University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A life in landscape: Howard Oshiyama and the gardens of Buff & Hensman's King residence

(USC Thesis Other)

A life in landscape: Howard Oshiyama and the gardens of Buff & Hensman's King residence

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

A LIFE IN LANDSCAPE:

HOWARD OSHIYAMA AND THE GARDENS OF

BUFF & HENSMAN’S KING RESIDENCE

by

Heather Marie Goers

A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION

December 2012

Copyright 2012 Heather Marie Goers
ii

DEDICATION

For Howard, Tom, and Kyle.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I first encountered the King Residence on what was quite literally a dark and
stormy night. At the time, amidst the rain and sleet, I thought it was a minor victory to
have actually completed the drive to the house. I had no idea that my journey was only
beginning. The King Residence and its gardens are a very special place, as are the people
who have created and nurtured them, and I feel incredibly fortunate to have had the
opportunity to study the property at such length. I am indebted to everyone who
participated in this project in ways both small and large.
First and foremost, Tom Oshiyama generously shared his family history with me,
as well as his personal recollections of his father, Howard Oshiyama, and Conrad Buff III
and Don Hensman. I know that the lessons I have learned from my conversations with
Tom about his life and work, as well as that of his father, go far beyond the scope of this
study. I am deeply honored that he chose to entrust me with his family’s legacy. Without
his participation, this project truly would not have been possible.
Richard and Carol King graciously opened their home and their lives to me
whenever I asked. From that very first “dark and stormy” evening, they have always
welcomed me with open arms and open hearts. Whatever the question or request, I don’t
believe they ever said no, and this study is all the better for their abundant hospitality. I
would also like to extend my gratitude to the Kings on behalf of the students of the
University of Southern California. With the foundation of the Carol Soucek King and
Richard King Center for Architecture, Arts, and the Humanities, students like me will
benefit from their generosity for many years to come.
iv

I am also greatly indebted to my thesis committee, whose continued presence and
patience throughout this journey have been very much appreciated. Dr. Kenneth Breisch,
former Director of the Graduate Program in Historic Preservation, as well as my chair
and advisor, has been the touchstone of my experience at USC. The depth and breadth of
his knowledge of architectural and cultural history is eclipsed only by his enthusiasm, and
his passion for this study in particular was contagious. Trudi Sandmeier, former Director
of Education at the Los Angeles Conservancy and now the Director of the Graduate
Program in Historic Preservation at USC, provided an abundance of personal life
coaching in addition to her pragmatic direction and thoughtful criticism. Leland Saito,
Associate Professor of Sociology and American Studies and Ethnicity at USC, and his
thought-provoking American Studies class first inspired me to attempt this topic, which
interested me personally but was far beyond the scope of my previous experience. I
greatly appreciated his considered comments and feedback.
I would also be remiss in not thanking Ann Scheid, my outside reader, as well as
archivist of the Greene and Greene archives at the Huntington Library and a venerable
Pasadena historian. She had answers to all of my obscure history questions and many
more besides. I am grateful to have had her input on the discussion of Pasadena history
and the development of the Arroyo Seco.
There were times during the writing of this thesis that I really began to understand
the maxim, “It takes a village.” My research efforts were aided greatly by the support and
generosity exhibited by the Pasadena historic preservation community as well as the
“village” of Buff & Hensman admirers, clients, and scholars. These included but are
certainly not limited to Dennis Smith, surviving partner of Buff, Smith & Hensman,
v

Kevin Johnson, planner for the City of Pasadena, Patty Judy and the staff of Pasadena
Heritage, Charles Birnbaum, John Crosse, Miller Fong, Randell Makinson, Alex
Moseley, and Mark Traughber. And after what was undoubtedly a “blast from the past”
in her Flickr messages, Toby Abrams Schober graciously granted me permission to use
her early photos of the King Residence, taken thirty-two years ago when she was a
student at the Art Center College of Design.
My friends and colleagues, both at the University of Southern California and
beyond, provided endless encouragement, feedback, and support. In particular, I am
thankful to have shared this journey with Dana Marinin, who loves Frank Lloyd Wright,
takes better notes than anyone I know, and always knows just what to say. Also, Sienna
Brown, whom I have known since before either one of us knew what we wanted to do
with our lives, made a very fortuitous relocation to Los Angeles during the writing of my
thesis, which enabled me to glean a great deal of wisdom from her perspective as a
dissertation survivor. I have benefited greatly from her friendship, and this thesis has
benefited from her diligent proofreading and copy-editing.
Finally, my heartfelt thanks goes to my family: to Daisy, the fuzziest member of
my thesis advisory committee and constant writing supervisor; and to Patrick, my chef,
driver, editor, fellow hiker, graphic designer, housekeeper, illustrator, photographer,
proofreader, researcher, tech support guru, and resident legal representative. From hiking
the spider-infested banks of the Arroyo Seco to whiling away the hours in the basement
of the County Recorder’s building where the sun never shines, throughout every chapter
of this experience, you were always by my side. Thank you.
vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication .......................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... iii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................. viii
Abstract ...............................................................................................................................x
Introduction ........................................................................................................................1
Chapter One: History of an Arroyo Seco Landscape .....................................................5
The California Colony .............................................................................................6
Waste Not, Wood Lot ..............................................................................................8
“A Representative Citizen” ....................................................................................10
The Passing of a Park .............................................................................................17
Chapter Two: The King Residence and Gardens .........................................................24
Buff & Hensman and the “USC School” ...............................................................26
A Shift in Style.......................................................................................................32
The Significance of Siting .....................................................................................34
The Master Site Plan ..............................................................................................36
The Landscape Plan ...............................................................................................41
The Main Residence ..............................................................................................46
The Pool and Patio .................................................................................................48
The Tennis Court and Pavilion ..............................................................................51
The Garden Pathway and Gazebo ..........................................................................54
Fostering the Feeling of the Landscape .................................................................59
Chapter Three: History of Japanese American Gardeners in Southern
California, 1896-1956 ...........................................................................61
The Appeal of Contract Gardening ........................................................................63
The Demand for Contract Gardening ....................................................................67
Development of the Contract Gardening Profession: Pre-World War II ...............70
The Problems of World War II: Evacuation and Return .......................................74
Evolution of the Contract Gardening Profession: The Postwar Renaissance ........77
vii

The Next Nisei Gardeners ......................................................................................85
Chapter Four: The Life and Work of Howard Oshiyama, 1917-2003 .......................86
Early Life and Education .......................................................................................87
World War II ..........................................................................................................88
Pasadena Gardeners in the Postwar Era .................................................................91
A Career in Contracting .........................................................................................93
Origins of the Oshiyama Style ...............................................................................95
Articulating the Japanese Aesthetic .....................................................................100
Collaborations ......................................................................................................102
A Return to the Roots of the Business .................................................................105
Transition and Tradition ......................................................................................106
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................111
The Problem With Preserving Landscapes ..........................................................113
Evaluating the Significance of the King Residence Landscape ...........................115
Suggestions for Future Research .........................................................................120
Planning for Future Preservation .........................................................................121
Bibliography ...................................................................................................................124
Appendix: Residences by Buff & Hensman With Landscapes by Howard
Oshiyama .....................................................................................................130

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 – James W. Scoville ........................................................................................ 11

Figure 1.2 – The Scoville Bridge, looking west, 1889 .................................................... 13

Figure 1.3 – View of Scoville Park, looking east to Pasadena, ca. 1893 ......................... 15

Figure 1.4 – The Scoville trestle bridge (foreground) and the Colorado Street Bridge
(under construction), 1912 ................................................................................................ 18

Figure 1.5 – The Scoville Bridge and the Colorado Street Bridge above, just after its
completion, ca. December, 1913 ....................................................................................... 19

Figure 1.6 – The Parker-Mayberry Bridge beneath the Colorado Street Bridge, looking
north, ca. 1919................................................................................................................... 21

Figure 1.7 – The Pioneers Bridge under construction, looking southeast, 1952 ............. 22

Figure 1.8 – Aerial view of the Pioneers Bridge (left) under construction, looking east,
1952................................................................................................................................... 22

Figure 2.1 – Conrad Buff III, Cal Straub, and Don Hensman ......................................... 26

Figure 2.2 – The Thompson/Moseley Residence, completed in 1959 ............................. 31

Figure 2.3 – The Scoville walls, as they appear on the King property today .................. 37

Figure 2.4 – Main residence, south façade, 2012. ............................................................ 38

Figure 2.5 – Main residence, north façade, 2012. ............................................................ 39

Figure 2.6 – Contemporary site plan ................................................................................ 40

Figure 2.7 – Original landscape plan for the King Residence, 1979 ............................... 45

Figure 2.8 – Main entrance, ca. 1980 ............................................................................... 47

Figure 2.9 – Main entrance, 2012 .................................................................................... 47

Figure 2.10 – Rear (north) façade, ca. 1980 ..................................................................... 49

Figure 2.11 – Rear (north) façade, 2012 .......................................................................... 49

ix

Figure 2.12 – Rear garden and pool, ca. 1980 ................................................................. 50

Figure 2.13 – Rear garden and pool, 2012 ....................................................................... 50

Figure 2.14 – Tennis court and pavilion, completed in 1985 .......................................... 52

Figure 2.15 – Pathway leading from the tennis court and pavilion to the gazebo ........... 53

Figure 2.16 – The pathway leading east from the patio to the gazebo ............................ 57

Figure 2.17 – The gazebo overlooking the Arroyo .......................................................... 58

Figure 4.1 – Howard Oshiyama ....................................................................................... 86

Figure 4.2 – Howard Oshiyama with his wife, Florence, and his two young daughters,
Frances (seated) and Yuriko, ca. 1949 .............................................................................. 90

Figure 4.3 – Howard Oshiyama with his son, Tom, in 1958 ........................................... 92

Figure 4.4 – Manshu-in Temple, Kyoto ........................................................................... 97

Figure 4.5 – Katsura Imperial Villa, Kyoto ..................................................................... 98

Figure 4.6 – Katsura Imperial Villa, Kyoto ..................................................................... 99

Figure 4.7 – Groupings of rocks in the garden of the King Residence .......................... 101

Figure 4.8 – Richard King’s chair, behind the pavilion, in the gardens of the King
Residence ........................................................................................................................ 108

Figure 4.9 – "The Oshiyama Boys" – Tom, Howard, and Kyle Oshiyama ................... 109

x

ABSTRACT

In the years following World War II, there were few sights more ubiquitous in
Southern California than that of the Japanese gardener. What was less commonplace,
however, was the opportunity for any one gardener to move beyond their perceived
societal role. In most cases, the work of a Japanese gardener was limited to maintenance-
related tasks, with little allowance for creativity or individual artistry.
One such gardener, Howard Oshiyama (1917-2003), rejected the notion that his
career would be confined to mowing lawns and blowing leaves. He transcended the
limited scope of the ethnic gardening industry to become a landscape contractor, planning
and installing landscapes during the heady postwar years of Southern California’s
architectural renaissance. His most important collaboration was with architects Conrad
Buff III and Don Hensman, with whom he would work for nearly forty years. Their
partnership culminated in the plan for the landscape of Buff & Hensman’s King
Residence, constructed in 1979 in Pasadena, California. Following the installation of an
initial landscape plan completed by the architects, Oshiyama continued to maintain the
property for almost a quarter of a century, making sensitive alterations and additions to
the landscape until his death in 2003.
Having received little formal education in landscape design, Howard Oshiyama
relied upon his own instinctive interpretations of the tenets of Japanese garden design. As
a practicing Zen Buddhist, he recognized the aesthetic principles inherent in the design of
Japanese gardens, but it was the spiritual beliefs the principles embodied, and to which he
subscribed, that gave his landscapes their true meaning.
xi

While Howard Oshiyama gained the personal and professional respect of his
peers for his spiritual approach to the landscape, widespread recognition of his artistry in
landscape design went unacknowledged and his body of work as a designer has been
largely ignored. His work at Buff & Hensman’s King Residence highlights his mastery of
landscape techniques and demonstrates the impact of his ongoing stewardship. This thesis
explores the contributions of Howard Oshiyama to the field of postwar landscape design
by highlighting his work at Buff & Hensman’s King Residence, provides a context within
which to understand and evaluate his work, and makes recommendations for the future
preservation of the King Residence landscape.
Chapter One of this thesis provides a historical overview of the development of
the western banks of the Arroyo Seco, where the King Residence now stands. Chapter
Two details the design and construction of the King property by architects Conrad Buff
III and Don Hensman and the subsequent stewardship of the landscape over time by
Howard Oshiyama. Chapter Three addresses the history of Japanese American gardeners
in Southern California and provides a context in which to consider Oshiyama’s career
and accomplishments. Chapter Four explores Howard Oshiyama’s life and work, the
philosophical beliefs and historical landscape motifs that informed his aesthetic, and the
evolution of his career-long collaboration with Buff & Hensman. Concluding comments
evaluate the significance of Oshiyama’s contributions to the King Residence landscape,
provide suggestions for further research, and make recommendations for the future
stewardship of the King property.

1

INTRODUCTION

In the years following World War II, there were few sights more ubiquitous in
Southern California than that of the Japanese gardener. So omnipresent was their role in
shaping the landscape that by 1976 they had earned this description from the Los Angeles
Times:
The mythical Asian gardener in California wears, khakis, T-shirt
and a faded pith helmet, was born with a “green thumb,” and eats little but
tea-flavored rice balls for lunch in his battered Chevrolet pickup.
This mythical gardener is a confusing mixture of politeness,
reserve, stubbornness and dedication and is a celebrated menace on the
highways.
1

While the author paints the picture of Japanese American gardeners with a fairly broad
brush, the existence of the stereotype indicates that the presence of Japanese American
gardeners had become commonplace. What was less commonplace, however, was the
opportunity for the armies of Japanese gardeners to move beyond their perceived societal
role – to do anything more than trim some hedges and mow some lawns. In most cases,
one’s work was frequently limited to what is commonly referred to as the “mow-and-
blow” school of gardening, where a pass with a lawnmower and a round with the leaf
blower was often the extent of a gardener’s responsibilities.
While this was sufficient for many Japanese Americans who were merely seeking
a stable job with a steady, albeit modest, stream of income, there were others who longed
to do more. Many Japanese American gardeners possessed a proficiency in horticulture
and landscape design that reached far beyond their station in life. While their skills were

1
Mark Jones, “In the Japanese Garden of Survival,” Los Angeles Times, September 26, 1976,
http://www.proquest.com (accessed July, 2011).

2

appreciated, their artistry often was not. For example, one of the great ironies of the
profession is that while it was considered a status symbol to employ a Japanese gardener,
few homeowners hired them to create Japanese gardens. “I did a small one in Beverly
Hills in the backyard, but usually people don’t ask me for that,” lamented one gardener,
Lou Kitashima. As he explained of one wealthy client, “all she wants is a bonsai plant put
on her table on the outside patio.”
2
And, in the 1971 documentary, Sam, one homeowner
recounts an instance where she left her gardener, Sam, unattended for a few hours with
instructions to trim a tree. When she returned, she found that he had trimmed the tree into
the shape of a bonsai. “You meant to do that all the while, didn’t you? You did!” she
exclaims, with a certain degree of bewilderment.
3

One worker who experienced such limitations was Howard Oshiyama, a Japanese
American gardener who had long been interested in the spiritual and philosophical
components of landscape design. For someone as creative as Oshiyama, the kind of
gardening expected of Japanese Americans cramped his style. In fact, as his son recalls,
he hated gardening. “I mean, he hated it,” confirms Tom Oshiyama.
4
Frustrated by the
tedious nature of the work, Howard Oshiyama was keen to carve out a niche for himself
within the limited scope of the gardening industry. He opted to pursue a career as a
landscape contractor, which would allow him at least some measure of independence and
creativity in the planning and installing of landscapes.

2
Lou Kitashima, “Japanese-style gardening to keep clients happy,” Watase Media Arts Center, Japanese
American National Museum, December 1, 2005; 2 min., 15 sec.,
http://www.discovernikkei.org/en/interviews/clips/744/ (accessed May, 2012).
3
Sam, directed by Margaret Bach, 1971, Beyond the Japanese Garden: Short Films and Documentaries
(Stories of Japanese American Gardeners & Their Gardens), DVD (Los Angeles, CA: Japanese American
National Museum, 2007).
4
Tom Oshiyama, conversation with the author, September 16, 2010.
3

In doing so, he also embarked upon a career-long collaboration with noted
architects Conrad Buff III and Don Hensman, and served as the contractor for some of
Buff & Hensman’s most recognized landscapes. However, while Oshiyama gained the
personal and professional respect of his peers for his principled approach to the
landscape, widespread recognition of his artistry in landscape design went
unacknowledged. Trapped within the definition of a landscape contractor, responsible
only for “installing” landscapes, Oshiyama’s body of work as a designer has been largely
ignored. His work at Buff & Hensman’s King Residence, constructed in 1979, represents
his mastery of landscape techniques and demonstrates the impact of his ongoing
stewardship of the gardens. This thesis explores the contributions of Howard Oshiyama
to the field of postwar landscape design by highlighting his work at Buff & Hensman’s
King Residence, provides a context within which to understand and evaluate his work,
and makes recommendations for the future preservation of the King Residence landscape.
Chapter One provides a historical overview of the development of the western
banks of the Arroyo Seco, where the King Residence now stands. The chapter examines
how the landscape, originally developed by philanthropist James W. Scoville in the 1880s
as Pasadena’s first park, underwent a transformation over the course of the twentieth
century from its early days as a privately-funded public works project to its more recent
role as witness to the history of transit development in Pasadena.
Chapter Two details the discovery and subsequent development of the King
Residence land by architects Conrad Buff III and Don Hensman. The chapter opens with
an overview of the early work of Buff & Hensman, and outlines the influences and
principles that shaped their designs. The following section presents the landscape plan for
4

the King property and discusses the collaboration between the two architects and their
longtime landscape contractor Howard Oshiyama. The chapter concludes with a
presentation of each component of the King Residence landscape, detailing its installation
by Oshiyama and development over time under his decades of stewardship.
Chapter Three traces the history of Japanese American gardeners in Southern
California, ranging from the origins of the vocation in the late 1890s to the industry’s
second renaissance in the postwar era. Also discussed is the significance of the profession
within the economic and social context Japanese American culture.
Chapter Four details the life and work of Howard Oshiyama. This chapter begins
by tracing Oshiyama’s early life and experiences during World War II, and continues
with an account of his ascendance within the ethnic niche of Japanese gardening to
become a highly respected landscape contractor. The second part of the chapter explores
the philosophical beliefs and historical landscape motifs that informed his aesthetic, as
well as the evolution of the career-long collaboration between Oshiyama and architects
Conrad Buff III and Don Hensman. The chapter closes with an account of the particular
significance the King House landscape held for Oshiyama, and the importance it
continues to hold for his son and grandson.
Concluding comments evaluate the significance of Oshiyama’s contributions to
the King Residence landscape, provide suggestions for further research, and make
recommendations for the future stewardship of the King property.

5

CHAPTER ONE
HISTORY OF AN ARROYO SECO LANDSCAPE

Although it may seem an inauspicious start to a thriving future city, Pasadena and
the Arroyo Seco as they are known today owe their beginnings to a dinner party – and to
the unfortunate end of some prize landscaping.
In 1873 the Fletchers were attending a dinner party at the home of Dr. and
Mrs. Thomas Elliott in Indianapolis when Mrs. Elliott began complaining
that the unusually harsh winter had killed all her prize caladium. Others at
the party joined in with complaints about the cold weather exacerbating
various aches and pains when Mrs. Thomas suggested that they should all
up and move to California. In fact, Mrs. Thomas proclaimed, if no one
wanted to go with her she would go on her own.
5

Indiana winters being what they were, it did not take much convincing on the part of Mrs.
Elliott to sell her friends on the idea of emigrating to warmer climes. As Henry Markham
Page noted, “This was the beginning of an idea which secretly may have been in the
minds of these people for some time but was now brought out into the open and it was
not allowed to die.”
6
A number of the Elliotts’ friends and family pledged to move to
California as well, and as word spread the number of interested parties soon reached a
critical mass. It was decided that the group would organize as a cooperative association in
order to maximize their collective financial resources. Thus, in May of 1873, the
California Colony of Indiana was formed.

5
Laura Wilkerson, “Spencer and the Rose Parade,” Library Happenings,
http://owenlib.blogspot.com/2012/01/spencer-and-rose-bowl.html (accessed January, 2012). See also
Henry Markham Page, Pasadena: Its Early Years (Los Angeles: Lorrin L. Morrison, 1964), 18.
6
Page, 18.
6

The California Colony
With money collected from the new members, the executive committee of the
Colony appointed a search committee to travel to California and “spy out the land.” Four
men were dispatched to California to examine potential locations. However, three of the
men disappeared along the way, abandoning the expedition for other jobs and interests.
This left the future home of the colony in the hands of Daniel M. Berry, a journalist and
brother-in-law of the esteemed Dr. Elliott.
Berry’s efforts to find and secure suitable land for the Indiana Colony were
thwarted by both man and nature: “I wish you were here just to knock around day and
night for a week in canjons, cactus nettles, jungles, dry river bottoms, etc.,” Berry wrote
to Elliott after a month of prospecting. “I have been at it 35 days and going again
Monday. It is no longer funny. I want to resign.”
7
Furthermore, on September 18, 1873,
the New York banking firm of Jay Cooke and Company, a prominent backer of the
burgeoning railroad industry, closed its doors amidst financial ruin in “the worst panic to
strike the country up to that time.”
8
When the economy collapsed and the real estate
market bottomed out, the colonists’ dreams went with it. Most of the Indianans had been
depending on the sale of their current homes in order to finance their share of the
settlement costs for the colony.
On the West Coast, however, things had finally begun to look up for Daniel
Berry. In September, 1873, he visited Rancho San Pasqual, and it was here that Berry
finally found his promised land.
Found a tract of twenty eight hundred acres at ten dollars an acre about
four miles from town, about five hundred acres a wooded and watered

7
Ann Scheid, Pasadena: Crown of the Valley (Northridge, CA: Windsor Publications, 1986), 26.
8
Page, 24.
7

canyon, suitable for cattle grazing. The wood is plenty, the water delicious
and cool, leaping out of the rocks on the side in little cascades…It is right
in line with all the best orange orchards and vineyards here and just as
good, with more water.
9

Although many settlers were still recovering from the financial crash of several
months earlier, they realized that in the San Pasqual land, Berry had delivered an
opportunity that might not present itself again. Therefore, on the evening of November
11, 1873, articles of incorporation were drawn up for the San Gabriel Orange Grove
Association.
The name was chosen since they felt that fruit grown in the San Gabriel
Valley had a better reputation and value than any other. The capital stock
was set at twenty-five thousand dollars, divided into one hundred shares at
two hundred fifty dollars each…It was understood that those who could
pay for the stock would do so at once and those who couldn’t would pay
for it as soon as they could.
10

For their $25,000, the San Gabriel Orange Grove Association received just over
3,900 acres in, according to Daniel Berry, “the fairest portion of California.”
11
Originally,
the deal had involved a much smaller plot of land, but at the eleventh hour of
negotiations, owner Benjamin Wilson offered to include some additional acreage. While
Wilson assured Berry that his interests were solely to incentivize the colonists, in fact the
land was considered impossible to develop and essentially worthless. The Association
had no interest in the additional land either, but agreed to its inclusion in the deal since
the taxes had already been paid. Aside from Wilson’s generous “gift” of 1,400
undevelopable acres, the deal also contained roughly 2,500 acres, three-fifths of which

9
Page, 21.
10
Ibid., 26. The Association was originally formed as a corporation, which would exist for ten years and
then dissolve – and so it did, in 1883. See Page, 57.
11
Scheid, 29.
8

were believed to be ideal for farming crops or growing fruit.
12
It was these 1,500 acres
that would form the foundation of Pasadena.

