History

The Marion Park cultural landscape was first laid out in 1791 as an unassigned open reservation in Pierre L’Enfant’s plan for the city of Washington. Despite its proximity to the Capitol and the Navy Yard, the area around the cultural landscape remained largely undeveloped until the mid-19th century.

The period between 1884-1905 marked one of the most substantial periods of development for the Marion Park cultural landscape. Within that period, Marion Park was laid out as a formal public park for the first time, graded, planted, and rehabilitated by the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds (OPBG). In 1884, the OPBG combined two small triangular reservations into one reservation for the first time and declared it “Reservation 18.” The reservation occupied a rectangular footprint that was bifurcated by 5th Street SE; a traffic circle was located at the center of the park. Also in 1884, the initial design of the park was laid out in keeping with 19th-century ideas of the picturesque, with curved walkways and a central focal element. In 1887, Reservation 18 was named after South Carolina military officer Brigadier General Francis Marion, nicknamed “the Swamp Fox.” Considered a hero of the American Revolution to many South Carolinians, the OPBG decided to name the reservation along South Carolina Avenue SE after him. The initial improvement of Reservation 18 was completed in 1887 with the renaming of the park and the installation of a large iron vase at the center of the park, within the traffic circle. Marion Park was again rehabilitated in 1905, resulting in new plantings and the installation of a large, central, concrete fountain in place of the vase.

From 1925-1933, Marion Park was among the few public spaces where segregated black and white communities overlapped. During this period, white neighbors lodged repeated complaints with park officials with the express intent of excluding black residents from using the park. In particular, white residents complained that Black youth were overrunning the park’s fountain. In 1933, officials acceded to these segregationist complaints and removed the central fountain.

The condition of the cultural landscape deteriorated after this period, as few changes were made to Marion Park until the 1960s, due to lack of funding. By 1962, conditions in Marion Park had greatly deteriorated, prompting National Park Service officials to reevaluate the state of the park. In 1964, the Marion Park cultural landscape was redesigned based on contemporary principles of modern landscape design. Between 1965-1970, the park underwent additional improvements as part of Lady Bird Johnson’s Beautification program.

The cultural landscape retains integrity to the final period of significance (1964-1970) and is in good condition.

Analysis + Evaluation

Landscape characteristics identified for Marion Park are: land use; topography; spatial organization; circulation; views and vistas; vegetation; buildings and structures; and small-scale features.

Land Use: Land use refers to the principal activities conducted upon the landscape and how these uses organized, shaped, and formed the land. The publication of the L’Enfant Plan in 1791 set aside small parks to serve as public green space for passive recreation, a land use that has continued to the present day. Historically, the Marion Park cultural landscape likely was used also for agricultural cultivation; this continued into the 19th century, until the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds (OPBG) reasserted its control and management of the reservation. In 1887, the future cultural landscape took on a commemorative use based on its renaming as Marion Park in memory of Revolutionary War figure Francis Marion, known as “the Swamp Fox.” During the final period of significance (1962-1970), the cultural landscape’s recreational use expanded to include active recreation, as a play area was constructed on the eastern third of the park. The cultural landscape is no longer used for agriculture, but it retains its historic function as public green space for both passive and active recreational use. The current uses of Marion Park are consistent with the final period of significance, and Marion Park therefore retains integrity with respect to land use.

Topography: Topography refers to the three-dimensional configuration of the landscape surface, characterized by features such as slope, articulation, orientation, and elevation. Historically, Marion Park has been relatively flat, with a descending slope from the northeast to the southwest. This is in keeping with the general topography of the District of Columbia near the Anacostia River. The park was formally graded and developed in 1884. Curbing was installed at this time and the reservation was graded to the edges of the curb. 5th Street SE bisected the park and was graded around a central traffic circle. This topography remained consistent until the final period of significance (1962-1970), when 5th SE was closed and filled within the park boundaries and earthen berms were added around the play area in panel A2. The topography of Marion Park is consistent with the final period of significance, as no change has been made to the cultural landscape’s topography since this time. As such, the cultural landscape’s topography retains integrity.

