these expenses. The city corporation, however, did not actively promote construction and greening, and the progress depends on the local commissioners and neighbors. Next, I describe a successful campaign in 1873 to remove the iron railings, an event that has never been discussed. The railings were removed from all squares by the 1880s, and subsequent railings have never been built. According to newspaper articles, campaigners claimed moral superiority and that there were educational benefits of removing these railings. It is also worth noting that in spite of the lack of the city involvement in the gardens' maintenance, city's ownership made the discussion regarding railings open to the public beyond the gardens' actual users and administrators and promoted a citywide change. From examination of contemporary examples in the continental Europe, which was mentioned in the articles as a model to emulate, I infer that the campaigners wanted to introduce design of Place, the new mode of urban green space introduced to Paris as a part of Georges-Eugene Hausseman's renovation of that city. The campaign for these small garden square renovations has the same structure of logic as the movement for larger parks in the United States, where promoters (mainly the bourgeoisie) hoped to simultaneously realize social integration and aesthetics. As a matter of fact, however, most garden squares were located in quiet residential areas without any attraction for the general public (such as amusement facilities), and the number of people who enjoyed these squares should have been limited. In addition, removal of railings occurred only in garden squares, not in the two large parks built in late-19th century Baltimore. So the campaigners' intention was a renewal of out-of-date garden squares to fashionable Places. Thus I conclude that these iron railings were not a reflection of governance or exclusivity based on ownership and administration, but were a cultural existence, as they were customarily built and influenced by fashion, whose removal symbolized social reform.