Waste Not, Wood Lot
When the colony was first established, the land containing the Arroyo Seco river
and the surrounding banks constituted most of the remainder of the original 2,500-acre
tract -- approximately nine hundred acres. Today, the area is the site of many residences,
including the King Residence, where the inhabitants treasure the picturesque setting the
Arroyo provides. In the beginning, however, the Arroyo was hardly deemed to be the
choicest acreage: due to its condition and topography it was not considered possible to
develop the area for any of the useful purposes that most concerned the colonists, like
farming, ranching, or habitation.
The river flowed in a winding channel through dense underbrush, where
many species of wild animals roamed at will; no portion of the land was in
even the primitive stages of cultivation, and to reach the lofty summit of
the hills, which form the western boundary of the purchase, one had to cut
his way with a hatchet through a dense and almost impenetrable thicket of
underbrush.
13

However, any natural resource, especially anything that could be used for fuel,
was considered too precious to be wasted in the lean years before the colony had fully
established itself. Therefore, in 1875, it was decided that the Arroyo land would be
subdivided into accompanying lots which the settlers could harvest for fuel.
14
Called

12
Wilson’s additional land was later sold off in parcels and developed into what is now known as Altadena.
See Page, 27, and Hiram A. Reid, History of Pasadena (Pasadena, CA: Pasadena History Company, 1895),
111.
13
“A Pasadena Park: What Mr. Scoville is Doing in the Arroyo Seco,” Los Angeles Times, December 18,
1889, http://www.proquest.com (accessed July, 2011).
14
J. W. Wood, Pasadena, California, Historical and Personal (Pasadena, CA: The author, 1917), 85. A
vote was taken among the colonists and the measure passed by a wide margin, with 119 shares in favor
versus 21 shares against.
9

“wood lots,” these one hundred lots were originally offered with each of the initial one
hundred shares of Colony land. They were platted as narrow strips of varying acreages
that extended entirely across the Arroyo, thus allowing the owner to harvest what he
could from the Arroyo bottoms, which were thick with brushwood, alder, sycamore, and
scrub oak trees.
15

In the early days of their subdivision, wood lots could sell for anywhere from $20
to $50 each, but later the price went as high as $62.50 or more. However, wood lots were
not in infinite supply and as early as 1883 their availability as a resource for fuel was
reported to be “scarce and rapidly diminishing.”
16
As the popularity of Pasadena
increased, so did its population – and so did the imposition on its natural resources. The
damage done to the landscape by the “wood lot” movement was, unfortunately, not
limited to the Arroyo Seco. An 1882 article in the Los Angeles Times bemoaned the state
of existing forests and proposed measures to “make timber plentiful and to render our
climate more genial.” First and foremost on the list of recommended actions to be taken
was a ban on wood lots used for the purposes of forage: “This should be a rule inflexible
and relentless.”
17

While such degradation of the landscape would be considered unconscionable
today, it is important to remember the context of the era: without the benefit of modern
conveniences – or even, for that matter, particularly navigable roadways – the colonists
were relatively isolated in their efforts to develop a functioning community and were

15
Wood, 63-64.
16
R. W. C. Farnsworth, ed. 1883, A Southern California Paradise (in the Suburbs of Los Angeles.), an
abridged facsimile of the first edition with a foreword by Rodman W. Paul (Pasadena, CA: Pasadena
Historical Society, 1983), 50.
17
“Timber Planting.” Los Angeles Times, February 6, 1882, http://www.proquest.com (accessed February,
2012).
10

compelled to take advantage of what resources they could. As Stuart W. French pointed
out regretfully in a 1924 editorial in California Southland magazine, even “appreciation
of nature’s beauties could not stand against the easiest way to fill the kitchen stove.”
18
J.
W. Wood agrees, also adding that by 1917 the lessons learned in the colonists’ early
treatment of the Arroyo had been taken to heart.
Critics like Myron Hunt and Prof. Damon criticize the removal of trees,
brush, etc., from the Arroyo, for fuel or other uses in those times. Today,
no one would contemplate such vandalism. But it must be remembered
that when the Indiana Colony was settled by the Easterners, they had not
yet studied the question of water conservation. Neither did the Arroyo
appeal to them as a possible future park. The one thing in mind then was
the need of fuel and its scarcity hereabouts. Of course with more
experience came wisdom and conservation, just as sedulously practiced in
the Colony days as now.
19

In addition to the acquired wisdom of the colonists, the Arroyo also began to
benefit from a certain evolution in attitude, to which Wood alludes. The parks movement
and the scenic preservation movement, both offshoots of the Village Improvement
movement, gained increasing momentum in the 1880s and 1890s in response to the rapid
industrialization and population growth occurring in urban areas. Pasadenans, who were
particularly sensitive to the urbanization sparked by the land boom of 1886-1888,
embraced these concepts wholeheartedly. One man in particular would come to personify
this movement in Pasadena with his development of the Arroyo Seco.

“A Representative Citizen”
Born in 1825 in Pompey, New York, James W. Scoville first made his mark in
Chicago and Oak Park, Illinois, before heading west to Pasadena in a bid to bolster his

18
Stuart W. French, “The Great Arroyo Seco, a Part of Pasadena’s Plan,” California Southland (April,
1924), http://www.arroyoseco.org/calsouth1924.htm (accessed February, 2012).
19
Wood, 64.
11

wife Mary’s failing health. After training as a lawyer, Scoville left New York in 1848 and
subsequently made his fortune investing in Chicago real estate.

Figure 1.1 – James W. Scoville. Illustration from Halley's Pictorial Oak Park.
His business model frequently involved purchasing vacant acreage directly
adjacent to previously developed areas and constructing his own improvements, such as
his development of Cicero, Illinois, in 1864.
[He] purchased 160 acres of land situated immediately east of Oak Park
avenue. This he ditched and drained at a great outlay of money, and laid
stone sidewalks, planted trees and graded streets. He subsequently
purchased more property and improved it in the same locality, and
Ridgeland grew into existence…In 1883 he begun building his water
works.
20

Scoville’s plans for Cicero provide an early glimpse of what he would eventually
accomplish in the Pasadena area. He demonstrated a knack for urban planning and
development, as well as a certain prescience regarding the patterns of future urban
expansion. Scoville arrived in Pasadena in 1886, just before the height of the land boom,
and proceeded to purchase a series of properties in which he invested his own money and
supervised the improvements himself. Despite the land boom currently underway in
Pasadena, Scoville adopted a strategy antithetical to that of most Pasadenans looking to

20
William Halley, Halley’s Pictorial Oak Park (Oak Park, Illinois: 1898), 103,
http://www.archive.org/details/halleyspictorial00hall (accessed February, 2012).
12

capitalize on the current craze for property: while other large parcels of land were being
subdivided into smaller ones, he was busily assembling smaller parcels into larger ones.
Between 1886 and 1891 alone he purchased at least twenty-five different lots in the
Pasadena area, ranging in size from four acres to eighteen acres or more, from at least
twelve different owners.
His first purchases were concentrated entirely in the Arroyo Seco, and it was here
that Scoville would make the most extensive improvements to the land. Between
February and May of 1886, he managed to assemble nine adjoining wood lots, lots
nineteen through twenty-seven, directly west of the terminus of Colorado Street. (For
reference, the current-day King property encompasses a large portion of wood lots twenty
and twenty-one, and a small percentage of lot twenty-two.) At the time, the wood lots
would have been considered of little value – indeed, he paid less than one thousand
dollars altogether. That same year, he also paid an additional four hundred dollars for
eighteen undeveloped acres to the west of the wood lots owned by rancher Campbell-
Johnston. In total, James W. Scoville laid claim to nearly fifty-eight acres of land in the
Arroyo Seco. While many men making such purchases at the time would have done so
with an eye towards subdivision, or at least towards speculation, Scoville had other ideas.
His plans for the Arroyo land were detailed in an 1889 profile in the Los Angeles Times.
Few Pasadenans know that the work now in progress on J. W.
Scoville’s land that borders on the Arroyo Seco, just west of town, will,
when completed, secure to this place a park which is likely to be
unexcelled in point of natural beauty anywhere in the State.
Mr. Scoville is a representative citizen. Possessed of large means,
he has always been noted for his benevolence and for numerous
philanthropic projects that have been carried out under his direction; not
one of the least of such projects is his present operation in the arroyo.
[…] Mr. Scoville’s original intention was to build a residence on
the top of the highest hill on the west side of the arroyo, and to transform
13

the rest of the property into a private park. The site of the residence was,
however, changed, Mr. Scoville having decided to build on the northwest
corner of Orange Grove avenue and Colorado street, where his present
handsome home is located. But the park project was never abandoned;
indeed, work was inaugurated the same year by building a bridge across
the river.
21

Sadly, no primary source documentation regarding James Scoville’s plans for his
land has yet been discovered, and we may never know what goals his long-range plans
included. However, the park project is well-documented in both the Los Angeles Times
and the local Pasadena Star-News, which first began publishing in 1884. From the very
beginning, Scoville Park was meant to be a “working” park in every sense. From 1886 to
1889, at the height of the land boom, Scoville planned and constructed numerous
infrastructural improvements which were sorely needed by a growing Pasadena. These
included a dam and pump house, three reservoirs and an irrigation system, a newly-
graded roadbed to the top of the western hills, and – last but certainly not least – the
aforementioned bridge (see Figure 1.2), which at the time, provided the only reliable
means of passage across the Arroyo to Los Angeles.

Figure 1.2 – The Scoville Bridge, looking west, 1889. The stone walls visible in the background were constructed
as part of James W. Scoville's improvement program. Photo from the Pasadena Digital History Collaboration.
22

21
“A Pasadena Park,” Los Angeles Times, December 18, 1889.
22
“Colorado Bridge at Scoville,” http://cdm15123.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p9018coll2/id/52
(accessed April, 2012).
14

Despite the necessity of the improvements, Scoville’s designs for the area called
for significant landscaping as well.
On either approach from the road to the dam will be made by a flight of
stone steps…A great variety of trees will be planted over the park, and the
steeper hillsides will be adorned with choice evergreens. Varied other
contemplated improvements will combine with the rare natural
picturesqueness of the place in making it one of the most charming spots
in Southern California.
23

While Scoville had made extensive plans for the Arroyo park, nature had her own
ideas as well. After two severe floods, which twice washed out the dam, pump house, and
bridge, he persevered and reconstructed the utilities, declaring each time that he “was
rather glad that it had been washed away, for now he knew how to build one strong
enough to stay.”
24
By 1893, the bridge, dam, and pump house had been completely
reconstructed, along with a host of additional amenities (see Figure 1.3).
The new approach to the park is a road which runs off from Colorado
court south of the Valley Hunt clubhouse, and winds down the hill at an
easy grade zig zag fashion through the midst of a thriving young orange
orchard, until it reaches the main drive a short distance above the bridge.
This road is bordered by a solid stretch of masonry. From it one may enjoy
a view of the entire park. The splendid dam built on bed rock has effected
its chief purpose, and today a beautiful lake appears which a few years ago
was nothing more than a barren wash or a roaring torrent. The water is
kept within proper bounds by stone walls constructed in the most
approved fashion, and with a special view to solidity. Near by are several
fish ponds, also encompassed by solid bulwarks of stone…West of the fish
ponds is the deer park, which extends up the hillside a distance, and which
has been enclosed by a high wire fence. Just north of the deer park a
handsome cobblestone barn has been erected…It will not be many years
before this park and its philanthropic project have as wide a reputation as
Pasadena itself.
25

23
“A Pasadena Park,” Los Angeles Times, December 18, 1889.
24
“Mr. Scoville Will Build Another Dam,” Los Angeles Times, March 12, 1891, http://www.proquest.com
(accessed July, 2011).
25
“Pasadena: What Is Going On In the Arroyo Seco,” January 27, 1893.
15

Figure 1.3 – View of Scoville Park, looking east to Pasadena, ca. 1893. The cobblestone barn seen in the foreground (left) is the
site of the current-day King property. Reproduced with permission of the Henry E. Huntington Library, San Marino, California.
16

The “philanthropic” project to which the article refers was another one of the
park’s “working” aspects. A deeply religious and benevolent man, James W. Scoville
“believed in charity, but in charity that was practical,” taking “especial delight in
spending money in the way that would do the most good to the greatest number.”
26
From
its inception, Scoville Park had been a “practical charity” project: in constructing his
improvements, Scoville had employed out-of-work local men, many of whom had lost
everything in the depression following the land boom of 1886-1888.
27
Workers were paid
$1.00 per day, and the number of days a man was allowed to work per week was dictated
by his need and the size of the family he supported.
28
By 1893, Scoville’s park project
had provided stable employment that would see Pasadenans through two financial
depressions.
While the park resided on Scoville’s private land, it was not his intention to
“exclude the public from the enjoyment of its beauties.”
29
The park, bridge, and road
remained open to all, and numerous mentions are made in contemporary newspaper
articles of picnics, Hunt Club gatherings, and Sunday afternoon excursions to Scoville
Park. Sadly, James W. Scoville did not live long enough to witness the scores of
Pasadenans who would come to enjoy the fruits of his labor. He passed away on
November 2, 1893, after a long illness, only seven years after he first purchased the
Arroyo Seco wood lots. In his will, he left the land to his son, Charles Burton Scoville,

26
“Pasadena: Death of James W. Scoville After a Long Illness,” Los Angeles Times, November 3, 1893,
http://www.proquest.com (accessed July, 2011).
27
See “A Pasadena Park,” Los Angeles Times, December 18, 1889. Also “Pasadena: Death of James W.
Scoville After a Long Illness,” Los Angeles Times, November 3, 1893, and “Rubblestone Works in Arroyo
Stand as Pioneer’s Memorial,” Pasadena Post, September 15, 1940.
28
Historic American Engineering Record, Colorado Street Bridge, Spanning Arroyo Seco at Colorado
Boulevard, Pasadena, Los Angeles, CA, HAER No. CA-58 (San Francisco: National Park Service Western
Regional Office, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1988), 3-4, http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/hhh.ca1502
(accessed September, 2011).
29
“A Pasadena Park,” Los Angeles Times, December 18, 1889.
17

who would continue to oversee Scoville Park. Based on accounts in historical Los
Angeles Times articles, the park apparently continued to remain open to the public
through at least 1897,
30
and photographic documentation of the Arroyo Seco indicates
that at least the cobblestone barn – whose original foundations now surround the current
King property – remained extant as late as 1910.
31
Eventually, however, all good things
must come to an end. The era of Scoville Park, once “one of the most interesting and
attractive points about Pasadena,” had passed.
32

The Passing of a Park
Despite its previous popularity, by the beginning of World War I, the Scoville
Park had ceased to exist. Although no documentation has been uncovered which directly
relates to the closure of Scoville Park, several inferences can be made based on
contextual evidence. After the turn of the century, progress came to the Arroyo Seco in
the form of several significant developments that affected the future of the park. While
each event impacted the Arroyo Seco landscape in different ways, all three were major
milestones in the development of the area and would have likely contributed to the
demise of the Scoville park project.
First, the turn of the century gave rise to a number of both private and public
parks projects that may have simply eclipsed Scoville Park as a matter of interest. Busch
Gardens, the landscape gardens owned by Adolphus Busch and designed by Robert

30
“Letters to the Times: Boulevard Suggestions,” Los Angeles Times, April 1, 1897,
http://www.proquest.com (accessed January, 2012).
31
“Arroyo Seco Road in Pasadena, ca. 1910,” on file at University of Southern California Special
Collections, http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/assetserver/controller/view/CHS-6462 (accessed April, 2012).
32
“Sunday’s Medley: The Boulevard Bridge,” Los Angeles Times, November 17, 1890,
http://www.proquest.com (accessed July, 2011).
18

Gordon Fraser, first opened to the public in 1906. And, in 1909, Chicagoan M. Cochran
Armour – brother-in-law of David B. Gamble and associate of Charles Burton Scoville –
also announced plans to build an estate and gardens that would rival those of Adolphus
Busch.
33
The Pasadena city government had also been planning for a park in the Arroyo
Seco, and in 1911 began acquiring land in the lower and central Arroyo.
34

Additionally, the construction of the Colorado Street Bridge, as well as the
historic floods of 1914, particularly affected the Scoville land and the Arroyo landscape.
A portion of the Scoville wood lots was acquired by the city through eminent domain for
the construction of the bridge, which was completed in 1913. Plans for the site called for
the bridge to be located in almost exactly the same spot as the existing Scoville Bridge.

Figure 1.4 – The Scoville trestle bridge (foreground) and the Colorado Street Bridge (under construction), 1912.
Photo from the Pasadena Digital History Collaboration.
35

33
“Chicago Man Will Convert Barren Hills Across the Arroyo Westward from Pasadena Into Hanging
Gardens – Significant Transaction,” Los Angeles Times, May 2, 1909, http://www.proquest.com (accessed
March, 2012).
34
Scheid, 106. According to Ann Scheid, by 1912, the city held or had options on 200 acres of land. In
1917, an overall plan for the Arroyo was created by architect Myron Hunt and landscape architect Emil T.
Mische. This plan called for preservation of the Lower Arroyo by restricting improvements to walking and
bridle paths, while the Upper Arroyo would be developed for recreational activities. See Myron Hunt,
“Arroyo Park – Report of Civic Committee,” Southern California Magazine 1, no. 6 (January 1918): 10-13.
35
“Colorado Street Bridge Under Construction,”
http://cdm15123.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p9018coll2/id/232 (accessed April, 2012).
19

Figure 1.5 – The Scoville Bridge and the Colorado Street Bridge above, just after its completion, ca. December,
1913. The Scoville Bridge was destroyed by floods only weeks later. Photo courtesy of the University of Southern
California, on behalf of the USC Special Collections.
At the time it was thought that the rest of the Scoville improvements would
remain; particularly the Scoville Bridge, as it provided a valuable link between the lower
east and west banks of the Arroyo. Citizens land situated in the lower banks of the
Arroyo appreciated the convenience of the Scoville Bridge, which allowed them to easily
cross the river to their property without having to travel up the hill, across the “large”
bridge, and all the way back down the opposite embankment. However, in January, 1914,
20

six weeks after the Colorado Street Bridge was officially dedicated, a series of winter
storms struck Pasadena, creating a flood that obliterated nearly all of the tangible
remnants of James W. Scoville’s stewardship.
The saturated condition of the soil, the great multiplication of paved and
oiled streets, the very improvements of land formerly covered by trees but
now by homes, served to make the flood runoff the greatest in recorded
history here.
[…] Undermined by the flood at its east abutment, the Scoville
bridge, now fortunately supplanted by the new Colorado street structure as
the main crossing of the Arroyo Seco, went out with a gigantic crash. Its
timbers are strewn along the Arroyo for miles, one small section finding
lodgment on a newly-created island just south of the California street
bridge.
[…] All but the west end of the dam over which the waters
cascaded for a fall of twenty feet is swept away and when the east end of
the dam went out the water whirled into the bank and cut in back of the
cobblestone abutment. In a short time the east end of the suspension
wagon bridge fell and the old structure was but a matter of memory.
36

Whatever plans Charles Scoville may have had for Scoville Park were now
destroyed, along with the landscape his father, along with hundreds of Pasadena men, had
once worked so hard to create. Less than two weeks after the flood, Charles sold the land
to the Assets Realization Company, for whom Myron Hunt acted as an agent. The
Scoville bridge was replaced that same year by the Parker-Mayberry bridge (see Figure
1.6), designed by Hunt, which provided the requisite access to the lower banks of the
Arroyo and was part of a total reconstruction package that included a new dam and 26-
foot high retaining walls.
37

36
“Scoville Bridge Down,” Pasadena Star, January 26, 1914.
37
Historic American Engineering Record, 17. Hunt overcame public opposition to the bridge by
successfully arguing that the new low bridge was meant to replace the destroyed Scoville bridge and dam.
Originally, Hunt designed the bridge for William Smith Mason, an entrepreneur who owned orchards on
the banks of the Arroyo. Mason did not own the property abutting the bridge, but in exchange for this
consideration, he awarded the commission for his house and gate lodge to Hunt in 1928.
21

Figure 1.6 – The Parker-Mayberry Bridge beneath the Colorado Street Bridge, looking north, ca. 1919. The
Scoville pump house, still standing at the time, is visible beyond the bridge. Photo from the California State
Library Picture Catalog.
38

Following completion of the reconstruction in 1917, the Assets Realization
Company sold the lots to the Alta San Rafael Company. It is not clear what Alta San
Rafael intended to do with the land; what is clear, however, is that Scoville Park sat
vacant for nearly forty years. In 1921, part of the acreage was re-platted; some of the land
became a part of the Arroyo park system, while other lots further to the north were sold
and developed as home sites. Beginning in 1951, the lots directly adjacent to the
Colorado Street Bridge, including the site of the King residence, were purchased by the
Guy F. Atkinson Company and used as a staging area for the construction of the nearby
Pioneer Bridge (see Figures 1.7 and 1.8).

38
“Arroyo Bridge showing Scoville Dam,”
http://catalog.library.ca.gov/F/MURQFEN9QXQS8LP66L2K86IXJ8BSAPFMM8NLCYGJDXTNUULR5
9-16530?func=full-set-set&set_number=000269&set_entry=000001 (accessed April, 2012).
22

Figure 1.7 – The Pioneers Bridge under construction, looking southeast, 1952. The Pioneers Bridge was also
known as the New Colorado Street Bridge; the original Colorado Street Bridge, built in 1913, is visible in the
background. Photo courtesy of the University of Southern California, on behalf of the USC Special Collections.