Spatial Organization: A cultural landscape’s spatial organization refers to the three-dimensional organization of physical forms and visual associations in the landscape, including articulation of ground, vertical, and overhead planes that define and create spaces. The L’Enfant and Ellicott Plans established the spatial organization of the cultural landscape during the first period of significance; as laid out in those designs, the cultural landscape comprised two triangular reservations bounded by South Carolina Avenue SE and 5th Street SE. During the second period of significance, the reservation was combined for the first time into a unified rectangle and organized along a bilaterally symmetrical plan, with plants and trees to define the edges and entrances of the park. The design during this period was organized around a series of central focal elements, including a vase and later, a concrete fountain. During the third period of significance (1925-1933), white residents successfully lobbied the National Park Service for the removal of the fountain in an intentional effort to exclude black residents from the cultural landscape. The removal of the fountain altered the centrally organized cultural landscape. Over the course of the 20th century, vegetation died and was not replanted prior to the final period of significance; this had the effect of reorganizing the cultural landscape around largely open lawns with few other elements. During the final period of significance, 5th Street SE was closed through the cultural landscape, unifying the park as one continuous parcel. The 1964 design of Marion park formed an orthogonal grid of 3x3 of lawns, separated by north-south and east-west walkways (see Figure 26). The cultural landscape retains the footprint established during the second period of significance. Its spatial organization is otherwise consistent with the landscape conditions at the end of the last period of significance (1962-1970). The cultural landscape therefore retains integrity of spatial organization.

Circulation: Circulation is defined by the spaces, features, and applied material finishes that constitute systems of movement in a landscape. All of the L’Enfant small parks, including Marion Park, are located within traffic rights-of-way, and as a result, city streets border the parks on all sides. The relationship of the reservations’ internal circulation features to the surrounding street grid is a fundamental element of the L’Enfant Plan and an integral part of the circulation patterns for later park development. The OPBG defined this relationship at Marion Park in 1884, using curvilinear walkways to link the central traffic circle of the park with the surrounding streets. These walkways were replaced during subsequent periods of significance, but the park’s points of entry and exit at 4th and 6th Streets SE have remained consistent. The existing conditions at the Marion Park cultural landscape are consistent with the circulation features in place by the end of the final period of significance (1962-1970). The National Park Service installed a gridded brick walkway in the 1964 design for Marion Park. This plan remains clearly legible today and the Marion Park cultural landscape retains integrity with respect to circulation.

Views and Vistas: Views and vistas are defined as the prospect afforded by a range of vision in the landscape, conferred by the composition of other landscape characteristics and associated features. The cultural landscape’s views and vistas are subject to the conditions of its topography, surrounding vegetation, and the buildings and structures in its vicinity. Until the 19th century, the cultural landscape likely had limited views due to its relatively low elevation (compared with the topography closer to Rock Creek, for example) and its documented vegetation features. However, beginning in the late-18th century, it did enjoy a view to the northeast of two historic estates along South Carolina Avenue SE: the Carbery House and the Maples. By the mid-19th century, the cultural landscape likely enjoyed views toward the new (and enlarged) dome of the United States Capitol to the north and the developing Navy Yard to the south. The Marion Park cultural landscape retains external views consistent with the second, third, and final periods of significance, including historic views of nearby landmarks like the Mt. Jezreel Baptist Church and Carberry House, and views along South Carolina Avenue SE. The cultural landscape also retains internal vistas along axial walkways consisted with the final period of significance. As a result, the Marion Park cultural landscape retains integrity of views and vistas.

Vegetation: Vegetation features are characterized by the deciduous and evergreen trees, shrubs, vines, ground covers and herbaceous plants, and plant communities, whether indigenous or introduced in the landscape. In general, the planting plans for the individual reservations within the Marion Park cultural landscape changed several times between the different periods of significance. This includes transitions from dense plantings of shrubs and trees to open lawns. Vegetation was not defined in L’Enfant’s original design for open spaces in Washington, D.C., and the landscape likely retained light agricultural use in the 18th and early 19th centuries. During the second period of significance (1884-1905), the OPBG planted turf grass, shade trees, shrubs, and flowers in the Marion Park cultural landscape as part of the delineation and development of small parks in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The cultural landscape underwent several rehabilitations during the second period of significance, each time resulting in the addition of new vegetation features. Over the course of the early and mid-20th century (including during the third period of significance, 1925-1933), the vegetation pattern shifted: as trees and shrubs died, they were not replaced, resulting in open lawn areas rather than dense planting beds. During the final period of significance (1962-1970), the cultural landscape was redesigned. The new vegetation plan incorporated the few remaining extant OPBG-era trees, and new plantings were added according to a Modernist planting palette and pattern. Vegetation added during the final period of significance was limited to plants with high-canopy trees and low-profile shrubs like Magnolias (Magnolia soulangeana; stellata), American Yellowwood (Cladrastis kentukea), and the Panicled Goldenrain tree (Koelreuteria paniculate). The cultural landscape’s vegetation is generally consistent with the final period of significance, as vegetation features typically have been replaced with similar species. The Marion Park cultural landscape therefore retains integrity with respect to vegetation.

