martinhouseclr

89 2 // SITE HISTORY & EVOLUTION known plant material and the vacant lot in the foreground of one particular photo – a residential lot across the street that remained unoccupied to at least 1916. 210 The introduction of the flagpole would correspond with the beginning of America’s involvement in World War I in 1914, being a display of patriotism. Though not clearly visible in all photos through the Martin’s remaining tenure, the flagpole would remain on the property until at least 1940. 211 212 [Fig. 66] Other additions include a garden sculpture intended early on in Wright’s design process to be placed atop masonry piers within the garden. [Fig. 67] Although commissioned and designed beginning around 1907, the Richard W. Bock sculpture entitled Spring was not cast and placed in the garden until 1916. 213 It was placed on the southern-most masonry pier associated with 210 The 1916 Sanborn map (Buffalo NY, Vol. 5, map panels 531 and 537) shows the house at 130 Jewett Parkway did not exist by that date. However, Erie County records note this house as being built in 1900, with the adjacent number 136 Jewett Parkway noted as being constructed in 1925. Based on the location of the photo, it is clear that the photographer is standing in the (weedy, unbuilt) yard of 130 Jewett. Thus, the Erie County records seen inaccurate. Correspondingly, the 1900 Sanborn map indicates that both lots were originally part of a much larger 124 Jewett Parkway (the corner lot) having been subdivided off between 1900 and 1916 – number 136 (the western-most lot) would have been subdivided off and constructed first. 211 The flagpole is last visible in a circa 1939 photo taken by Jay Baxstrasser for a Buffalo Architecture retrospective held in 1940 at what was then called the Albright Art Gallery of the Buffalo Fine Arts Academy (Albright Knox museum). 212 It should be noted that no photos exist showing an actual flag on the flagpole – only the pole itself. 213 Martin House Restoration Corporation, Fact Sheet: Richard Walter Bock’s Spring, Susana Tejada, 2013 the Summit terrace wall and, after 1916, was photographed several times and an important feature of the garden. Other than the documented changes noted above, any changes in character of the Martin House landscape during this time were primarily related to the maturation of plant material. Shrubs around the property became larger and more substantial, requiring thinning and pruning – most certainly keeping the gardener busy. Due to the planted density as-designed, it would likely have been the Floricycle feature that saw the most substantial changes. The nature of the design, with large repeating masses of extraordinarily densely planted shrubs in the outermost rings, a similar density of an assortment perennials in the inner rings – all repeating along an arc extending more than 160 lineal feet along the outside radius – would have required substantial thinning early on. Though not entirely mature, by circa 1913, the outer shrubs of the Floricycle reached a height sufficient to block most views exchanged between the verandah and the public street corner. 214 Considering the density of planted material, it would have been extremely difficult to maintain the rigid architecture-like standardization of the Floricycle unit-design. Both shrubs and, particularly early on, perennials, would have competed with one another for light and space. Still, it is only by this time where some 214 Being planted bare-root method, which seems to be the case for Martin House woody plant material and was more common in the period, would have prolonged the visual maturity of the shrubs around the property. This explains why the shrubs of the Floricycle are barely visible in photos dated prior to 1910. Fig. 65 View of dining room facade from Summit Terrace, showing elm tree, c. 1915.