Figure 1.8 – Aerial view of the Pioneers Bridge (left) under construction, looking east, 1952. The original
Colorado Street Bridge stands to the right. The King property, used as a staging area during construction, is
visible to the left of the center arch of the Pioneers bridge. Photo from the Pasadena Digital History
Collaboration.
39

39
“Construction of Pasadena Pioneer’s Bridge and Colorado Street Bridge,”
http://cdm15123.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p9018coll1/id/249 (accessed April, 2012).
23

After the bridge was completed in 1953, the lots adjacent to the bridge again went
unattended, and were finally sold to private owners who chose not to develop the land. It
would not be until the 1970s – nearly a century after James W. Scoville first made his
mark upon the landscape – that someone would again take an interest in the wood lots of
the Arroyo Seco.

24

CHAPTER TWO
THE KING RESIDENCE AND GARDENS

A well-composed garden is an environmental endeavor, a horticultural
endeavor, a social endeavor, a humanitarian endeavor, and an artistic
endeavor – all of which entice our physical senses while soothing our
souls.

– Yosh Kuromiya
40

After decades of misuse and neglect, the Scoville park land had lost most of its
former scenic appeal. The original wood lots of the Arroyo Seco, once the site of
Pasadena’s first park, were no longer even “wooded” after years of serving as a staging
area for construction – and, as Ann Scheid relates, a dumping ground, with dead horses
and cows as well as garbage routinely dumped over the banks.
41
By the mid-1970s the
area was plagued by crime and, as the City of Pasadena described it, “dissident
influences.” In fact, it was now deemed to be a “serious police problem.”
42

Despite their negative reputation, the former Scoville wood lots had garnered
some unexpected admirers – and not as a service area, but rather based on their own
merit. Architects Conrad Buff III and Donald Hensman had taken an interest in the land,
and felt that what many considered to be its most discouraging features were indeed the
most intriguing. “It was where the materials for the construction of the Colorado Street

40
Yosh Kuromiya, “Reflections of a Gardener’s Son,” originally published in Japanese American National
Museum Magazine, Winter 2006, http://www.discovernikkei.org/en/journal/2007/7/4/janm-magazine/
(accessed April, 2012).
41
Ann Scheid, Pasadena: Crown of the Valley (Northridge, CA: Windsor Publications, 1986), 104.
42
City of Pasadena to Ruth Van Douris, April 23, 1976, Buff & Hensman archives, offices of Buff, Smith
& Hensman, Pasadena, CA.
25

Bridge were taken from,” Don Hensman recalled years later, “and I had a huge fondness
for this unique piece of Arroyo landscape.”
43

Fortunately, Buff III and Hensman found two kindred spirits who shared their
admiration for the land, clients Richard and Carol King. The Arroyo lot came to the
couple’s attention after viewing several other expensive lots in Pasadena that were, in
their minds, much too “tame.” As Carol King would later write, “We felt [the Arroyo lot]
was ‘ours’ from the moment we stepped on the land.”
44
Although unaware of the former
history of the property, Conrad Buff III and Don Hensman would go on to transform the
vacant lots into a scenic enclave, in much the same manner as James W. Scoville ninety
years earlier. In designing the King Residence and its gardens, the architects created a
landscape that seamlessly merged nature and architecture, calling to mind both the
philosophies of Modernist architecture and landscape design, as well as the Modernist
movement’s earlier historical influences. However, it is the contributions of their
longtime landscape contractor, Howard Oshiyama, and the continuing stewardship of the
Oshiyama family through the ensuing years that have enhanced the architects’ original
plan and given unique significance to the landscape. Together, the three men have
brought the idea of a “private park” in the Arroyo Seco, once lost in the past, forward and
into the future.

43
Donald Hensman, Buff & Hensman. Edited by James Steele. With an introduction by Alex Moseley and
preface by Dean Robert Timme (Los Angeles: University of Southern California Architectural Guild Press,
2004), 114.
44
Carol Soucek King, email message to the author, August 5, 2010.
26

Buff & Hensman and the “USC School”
Conrad Buff III and Don Hensman’s emphasis on the landscape in their designs
was rooted in their shared exposure to the architectural styles that revered it. Both
veterans of World War II, the two men met as students when they both enrolled in the
University of Southern California’s School of Architecture in 1947. In each other, Buff
III and Hensman discovered a unique counterpart that allowed them to develop a
tremendous personal and professional rapport. Their working relationship was so
successful that the architects had already formed the partnership of Buff & Hensman by
the time they graduated from the School of Architecture in 1952.

Figure 2.1 – Conrad Buff III, Cal Straub, and Don Hensman. Photo from Buff & Hensman.
45

It was a particularly heady time at the school, whose graduates of this era would
go on to have a profound impact on the Southern California landscape. USC’s School of
Architecture was the first in the region, founded in 1919, and it reached its apogee during
the postwar years under the stewardship of Dean Arthur Gallion.
46
Gallion expanded
upon the tradition of the School’s previous dean, Arthur Weatherhead, of rejecting the
traditional Beaux-Arts approach to architectural pedagogy, which emphasized the

45
Hensman, Buff & Hensman, 10.
46
Deborah Howell-Ardila, “‘Writing Our Own Program’: The USC Experiment in Modern Architectural
Pedagogy, 1930 to 1960,” Master’s thesis, University of Southern California, 2010, ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses, UMI Number: 1484253, http://www.proquest.com (accessed March, 2012), 35. As Howell-
Ardila points out, while some sources cite 1914 as the inaugural year of the architectural program, a limited
course of study was offered as early as 1912. It was in 1919, however, that the independent Department of
Art and Architecture was formed.
27

classical tenets of Greek and Roman architecture. Instead, Weatherhead had recruited
prominent local architects and landscape architects to teach studio classes. The roster of
instructors and visiting critics included virtually every significant postwar architect in
Southern California, including Gregory Ain, Harwell Hamilton Harris, Pierre Koenig,
and Raphael Soriano, as well as landscape architects Garrett Eckbo and Emmett Wemple,
both of whom would later collaborate with Buff & Hensman. Another instructor and
recent USC graduate, Calvin Straub, would eventually join the firm for several years,
resulting in the partnership of Buff, Straub & Hensman from 1957 to 1963.
47

Weatherhead’s approach of hiring local architects and USC alumni, as well as
Gallion’s later stewardship, gave rise to an emphasis on regional context and influences –
one of which, of course, was the Southern California landscape. The mild climate
encouraged experimentation, in both the design of buildings and the way they were used.
Residents of Southern California found that they could spend a great deal of their time
outdoors as the local weather conditions lacked the urgency found in other parts of the
country – where rain, snow, and extreme cold were regular (if seasonal) occurrences.
Architects, unencumbered by the building requirements that such weather conditions
necessitated, were free to experiment with building materials and techniques that allowed
a greater integration of the outdoors into everyday “indoor” life. As Frank Lloyd Wright
noted, “We no longer have an outside and an inside as two separate things. Now the

47
While the intent of this thesis is not to diminish the extensive collaborative effort of Cal Straub to the
work of Buff & Hensman, to date, no landscape projects designed or supervised by Howard Oshiyama have
been established from this time period. As such, an extensive discussion of the era of Buff, Straub &
Hensman goes beyond the scope of this work.
28

outside may come inside, and the inside may and does go outside. They are of each
other.”
48

This newfound singularity resulted in an increased focus on incorporating
architecture into the surrounding landscape. At the forefront of this movement was the
USC School of Architecture, which promoted the idea of landscape and architecture as a
singular entity. In 1952, the year Conrad Buff III and Don Hensman graduated from
USC, the Los Angeles Times Home magazine published a special edition featuring the
work of students from the USC School of Architecture, which included a model house
designed to demonstrate the design principles imparted by the university. In the
introductory article, Dean Arthur Gallion described the philosophy of “Tomorrow’s
Architect”:
As you turn these pages, you will perceive that the home is no
longer conceived as a square box surrounded by four walls and a roof. It is
a structure enclosing the interior space arranged to serve each function of
family life. But, it is more than that.
The structure is designed as a part of the outside space contained
within the boundaries of the lot upon which it stands. The interior space is
designed in relation to the exterior space which it adjoins and the wasteful
planning which we all seek to avoid within the home is likewise avoided
in planning the exterior space of the lot.
49

In an accompanying article in the same issue, landscape architect and USC
instructor Garret Eckbo elaborated on the benefits of giving consideration to the
landscape.
The university house featured in this special issue of the Home
Magazine makes new advances in the progressive expansion of our
concepts of private family living. It recognizes that nearly every room in
the house has a possible supplementary space outside which can increase

48
Frank Lloyd Wright, Frank Lloyd Wright: An Autobiography (Petaluma, CA: Pomegranate
Communications, 2005), 337-338.
49
Arthur B. Gallion, “Tomorrow’s Architect,” Los Angeles Times, September 14, 1952,
http://www.proquest.com (accessed April, 2012).
29

its livability greatly at relatively small additional cost. This increase is
greatest with the most direct and intimate connection between these indoor
and outdoor rooms.
Hence, the entire lot space must be planned in one continuous
operation. When houses are planned without adequate consideration of the
lot space and garden thinking does not begin until after construction, the
results are wasted space, poor interconnection between house and garden
and impaired livability. These weaknesses are typical of the great majority
of our homes.
50

Other influences, no less regional but far more historical in nature, also prevailed
at USC. The Arts and Crafts traditions of the humble bungalow, as well as the more
stylized works of Charles and Henry Greene, figured largely in the curriculum through
architect and instructor Harwell Hamilton Harris. Indeed, Robert Winter referred to the
local postwar modernists as “the heirs of the ‘woodsy’ Arts and Crafts tradition.”
51

These influences, interpreted through the lens of postwar modernism, gave rise to
the post-and-beam style of architecture. Where the Arts and Crafts movement’s
dedication to nature manifested itself in depictions of natural elements and natural
materials, the evolved post-and-beam movement was concerned with the relationship
between the building and the accompanying site, between the indoors and the outdoors.
The style was characterized by a modular system of panels, framed with four-inch-by-
four-inch posts of exposed wood, four feet on center. Roofs were low and gabled, with
exposed rafter tails, and building materials were limited to naturally available resources,
such as redwood. What truly set apart the post-and-beam style, however, was the
emphasis on the integration of architecture with the surrounding landscape created by the
building design. Vast expanses of glass walls opened directly onto patios that were

50
Garrett Eckbo, “A House With Five Patios,” Los Angeles Times, September 14, 1952,
http://www.proquest.com (accessed April, 2012). Garrett Eckbo would go on to collaborate with Buff &
Hensman on Case Study House No. 20, the Bass Residence, which was completed in 1960.
51
Robert Winter, ed., Toward a Simpler Way of Life: The Arts & Crafts Architects of California (Berkeley:
University of California Press / Norfleet Press, 1997), 243.
30

oriented to the views of the surrounding landscape, creating a transitional living space
that extended everyday activities into the outdoors.
It was these newfound “transitional spaces” that necessitated the need for an
increased focus on planned design for the surrounding landscape. As Garrett Eckbo
explained in his description of “A House With Five Patios,”
Landscape design is similar to painting and sculpture in its relative
freedom of choice in form and arrangement and similar to architecture in
its necessity to accept certain disciplines. Thus in these patios we have
structural elements stemming from the house – paving, walls and fences,
seats, boxes, pools – which produce linear forms and patterns which must
be carefully designed in relation to the house and to each other. These
forms and patterns may be rectangular, angular, circular, curving or in
more complex combinations. However, as they become more complex
they must be more skillfully and carefully handled to be successful and
harmonious parts of the general plan.
52

The integration of architecture and the landscape personified by the post-and-
beam aesthetic would become the hallmark of the USC School of Architecture in the
postwar era – so much so, in fact, that Esther McCoy nicknamed it the “USC Style.”
53

Don Hensman jokingly spoke of how he and Conrad Buff III had been “brainwashed” in
post-and-beam while studying at USC,
54
but it was nevertheless a significant influence on
the two men: Buff & Hensman would adopt the post-and-beam style almost exclusively
throughout the first half of their career, and produced some of the most iconic examples
of the aesthetic (see Figure 2.2).

52
Eckbo, “A House With Five Patios.”
53
Esther McCoy, “Arts & Architecture Case Study Houses,” Perspecta 15, Backgrounds for an American
Architecture (1975): 54-73, 30.
54
Donald Hensman, “Interview with Donald C. Hensman, FAIA,” by Sarah Cooper (Pasadena, CA:
Pasadena Heritage Oral History Project, 2003), 86.
31

Figure 2.2 – The Thompson/Moseley Residence, completed in 1959. Photo from Buff & Hensman.
55

Given the origins of their design philosophy, it is no accident that throughout their
career Conrad Buff III and Don Hensman paid acute attention to the surrounding
landscape. “I think, especially living in Southern California, it’s just kind of a given,”
Hensman said later. “I mean, to design a home and just kind of contain your living space
within four walls with little holes in them is kind of a sacrilege in a way. It’s just so
automatic with us to design the outside as well as we design the inside, so spaces literally
flow out.”
56

55
Hensman, Buff & Hensman, 57.
56
Hensman, “Interview,” 150.
32

A Shift in Style
By the mid-1970s, when Conrad Buff III and Don Hensman first became
interested in the Arroyo Seco land, the residential work for which they had become most
known began to undergo a marked shift in style. After years of designing post-and-beam
homes, the architects found that now, as Don Hensman recalled, “they looked very thin to
us.” As he later explained,
Well, take the early Mirman house or the little Thompson house –
which all of our early work was post and beam, and we were very proud of
those, and we still are – but they were based on a certain module…because
there would be a four-by-four post with a four-by-twelve beam, and it
looked very spindly. They were graceful and light and delicate.
57

While Conrad Buff III would later attribute the shift in part to “sheer boredom
with post-and-beam,”
58
there were also mitigating factors of a more practical nature. Title
24, otherwise known as the California Energy Code, was adopted by the California
Building Standards Commission in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce
energy consumption.
59
While the new standards for energy efficiency in building
materials and design were primarily concerned with building systems, such as heating
and cooling, certain measures limiting the use of glass also drastically affected the
architectural aesthetic. As Don Hensman recalled, the requirements “were very restrictive
in the beginning. The average room, instead of being all glass or two walls of glass,
you’d end up with a window, maybe a four-by-four window in the bedroom. And to have
a living room all glass was virtually impossible.”
60

57
Hensman, “Interview,” 84.
58
Hensman, Buff & Hensman, 173.
59
For historical reference, both the current and archival versions of the Building Energy Efficiency
Standards, including the original 1978 standards, can be found at
http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/standards_archive/ (accessed April, 2012).
60
Hensman, “Interview,” 85.
33

Gone were the vast expanses of glazing, once carried up to the gables, that
eliminated the distinction between the indoors and outdoors. With the advent of Title 24,
the post-and-beam movement practically became an endangered species. “The avant-
garde house of that period was a tentlike thing, almost transparent, composed of
minimum materials,” said Don Hensman.
61
Now, the new regulations necessitated a new
way of thinking about design. Now, “we had to learn to use glass only where it was
meaningful to the inhabitants,” noted Conrad Buff. “We sought greater mass in our
buildings, making them easier to heat and cool, and we wanted a look of strength.”
62
In
looking back on the period, Don Hensman explained the logistics of adapting the “Buff &
Hensman” style:
You had to work around it…you’d lower things. And we used French
doors, so we’d count the wood frame around the French door – we didn’t
need to count that as glass. There were all kinds of little gimmicks. And
maybe we cheated a little here and there, but that’s what you had to
do…And we even got to one point where we specified insulated curtains.
63

Burdened by the necessity of Title 24, but also motivated by their desire to
explore design outside of the world of post-and-beam, the mid-1970s spurred Conrad
Buff III and Don Hensman to re-evaluate their aesthetic.
Well, we had seen some interesting buildings in Fresno one time. And
kind of mixed in with this Title 24, we started working with masses. We
had to lower ceilings and raise floors. So we started doing a more
sculptural sort of architecture instead of structural, where you could see
how the thing was built. It became a series of masses and more sculptural.
It was just a slow evolution from one to the other, and you can’t pinpoint
it.
64

61
Hensman, Buff & Hensman, 173.
62
Conrad Buff in Hensman, Buff & Hensman, 173.
63
Hensman, “Interview,” 85-86.
64
Ibid., 159-160. It is not clear what buildings in Fresno Hensman is referencing, but his remark
demonstrates the architects’ interest at the time in broadening the visual vocabulary of their work.
34

The Significance of Siting
The transition to a sculptural aesthetic redefined how Buff & Hensman would
integrate their designs into the natural surroundings in the wake of Title 24. Without the
expanses of glass that provided a seamless visual transition from indoor to outdoor living,
architects would have to rely even more heavily on siting and landscaping to draw the
eye – as well as everyday life – out into the surrounding landscape.
As students at USC, Conrad Buff III and Don Hensman had been “taught to listen
to the site first, what were its characteristics, what impact did the views have,” recalled
Randell Makinson, a fellow student at the time.
65
The two architects placed particular
importance on these principles of siting throughout their career. Each Buff & Hensman
building was oriented precisely to take advantage of the positive features of each site and,
at the same time, minimize any detracting factors, including the path of the sun, any
topographical features, or even acoustical challenges caused by nearby traffic. In
Pasadena, this proved to be extremely beneficial, as a large concentration of the area’s
postwar residential development took place on the city’s western and southern borders,
where the previously-undeveloped terrain was particularly hilly and steep. This resulted
in the need for very site-specific designs that responded to these unique circumstances.
66

With so much attention directed out of doors, views also became a crucial factor
in determining how a home would be situated on a lot. Realtor John Carr, who worked
extensively with Buff and Hensman and their clients, recalled that “views were vital to
the firm’s approach,” and Conrad Buff actively reviewed available lots for views and

65
Barbara Lamprecht and Daniel Paul, Cultural Resources of the Recent Past, City of Pasadena, National
Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form, April 2, 2008, 24.
66
Ibid., 24.
35

situation.
67
Years later, Don Hensman explained their love of building in Pasadena,
saying, “There’s no place blighted around here. Every time you find a new site, it’s filled
with trees and terrain and interesting views and all that.”
68

The view of the Colorado Street Bridge is what first attracted Buff and Hensman
to the former Arroyo Seco wood lots, and it is true that most people certainly thought it
was an “interesting” view. Don Hensman later admitted that the site had intrigued the two
men for years. “At the time Conrad and I didn’t have the money to buy it,” he said. “We
kept showing it to people but they weren’t very excited about living under a noisy
bridge.”
69
The view of the bridge, however, would prove to be the focal point of a home
the architects designed to “participate in the drama of the freeway.”
70

67
Lamprecht, 24.
68
Hensman, “Interview,” 74.
69
Donald Hensman, “Transcript of Recorded Interview with Don Hensman.” (Undated, transcript,
Pasadena Heritage, Pasadena, CA.)
70
Ibid.
36

The Master Site Plan
Richard King and his wife, Carol Soucek King, were longtime admirers of the
work of Conrad Buff III and Don Hensman. The couple had seen Don Hensman’s home,
Domus Solaris, publicized in the Los Angeles Times Home magazine and felt they had
found their favorite architects.
71
After meeting them at a party given by mutual friends
(and Buff & Hensman clients) the Coppersmiths, the Kings approached the architects
about building a home for them. In 1978, the search for land began. Buff III and
Hensman had had little success in convincing previous clients of the advantages of the
Arroyo Seco wood lots, but “luckily the Kings loved it,” Hensman recalled.
The clients wanted a sense of being hidden away in nature; a place more
rustic and wild than refined and manicured, with a garden that would be
easy to maintain. This site, which had intrigued us for many years, seemed
ideal…At this point the Arroyo Seco is a creek that meanders along the
northern and eastern borders of the site. This shelter, private hideaway,
surrounded on three sides by old stone walls, accepted with gracious ease
our master plan.
72

The stone walls bordering the property provide one of the few tangible
connections to its previous, long-forgotten history: they are remnants of the retaining
walls constructed by James W. Scoville. In a coincidence of site planning through the
ages, the plan for the property created by Buff and Hensman called for the King house to
be situated exactly where, nearly ninety years earlier, Scoville had erected a cobblestone
barn as part of the Scoville Park improvements. The retaining walls that once surrounded
the barn now surround the King home (see Figure 2.3).
73

71
Carol King, conversation with the author, August 3, 2010.
72
Hensman, Buff & Hensman, 114.
73
“J. W. Scoville is continuing his Arroyo improvements and is building a commodious stone barn,”
Builder and Contractor, March 8, 1893. See also “Pasadena: What Is Going On In the Arroyo Seco,” Los
Angeles Times, January 27, 1893, http://www.proquest.com (accessed July, 2011).
37

Figure 2.3 – The Scoville walls, as they appear on the King property today. Photo by the author.
The master plan for the property, which combined two parcels of land into one
large lot, called for a 1,900 square-foot main house with an adjoining pool and patio, with
additional improvements to be made in stages. Overall, there would be three phases of
development: the initial construction of the house and pool in 1979, the subsequent
addition of the tennis court and pavilion in 1985, and the later addition of the gazebo,
completed in 1993 (see Figure 2.6).
As was typical for Buff & Hensman, much attention was paid by the architects in
situating the components of the property within the site. Given the distinctive qualities of
the surroundings, the design for the King property was, by necessity, particularly site-
specific. Comprised of two parcels of land totaling approximately two acres, the lot is
irregularly shaped, and bordered on the north, east, and south by the natural landscape of
the Arroyo Seco. Overhead looms the Pioneers Bridge, situated just to the south, which
contributes an added element of drama to the landscape as well as added challenges.
38

The concrete bridge, at once massive and monumental, contributes its fair share of
traffic noise to those who live below it in the Arroyo Seco. Fortunately, the new
sculptural forms which Buff & Hensman adopted in the late 1970s proved to be the
perfect foil to this particular problem. The architects responded by orienting the main
house (and later, the pavilion) northward, up the Arroyo. This allowed the south façade to
serve as an acoustical barrier for the entire property by employing strong, solid forms that
act as both a visual counterpart to the bridge as well as a practical solution to the problem
of noise pollution (see Figure 2.4). As Don Hensman explained, “All the walls facing the
bridge are solid walls. And the garage is solid. And they act as an acoustical barrier for
the living environment. So everything orients up the Arroyo.”
74

Figure 2.4 – Main residence, south façade, 2012. While the south façade serves as the primary entrance for the
house, exposure to the outdoors is limited to the north façade, which opens onto the gardens and the natural
landscape beyond. Photo by the author.
This arrangement allows the bridge to provide a backdrop of borrowed scenery
for the house and gardens to the north, which Don Hensman described as being akin to

74
Hensman, “Transcript.”
39

“living under the Eiffel Tower.”
75
It also allowed the architects, bound by the regulations
of Title 24, to concentrate their use of glass where it mattered most: the rear façade,
which is fitted with French doors opening out onto the pool and gardens, as well as the
Arroyo landscape beyond. This, Hensman commented – with particular clairvoyance
regarding the site’s then-unknown Scoville history – was so that the Kings could come
out and “walk down the Arroyo, and it is like having their own park.”
76

Figure 2.5 – Main residence, north façade, 2012. The Pioneers Bridge, visible in the background, provides a
monumental counterpart to the sculptural forms of the King Residence. Photo by the author.