Buildings and Structures: Building features refer to the elements primarily built for sheltering any form of human activities; structures refer to the functional elements constructed for other purposes than sheltering human activity. Historically, the cultural landscape did not feature any buildings and structures until the final period of significance (1964-1970), when a new play structure was added at the eastern end of the park in panel A2. This structure was subsequently replaced during a renovation campaign in the 1990s. The current play structure, while located in the same location, is non-historic and does not contribute to the significance of the Marion Park cultural landscape. However, the cultural landscape does retain integrity with respect to buildings and structures as the land use in this area has remained consistent with various iterations of playground structures in the same location over time.

Small Scale Features: Small-scale features are the elements that provide detail and diversity, combined with function and aesthetics to a landscape. The extant small-scale features within the Marion Park cultural landscape include both historic and non-historic features. There were no known small-scale features in the cultural landscape prior to the second period of significance (1884-1905). During this period, the OPBG installed benches, signage, and a vase. These features were removed or replaced in or prior to the fourth period of significance (1962-1970). New small-scale features included modern trash cans, drinking fountains, signage, and additional benches. Additionally, several non-contributing small-scale features have been added that postdate all periods of significance. Most of the current small-scale features have replaced previous small-scale features in the same locations as the 1964 design and are compatible with the last period of significance. The presence of non-contributing features does not detract from the significant influence of the contributing features. The Marion Park cultural landscape therefore retains integrity of small-scale features.

REAP Summary Observations

Our team spent a year studying Marion Park, building an understanding of both its history and its current value for the community that surrounds it. We conducted extensive archival research to understand the landscape as it took shape over several centuries, and we undertook a rapid ethnographic assessment to learn how that landscape is used and shaped by park visitors today. Based on this research, we offered some overarching observations:

Marion Park is a neighborhood-centric park. The park is integrated with the neighborhood, connected with the street grid and used by local residents.

The park is somewhat isolated within southeast DC. Although Marion Park is well-situated and -scaled within the street grid, it is located several blocks away from the closest Metro stop. Instead, it is closer to the highway, which has an isolating effect as people bypass this part of Capitol Hill.

Demographically, the neighborhood around Marion Park has experienced significant change over the last several decades. Since 2000, the Capitol Hill neighborhood has gotten whiter and wealthier, and households have more children now than they did 20 years ago. This echoes similar demographic changes in Washington, DC overall, but these shifts have been more acute in Capitol Hill.

Our REAP analysis suggests that this park functions as a gathering place for local residents, rather than a destination for more distanced DC residents/visitors. The park is appealing for local families with children, dog-walkers, people-watchers, etc. It does not have any distinguishing features (e.g. a statue) or popular amenities to draw visitors from longer distances.

The park has a clear, albeit isolated, identity. Marion Park is identifiable by name, with defined boundaries and a cohesive landscape design.

The park is fully accessible. Marion Park is ADA-friendly, with wide, maintained, flat walkways throughout the park.

The park’s playground and lawns are the two most prominent and popular features of the park. There are no flower beds to mark seasonal changes, but the lawns suffer in winter months.

The landscape design serves different audiences and uses in a balanced way. Marion Park is popular with both young children (who use the playground) and dog-walkers (who use the lawn) These populations present potential for conflict, as dogs (on- or off-leash) could frighten young children. However, Marion Park accommodates both of these functions well: the physical distinctions between the playground and the lawns—including the wide walkways and the low fence around the playground—mediates between these functions so that they do not conflict.

The park is considered clean and well-managed, but there are no features to link this stewardship with the National Park Service. With little regulatory signage and no interpretive opportunities, park visitors may not associate Marion Park with the National Park Service. NPS therefore may not reap the associational benefits of visitors’ positive experiences in this park.

The park is embedded in a neighborhood of local institutions. The park is flanked by a church and a police sub-station, and the neighborhood is well-served by (and a component of) civic infrastructure.

However, the park has few clear-cut stakeholders in the form of organized groups. There is no active friends group for Marion Park, and no identifiable organization with which the National Park Service could collaborate as a partner in managing and stewarding this public space.