|
| |
| |
2 |
| |
|
| The photograph collection that documented parkway development was a particularly effective tool in promoting a positive public image of the BPC and BRPR. Photographs provided striking images of the problems along Bronx River and showed how parkway development would solve those issues. The earliest BPC reports featured photographs intended to convince the public, as well as authorities that allocated tax dollars, that the project was not only worthwhile, but absolutely necessary. The problematic conditions along the river were vividly illustrated in photographs that depicted flooding, sewage, rubbish dumps, slum housing, factories, stables, farms, billboards, and other blights on the landscape. The reports also included a few photographs of natural beauty in Scarsdale and Hartsdale that were already suitable for park purposes. The BPC’s 1912 report was crucial because its timing coincided with the commission’s efforts to convince New York authorities to approve the parkway and grant funding. It contained a full complement of photographs depicting both the ugly conditions of the river and the areas of natural beauty. Excerpts from the 1912 report appeared in area newspapers.(76) Thousands of photographs were made that documented all types of conditions along the Bronx River.(77) In looking at the BPC’s published reports, one would think that the parkway was little more than a slum clearance project. The BPC carefully selected compelling views to win the sympathies of its intended audience. The majority of photographs appearing in the annual reports and other publicity efforts depicted pollution problems and low-class housing. The broader collection of photographs taken by the BPC, but not necessarily published, presented a more diversified impression of the affected area. In addition to showing pollution problems and the beautiful natural areas along the river, the photographs demonstrated that a number of substantial houses and seemingly successful businesses were located in the path of the proposed parkway. These commercial establishments ranged from modest butcher shops to ornate hotels. Some of the houses slated for removal or destruction appeared almost brand new and conformed to contemporary ideals of middle-class suburban attainment. By focusing on the slum conditions and ugly billboards, the commission made the case that it was doing a great public service by transforming slums and public health menaces into pleasant and attractive parkland. The preferred method of promoting the BPC’s achievements was to publish "before" and "after" photographs that demonstrated the success of the commission’s landscape reclamation work. These sets of photos appeared in newspapers, BPC reports, and public presentations. Newspapers supported the claim that the BRPR was a public heath improvement project by highlighting its sanitary importance. Many accounts also noted its broader social and aesthetic value in eliminating low class developments that struck middle- and upper class viewers as unsightly, unwholesome, and threatening. Commissioner Niles ascribed the deterioration of the Bronx River’s environs to the replacement of the French Canadian population that had dominated the area in his youth with a new working class element dominated by Italian immigrants, who were purportedly less tidy and well-behaved than their Francophonic predecessors. According to Niles, conditions deteriorated when the new element arrived. He also noted an increase in the presence of factories and other business of a "cheap class" that defiled the river with their pollution and ruined the scenery with their messy and utilitarian appearance.(78) |
|
|
|
|
| (76)Bronx
Parkway Commission, Report, 1907, Exhibit 16 and 22; Report,
1916, various photographs; Evening Sun, September 22, 1912. |
|
|