75
Hensman, “Transcript.”
76
Ibid.
40

Figure 2.6 – Contemporary site plan. Illustration by Dennis Smith. Courtesy of Buff, Smith & Hensman.

41

The Landscape Plan
In keeping with the firm’s philosophy of integrating architecture within the
landscape, Conrad Buff III and Don Hensman would typically lay out the general plan for
the landscape on a project’s preliminary drawings as a part of the master plan. In some
cases, they would design the complete landscape along with the house.
77
The execution
of the plan would then be delegated to one of the firm’s longtime associates in landscape
architecture or landscape installation.
78

In the case of the King Residence, achieving anything resembling a “park” for the
Kings would take some work. The frequent flooding of the Arroyo Seco, as well as
neglect of the vacant lots, had taken their toll on the land. Any planned landscaping from
the days of Scoville Park had been virtually obliterated in the intervening years. “There
was absolutely nothing on here except some existing oaks,” Hensman later recalled.
79
If
the Kings wanted to be “hidden away in nature,” it would have to be installed first.
Conrad Buff III drew up the preliminary landscape plan for the King site (see
Figure 2.7), and the two architects then turned to one of their most loyal and longtime
collaborators, landscape contractor Howard Oshiyama. While Oshiyama was not a
landscape architect, he was an experienced contractor, and he had worked closely with
both Buff III and Hensman since the early 1950s. The three men had developed a close
personal and professional relationship that was built upon mutual respect and
understanding. Oshiyama’s rapport with the architects afforded him a high degree of
autonomy in executing their designs. Frequently, Oshiyama would expand upon the

77
Hensman, “Interview,” 97.
78
Buff & Hensman worked with a number of landscape architects, including prominent Southern
Californians (and USC instructors) Emmett Wemple and Garrett Eckbo. Pasadenans Christopher Cox and
Jon Myhre also worked with the firm on multiple projects.
79
Hensman, “Interview,” 97.
42

architects’ basic plan for a site, and the King project was no exception. “My father liked
to take a place like this, that had nothing there, and create a new thing,” recalled Tom
Oshiyama.
He went in when Conrad and Don almost finished a house; we went into a
place that not only didn’t have any plants, it didn’t have any grading. It
was a mess. But that was a good thing. That’s what my dad really enjoyed
– a blank palate. And he enjoyed going in there and not only following the
architects and their plans, but putting his own little twist on it.
80

Given its current condition, the King property was nothing if not a blank slate.
Since the overall development of the site would take place over time, the initial landscape
plan, completed in 1979, only called for the design of the grounds immediately
surrounding the main residence (see Figure 2.7). The ground cover consisted of
dichondra, trailing gazania, and fountain grasses mixed with wildflower seed. As for the
plantings, “we just had a vocabulary of juniper and oleander and citrus or eucalyptus,”
said Hensman of the preliminary landscape plan. “That was the basic theme, and that’s
what started it all.”
81
Since the lot originally consisted of two parcels, Buff III and
Hensman initially planned a band of oleanders to delineate the property’s various “zones”
of development and emphasize the main house.
There are really two lots here, and there’s a dividing line right down the
middle. As you drove up, there’s a band of oleanders. Well, that’s kind of
the borderline, because not knowing what the master plan would be, we
did the house and the pool first, and later on as the economy got better, we
put the tennis court and pavilion on the other half.
82

Over time, Howard Oshiyama would expand upon this initial plan, incorporating
additional plantings and other landscape features that echoed the intent of Buff &
Hensman, as well as his own wishes, and further integrated the architecture into the

80
Tom Oshiyama, conversation with the author, September 16, 2010.
81
Hensman, “Interview,” 97.
82
Ibid., 82.
43

surrounding landscape. As each zone of the site was developed over time, the landscape
for the entire property evolved naturally to unify the existing elements, as well as create a
cohesive visual tapestry that integrated the entire site within the natural surroundings of
the Arroyo Seco.
In addition to aesthetic goals of the landscape plan for the King site, there were
practical considerations as well. The severe climate of the surrounding Arroyo environs
often necessitated making additions or alterations to the landscape plan. For example, as
Tom Oshiyama recalls, during the initial development of the landscape plan, there was a
great deal of discussion between Conrad Buff III, Don Hensman, and Howard Oshiyama
about what type of plants would survive at the site. “Especially in the beginning, they
were looking at drier plants because of the severe conditions and the changes in the
seasons. The worst thing that’s down here is the wind. It’s very dry; it just really removes
all the moisture.”
83
It was decided that Howard Oshiyama would experiment with drier
plants, such as fountain grasses, that had low water requirements and could tolerate the
hot, dry summers in the canyon.
In the years after the landscape was first installed, however, Oshiyama discovered
that even though they required little water, the plants could not withstand the severe
winter weather conditions in the Arroyo Seco. Since the first trees had yet to develop,
there was little protection in place for the other landscape features, and many of the initial
plantings, including the ground cover, did not survive. “We lost a lot,” remembers Tom
Oshiyama. “It was not so much trial and error, because my father understood that. But in
this location, without the protection of the oleanders and everything else, it [was] pretty

83
Tom Oshiyama, conversation with the author, September 16, 2010.
44

frigid here during the winter.” Plants would get wet during the daily winter rains; then, as
night fell and temperatures dropped, they would freeze and die.
So, by dint of sheer survival, “junipers started to become what was put in here,”
explained Tom Oshiyama. Then, “the oleanders started to grow, the acacias grew. So
anything that survived, and had good color and texture – that’s what we put in here. And
over the years, the textures became more apparent.” As additional architectural features
were incorporated into the site, the overall combination and balance of textures and
colors changed, and landscape features were adjusted accordingly.
Coupled with Conrad Buff III and Don Hensman’s directives, Howard
Oshiyama’s implementation of color, texture, and variety in the landscape plan have
created the King gardens as we know them today. In order to understand the intent of the
original landscape plans, as well as the effect of Oshiyama’s contributions over nearly a
quarter-century of stewardship, the following sections discuss each zone of the King
landscape in greater detail.

45

Figure 2.7 – Original landscape plan for the King Residence, 1979. Illustration by Conrad Buff III. Courtesy of
Buff, Smith & Hensman.

46

The Main Residence
The main residence and pool are situated amidst a grove of acacia and eucalyptus,
which were intended to connect the site to the Arroyo’s rustic surroundings and “create a
seamless landscape.”
84
The inner driveway and the pathway to the main entrance are
paved with concrete aggregate, which gives the area a rougher, more rustic appearance.
The path ends at a series of boulders leading to the front door (see Figure 2.8). As
Hensman explained,
These are indigenous rocks on the site and on the Arroyo that we used as
sculptures – a focal point to direct you in. The rocks are actually the front
steps to get to the house, so they make it blend into the landscape and you
feel it is part of the landscape.
85

Over time, additional plantings were added to the front entrance by Howard
Oshiyama to create a more natural, less structured appearance and draw the surrounding
natural landscape even closer to the house (see Figure 2.9). Spartan junipers flank the
front door and provide a cohesive visual connection to the rear façade of the main
residence. The later addition of river rocks surrounding the pathway provides a
transitional effect in terms of materials, but they were originally employed to address a
more practical concern: the Kings have a lively German Shepherd who frequently enjoys
digging in the gardens. The bamboo stakes flanking the front steps are also an
aesthetically harmonious solution to a practical problem, providing support to guests
going up the front steps. “There’s a lot of horizontal and vertical with this house,”
explains Tom Oshiyama. “So a little bit of vertical, a little bit of horizontal [in the

84
Hensman, Buff & Hensman, 116.
85
Hensman, “Transcript.”
47

landscaping] kind of adds to it. We have the horizontal in the junipers, and the vertical in
the stakes. We’re always looking at that.”
86

Figure 2.8 – Main entrance, ca. 1980. Photo by Toby Abrams Schober.

Figure 2.9 – Main entrance, 2012. Photo by the author.

86
Tom Oshiyama, conversation with the author, September 16, 2010.
48

The Pool and Patio
At the rear of the house, the north façade, punctuated by French doors, opens onto
a small elevated deck that provides a seamless transition to the adjoining pool and patio
(see Figures 2.10 and 2.12). The patio is nearly as long as the house is wide, and together
the pool and its deck echo the horizontality of the main residence. The balancing
verticality is provided by the acacias and oleanders that border the patio. The spartan
junipers surrounding the deck echo the same planting arrangements of the front entrance.
The original plan did not call for any landscaping beyond the pool, but here,
again, the plan was revised as the site evolved over time (see Figures 2.11 and 2.13). The
low cobblestone retaining walls, fragments of the Scoville park improvements, provide a
natural, unobtrusive demarcation between the natural and designed landscapes. As the
site plan was expanded to include the pathway and the gazebo beyond the pool, the stone
walls and the view of the landscape beyond took on a new significance. In response,
Howard Oshiyama employed one of the key principles of Japanese garden design and
brought this backdrop of “borrowed” scenery into the immediate surroundings. He and
his workmen removed the vegetation that clung to the banks of the Arroyo beyond the
garden. In their place, he installed short postrado juniper shrubs to frame the vistas of the
Arroyo without obscuring the view (see Figure 2.13). Now, “when they stand up and look
through the window, they can see the wall and what’s beyond it,” explains Tom
Oshiyama. “Before, they couldn’t see that.”
87

87
Tom Oshiyama, conversation with the author, September 16, 2010.
49

Figure 2.10 – Rear (north) façade, ca. 1980. The unobstructed landscape provides a view of both the first
Colorado Street Bridge (rear) in the background, as well as the Pioneers Bridge (foreground). Photo by Toby
Abrams Schober.

Figure 2.11 – Rear (north) façade, 2012. Photo by the author.
50

Figure 2.12 – Rear garden and pool, ca. 1980. The existing vegetation seen beyond the wall was removed by
Howard Oshiyama and his crew to improve the Kings’ view of the Arroyo Seco. Photo by Toby Abrams
Schober.

Figure 2.13 – Rear garden and pool, 2012. Photo by the author.

51

The Tennis Court and Pavilion
The second stage of construction called for a tennis court and accompanying
pavilion to be built to the west of the main residence. Buff and Hensman had made
allowances for this construction in their original site plan, and the additions, which were
completed in 1985, blend seamlessly with the main residence.
The tennis court is surrounded by tall hedges that create a natural acoustical
barrier against the freeway towering above, while at the same time giving a sense of
privacy and intimacy within the greater landscape (see Figure 2.14).
The pavilion serves as both a cabana for the swimming pool and tennis courts, as
well as a small guest house and office for Carol King. It abuts the eastern curve of the
remaining Scoville walls and is bordered by trees at the rear. The primary façade faces
the tennis court and is flanked by the hedges enclosing the court. A small, narrow path
was added to provide access to the pavilion and tennis courts from the north and east.
Designed of wood planks set at right angles and punctuated with groupings of river rocks,
the path recalls the pathways found in Japanese gardens with an asymmetrical
organization that was intended to slow down the observer and invite contemplation (see
Figure 2.15). It also echoes, on a smaller scale, the organization of the primary path to the
gazebo.
From the tennis court, the small path continues past the pavilion to the gazebo to
the north.

52

Figure 2.14 – Tennis court and pavilion, completed in 1985. Photo by the author.
53

Figure 2.15 – Pathway leading from the tennis court and pavilion to the gazebo. Photo by the author.
54

The Garden Pathway and Gazebo
The third and final phase of site development included the construction of a small
gazebo at the northeast corner of the property, connected to the site by a meandering
pathway that follows the northeastern boundary of the property. Both the path and the
gazebo possess a special significance to both the landscape and the people who created it.
The garden path was completed prior to the construction of the gazebo, and was
designed by Conrad Buff III (see Figure 2.16). Constructed of salvaged railroad ties and
organized in a series of angles, the path echoes the planning principles present in many
Japanese gardens, including asymmetrical organization and miegakure (hide-and-reveal.)
Coincidentally, the construction of the garden path also creates a poetic connection to the
history of the site: Buff III and Hensman selected railroad ties that had been discarded
from area tracks and were now being sold as landscape elements.
88
In the days of Scoville
Park, James W. Scoville built the first wagon road bridge across the Arroyo Seco using
discarded wooden railroad ties from the Santa Fe Railroad bridge.
89

While Conrad Buff III had a specific vision in mind for the layout of the path and
its construction, its installation was delegated to Howard Oshiyama, who made minor
adjustments in order to achieve the ideal visual effect. Tom Oshiyama explains the great
care that went into the layout of the path:
When we started actually cutting [the railroad ties], and laying
them out, we put them down, and then we kept changing it – because the
angles, although they’re all ninety degrees – it didn’t always feel
right…visually, the eye stops too much, especially after the gazebo went
up. You don’t want the eye to fly down there, so that’s why every once in
a while there’s a little bit of a turn. But you don’t want the eye to stop in

88
Tom Oshiyama, conversation with the author, September 16, 2010.
89
“Let Joy Be Unconfined: The Bridge Across the Arroyo To Be Built,” Los Angeles Times, July 17, 1890,
http://www.proquest.com (accessed July, 2011). See also “Bridge Proposals,” Los Angeles Times,
September 26, 1890, http://www.proquest.com (accessed July, 2011).
55

the middle, because there’s nothing to really see, until you get closer…All
of a sudden, everything gets smaller, because one side has a lot of
vegetation, and the other side has the little rock wall, and there’s a couple
of turns of the railroad tie. That’s designed to slow down the eye. So the
eye gets slower, as you’re walking down, and all of a sudden you see this
beautiful open gazebo. And that’s the concept we were trying to do. It
didn’t have a whole lot to do with walking…The idea is to embellish
what’s there.
90

The garden path’s final destination, the gazebo, was designed by Don Hensman in
1993 following Conrad Buff III’s death. Situated at the northeast corner of the property,
the gazebo is sandwiched between two levels of the remaining Scoville retaining walls.
Conceived as a place of refuge, the simple open structure consists only of a redwood
platform and roof, supported by two redwood columns and anchored by a single wall of
river rocks. Hensman selected the rocks personally, and supervised their placement
during their construction of the wall. Embedded within the mortar are coins collected by
the Kings during their years of travel to foreign countries. Although due to the nature of
its construction, the gazebo is less sculptural in nature than the other buildings that
comprise the King property, the monumentality of the brick wall balances a spare,
naturalistic aesthetic that otherwise hearkens back to the architects’ earlier works in post-
and-beam. With its limited vocabulary of materials and its siting at the edge of the
Arroyo, the gazebo creates perhaps the most seamless integration of architecture and the
natural landscape.
The gazebo proved to be a refuge not only for the Kings, but for their artisans as
well. Alex Moseley recalls lunches in the gazebo with Don Hensman, with sushi
provided by Howard Oshiyama. And, Tom Oshiyama recalls that his father would visit
the gazebo for quiet contemplation. Over the years, the gazebo has been the site of not

90
Tom Oshiyama, conversation with the author, September 16, 2010.
56

only private moments of meditation for the Kings, but of intimate spiritual celebrations,
including several weddings. However, the person who has perhaps found the greatest
refuge in the gazebo is its designer. Don Hensman had developed a close personal
friendship with the Kings over the years, as well as a tremendous connection to the King
property, describing their home and gardens as one of his favorite projects.
91
Per his
request, following his death in 2002, Don Hensman’s ashes were scattered at the gazebo.

91
Hensman, “Interview,” 81.
57

Figure 2.16 – The pathway leading east from the patio to the gazebo. The banks of the Arroyo Seco descend
beyond the cobblestone wall to the left. Constructed of discarded wooden railroad ties, the path is punctuated by
right angles and rock features designed to slow down the eye and invite contemplation. Photo by the author.
58

Figure 2.17 – The gazebo overlooking the Arroyo. The design for the gazebo was completed by Don Hensman in
1993, following the death of Conrad Buff III in 1989. Photo by the author.
59

Fostering the Feeling of the Landscape
Over the last three decades, the continuing stewardship by Howard Oshiyama of
Buff & Hensman’s plan for the King gardens has transformed the landscape from a plan
into a presence. “Landscaping is feeling,” Tom Oshiyama believes. “It’s got to feel
right…My father was not a perfectionist, but he demanded perfect. And perfect to him
meant that it has to feel right.”
92
In the tradition of Howard Oshiyama, it is the feeling
created by the landscape at the King property that Tom Oshiyama and his team now
strive to maintain rather than its appearance. “When I walk around here, I’m not looking
and saying, ‘Gee, there’s a broken branch,’” says Tom Oshiyama. “I’m looking to see if
everything is still balanced and in harmony with each other.”
Of course, to achieve these intangible qualities of balance and harmony has
required some very tangible efforts on the part of Howard Oshiyama, as well as his son
Tom and his team. Every element introduced into the landscape is given careful
consideration. “We don’t change here for the sake of change,” explains Tom Oshiyama.
“We only improve. Something has to be better. A lot of people rip things out to get a new
feeling, a new look. That doesn’t happen here. Things are really well thought out.”
93

This mindfulness has extended over time to even the smallest element of the
landscape. Every river rock utilized on the site over the years has been hand-selected by
Howard Oshiyama, his son Tom, or their workmen in order to ensure the stones were in
good condition and had a harmonious appearance. “We don’t like the cracked ones,”
Tom Oshiyama says simply.
94
So as not to damage the fragile landscape elements with

92
Tom Oshiyama, conversation with the author, September 16, 2010.
93
Ibid.
94
Ibid.
60

further wear and tear, when a gravel feature is installed or altered, all of the stone is
brought in by hand using a wheelbarrow, load after load.
Every planting also receives the same attention to detail. “What we try to do is
provide a natural look, without looking like it’s been pruned,”
95
explains Tom Oshiyama.
“We don’t like to shear.” The natural look is one that, conversely, takes a great deal of
effort: all of the pruning that is periodically required is, and has always been, completed
by hand and only by the most senior workmen.
The efforts of Howard Oshiyama and his son have revitalized the once-forgotten
landscape of the Arroyo Seco, transforming the site into a place of refuge and reflection.
Landscape architect Yosh Kuromiya describes the “well-composed” garden as one of
many endeavors, from the physical to the philosophical, “all of which entice our physical
senses while soothing our souls.”
96
Howard Oshiyama’s interpretation of Buff &
Hensman’s landscape plan for the property, as well as his own sensitive contributions,
represent a spiritual endeavor that spanned nearly a quarter of a century – and one which
is now continued by his son and grandson. The thoughtfulness exhibited in the
stewardship of the King gardens, though unseen save for the final, tangible result, is the
true significance of the King Residence and its landscape.

95
Tom Oshiyama, conversation with the author, July 21, 2011.
96
Kuromiya, “Reflections of a Gardener’s Son.”
61

CHAPTER THREE
HISTORY OF JAPANESE AMERICAN GARDENERS IN
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA,
1896-1956

From my lawnmower
I can make child and grandchild
Grow into doctors

– Mochizuki Goro
97

If you were a young man of Japanese descent growing up in Southern California
after World War II, it was nearly inevitable that you were familiar with gardening. It was
rarely by choice – after all, wouldn’t most boys rather ride bikes than rake leaves? But
that wasn’t the point. Almost without exception, you knew someone who was a gardener:
a father, a grandfather, an uncle. And that someone had, most certainly, at one time or
another, asked you – or forced you – to “go gardening.”
“Back then, Los Angeles was teeming with Japanese American gardeners,”
recalled Tom Shima, whose father was a gardener in Beverly Hills. “Half of my Japanese
American friends were sons and daughters of gardeners, and the other half, the grandsons
and granddaughters of gardeners.”
98
Dean Toji, also the son of a gardener, concurs,

97
Mochizuki Goro in Naomi Hirahara, ed., Green Makers: Japanese American Gardeners in Southern
California (Los Angeles: Southern California Gardeners’ Federation, 2000), 117.
98
Tom Shima in Hirahara, 119.
62

saying, “I grew up in a world created by Nisei gardeners and their wives…Among my
Sansei friends, almost everyone’s father was a gardener.”
99

While surely not everyone’s father was a gardener, a large percentage of Japanese
and Japanese Americans living in Southern California in the first half of the twentieth
century worked in the gardening industry. At times, that number could reach thirty per
cent or more: a significant share of the population, to be sure. What makes it all the more
surprising is that so little has been written on the subject. While the social and cultural
history of the Japanese experience in Southern California has been widely documented,
the economic history has been given less attention – perhaps, because the history is not
always a kind one. The economic experience of most Japanese and Japanese Americans
in the first half of the twentieth century was one of struggle and forfeiture – forfeiture of
their pride, their opportunities, and their personal and financial security. The fact that in a
context of such social and economic instability so many chose the same profession is
particularly telling. While the gardening industry may have been marginalized by
mainstream American society, it clearly held a great deal of significance for those who
lived in its midst.
While documenting the broad range of experiences accumulated by Japanese
gardeners as a whole goes beyond the scope of this work, the story of any one gardener,
such as Howard Oshiyama, speaks at least in part to the shared experience of this culture
– as it does to how the culture shapes any one individual. In the past, Dolores Hayden has
declared that, “The larger picture of how groups survived, or didn’t survive, is more

99
Dean Toji in Hirahara, 127.
63

important than how a few members of a group succeeded.”
100
However, in order to
understand how any member succeeded, it is crucial to understand the context from
which he came. The origins of Oshiyama’s career lie in the experiences of the generation
that preceded him, and their history informs the context of his accomplishments.

The Appeal of Contract Gardening
Gardening or landscape maintenance began to be recognized as a viable career
option for Issei, or first-generation Japanese immigrants, around 1900, when domestic
workers began to take on the added responsibility of caring for their employers’ yards.
Lawn mowing turned out to be quite profitable, and soon many Japanese immigrants
entered into contracts to cut lawns for multiple affluent families.
101
It quickly became
apparent that landscape maintenance as a full-time job with multiple “customers” could
be far more lucrative for the average immigrant than some of the other options available
to them. Nobuya Tsuchida, author and chair of the department of Asian and Asian
American Studies at California State University (Long Beach), explains how “gardening
yielded over $2 per day, as compared with the prevailing daily wages of $1.35 for
railroad workers in the Pacific Northwest or $1.75 for day laborers in Los Angeles.
Furthermore, the patron usually provided his gardener with lunch.”
102

These better-than-average wages were supplemented by the fact that little capital
was required to start a contract gardening business, and there was little in the way of

100
Dolores Hayden, The Power of Place: Urban Landscapes as Public History (Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press, 1995), 96.
101
Nobuya Tsuchida, “Japanese Gardeners in Southern California, 1900-1941,” in Labor Immigration
Under Capitalism, ed. Lucie Cheng and Edna Bonacich, 435-469 (Berkeley: University of California Press,
1984), 437.
102
Ibid., 437.
64

overhead costs. A gardener’s total investment “did not have to exceed $300, and the
average was probably around $400.”
103
As Tsuchida so succinctly put it, “During the first
two decades of the twentieth century, one could go into this trade with only a horse, a
rake, a manual lawn mower, and a bicycle.”
104
Even the lawn mower wasn’t really
necessary: many homeowners already owned one. And, since a gardener’s work
frequently spoke for itself, most Issei gardeners opted not to advertise commercially,
relying on word-of-mouth recommendations from other gardeners, referrals from clients
or solicitations from prospective customers while working.
105
Thus, operating costs
remained low, and gardeners could continue to extract a better profit from their wages.
Beyond the obvious economic benefits, there were other reasons that gardening as
a profession appealed to Japanese immigrants. It was one of the few jobs that was readily
available to Issei and also utilized their existing skill set. Professor Ronald Tadao
Tsukashima, whose father, grandfather, and uncle were all gardeners, discusses how “the
backdrop of Japanese immigration is one of transformation from the agrarian past,” citing
statistics that show the farming class constituted as much as 80 percent of the employed
population in Japan.
106
The huge influx of Japanese immigrants to America from 1890
through the early 1920s was a byproduct of the Meiji Restoration.
107
In order to finance
the desired Westernization of Japan, the government enacted drastic increases in land
taxes, which displaced hundreds of thousands of farmers.
108
While other jobs were

103
Leonard Broom and Ruth Reimer, Removal and Return: The Socio-Economic Effects of the War on
Japanese Americans (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1949), 117.
104
Tsuchida, 446.
105
Ronald Tadao Tsukashima, “Cultural Endowment, Disadvantaged Status and Economic Niche: The
Development of an Ethnic Trade,” International Migration Review 25, no.2 (Summer 1991): 333-354, 343.
106
Ibid., 341.
107
Tsukashima, “Development of an Ethnic Trade,” 341. See also David J. O’Brien and Stephen S. Fugita,
The Japanese American Experience (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991), 10-11.
108
O’Brien and Fugita, 10-11.
65

available within the rapidly evolving Japanese economy, agricultural workers were ill-
prepared for industrialization and often left home to find more suitable and better-paying
work. Many were lured to the United States by labor contractors, who viewed Japan’s
experienced agricultural workforce as the answer to demand for increased agricultural
production in this country.
109

However, in response to the surge in foreign population, California enacted the
Alien Land Law of 1913, which prevented Japanese immigrants from owning land or
profiting through agriculture. As a result, many later immigrants found themselves unable
to establish a career in their former profession. Fortunately, they retained their skill in
working with the land, and many Issei found contract gardening a relatively easy career
into which to transition. Tsukashima describes how “few of the Issei gardeners in
America were directly involved in this craft before emigrating. Nevertheless, that so
many with farming backgrounds should turn to gardening in urban areas suggests that the
two activities involved overlapping skills.”
110
In addition to transferable experience,
contract gardening offered an appealing entry point to many immigrants because it did
not require an exceptional command of the English language or knowledge of complex
technical skills. Nobuya Tsuchida sums up the appeal, saying, “Coming from rural Japan,
most immigrants were able to handle, or pretend to handle, horticultural work.”
111

While there were clearly many factors that contributed to the popularity of
gardening as a profession for Japanese immigrants, perhaps the most motivating ones
were those of a psychological nature. While contract gardening or yard maintenance may
have been few immigrants’ first choice as a new career or even as a temporary job, the

109
See O’Brien and Fugita for a further discussion of increased agricultural demand in the United States.
110
Tsukashima, “Development of an Ethnic Trade,” 342.
111
Tsuchida, 445.
66

fact remained that the field afforded immigrants a certain amount of control over their
own livelihoods and well-being. Tsuchida claims that “Japanese immigrants fully
understood that their employment opportunities were severely limited in their host
society,”
112
and being “one’s own boss” in a contractual position at least allowed
immigrants some measure of leverage in an otherwise unequal cultural and economic
environment. Dean Toji, the son of a gardener, recounted his father’s experience, saying,
“Gardeners have ‘customers,’ not ‘bosses.’ Gardeners always say that one of the good
things about their job is that if a customer gives them too much trouble, they can always
drop them and tell them to ‘Go to hell.’”
113
As contract gardeners, immigrants could pick
and choose their clients, their work, and their pay. Tsukashima cites several early studies,
from 1910 and 1949, which found that for immigrants
operating small holdings and insuring their continuity for the next
generation fostered a foundation of independence. Attesting to this fact,
virtually all Issei who turned to gardening in America operated as
independent contractors…Commenting on the effects of this foundation
more generally, the U.S. Immigration Commission report notes “…much
emphasis must be placed upon the fact that the Japanese like to be free
from the wage relation. That they take great pride in being independent of
that relation is a very important fact in explaining the spread of Japanese
business and independent farming in this country.”
114

The meticulous attention required of the work itself also provided a certain mental
challenge to immigrants who were largely underemployed relative to their prior
experience and education.
115
Shoji Nagumo, an Issei gardener who has been called “the
father of Southern California gardeners,”
116
recounted in his autobiography that
gardening could be very creative and challenging because the plants faithfully reflected

112
Tsuchida, 444-445.
113
Toji in Hirahara, 128.
114
Tsukashima, “Development of an Ethnic Trade,” 341-342.
115
Tsuchida, 444.
116
Hirahara, 23.
67

the quality of his work.
117
The potential for at least a limited amount of personal
expression within their daily work also allowed immigrants to offset the mundane
circumstances of a job they literally could not afford to lose. Tom Shima summed up his
father’s inclination towards perfectionism in his landscape work:
I don’t think my father could have worked any other way, not because he
was inclined towards perfectionism, but to avoid the monotony and
boredom that often accompanies manual labor. He needed to immerse
himself in the idiosyncrasies involved in growing different trees and
flowers and the complex geometry of landscape gardening, because it was
a way to avoid the tedium that might throttle his ability to support his
family. My father didn’t choose to be a gardener because he liked working
with his hands and enjoyed the outdoors, but because it was one of the
only jobs available to an immigrant from Japan.
118

The Demand for Contract Gardening
Fortunately, for aspiring Japanese gardeners, there was no shortage of demand for
their services. As Ronald Tsukashima remarked, “Southern California has always been
the mecca for the maintenance-gardening industry.”
119
Gardening as a profession evolved
in response to the socioeconomic climate of Southern California and the growing need
for a new kind of domestic service: yard care.
There were two major interrelated factors that led to this rapid expansion of the
industry: the climate of the Los Angeles basin and its resultant demands on the designed
landscape, and the population explosion and ensuing urbanization of Southern California
during the early part of the twentieth century. Climate, of course, was one of the many
selling points used to lure newcomers to Southern California at the turn of the century.
Aggressive promotional and tourism campaigns touted Los Angeles as a “terrestrial

117
Tsuchida, 447.
118
Tom Shima in Hirahara, 124.
119
Ronald Tadao Tsukashima in Hirahara, 69.
68

paradise”
120
with mild weather and exotic landscapes. Spurred by the city’s “pervasive
publicity, the nation’s intensified mobility, and the region’s increased accessibility,”
121

immigrants both foreign and domestic arrived in Los Angeles in droves and forced a
rapid urbanization of the once-idyllic landscape. Robert Fogelson cites some impressive
population statistics for the city:
Its population quadrupled in the 1880’s, doubled in the 1890’s, tripled in
the 1900’s, and doubled in the 1910’s and again in the 1920’s…Los
Angeles grew by almost as much as all its rivals combined between 1910
and 1920 and by more than twice as much between 1920 and 1930.
122

Needless to say, this sudden influx of occupants had a dramatic impact on the Los
Angeles region. While the addition of businesses and industrial resources certainly
altered the geography of the area, a growing population requires more of one resource
than any other: housing. And, in the case of Los Angeles, it could not be just any
housing. As Fogelson remarked, “It was not stores, factories, or even apartment houses,
however, but single-family subdivisions that characterized the Los Angeles
landscape.”
123
Americans arriving from other parts of the country had, after all, been
promised a “terrestrial paradise,” which could hardly be found in a cramped apartment or
rural farmhouse that resembled the home they left behind.
This vision, coupled with the large influx of people arriving each day, presented a
golden opportunity to real estate developers to promote recently divided tracts of land
outside the city. And thus, a building boom was born. As early as the 1890s, developers
had begun dividing the land around Los Angeles into ample suburban lots that

120
Robert M. Fogelson, The Fragmented Metropolis: Los Angeles, 1850-1930 (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1967), 73.
121
Ibid., 74.
122
Ibid., 78-79.
123
Ibid., 154.
69

accommodated both the single-family homes and landscaped yards so desired by recent
immigrants to Los Angeles. “I can’t understand why anyone should oppose the expansion
of the city,” remarked one developer. “If people did not go into the outside tracts that are
being opened up they would be forced into apartments.”
124

The building boom meant that there was no shortage of work for the construction
industry, and thus related trades prospered as well, including landscape installation and,
later on, garden maintenance. The vast number of single-family properties constructed
meant that there were an equally large number of front lawns, back yards, and side
gardens that required landscaping. The business might have ended there; however, the
mild climate – which is what attracted so many people to the area to begin with – made
maintaining their parcels of paradise a year-round responsibility. A 1909 Los Angeles
Times article proclaimed that
the climate of California is such that, with a plentiful supply of water, the
whole landscape may be a garden. There is hardly a day in the year when
gardening is not a pleasant relaxation, giving results that are well worth
the trouble expended.
125

While that may have been the case, most property owners preferred not to expend
the trouble themselves. Most of the Americans moving to Los Angeles were relatively
affluent, and they came to the city in search of a “well-rounded life” rather than any kind
of ambitious occupation.
126
Preferring to relax rather than work, and possessing the
resources to do so, most homeowners were happy to delegate their gardening tasks to
domestic workers.

124
Fogelson, 145.
125
James Main Dixon, “Lessons from Japanese Gardening,” Los Angeles Times, July 3, 1909,
http://www.proquest.com (accessed July, 2011).
126
Fogelson, 144.
70

For Issei gardeners, the year-round nature of the work was not so much an
increased inconvenience as it was an increased income opportunity. The stability and
security of guaranteed maintenance work was a blessing in comparison to the other
opportunities commonly available to Japanese immigrants, which were seasonal in nature
and largely dependent on crops and agriculture. Enterprising Issei could even capitalize
on both the construction boom and the resultant yard maintenance business by
contracting with a construction company to install landscaping and then contracting with
the new property owners to maintain it. Nobuya Tsuchida relates an anecdote from Shoji
Nagumo’s autobiography, which tells how
during the housing boom of the mid 1920s, Nagumo entered into a
contract with the Borman Construction Company to build gardens for its
newly constructed homes…As many of the buyers of these houses asked
Nagumo to maintain their yards, he was able to earn two to three times
more than his fellow gardeners.
127

Nagumo later lost his lucrative landscaping contract when the Borman Construction
Company went bankrupt during the Depression, but he managed to keep all of his
gardening customers. It was this kind of continuing demand for service that allowed so
many Japanese immigrants to enter into and eventually prosper from the profession of
contract gardening.

Development of the Contract Gardening Profession: Pre-World War II
While the industry may have begun with a few domestic workers cutting lawns on
the side, contract gardening quickly grew into something more, for both the Japanese
immigrants and their customers. An early study of Japanese immigrants in the United
States published during the 1920s reported that Issei were engaged in yard care as early

127
Tsuchida, 445-446.
71

as 1891.
128
After the first enterprising gardeners made the leap from domestic work to
full-time lawn care, most immigrants who wanted to go into contract gardening relied
upon the assistance and referrals of Issei who had previously entered the field.
129
These
ethnic ties were critical in the development of the profession, and already-established
gardeners were an invaluable resource for aspiring newcomers. In his autobiography,
Shoji Nagumo described how “an old friend, Takao Yamada, who was a gardener, hired
him as a helper for $5 a day. Through Yamada’s recommendation, Nagumo also worked
for other gardeners. Finally, when some gardeners gave Nagumo their excess customers,
he could begin gardening on his own.”
130

It was relatively easy for an aspiring Issei contract gardener to build a network of
clients once they had established a business. Demand for lawn care was high, and given
the sudden proliferation of suburban development that featured similar properties,
chances were good that the friends and neighbors of a gardener’s customers were
interested in the same kind of service. This enabled gardeners to concentrate their
business within a single area, with some having an entire block to themselves.
131

“Moving from house to house, they negotiated individually with clients…agreements
were usually verbal, with such informal arrangements sources of occasional disputes
between client and gardener.”
132
Gardeners could also buy contracts for individual
properties or even entire routes from other gardeners, who were either overwhelmed by

128
Tsukashima, “Development of an Ethnic Trade,” 334.
129
Tsuchida, 444.
130
Ibid., 444.
131
Ibid., 446.
132
Tsukashima in Hirahara, 69.
72

too many clients or were quitting the profession. A contract for a single yard could
generally be purchased for the relatively low cost of two months’ worth of fees.
133

With so many Issei with agricultural experience establishing themselves as
gardeners, “it was not long before the Japanese earned a reputation as the finest in garden
maintenance for they not only had experience with plants but they worked hard and
conscientiously.”
134
As early as 1949, researchers studying the impact of the contract
gardening profession noted, “Although the gardens and lawns that were laid out had little
direct Japanese cultural influence, Japanese horticultural practice undoubtedly had its
effect.”
135
The growing reputation of the Issei only served to increase the demand for
their services. As early as 1905, a mere fifteen years after they first began to work in yard
care, 179 of the 3,040 Issei men in Los Angeles – about 5.9 per cent of the labor force –
made their living in gardening. By 1918, one out of every ten Issei in Los Angeles had
joined the profession.
136

The growth of the profession continued at exponential rates, thanks to both
technological innovations and demand resulting from the building boom. The
introduction of the Ford Model-T in 1908, and later the Ford pickup truck, allowed many
gardeners to expand their service area.
137
By 1920, the number of Issei gardeners had
climbed to 1,000. In the next decade, when the population of Los Angeles doubled, the
population of the gardening profession more than tripled, and by 1934, nearly a third of
the Japanese labor force in Los Angeles worked as gardeners.
138
As Ronald Tadao

133
Tsuchida, 446.
134
Ibid., 437.
135
Broom and Riemer, 115.
136
Tsuchida, 437.
137
Tsukashima in Hirahara, 69. See also Tsuchida, 440.
138
Tsuchida, 440.
73

Tsukashima remarked, “By 1920, gardening had become an ethnic niche, and by World
War II, a near-ethnic monopoly.”
139

The intervening years, between the boom of the 1920s and the wartime conflict of
the 1940s, were a difficult time for working Americans and for the American economy.
The difficulties for Japanese Americans in particular were more indirect in nature, due to
their general disenfranchisement.
On the whole, the Great Depression played less havoc with Japanese
immigrants than it did with the American people at large, for few of the
Issei owned stocks or had significant bank savings. Moreover, the majority
of the Issei were farmers, agricultural laborers, gardeners, or domestics;
factory workers, who were hurt the most, constituted only a very small
percentage of the Japanese labor force.
140

In the immediate aftermath of the stock market crash in 1929, many contract gardeners
lost customers who could no longer afford to pay for their services due to their own
financial losses. However, on the whole, since the occupation already generated a greater
profit relative to other professions and there remained a great demand for gardening
services, Issei gardeners managed to survive the Depression, despite the misfortunes of
some of their customers.
While Issei contract gardeners never averaged annual incomes similar to those of
their fellow Japanese small-business owners, such as nursery owners or grocers, their
earnings were adequate and the stability of the profession during the turbulent years of
the 1930s provided some much-needed financial security to an already-disadvantaged
ethnic population. As one former gardener recalled of the Depression, “No one can deny

139
Tsukashima in Hirahara, 69.
140
Tsuchida, 441.
74

that gardening was a respectable occupation which saved the Japanese from poverty.”
141

Nobuya Tsuchida agrees:
Undoubtedly, during the Great Depression, yard maintenance did provide
thousands of Japanese immigrants and their dependents with an adequate
livelihood. Furthermore, a considerable amount of money derived from
gardening was eventually funneled to many of the Japanese-owned
business establishments patronized by the gardeners.
142

Fortunately, for both Japanese families and the immigrant economy, the initial dip
in business for contract gardening after the crash of 1929 quickly rebounded, and by the
mid-1930s, gardener income had regained and even surpassed its pre-Depression level.
While Issei gardeners did encounter some competition from unemployed white workers
during the Depression, they managed to retain their monopoly in contract gardening. In
fact, Issei gardeners managed to maintain a 70 to 80 per cent share of the total gardening
population in Southern California in the years leading up to World War II.
143
Their
success was largely due to the goodwill perpetuated by their ethnic reputation. By the
time the outbreak of World War II led to their evacuation, “the Japanese had established
and solidified the reputation that they were the best in the trade.”
144

The Problems of World War II: Evacuation and Return
Even the good standing that gardeners enjoyed within the larger community could
not save them from the effects of World War II. Like many other Japanese immigrants,
their exclusion from the West Coast following the attack on Pearl Harbor destroyed

141
Tsuchida, 442.
142
Ibid., 443.
143
Ibid., 443.
144
Ibid., 448.
75

gardeners’ livelihoods. The challenges they faced due to their evacuation, whether forced
or voluntary, and internment affected the profession in many ways.
First, evacuation itself presented many problems. While some Japanese were able
to leave voluntarily in order to avoid internment, many were not, and those that were
faced with the prospect of being interred in camps had little control over their future. Issei
were left with little time to settle their affairs before being forcibly evacuated – in some
cases, they were given only forty-eight hours’ notice before their departure.
145
Since
evacuees were only allowed to bring necessary personal items, many families were
forced to sell their businesses, homes, and possessions – whatever they could – at a
substantial loss. One evacuee described how “people who were like vultures swooped
down on us going through our belongings offering us a fraction of their value. When we
complained to them of the low price they would respond by saying, “you can’t take it
with you so take it or leave it.”
146

For those immigrants employed in a profession that relied heavily on physical
resources like tools and equipment, like contract gardening, this dealt a substantial
economic blow to many workers and their families. Such items represented years of
saving and investment. Some gardeners hid their tools, rather than take the financial loss
that resulted from selling them. Shoji Nagumo recalled “hiding his and his friend’s
gardening tools throughout his house. He carefully created a map diagramming where the
tools were stored: saw, under the floor boards; power lawnmower, basement.”
147
Some
gardeners were able to sell, lend, or give their tools – as well as their gardening routes –

145
Broom and Riemer, 124.
146
United States. Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians, Personal Justice
Denied. With a new foreword by Tetsuden Kashima (Washington, DC: Civil Liberties Public Education
Fund; Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1997), 132.
147
Hirahara, 55.
76

to fellow gardeners or former assistants, with the hope that there would be a place for
them in the profession upon their return.
In the meantime, those who had been gardeners before the war were able to
maintain their skills in some small way by creating gardens and landscaping for the
internment camps, a pastime that in some cases became quite competitive.
148
It also
provided some much-needed beautification for the otherwise bleak surroundings. One
park project at Manzanar involved “more than 100 species of flowers, two small lakes, a
waterfall, a bridge, a Japanese tea house, and pine trees.”
149

While many Japanese were concerned about their return to civilian life after the
war, their prewar reputation meant that gardeners could be relatively confident about
finding work upon their return. Those who had pursued other lines of work, however,
knew that the opportunities available to them upon their release would be limited. As the
son of one Nisei gardener explained, “Who would want to hire someone of Japanese
descent?”
150
And, since so many Japanese had been forced to dispose of their
possessions, the knowledge that they would be starting over with few resources and little
financial security was also of great concern.
The gardening profession provided an attractive solution to these problems.
Experienced gardeners had shared their knowledge and extolled the virtues of the
profession during their internment, and its “profitable returns and independent status
caught the interest of many. A relatively unregulated industry, gardening offered a way to
recoup wartime losses.”
151

148
Charles Birnbaum, telephone conversation with the author, August 10, 2011. See also Hirahara, 53-57.
149
Hirahara, 55.
150
Tom Oshiyama, conversation with the author, September 16, 2010.
151
Tsukashima in Hirahara, 77.
77

Evolution of the Contract Gardening Profession: The Postwar Renaissance
The economic challenges faced by Japanese Americans during the postwar years
sparked a second renaissance for the gardening profession in Southern California. This
was recognized as early as 1949, when two Berkeley sociologists studying the economic
effects of World War II on the Japanese American population commented, “One of the
clearest and most important trends in the postwar period has been the increased numbers
of contract gardeners.”
152
While gardening had never been considered a profession to
aspire to, it quickly evolved into an ideal postwar employment option for Japanese and
Japanese Americans. Indeed, as author Carla Tengan has noted, “More than any other
profession, gardening helped Japanese Americans to ease their transition back into
society.”
153

Although some considered the golden years of contract gardening to have passed
with the aging of the Issei generation, many second-generation Japanese Americans, or
Nisei, now found themselves considering the profession for many of the same reasons
that had appealed to their ancestors. Faced with a distinct lack of opportunities due to
discrimination and meager financial resources after their years in camp, gardening
allowed for independent work that required little capital investment yet generated a stable
and relatively lucrative income. For those who had previously been employed in other
lines of work, it also offered an easy, accessible transition to available employment, and
many were able to utilize their existing agricultural skills.

152
Broom and Riemer, 119.
153
Carla S. Tengan, “Cultivating Communities: Japanese American Gardeners in Southern California,
1910-1980” (PhD diss., Brown University, 2006), 60, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, UMI Number:
3227947, http://www.proquest.com (accessed October, 2011).
78

At the same time, the demand for yard care and gardening services in many ways
echoed the original economic context that allowed for the development of this “ethnic
niche.” Both the economy and the population of the Southern California region exploded
between 1945 and 1959, and the building industry continued to flourish, as did the
demand for related industries like landscaping and yard care. However, this time, the
demand was twofold: repair and restorative work for existing gardens and lawns that had
languished during the war, as well as landscaping necessitated by the postwar housing
boom.
The maintenance of America’s lawns and gardens – aside from Victory gardens –
had suffered during World War II. As many Issei gardeners had been evacuated, their
former customers “were bemoaning the haggard appearance of their gardens. Since most
able-bodied men had been inducted and supplies diverted to the war effort, gardeners
were not easily available.”
154
Other minority laborers soon took the place of Japanese
gardeners. However, as Virginia Scott Jenkins observed in her study of the lawn and its
cultural significance, “Lawn care had not proved to be a fascinating diversion to the war
worker.”
155
Other ethnic groups lacked the same devotion to their work exhibited by
Japanese gardeners, and by 1945, “American lawns were in bad shape.” House and
Garden published an article that same year declaring the American lawn to be “one of the
saddest wartime casualties in the home garden.”
Annual feeding has been foregone and, in many instances, lack of time has
precluded even mowing. Consequently weeds are prevalent, the permanent
grasses are being crowded out, the turf is thin, the sod probably run down,
and insect damage has gone unchecked.
156

154
Hirahara, 57.
155
Virginia Scott Jenkins, The Lawn: A History of an American Obsession (Washington, DC: Smithsonian
Institution Press), 96.
156
Ibid., 96.
79

In addition, the existing landscape – or, at least, what was left of it – was on the
brink of one of the most sweeping transformations in modern history. The late 1940s and
1950s witnessed an unprecedented demand for housing, thanks to the era’s thriving
economy and the postwar baby boom. New military industries located in West Coast
metropolitan areas like Los Angeles, San Diego, and Phoenix also attracted scores of
civilian workers and their families; these same areas also drew many discharged members
of the armed forces who were drawn to the region after their experiences there during
active service. The resultant need for housing transformed the Southern California
landscape.
After the acute housing shortages of the war years, when families shared
cramped apartments and war workers lived in Quonset huts or even in
their cars, developers responded to these opportunities by building
communities of single-family, owner-occupied houses in every
metropolitan area, particularly on the West Coast. Fields and groves along
the new highway corridors were transformed into orderly rows of modest
homes, each with its own yard.
157

Fortunately, this renewed demand for yard care and landscaping, coupled with the
esteemed prewar reputation of Japanese American gardeners, meant there was plenty of
work to be had for those who were interested. Returning gardeners found the return to
civilian life after the war to be comparatively easy. Their reestablishment within the
profession was aided in part by their prewar contacts and their social connections.
Gardeners who had turned over their routes to others before the war were sometimes able
to reclaim some of their customers.
158
Some former gardeners had also kept in touch with
sympathetic clients during their internment. However, many gardeners opted to start fresh
rather attempt to resume an old route or business – it was easier to negotiate new

157
Jenkins, 97.
158
Hirahara, 57.
80

contracts at higher postwar rates than to attempt to renegotiate old ones.
159
Many early
returning gardeners also received the support of the Pacific Coast Committee on
American Principles and Fair Play, which was dedicated to ensuring the constitutional
rights of persons of Japanese descent. “In the first half of 1945 each gardener thus built
his new route around the nucleus of one or two persons who felt a personal responsibility
to undo part of the injustice of the Evacuation and therefore actively sought to find
employment for gardener friends.”
160

Other Japanese who had not previously worked in gardening also sought work
within the profession, and given the demand for such services, were able to easily
transition into their new jobs. However, many veteran gardeners felt that the transition
was achieved almost too easily: many Issei and Nisei who lacked experience were finding
gardening jobs based on the reputation of their ethnicity alone. Leonard Broom and Ruth
Reiner put it bluntly: “The Japanese Americans’ prewar reputation for horticultural
proficiency stereotyped them and made it possible for those who had never done
gardening to get contracts.”
161
A Los Angeles Times writer observed in later years that
theirs was a profession carved from racism…It proved so strong that at the
end of World War II the next generation of Japanese joked among
themselves that if the job market really got tight (and it did) there was
always gardening. And all they had to do was hang a mower, edger and a
few hoses off the back of an old Chevy pickup and the Anglos would be
convinced they were professionals…and more than a few of them – some
with college degrees and scant gardening expertise – landed work in just
that manner.
162

159
Tsukashima in Hirahara, 79. See also Broom and Riemer, 119.
160
Broom and Riemer, 119.
161
Ibid., 119.
162
Mark Jones, “In the Japanese Garden of Survival,” Los Angeles Times, September 26, 1976.
http://www.proquest.com (accessed July, 2011).
81

Despite their reservations, experienced gardeners had little room to protest the
actions of the postwar newcomers. After all, the genesis of gardening as an ethnic niche,
which later went on to become the economic backbone of an entire minority culture, had
originally developed in much the same manner. However, that had been forty years
earlier, when rates had been lower, competition had been rare, and the gardeners’
reputation was virtually unchallenged. Now, the growing population of inexperienced
gardeners created an entirely different environment. As early as 1946 – just one year into
the postwar era – experienced gardeners were already expressing their concerns about
how such uncontrolled growth could affect the profession.
Persons from a wide variety of prewar occupations worked as contract
gardeners, and the dollar returns were well above prewar levels. Because
many inexperienced Issei and Nisei entered the field, those who had been
established in the vocation before the war feared that the reputation of
Japanese American gardeners would suffer and that in an attempt to hold
their customers, the less skillful workers would cut prices.
163

While such concerns may have seemed petty, the growth of the gardening
industry held great significance for the Japanese community at large. Ronald Tsukashima
even posited that “like prewar farming, postwar maintenance gardening developed into
the backbone of the ethnic economy.”
164
Between 1946 and 1952, 39.1 per cent of
Japanese and Japanese American men in Los Angeles and Orange counties reported their
principal occupation as gardening.
165
In some neighborhoods, such as Sawtelle, gardeners
could account for as much as seventy-five per cent of the employed males of Japanese
descent.
166
With such an obvious concentration of available workers within a single
profession, anything that threatened the continued livelihood of these men threatened the

163
Broom and Riemer, 119.
164
Tsukashima in Hirahara, 83.
165
Ibid., 75.
166
Broom and Riemer, 120.
82

livelihood of the entire community. If gardeners were forced to cut prices due to
competition, or to lose customers because of perceived damage to their reputation,
everyone lost.
The fears of the established gardeners proved to be accurate. With so many
entering the field, “this crowded fraternity”
167
quickly turned the Japanese into their own
worst enemy. Writer Dick Homna, a columnist for The Rafu Shimpo daily newspaper,
described the situation in 1946:
All is not brotherhood in the ranks. Some Cain and Abelism is already
evident. Competition, fierce now, threatens to become worse as charges of
cut-throating and price-cutting are being bruited about in the best non-
union manner. Disgruntled Nisei gardeners, fearing that unfair price
slashing and underselling of labor will inevitably force them out of
business and deprive them of a livelihood, charge the Issei element with
practices inimical to their welfare. Almost indefensible, the Issei can only
point to their distinct handicap in language, in rebuttal, and blithely go on
working for less – unless something is done to set prices.
168

It was clear something had to be done before the entire industry self-destructed.
While several trade associations had been formed in the 1930s, they were little more than
social clubs, and no organization or association of any kind existed in the years
immediately after the war to regulate the gardening industry and settle disputes between
individual gardeners. Also, it was commonly felt that educational programs were
essential to uphold the high standards of workmanship established by the Issei in the first
part of the twentieth century.
169
With so many Issei and Nisei now entering the industry,
the old ways of apprenticeship utilized by Issei in the first part of the century were no
longer viable. Neither could gardeners expect to continue to settle disagreements amongst
themselves. Widespread educational programs that were accessible to a larger audience

167
Tsukashima in Hirahara, 79.
168
Dick Honma in Hirahara, 61.
169
Tengan, 148.
83

were necessary, as was a governing body that could provide guidance and support to the
growing gardening industry.
Thus, in July, 1955, the Southern California Japanese American Gardeners
League was formed. Twelve local associations with 980 members came together under
the umbrella organization of the league, with three more associations joining the bloc by
the end of the year.
170
The following year, the league changed its name to the Southern
California Gardeners Federation (SCGF), which still exists today. One of the
organization’s most significant and enduring contributions to the profession began in
1957, when the SCGF began offering health insurance to all members through the Sato
Insurance Agency. Since then, health care has remained “the glue holding the
organization together,” and accounted for much of the rapid growth experienced by the
Federation later in the 1960s.
171
The Federation also later opened a co-op, which allowed
gardeners to purchase supplies and equipment at discounted rates. It did not, however,
attempt to regulate prices charged by gardeners – the wide array of services offered
prevented the development of any standardized fee structure. The Federation did,
however, offer support to gardeners at the local level in resolving disputes and collecting
accounts that were in arrears.
Perhaps the most important role of the SCGF was that of educator. The
organization recognized the difficulties encountered by the rapidly expanding field of
both experienced and novice gardeners, and the significance the profession and its
reputation had for the Japanese people. In the inaugural postwar issue of the Federation’s
publication, The Gardener’s Monthly, the case was made for educational programming.

170
Tsukashima in Hirahara, 87.
171
Ibid., 91.
84

There are a multitude of activities which could and should be undertaken.
Inasmuch as gardening affords the greatest opportunity for employment to
persons of Japanese ancestry, every possible help should be extended to
those who are willing to work but who have no particular skill to enter the
field. Those novices should be able to obtain information.
172

The publication itself was in the best position to fulfill its professed goals. Given
the solitary nature of contract gardening work and the rapid expansion rate of the
profession, it was difficult for gardeners to engage each other in networking, or even the
simple exchange of ideas and methods. Distribution of The Gardener’s Monthly allowed
the Federation to reach a wide, disjointed audience and transmit Federation news,
publicize upcoming events, and educate members.
173
This organizational and promotional
vehicle helped the SCGF re-establish the gardening profession as an “ethnic niche” for
Japanese Americans.
The founding of the Southern California Gardeners’ Federation and the
publication of The Gardener’s Monthly marked a turning point in the history of Japanese
gardeners in Southern California. The organization played a critical role in transforming
the unregulated, solitary gardening industry into an organized network of experienced
craftsmen by providing continuing education and support services. Issei and Nisei who
were now embarking upon careers in gardening in the years following World War II did
so within a context of support and advocacy that their predecessors could never have
imagined.

172
Tengan, 148. The title of the monthly publication was later changed to Turf and Garden.
173
Ibid., 147.
85

The Next Nisei Gardeners
In the years following the initial postwar period, the gardening industry, much
like the Southern California Gardeners’ Federation, underwent something of a
reinvention. As both the physical and cultural landscape of Southern California evolved
during the tumultuous years of the 1960s and 1970s, so did the role of the gardener and,
indeed, those who stepped up to fill it. Nisei who had witnessed World War II as mere
children had since come of age and many had gone on to higher education. And yet,
faced with a lack of professional opportunities, many Nisei still found themselves
returning to follow in their Issei parents’ occupational footsteps – which meant, given the
abundance of participation in the profession, that many became gardeners. However, they
did so with an advanced command of English, and an extensive education in fields which
their predecessors had previously mastered through experience alone. Nisei gardeners
were able to approach the profession equipped with resources heretofore unimagined by
their forebears.
However, the original tenets of this ethnic niche were not lost. This “second
generation” of Nisei gardeners, which included Howard Oshiyama, was informed by the
experiences and sacrifices of their predecessors, who established a profession that
ensured respect and dignity for Japanese Americans and economic stability for the
Japanese American community. Their creation of this environment allowed Oshiyama,
and many other Japanese Americans, the luxury of financial and personal success.

86

CHAPTER FOUR
THE LIFE AND WORK OF HOWARD OSHIYAMA,
1917-2003

Howard Oshiyama hated gardening.
174
At least, he hated gardening in the
traditional sense – maintenance gardening, the kind that the Japanese were known for.
But Howard Oshiyama wasn’t that kind of gardener. Longtime Pasadena resident Alex
Moseley recalls that, “Certainly, in the fifties, there were lots of Japanese gardeners in
town. That was just sort of the common thing.” But Howard, on the other hand, “was
always somebody different, because he wasn’t just a clipper and a blower. I mean, he
really knew how to build stuff and make things happen.”
175

Figure 4.1 – Howard Oshiyama. Photo courtesy of Tom Oshiyama.

174
All quotes from Tom Oshiyama in this chapter are taken from personal interviews with the author on
September 16, 2010, and July 21, 2011.
175
Alex Moseley, conversation with the author, September 22, 2011. Alex Moseley was a longtime friend
of Don Hensman and Conrad Buff III, as well as the owner of two houses by the architects. Moseley was
acquainted with Howard Oshiyama through his relationship with Buff and Hensman.
87

It might seem strange that a man who hated gardening would spend over fifty
years working with the land. However, Howard Oshiyama did not remain a gardener for
long. He transcended the expected social boundaries of the profession and became a
landscape contractor. Furthermore, he gained the respect of some of Southern
California’s most prominent local architects. In particular, his longtime collaboration
with Conrad Buff III and Donald Hensman resulted in several of the firm’s most well-
known landscapes.

Early Life and Education
Hideo “Howard” Oshiyama was born on December 16, 1917, in La Habra,
California. The youngest child – and only son – of Japanese immigrants, Oshiyama spent
his early years working in farming with his father, Tozaburo. The elder Oshiyama had
established a small agricultural business, collecting produce from the local farms and
delivering it to the nearby market. Howard Oshiyama “couldn’t stand farming,” his son
Tom later recalled. “But he liked the concept of farming. He liked working with the
land.”
176

Like so many other Japanese Americans, Oshiyama might have been faced with a
future in farming had fate not intervened. By the 1930s, Japanese Americans were
growing increasingly nervous about the escalating international tensions between Japan
and the United States due to the Second Sino-Japanese War. It quickly became obvious
that war between the two countries was unavoidable. Many Japanese Americans felt
caught between their ancestry and their citizenship, and wanted their children to be

176
Tom Oshiyama, conversation with the author.
88

prepared for the inevitable conflict. For the Oshiyamas, that meant sending their children
to Japan to be educated. And, for Howard, that meant going to military school.
He went because they told him to. He didn’t want to go. Everybody knew
war was coming, and [Howard]’s father was very Americanized by that
point. But he still felt that if war comes, they need to be ready. And he was
too old to fight, so he sent his son – his only son. […] So he went to Japan,
and he went to military school.
177

In addition to his military education, Howard also trained extensively in kendo,
and obtained his black belt before returning to the United States in 1937. The Japanese
attack on Pearl Harbor, which ignited World War II, was still several years in the future.
However, the Japanese American press in the United States frequently featured extensive
coverage of the Second Sino-Japanese War, which was currently underway. As Tom
Oshiyama explained, it was not difficult for his father, along with other Issei and Nisei, to
see the writing on the wall.
Even though war was still a couple years off, they knew what was coming.
And he had no desire to fight for either Japan or the United States. My dad
was very much a pacifist. But if he had a choice, people here in the United
States – at least his friends – realized that Japan, being a smaller country
as it is, probably could last a couple years, maybe three, and they were
gonna lose. So when the war actually broke out, they had already kinda
looked into what they were going to do.
178

World War II

The early preparations on the part of Japanese Americans proved to be fortuitous,
particularly in Howard Oshiyama’s case. As a Kibei – a Japanese American who had
been educated in Japan – he would have been considered a particular target of the

177
Tom Oshiyama, conversation with the author.
178
Ibid.
89

exclusion efforts. Faced with being forcibly evacuated to an internment camp, Oshiyama
instead opted to voluntarily move east.
A lot of people went to Chicago, because in Chicago, you didn’t go to
camp – as long as you went. So [Howard] and his dad…they packed up
their one big truck with their stuff -- they left all their other stuff with
some Caucasian people – and they drove to Ogden, Utah. They were told
the Mormons were really nice people – and they were. […] They didn’t
have a great time, but it was a time where they didn’t stress out.
179

Howard Oshiyama rarely discussed his experiences during the war with his
family, and little is known today about how he lived and worked in the years spanning
World War II. The Ogden city directory indicates that in 1944, he was working as a
foreman for the Pacific Fruit & Produce Company.
180
His father, Tozaburo, also found a
job as a caretaker at a Buick dealership.
181

In addition to finding work in Utah, Howard Oshiyama also found love. He met
Fujiko “Florence” Hashitsume at a local dance, and the young couple were soon married.
Florence was also a Kibei-Nisei, and her family was from Hollywood. Along with her
parents and brother, she had spent three months at the Santa Anita assembly center before
being relocated to the Heart Mountain internment camp, and the family planned to return
to Southern California after the war.
While Howard Oshiyama had been able to avoid some of the most devastating
effects of World War II suffered by many Japanese Americans, the years spanning the
war marked a period of great change in his life both personally and professionally. When
World War II began, Howard Oshiyama was a single man, with a small agricultural

179
Tom Oshiyama, conversation with the author.
180
Recently, Tom Oshiyama also discovered notes and paperwork related to correspondence courses taken
by his father during his time in Ogden, Utah. Gardening was obviously not yet on Howard Oshiyama’s
mind: the course notes indicate he was studying to become a refrigeration repair technician. Why Oshiyama
adopted this plan – and why he subsequently abandoned it – is not known.
181
Tozaburo Oshiyama’s death certificate, issued by the state of Utah after his death on June 15, 1946,
indicates that he worked as a caretaker at the Ogden Buick Sales Co.
90

business. When the war ended in September, 1945, he was married, with a baby on the
way – and no job. Like many Japanese Americans, Oshiyama was uncertain about what
the future would hold for him after the war. Living in Utah had only been intended to be
a temporary solution to the problem of exclusion – but what next? “They were one of the
last ones to leave,” Tom Oshiyama later recalled, “because they didn’t know where to
go.”

Figure 4.2 – Howard Oshiyama with his wife, Florence, and his two young daughters, Frances (seated) and
Yuriko, ca. 1949. Photo courtesy of Tom Oshiyama.
91

Pasadena Gardeners in the Postwar Era
Howard Oshiyama’s decisions regarding his postwar plans were guided by those
who had gone before him. Florence’s family had already returned to Pasadena, which had
a reputation for being particularly welcoming to the Japanese community at a time when
other communities were not. Her father had worked as a gardener before the war, and
now, joined by his son, was able to secure the same position. After leaving Utah,
Oshiyama moved to Pasadena with his young family, as did many other Japanese
Americans, and a tiny ethnic enclave emerged.
182
“The Japanese community in Pasadena
was a really tight-knit community,” recalls Tom Oshiyama. “It’s not anymore, because
everybody moved away – including me – but that’s how I was brought up.”
Pasadena people were very caring and allowed [the Japanese] to come in –
certain areas. Not every area…One of our good friends was the block-
breaker, and bought a house, and everybody started moving away. And
then the Japanese started moving in. It became kind of a little Tokyo.
183

Although they received a positive reception in Pasadena, Japanese Americans still
encountered widespread discrimination that made it difficult to find meaningful
employment in the years following the war. Although Howard Oshiyama had been
educated in both Japan and the United States, he experienced the same challenges in
finding work. In 1951, now married with two young daughters and an infant son, he
decided to go to work as a gardener to support his growing family. Although it is not

182
Although Carson Anderson reports that “no [ethnic] group existed in a single location in Pasadena,” he
also acknowledges that “there were many instances of a single street or segments of a small number of
adjoining streets being occupied predominantly by a particular group.” Pasadena city directories indicate
that in 1949, Howard and Florence Oshiyama lived at 1160 Glen Avenue. The same address is also listed in
1951. In 1953, however, the family apparently moved and is listed as living at 1966 Newport Avenue.
Given its closer proximity to the Japanese American businesses concentrated on Fair Oaks Avenue, the
“ethnic enclave” to which Tom Oshiyama refers is most likely the Glen Avenue address. Carson Anderson,
Ethnic History Research Project: Pasadena, California (Pasadena, CA: 1995), 2. For a map detailing
Japanese American businesses established by 1940, see http://www.japantownatlas.com/map-
pasadena.html (accessed April, 2012).
183
Tom Oshiyama, conversation with the author.
92

known exactly what motivated Oshiyama to pursue gardening as a career, it is likely that
he followed in the tradition of many Japanese Americans, who recruited friends and
relatives into the field. As Oshiyama’s father-in-law and brother-in-law both worked as
gardeners, this would have provided him easy entrance into the profession.
As previously noted in Chapter Three, gardening and yard care provided many
Japanese with stable and relatively lucrative employment during the postwar era, but
Oshiyama grew frustrated with the tedious nature of the work and decided to expand his
business. “My dad hated gardening,” confirms Tom Oshiyama. “Not just a little. He
hated it. So as soon as he could he became a contractor.” Oshiyama began taking
extension courses in landscaping at the University of California - Los Angeles and
obtained his landscape contractor’s license in 1958.

Figure 4.3 – Howard Oshiyama with his son, Tom, in 1958 – the year he obtained his landscape contractor’s
license. Tom would later follow in his father’s footsteps and obtain his own landscape contractor’s license. Photo
courtesy of Tom Oshiyama.
93

A Career in Contracting
Throughout his 45-year career as a contractor, Howard Oshiyama planned and
installed a wide variety of landscapes and gardens in both Pasadena and the greater Los
Angeles area. In contemplating the significance of his career, it is worth noting the
distinction between gardeners and landscape contractors, which Ronald Tsukashima
explains:
Within this industry there are two major divisions: maintenance and
landscape gardening. By dint of specialization and training, the latter can
perform the functions of the former but the reverse is not true. Licensed by
the state, landscapers are free to negotiate larger contracts, usually
commercial, as well as to design gardens and to install them.
184

However, as Tsukashima also points out, “Most Japanese immigrant gardeners begin and
remain in the maintenance area.”
Howard Oshiyama was the exception to the rule. Becoming a landscape
contractor represented an ascendance within the ranks of the ethnic niche, an
accomplishment that symbolized both great effort and great risk on the part of the
individual.
He was very proud of it. There were very few Japanese gardeners in
Pasadena that became contractors. And those who had their contractor’s
license didn’t want to take the risk. And it was a huge risk because you
had to buy a lot of stuff – you had to have men, you had to have trucks.
Cost was high, profit was low. Gardeners went – most of them worked by
themselves – they did the house, they got fifty dollars a month, they were
fine with that. Most of them sent their kids through college on that. But he
was never happy being a gardener.
185

As a landscape contractor, Oshiyama was responsible for far more than the “mow
and blow” expected of the average gardener; he was responsible for the physical work of

184
Ronald Tadao Tsukashima, “The Continuity of Ethnic Participation in the Economy: Immigrants in
Contract Gardening,” Amerasia Journal 21, no. 3 (Winter 1995/1996):53-76, 70.
185
Tom Oshiyama, conversation with the author.
94

creating the landscape. Yosh Kuromiya, a Japanese American landscape architect who
worked with Oshiyama, clarified the distinctions between the professions of the
gardening industry thusly: “I believe that landscape architecture is the conceptualization
of an idea within the context of a specific environment. The landscape contractor installs
the concept and gives it form. It is the role of the gardener to nurture it, and over time, to
guide it to what it was intended to be.”
186

As a contractor, Howard Oshiyama was not formally trained in landscape
architecture, but still he would often be called upon to make changes or additions to an
existing landscape plan. As a result, his design process was very organic. For him, the
design process occurred in his head and on site, not on paper, and thus much of the
documentation of his work no longer exists – if it ever did. “He didn’t write anything
down,” recalled Tom Oshiyama.
He was a horrible businessman, because he was an artist. So when I joined
the company, one of the first things I did was throw away his way of
keeping records, and I brought in my own, because I’m more of a
businessman. I’m a businessman that learned to be artistic. He’s an artist
that refused to do business. That’s why with Conrad and Don, there were
no estimates, because they knew it would come in at the right price…it
was never a real heavy paperwork-type deal, because my father wouldn’t
do that.
187

While Howard Oshiyama was a capable contractor, installing countless
landscapes over the course of his career, where he truly excelled was at their design. “He
wasn’t somebody who just wanted to go and do stuff and leave,” says Tom Oshiyama.
“He wanted to create. He was truly an artist.”
188
Over time, as his business grew, Howard

186
Yosh Kuromiya, “Reflections of a Gardener’s Son,” originally published in Japanese American
National Museum Magazine, Winter 2006, http://www.discovernikkei.org/en/journal/2007/7/4/janm-
magazine/ (accessed April, 2012).
187
Tom Oshiyama, conversation with the author.
188
Ibid.
95

Oshiyama developed a reputation for his own contributions to the landscape plans he
installed. Soon, a singular style emerged in his landscape installations, one that enabled
his artistry to become the hallmark of his work as a contractor.

Origins of the Oshiyama Style
Like most artists, Oshiyama’s work was profoundly influenced by his life
experiences and personal beliefs. He found inspiration in the landscapes of Japan, and the
imagery of these sites, along with the planning principles of ancient Japanese gardens,
remained with him throughout his life. As a practicing Zen Buddhist, his designs were
also guided by Buddhist philosophies, which sought balance and harmony within the
overall surroundings. These two influences, inextricably linked in their shared origins,
present a singular context for Howard Oshiyama’s work.
While some of the earliest recorded gardens in Japan date to 74 AD, many of the
principles of Japanese garden design as they are known today originate from the
introduction of Buddhism into Japan from China (via Korea) in 552 AD.
189
This ignited
the first of two waves of cultural exchanges between Japan and China that lasted well
past 1300 AD, and the exposure to Chinese arts and culture profoundly influenced the
Japanese aesthetic. The development of Japanese gardens during this time had been
largely undertaken for pleasurable (and secular) pursuits, and were governed largely by

189
While this study allows for only a brief recounting of the history of Japanese garden development in the
following paragraphs, further discussion can be found in the following sources: Geoffrey and Susan
Jellicoe, The Landscape of Man, 1975, revised and expanded edition (New York: Thames & Hudson,
1995), Gunter Nitschke, Japanese Gardens: Right Angle and Natural Form (Benedikt Taschen, 1993), and
David and Michiko Young, The Art of the Japanese Garden (North Clarendon, VT: Tuttle Publishing,
2005). A more modern perspective is also offered in Melba Levick’s Japanese-Style Gardens of the Pacific
West Coast, with photographs by Melba Levick and text by Kendall H. Brown (New York: Rizzoli, 1999).
96

Chinese design principles, which proposed that the garden landscape was a microcosm of
the natural landscape.
The second wave of Chinese influence, however, gave rise to a new emphasis on
sacred landscapes. During the Kamakura era, from 1185 to 1336, the main vehicles of
this cultural exchange were Chinese and Japanese monks: Japanese monks were
travelling to China seeing a purer form of Buddhism, and Chinese monks were fleeing
the Mongol invasions in their home country. Both nationalities brought with them to
Japan a new form of Buddhism, called Zen, which emphasized the idea of enlightenment
through meditation and contemplation of the natural landscape. With the introduction of
Zen Buddhism, landscape design gained a heightened significance: the garden was no
longer a place to merely pass the time – it was a path to spiritual enlightenment.
During the Edo period, from 1603 to 1868, Japan’s borders were virtually closed
to foreigners and travel abroad by Japanese citizens was prohibited. This era of isolation
allowed Japan and its gardens to evolve from a design philosophy dictated by Chinese
principles to one that more fully embraced the growing influence of Zen Buddhism.
Japanese garden design now fell into two distinct typologies, secular gardens and sacred
gardens. Each garden type revolved around a different function, and therefore adopted a
different form. Secular gardens were meant to be experienced from within – an
environment through which one processed, stopping at various viewpoints along the way.
Sacred gardens or Zen gardens were meant to be seen from the outside – landscapes
viewed from a distance, functioning as a tableau to invite contemplation.
Although the two typologies are distinctive, they often contain common elements
and employ many of the same techniques. And, as author David Young points out,
97

“Many of Japan’s finest gardens are in the middle of the continuum” between secular and
sacred spaces.
190
Nearly all Japanese gardens, regardless of their style or typology,
employ the same four basic design principles: miniaturization, miegakure (literally,
“hide-and-reveal,”) shakkei (“borrowed scenery,”) and asymmetry.
Miniaturization involves the use of various landscape elements, such as rocks and
ponds, to represent large-scale scenery, such as mountains and oceans. Through
miniaturization, the garden serves as a symbolic microcosm of the natural landscape (see
Figure 4.4).

Figure 4.4 – Manshu-in Temple, Kyoto. The plantings surrounded by a band of gravel symbolize Japan’s
isolated island geography. Photo by Kenneth Breisch.
Miegakure, or hide-and-reveal, focuses on arranging the garden in a manner
where not every element can be seen at once and components of the landscape are
employed to block long-range views (see Figure 4.5). Instead, some features or focal

190
David and Michiko Young, The Art of the Japanese Garden (North Clarendon, VT: Tuttle Publishing,
2005), 17.
98

points are concealed by trees, plantings, fences, or other elements, only to be revealed
later as the viewer continues further down the garden path.
Shakkei, or borrowed scenery, is concerned with bringing the larger context of the
outside landscape into the garden (see Figure 4.5). Smaller gardens with views of the
larger landscape, such as mountain ranges or skylines, often utilize trees or other
vegetation to “frame” the view, thus drawing the natural surroundings into the garden.

Figure 4.5 – Katsura Imperial Villa, Kyoto. The garden highlights two techniques here, miegakure and shakkei,
providing both a backdrop of borrowed scenery from the landscape beyond, as well as a curving path that
conceals the final destination. Photo by Kenneth Breisch.
The fourth principle, asymmetry, is one of the most basic and fundamental tenets
of Japanese garden design. As asymmetry is equated with balance in the Japanese
landscape tradition, asymmetrical arrangement is intended to ensure that all of the
elements in the garden are balanced and in harmony, with no single element dominating
the landscape. Right angles in structures and pathways, as well as odd-numbered
groupings of plantings and rocks, are often employed to balance horizontal, vertical, and
diagonal aesthetic forces within the landscape (see Figure 4.6).
99

Figure 4.6 – Katsura Imperial Villa, Kyoto. An asymmetrical grouping of low rocks balances the symmetric
verticality created by the design of the structure’s walls. Photo by Kenneth Breisch.
While these principles form the basis of Japanese garden design, they are by no
means restrictive. As David Young explains, the tenets are meant to guide the design of
Japanese gardens, rather than limit them.
At the root of all such basic principles is the understanding that a garden is
a work of art. Though inspired by nature, it is an interpretation rather than
a copy; it should appear to be natural but it is not wild. A primary
challenge to the designer is to bring out the intrinsic nature of a landscape
scene in such a way that it is beautiful in all seasons of the year.
191

These four principles, along with an innate appreciation for the “interpretation” of
nature, created a visual vocabulary for the tenets of not only Japanese garden design, but
also Zen Buddhism, which in turn formed the foundations of Howard Oshiyama’s design
philosophy. Oshiyama was a practicing Zen Buddhist throughout his life, and while he
recognized the aesthetic principles of Japanese garden design, it was the spiritual beliefs
they embodied, and to which he subscribed, that gave his landscapes their true meaning.

191
Young, 20.
100

Tom Oshiyama remembers how his father could contemplate the significance of even the
smallest element of the landscape. “We used to sit here and eat lunch, and he would talk
about one leaf,” Tom recalls. “Not everything, but he would just look at that one leaf, and
how that leaf is reacting to nature. To him, nature was so serene.”

Articulating the Japanese Aesthetic
While Howard Oshiyama possessed a strong sense of the principles of Japanese
garden design, on a more practical level, it could occasionally be a challenge to articulate
them. As his son Tom later recalled, “He was fascinated by Japanese gardens, although
he realized he didn’t know how to make one….to get the proper feeling, he didn’t have
the training. But he enjoyed going to look at them.”
192
In fact, in the years following
World War II, Howard Oshiyama returned to Japan several times to study the landscape.
“My dad was old-school,” Tom Oshiyama explains. “He would rather see it in person.”
193

Back in the United States, Howard Oshiyama was faced with a relative lack of
design resources. As a landscape contractor, he received little formal training in Japanese
garden design, or in the textbook application of its design principles. Instead, he sought
inspiration in calendars distributed by local Japanese nurseries, which depicted Japanese
gardens. Over the years Oshiyama eschewed newfound avenues of information, such as
the Internet, and continued to look to his original sources. “He had very few books,”
recalled Tom Oshiyama. “He would keep these calendars, because they were pictures.”
194

In addition, he looked to the community of fellow gardeners in Pasadena for information
and ideas. Tom Oshiyama reports that his father, along with “a lot of the other gardeners

192
Tom Oshiyama, conversation with the author.
193
Ibid.
194
Ibid.
101

in Pasadena, when it rained, they would get together at the lawn mower shop, and they
would talk about plants, and bonsai, and things like that. Because although none of the
other gardeners did this kind of stuff, they were still interested in it.”
195

As his career progressed and the design of landscapes became an integral part of
his work, Oshiyama began to incorporate the design principles of Japanese gardens,
whose depictions he had so carefully studied. While the majority of his work as a
contractor focused on the installation of residential landscapes, his aesthetic, as David
Young described, fell somewhere along the middle of the Japanese garden spectrum. He
began to implement several trademark features from both sacred and secular Japanese
gardens that would eventually became the hallmarks of his design vocabulary. One such
example included groupings of rocks and boulders to create miniature landscape
formations (see Figure 4.7).

Figure 4.7 – Groupings of rocks in the garden of the King Residence. Photo by Patrick Earnest.

195
Tom Oshiyama, conversation with the author.
102

Tom Oshiyama recalls that as important as rocks were to his father’s vision, their
placement was equally critical – although at times, detrimental to the enthusiasm of his
crew.
He really liked rocks – very heavy rocks. I remember picking up
rocks that weighed about fifteen hundred pounds, and there were eight of
us, and he’d say, “Move it.” And we’re going, “Where?” And he says,
“One inch.” I said, “It’s fine right here, Dad.” And he said, “No, it’s
not.”
196

Tom Oshiyama also cites his father’s simplistic approach to plantings as a
trademark of his work. Howard Oshiyama favored a limited scope of plant selection to
create a more natural and cohesive appearance. “You don’t have fifty plants when five
plants will do. You may need fifty total plants, but you don’t need fifty different ones,”
explains Tom. Otherwise, “you have no flow.”
197

Oshiyama’s naturalistic style complemented perfectly the evolving architectural
trends of Southern California in the 1950s and 1960s, which called for a seamless
integration of indoor and outdoor living. It was not long before his talent as a designer
distinguished him in the field of landscaping. “Howard was very highly regarded,” recalls
architect Randell Makinson. “Architects all over used Howard, and regarded him as
really a remarkable man, a landscape architect. He understood what the architect was
trying to achieve.”
198

Collaborations
As his reputation and business grew, Howard Oshiyama’s work garnered the
attention of several notable Southern California architects and landscape architects.

196
Tom Oshiyama, conversation with the author.
197
Ibid.
198
Randell Makinson, conversation with the author, July 27, 2011.
103

Oshiyama served as a contractor for several landscape architects, including Christopher
Cox, Jon Myhre, and Yosh Kuromiya, a Japanese American landscape architect who
worked with Garrett Eckbo.
199
It was Oshiyama’s work with the firm of Buff &
Hensman, however, which resulted in some of the most significant and complex
landscape designs of his career.
The firm of Buff & Hensman was founded in 1952, around the time when
Oshiyama was first beginning to establish himself as a gardener, and the men became
acquainted early on in their careers. Conrad Buff III and Don Hensman were most known
for their residential projects, which demonstrated a strong connection to the surrounding
natural environment, and they employed Howard Oshiyama to execute the landscape
plans for their architectural designs. As time went on, the three men developed a close
personal friendship, accompanied by a deep mutual respect for one another’s talents. As
an architect, Randell Makinson was impressed with the rapport between the three men.
I think [Buff III and Hensman] respected Howard in so many ways, that
they could go out and stand on the site and just discuss what it was that
they had a vision for, landscape-wise. Howard understood what was
behind the architect’s vision for a house, so Conrad and Don could talk to
him like they were talking to a fellow architect. That of course was for the
betterment of the project.
200

Their respect and communication extended to Oshiyama’s crew as well. “They
were really good about expressing themselves,” recalled Tom Oshiyama. “They never
made you feel like, ‘Gee, you’re just a ditch-digger.’ They involved you in things.”
Eventually, this would include involving Howard Oshiyama in the preliminary planning

199
Kuromiya was also a Nisei who was interned with his family at Heart Mountain during World War II.
He was one of the 63 members of the Fair Play Committee, a group of Heart Mountain prisoners who
resisted the draft in protest of the United States government’s denial of their civil rights. He was arrested,
tried, and convicted of draft evasion, and spent two years in prison before being pardoned by Harry S.
Truman in 1947.
200
Randell Makinson conversation with the author, July 27, 2011.
104

of their landscape projects. The two architects would develop an initial concept for the
landscape design, and then turn the plan over to Howard Oshiyama. “They knew what
they wanted, what ambiance they wanted,” explains Tom Oshiyama. Then,
we would throw away the stuff that we didn’t think would work, change
the angles that the plants had with each other – we would pencil it in, we
would use red where we needed to, to make emphasis, and we would give
it to them. And every once in a while, they’d change things, but very
rarely.

And, over time, the three men developed a unique method of implementing their
plans.
They gave us a plan, and we would do it according to the plan. [Then] my
father would change things to make it feel better, we would set up all the
plants, and Conrad would come and go, “Okay.” And then he’d leave!
And then my dad would move them around, the way he wanted them.
Then Conrad would come back and say, “That looks even better.” Because
he knew the difference. And he also knew my father would do that,
because he always did that.
201

The architects did not seem to mind: they continued to work with Howard Oshiyama for
the rest of their lives, and the landscapes they worked on together held special
significance for all three men. As Tom Oshiyama explained of the King Residence, “This
house, along with a few others – they were usually Conrad and Don’s houses – were very
special to my dad…there were houses like this, and especially a site like this, that kept
my father going.”
202

Over the course of what would become nearly forty years of collaboration, the
three men produced some of their most important work together. One of their earliest
collaborations was the Norton residence, completed in 1955; one of their last was the
Rabinovitz residence in 1993. While the total extent of their collaboration is yet to be

201
Tom Oshiyama, conversation with the author.
202
Ibid.
105

established, at least ten projects have been definitively identified, including two personal
residences for Conrad Buff III (see Appendix). The three men continued to collaborate
until the deaths of both architects; Conrad Buff III passed away in 1989, and Don
Hensman died in 2002.

A Return to the Roots of the Business
Conrad Buff III’s passing marked an operational shift for the Oshiyama
Landscape Company. While Howard Oshiyama continued to collaborate with Don
Hensman, designing and installing landscapes for various projects, he also began to
respond to the needs of his longtime customers – one of whom was Conrad Buff III.
Before his death in 1989, Buff III had solicited a promise from his colleagues and
collaborators to take care of his wife, Libby, after his passing. As Tom Oshiyama
explains,
A couple months after that, Libby called and said, “I need a
gardener.” I said, “We don’t do that.” And she said, “Yes, but you
promised Conrad.” And on the basis of that one place, all of a sudden we
realized that a large part of our business is to come in a couple times
during the year and put the landscaping back together, and then have the
gardeners try to maintain it. But with most places, it’s very difficult
because they require more than the lawnmower and the Weed Eater and
things like that. We decided we should start doing this for our other clients
that are having problems with their gardeners.
203

Thus, after nearly fifty years of planning and installing landscapes, Howard
Oshiyama returned to the roots of his profession and began maintaining them as well.
Today, as the downturn in economy has taken its toll on the construction industry – and,
by extension, the landscape contracting business – maintenance landscaping has begun to
account for an even larger portion of the day-to-day business of the Oshiyama Landscape

203
Tom Oshiyama, conversation with the author.
106

Company. However, Tom Oshiyama views this as an opportunity to maintain the same
high standards he and his father employed when the landscapes were first installed.
When my dad was involved in this, there was only one way to do it, and
that was his way. Luckily, that’s my way – he taught me that. It’s too easy
to do it the easy way, and the fast way. And yes, it’ll look okay – the client
probably won’t know, because they don’t know what the standards are,
but…we can’t slough off at all, because they have high expectations and
that’s what we provide…What we do here is the best we can be.
204

Transition and Tradition
In 1983, Howard Oshiyama had begun to experience issues with his health that
forced him to limit his day-to-day involvement with the landscape business. His son,
Tom, offered to take a year’s sabbatical from his own job as a teacher to assist his father
in running the business until the elder Oshiyama recovered. The transition was eased by
the fact that Tom Oshiyama was familiar with the company’s employees and job sites, as
he had worked for his father on and off since college.
I think I did classroom teaching and I ran the business for about six
months before the school year ended, because I didn’t want to leave my
class. And I almost died, because I found out I can’t do two jobs at the
same time…But I enjoyed landscaping so much, and it meant more when I
was part of the thinking part, and not just the labor part.
205

Tom Oshiyama never returned to teaching. Instead, six months later, he gave up
his career as an educator to remain with the family landscape business. In a twist of fate,
just prior to his departure, he finally achieved his goal of being offered a principal’s
position with the Pasadena Unified School District.
I gave that up to join my father, when my father became ill. And I never
regret that...I never regretted doing this because it gave me the opportunity
to be with my father literally every day – we worked Sundays, too. And I

204
Tom Oshiyama, conversation with the author.
205
Ibid.
107

appreciated how much he was willing to share – not just his knowledge,
because I could get that out of a book. He was able to share his vision, and
although he didn’t call it this, I think his passion for this.
206

In 1985, Howard Oshiyama made his son a full partner, and the two men
established the Oshiyama Landscape Company. “The first thing he told me was that I was
going to be poor,” recalled Tom Oshiyama. “He said, ‘You won’t ever have very much
money…but you will be rich in your life.’” The two men worked side-by-side, every day,
for another eighteen years. Every day, Howard Oshiyama shared his knowledge, his
passion, and his vision with his son. “What my father tried to instill in me, more than
anything else…was that you never stop learning,” says Tom Oshiyama. “You never stop
understanding. Every time you look at something, you should learn a little bit more from
it.”
207

Howard Oshiyama never officially retired, but rather continued to supervise the
maintenance of many of the gardens he originally designed for Buff & Hensman decades
earlier, often returning several times a year to direct sensitive additions and alterations to
maintain harmony and balance in the constantly evolving landscape. Even as his health
continued to deteriorate, his deeply personal connection to the landscapes of Buff &
Hensman, and particularly the King Residence, continued until the end. During a visit to
the King gardens, Tom Oshiyama recounted his father’s final days.
I do remember one of the last places my dad came before he had his last
operation was here. He didn’t tell anybody; he just came. He wasn’t
supposed to drive…his surgeon said, “Just let it go for a while. You need
all your strength, and driving is hard.” But he wanted to come. So he
came, rang the doorbell, walked around, sat around for quite a number of
hours…It was just important to him.

206
Tom Oshiyama, conversation with the author.
207
Ibid.
108

This was our last project together. We did [the landscaping behind the
pavilion.] The day he died – all he wanted to talk about was work. That
was my dad’s passion, was work. And I understood that, so it was fine
with me. He kept telling me what to do. I kept saying, “I got it, I got it.
Let’s talk about the Dodgers, let’s talk about the Rams.” And he goes,
“Nah. I don’t want you to mess up.” Well, he died that night. And I didn’t
have a chance to ask any more questions.
208

Howard Oshiyama passed away on September 23, 2003. After his passing, Tom
Oshiyama completed the final project for the King House planned by his father, a series
of plantings and trees behind the pavilion.
A lot of people think, “Well, big deal – who’s gonna see that?” Well,
[there’s] a really important chair down there. And when they sit in that
chair, they’re going to see everything we do. And so that made that area
extremely important – not just, “Oh, it’s behind everything, let’s just finish
it and get outta here.” The placement of those plants, the placement of
everything, [is] so that chair is in the right place.
209

Figure 4.8 – Richard King’s chair, behind the pavilion, in the gardens of the King Residence. The landscaping to
the right represents Howard Oshiyama’s last plans for the King property. Photo by the author.

208
Tom Oshiyama, conversation with the author.
209
Ibid.
109

Today, Tom Oshiyama, now also a licensed landscape contractor, continues to
oversee the Oshiyama Landscape Company and maintains his father’s work on many
properties in the same spirit in which it was created. In the tradition of Japanese
Americans in the gardening profession, Tom’s son, Kyle Oshiyama, recently joined his
father in working full-time for the family landscape business. The two now work side-by-
side in maintaining several Buff & Hensman landscapes, including the King Residence.

Figure 4.9 – "The Oshiyama Boys" – Tom, Howard, and Kyle Oshiyama. Photo courtesy of Tom
Oshiyama.
Although Tom Oshiyama is old enough to recall the planning and installation of
many of these landscapes, his son is not. However, according to Tom, both he and his son
Kyle recognize the significance of preserving the work of their father and grandfather.
During a conversation at the King Residence in 2011, he reflected upon the legacy of
Howard Oshiyama, and how his work has impacted both the land and the lives of those
who worked with it.
I really feel my dad’s still here. My dad’s been gone a long time. And I
still think about him a lot. I’m fortunate that I do get to come here. And I
110

realize that. I’m fortunate that the Kings trust me with this property when
they’re gone. And I’m training my son to take over when I’m gone. He
even brought his wife here to show her what took thirty years to do. He’s
only twenty-nine. He realizes that to do a project like this is the ultimate in
patience, more than anything else. I’m not a patient person. In fact I’m
probably the least patient person. If we were patient we would’ve been
nurserymen. But we’re not. We like to see change – we, meaning my
father and I. We want to see change. We want to have an impact on the
environment. And when you look at this place, this is the epitome of that
passion.

There isn’t any other place like this for us. And there won’t be,
because times have changed. I’m sixty now. When I started working for
my dad on a part-time basis, I was still in college. I think I was about
twenty. And forty years is a long time. But every day is different. Every
day is valuable to me in what we do…I always look forward to tomorrow.
I look forward to what tomorrow will bring for me and for my father – and
for my son. I just feel very fortunate. I’m Buddhist, so I don’t feel blessed,
because that’s not something Buddhist people feel. But I do feel that the
people that came before me – my father, his father, and everybody else –
led me to here. And I’m hoping they will lead my son there also.
210

210
Tom Oshiyama, conversation with the author.
111

CONCLUSION

Today, the King Residence and its gardens stand as a testament to their designers,
Conrad Buff III, Don Hensman, and Howard Oshiyama, and their sensitive approach to
incorporating architecture into the natural landscape. The property also exemplifies the
impact of adopting the same thoughtfulness in the continuing stewardship of a site.
Richard and Carol King have remained the sole owners of the property since it was built
for them in 1979, and the couple maintains that their simple lifestyle and edited
environment have allowed them to appreciate the serenity of their home’s natural
surroundings. “We wanted our lives, as always, to be involved with nature and the world
of ideas – and for us this has always meant avoiding being too materialist and avoiding
clutter,” wrote Carol King. “If we had won the lottery in 1979 or if we did now or in the
future, our preference for this sort of lifestyle would remain unchanged.”
211
In keeping
with their desire to maintain the unique feeling of their home, the house, pavilion, and
gazebo designed by Conrad Buff III and Don Hensman have remained unaltered since
their construction.
The landscape, however, has changed over time – as all landscapes must, and do.
The cycle of the seasons and the circle of life create a never-ending evolution of the
natural landscape. “The great thing here is that things change,” remarks Tom Oshiyama.
“Landscaping needs to change – not just to live and die and lose things – but during the
year.”
212
At times, Mother Nature can also force the hand of change, while at the same
time becoming her own worst enemy. In December, 2011, the Pasadena area was struck

211
Carol King, email correspondence with the author, August 5, 2010.
212
Tom Oshiyama, conversation with the author, September 16, 2010.
112

by an unusually severe series of winter storms that destroyed some of the most mature
trees in the city and wreaked havoc on area gardens. The King property did not escape
the hurricane-force winds, and several of the oldest eucalyptus trees, planted as part of
the original landscape plan, were destroyed. “We had nurtured these and tried to make a
line of trees for decades – and the other trees were such a gorgeous growth growing up as
tall as the bridges – that that we felt emotionally sad,” wrote Carol King.
213
While the
trees could not be saved, the garden has since been rehabilitated under the direction of
Tom Oshiyama, and features new trees and plantings.
While the King gardens are a backdrop for constant change, what has not changed
with regards to the landscape is its oversight. Since Howard Oshiyama’s death in 2003,
Tom Oshiyama has continued to run the family business, Oshiyama Landscape
Company, in his stead. Now accompanied by his son, Kyle, Tom Oshiyama continues to
maintain the King gardens in the spirit in which his father created them. He is also
assisted by his senior employee, Joaquin P. Gomez – the only other crew member who
has worked on the King property since its inception. Gomez and Tom Oshiyama had both
been working for Howard Oshiyama for only a short time, and the King Residence was
their first project together. In 2010, Tom Oshiyama reflected upon how his appreciation
of the King landscape has evolved over the last thirty years.
As the Kings got older and things matured here, so did I. And so did my
father. I started to understand the feeling here, more than anything else. It
ceased to be just a property, and we enjoy working here. My men enjoy
working here, because it’s so different than just about anything else we’ve
done…When we come here, for me, I come to absorb. And to look around
and remember putting these railroad ties in, getting these cobblestones
from the San Gabriel River and bringing them here and installing them –
that’s the personal history this place has. That’s why I enjoy coming here.

213
Carol King, email correspondence with the author, December 3, 2011.
113

There aren’t any [other sites] that we have this heart-type commitment and
connection to.
214

The Kings recognize the unique significance of their property, and regard
themselves as stewards of the land rather than owners. Much like their predecessor,
James W. Scoville, they feel that the Arroyo Seco land should truly be a “private park for
public benefit.” As Richard King explained in a 2010 interview, “It’s sort of a
responsibility we have to share this with others. It’s part of the fulfillment of owning a
place like this. People say they feel such peace and harmony here, which makes us feel
good.”
215
To that end, the couple opens their home to the public on a regular basis,
hosting plein-air painting sessions for artists as well as numerous charity events and
tours. The Kings have also agreed to donate their home and its gardens to the University
of Southern California, where it will be maintained as the Carol Soucek King and
Richard King Center for Architecture, Arts, and the Humanities. For the couple, the
decision is a philanthropic one, but it is also a spiritual choice. “There is a sacredness
here that we feel now and sensed the moment we stepped onto this property thirty years
ago,” says Richard King. “We are so happy to make sure that generations from now,
people in Pasadena and beyond will be able to experience this too.”
216

The Problem With Preserving Landscapes
While the Kings’ gift ensures that the physical structures that comprise the
property – the main residence, the pavilion, the gazebo – will remain unaltered, the

214
Tom Oshiyama, conversation with the author, September 16, 2010.
215
Dinah Eng, “Allure of the Arroyo,” Los Angeles Times, January 22, 2004,
http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jan/22/home/hm-arroyo22 (accessed August, 2010).
216
Sarah Haufrect, “Fit for the Kings,” Pasadena Magazine, April, 2009, http://smartypants-
inc.com/Clips/Fit_for_kings.html (accessed April, 2012).
114

agreement also introduces a certain amount of uncertainty into the life of the landscape.
For an entity as fragile and fleeting as a garden, the transition from private ownership to
institutional oversight marks a considerable change in stewardship. Without the quality
and continuity of care and dedication provided by a private owner, landscapes are
rendered vulnerable to misguided management and neglect. As Richard Longstreth writes
in his essay, “The Last Landscape,” “A few types of landscape design seem reasonably
safe. The museum garden is one example, but even these can be subject to change when
the significance of their design is not fully understood or appreciated.”
The same fragility holds true for private gardens. The original
owners almost always remain superb stewards, but when the property
changes hands, the garden is often the first thing to be altered or even
destroyed. Perhaps it is just neglected, but the impact can be much the
same. Gardens are very personal things, and that special relationship
increases their fragility in the long term. Many of the postwar era are
lost.
217

This, as Longstreth points out, is due in large part to the lack of consideration given to
landscapes of the recent past, deeming them “the last considered and the most threatened.
As nearly the last things we have done, they are often the first things we believe must be
done again.”
218

As both a private garden of the postwar era, and one facing a transition to an
institutional entity, the risk is doubled for the King gardens. This threat is compounded
by the fact that while many agreements donating property to museums or universities
include endowments or donations for continued care of the property, the agreements
themselves often make no specific provisions for the care and maintenance of the

217
Richard Longstreth, “The Last Landscape,” in Preserving Modern Architecture II: Making Postwar
Landscapes Visible, edited by Charles A. Birnbaum with Jane Brown Gillette and Nancy Slade, 118-124
(Washington, DC: Spacemaker Press, 2004), 120.
218
Ibid., 118.
115

surrounding landscape. This situation gives additional weight to Richard Longstreth’s
claim that underlying all of the threats to landscapes of the recent past is a lack of
recognition and understanding.
Few people outside the profession know so much as the names of leading
landscape architects. All too often properties are admired, even studied on
the basis of their architecture, while the landscape component is
marginalized. This tendency is furthered by the fact that good landscape
design often does not call attention to itself. The results can seem elegant,
fitting, and natural, but observers often do not think about how they got
that way or who was responsible for that resolution. As in any field,
recognition entails understanding, and here the challenge is formidable
indeed.
219

This study provides an opportunity to combat this lack of understanding and
conquer the challenge of preserving the postwar landscape. In highlighting the history
and significance of the King property, it is hoped that this unique landscape will be
recognized as one deserving of the same continuing care, dedication, and preservation
that have characterized its first three decades.

Evaluating the Significance of the King Residence Landscape
Understanding the importance of the King Residence landscape involves
examining its significance within a historical context, as well as evaluating its integrity,
or ability to convey that significance through physical features.
Chapter One of this thesis demonstrates that the land on which the King
Residence is situated is itself significant to the history of the development of Pasadena
and the Arroyo Seco area. Rescued from early deforestation during Pasadena’s land
boom by philanthropist James W. Scoville, the lot on which the King Residence now
stands originally served as part of Pasadena’s first park. The property still retains some

219
Longstreth, 123.
116

tangible evidence of this period in history; stone retaining walls installed by Scoville’s
workmen between 1886 and 1893 as part of a cobblestone barn remain intact today and
have been incorporated into the landscape design. The walls survived nearly a century of
urban development and bore witness to the property’s role in the history of transportation
development in Pasadena: the site was used as a staging area for the construction of the
Pioneers Bridge, which was completed in 1953.
After several decades of neglect, Chapter Two details the discovery of the site by
noted Southern California architects Conrad Buff III and Don Hensman as well as their
subsequent development of the property for owners Richard and Carol King. Buff III and
Hensman proved to be the ideal designers for the site. The two men had honed their
aesthetic at USC’s School of Architecture, whose postwar curriculum focused on regional
influences and the incorporation of architecture into the surrounding natural landscape,
and they embarked upon their architectural career with an appreciation for nature and a
unique talent for siting a project to its best advantage within the natural surroundings.
The introduction of Title 24 energy regulations in the 1970s coincided with a
marked shift in the architects’ visual vocabulary, from a structural aesthetic to a
sculptural one. The King Residence was one of the first Buff & Hensman projects to be
completed in the post Title-24 era, and this new aesthetic complemented perfectly the
monumental forms already found within the natural landscape of the site. The limitations
of Title 24 on building materials made it more difficult to employ the construction
techniques that had once been the hallmark of indoor-outdoor living, but Buff &
Hensman responded through the strategic design and siting of the King Residence, as
well as through a greater emphasis on landscape design.
117

For the landscape plan, Conrad Buff III and Don Hensman consulted with their
longtime landscape contractor, Howard Oshiyama. The second half of Chapter Two
addresses the original plan for the landscape created by the three men, as well as its
subsequent implementation by Howard Oshiyama. Each component of the site, which
evolved over the course of three phases of construction, reflects the sensitive nature of his
approach in incorporating the designed landscape of the King Residence within the
natural landscape of the Arroyo Seco.
Unlike most landscape contractors, who install landscapes and then move on from
a site, leaving the maintenance in the hands of gardeners, Howard Oshiyama continued to
maintain the King property for nearly a quarter of a century until his death in 2003. A
comparison of historical and contemporary photographs highlight how Oshiyama’s vision
and stewardship transformed the King landscape from one of straightforward simplicity,
as indicated in the original plan, to a rich tapestry of texture, color, and feeling.
Chapter Three explores the potential historical significance of Howard
Oshiyama’s career as a Japanese American landscape contractor by examining the role of
Japanese Americans in the contract gardening industry. Gardening as a profession played
a critical role in Japanese American culture, providing many immigrants with stable
employment and a steady income. The contract nature of the work also allowed Japanese
Americans some measure of independence and a sense of ownership in a society which
viewed them as distinctly subservient.
Following World War II, Japanese Americans returning to Southern California
faced widespread discrimination when seeking employment. However, the positive
prewar reputation fostered by Issei gardeners in the early part of the twentieth century
118

had transformed gardening into an ethnic niche for Japanese Americans, and it became
one of the few fields in which both Issei and Nisei could reliably expect to find work after
the war. These circumstances created a renaissance for Japanese gardeners in Southern
California. While many second generation Japanese Americans had been more
extensively educated than their forebears, they found themselves facing circumstances
very similar to those of their predecessors. Gardening allowed the Nisei to support their
families and earn a stable income during the difficult postwar years.
While Howard Oshiyama entered the gardening profession during this time
period, as Chapter Four shows, he was not content to be “just” a gardener. Instead, he
ascended within the ranks of this ethnic niche and launched a career as a landscape
contractor, planning and installing landscapes. Where Oshiyama truly excelled, however,
was in their design. Despite having little formal training or education in landscape
architecture or design, his artistic vision is evident in his treatment of the designed
landscape and its relationship to the natural surroundings. As a Japanese American and a
practicing Zen Buddhist, Oshiyama’s aesthetic was shaped by his personal spiritual
beliefs as well as a reverence for nature and the natural landscape. The principles of
Japanese garden design, as well as the philosophies they represented, held great
significance for Oshiyama and informed his choices in the installation of landscapes.
Fortunately, Oshiyama became acquainted with architects Conrad Buff III and
Don Hensman in the 1950s, and the three men began a collaboration that would last for
the rest of their careers. Oshiyama’s reverence for nature was the ideal counterpart to
Buff & Hensman’s interest in integrating architecture within the natural landscape, and
the two architects found that Oshiyama’s work complemented their own goals for their
119

projects. The close personal and professional relationship between the three men afforded
Oshiyama a great deal of autonomy in carrying out the architects’ initial plans for the
landscape, which allowed him ample opportunity to bring his artistic vision to life. He
would frequently make his own alterations and additions to the landscape plans provided
by the architects; while the changes always echoed their intent for the project, the result
was distinctly Oshiyama’s own.
It is not the intent of this thesis to diminish the contributions of Buff & Hensman
to the field of postwar architecture and landscape design – or, indeed, to minimize how
their body of work has defined the integration of the built and natural environments.
Rather, this thesis seeks to highlight how one man’s artistic vision transformed the
landscape within which the architects situated their work. Without the framework of
nature provided by the King Residence gardens, the significance of the architectural
features designed to highlight them are lost. Oshiyama’s landscapes provide a physical
context within which we can better understand and appreciate Buff & Hensman’s talent
for integrating architecture within the natural surroundings.
While the King Residence represents a significant example of the symbiotic
working relationship between the three men, it also stands as a masterful illustration of
how Howard Oshiyama’s artistry has transformed the landscape. While the original
landscape plan for the property, completed in 1979, was a result of a collaboration
between the three men, Howard Oshiyama then continued to maintain the gardens until
his death in 2003. As Yosh Kuromiya once reflected, “I believe that landscape
architecture is the conceptualization of an idea within the context of a specific
environment. The landscape contractor installs the concept and gives it form. It is the role
120

of the gardener to nurture it, and over time, to guide it to what it was intended to be.”
220

In a field where most Japanese Americans never moved beyond the position of the latter,
over the course of twenty-four years maintaining the King Residence landscape, Howard
Oshiyama served as all three, and the landscape seen today at the King Residence is a
result of his ongoing stewardship from conceptualization to cultivation.
Even after his death, Howard Oshiyama’s legacy – and his landscapes – live on
through his son, Tom. Today, Tom Oshiyama continues to oversee many of the
landscapes his father once installed, and he is committed to maintaining them in the same
spirit in which they were once created. While the product may evolve over time, the
integrity of the landscape remains intact because the process remains the same. “There
was only one way to do it, and that was his way,” reflected Tom Oshiyama. “And luckily,
that’s my way. He taught me that.”
221
And, in the tradition of his father’s work, Tom
Oshiyama is now teaching his own son, Kyle, the workings of the family landscape
business, ensuring the King Residence gardens will benefit from the stewardship of the
Oshiyamas for years to come.

Suggestions for Future Research
While this study attempts to document the extent of Howard Oshiyama’s
involvement with the King Residence landscape, it would be beyond the scope of this
work to address his additional projects. Indeed, the full extent of the collaboration
between Howard Oshiyama and Conrad Buff III and Don Hensman is not yet known.

220
Yosh Kuromiya, “Reflections of a Gardener’s Son,” originally published in Japanese American
National Museum Magazine, Winter 2006, http://www.discovernikkei.org/en/journal/2007/7/4/janm-
magazine/ (accessed April, 2012).
221
Tom Oshiyama, conversation with the author, September 16, 2010.
121

While ten collaborative projects have been identified to date, these efforts span a period
of nearly forty years, and additional research may reveal more projects by Buff &
Hensman where Howard Oshiyama’s involvement has yet to be confirmed.
It is also vital for future researchers to explore the context of Howard Oshiyama’s
work as a landscape contractor, apart from his collaboration with Buff & Hensman.
Oshiyama also worked with landscape architects Christopher Cox, John Myhre, and
perhaps most significantly, Yosh Kuromiya, a Japanese American landscape architect
who worked with Garrett Eckbo. Deeper analysis may reveal important collaborations
with other architects and landscape architects.

Planning for Future Preservation
The importance of the integration of landscape and architecture in the work of
Buff & Hensman requires that both entities be given equal consideration. And, given the
significance of the King Residence gardens as demonstrated in this thesis, it is vital that
their preservation be given the same attention as that of the residence itself. Doing so,
however, challenges us to consider a new way of thinking about historic preservation.
Works of architecture that are in need of preservation are almost always static structures,
already completed, with a fixed physical presence. Landscapes, however, are consistently
dynamic entities, with a constantly evolving physicality. Plants grow and die, seasons
change, and sometimes Mother Nature intervenes. How can we preserve something that
is, by its very nature, always in flux?
The answer lies in considering our approach to historic preservation as it applies
to the preservation of landscapes. While even a designed landscape is ever-changing, the
122

intent of its original designer is not. Adopting a flexible preservation plan that focuses on
maintaining the intent of the design for a landscape allows room for growth and change
to occur in the spirit of the original plan. Landscape architect Grant Jones also subscribes
to this theory, stating that
To meet the test of nature, original works of landscape architecture should
evolve. Our institutions, which support them, need to evolve as well.
Freezing places in time insures their demise as settings for living culture.
Benign neglect is equally terminating. Stewardship implies maintaining
works of landscape architecture as living cultural landscapes, by retaining
the counsel of the original designers or their disciples as well as by
encouraging future designers who are willing and able to respect and play
by the rules of the original work.
222

This is an especially important consideration in the context of the King Residence
gardens, as so much of Howard Oshiyama’s approach to the design and ongoing
maintenance of the landscape was informed by his personal and spiritual beliefs. As Tom
Oshiyama shares his father’s philosophical approach to nature, the spirit of the garden has
remained unchanged during his tenure. It is doubtful, however, that the gardens could
maintain the same integrity in the hands of others. While the visual vocabulary of the
landscape could be duplicated by those unfamiliar with the property or its creators, its
feeling could not. As Tom Oshiyama recalled, for his father, a “perfect” landscape meant
that “everything felt right when we left. The day we left a site, for the last time, that place
would look perfect. But we always [had to] come back later, because the gardeners
couldn’t handle it.”
223

222
Grant R. Jones, “The Nature of Modernity: Principles for Keeping Historic Landscapes Alive,” in
Preserving Modern Architecture II: Making Postwar Landscapes Visible, edited by Charles A. Birnbaum
with Jane Brown Gillette and Nancy Slade, 84-87 (Washington, DC: Spacemaker Press, 2004), 87.
223
Tom Oshiyama, conversation with the author, September 16, 2010.
123

For now, the property is safe in the hands of Richard and Carol King, who, as
Don Hensman has said, “would never destroy the original Buff & Hensman look.”
224

However, as the Kings agreed to donate the property to the University of Southern
California, it is important to give due consideration to Grant Jones’s idea of institutional
stewardship. An important consideration of any future stewardship of the King property
should include consideration of the continued involvement of the Oshiyama family, as
well as call for extensive education and training for any future designers and maintenance
workers not currently involved with the project.
Continuing education on the significance and philosophies of the King Residence
landscape would be only fitting; for Howard Oshiyama, nature was the ultimate
classroom. As he told his son, “‘You never stop learning,’” recalls Tom Oshiyama. “‘You
never stop understanding. Every time you look at something, you should learn a little bit
more from it.’”
225
Hopefully, with the continued stewardship of the Oshiyama family, we
can learn from the King Residence landscape for many years to come.

224
Donald Hensman, “Interview with Donald C. Hensman, FAIA,” by Sarah Cooper (Pasadena, CA:
Pasadena Heritage Oral History Project, 2003), 155.
225
Tom Oshiyama, conversation with the author.
124

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, Carson. Ethnic History Research Project: Pasadena, California. Pasadena,
CA: City of Pasadena, 1995.

Birnbaum, Charles A. Preservation Brief 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning,
Treatment, and Management of Historic Landscapes. Washington, DC: Preservation
Assistance Division, National Park Service, U. S. Department of the Interior, 1994.
http://www.nps.gov/hps/tps/briefs/brief36.htm (accessed September, 2010.)

––, ed. Preserving Modern Architecture II: Making Postwar Landscapes Visible. With
Jane Brown Gillette and Nancy Slade. Washington, DC: Spacemaker Press, 2004.

––. Interview by the author. Telephone conversation. August 10, 2011.

Brick, Tim. “Arroyo Planning Timeline.”
http://www.arroyoseco.org/History/ArroyoPlanningTimeline.pdf (accessed January,
2012).

––. “Flowing Waters, Fruitful Valley: A Brief History of Water Development in the
Arroyo Seco.” http://www.brickonline.com/Brief%20History.pdf (accessed October,
2011).

––. “The Nature of the Arroyo Seco.”
http://www.arroyoseco.org/History/NatureofArroyoSeco.pdf (accessed January, 2012).

Broom, Leonard, and Ruth Riemer. Removal and Return: The Socio-Economic Effects of
the War on Japanese Americans. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1949.

Builder and Contractor, “J. W. Scoville is continuing his Arroyo improvements and is
building a commodious stone barn,” March 8, 1893.

Dixon, James Main. “Lessons from Japanese Gardening.” Los Angeles Times, July 3,
1909. http://www.proquest.com (accessed July, 2011).

Eckbo, Garrett. “A House With Five Patios.” Los Angeles Times, September 14, 1952.
http://www.proquest.com (accessed April, 2012).

Eng, Dinah. “Allure of the Arroyo,” Los Angeles Times, January 22, 2004.
http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jan/22/home/hm-arroyo22 (accessed August, 2010).

Farnsworth, R. W. C., ed. 1883. A Southern California Paradise (in the Suburbs of Los
Angeles.). An abridged facsimile of the first edition with a foreword by Rodman W. Paul.
Pasadena, CA: Pasadena Historical Society, 1983.
125

Fogelson, Robert M. The Fragmented Metropolis: Los Angeles, 1850-1930. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1967.

French, Stuart W. “The Great Arroyo Seco, a Part of Pasadena’s Plan.” California
Southland, April, 1924. http://www.arroyoseco.org/calsouth1924.htm (accessed
February, 2012).

Gallion, Arthur B. “Tomorrow’s Architect.” Los Angeles Times, September 14, 1952.
http://www.proquest.com (accessed April, 2012).

Grimes, Teresa. Pasadena Arroyo Parks and Recreation District. National Register of
Historic Places Registration Form, July 13, 2007.

Grimes, Teresa and Laura Vaneski. Late 19
th
and Early 20
th
Century Development and
Architecture in Pasadena. National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property
Documentation Form, April 30, 2010.

Halley, William. Halley’s Pictorial Oak Park. Oak Park, Illinois: 1898.
http://www.archive.org/details/halleyspictorial00hall (accessed February, 2012).

Haufrect, Sarah. “Fit for the Kings,” Pasadena Magazine, April, 2009.
http://smartypants-inc.com/Clips/Fit_for_kings.html (accessed April, 2012).

Hayden, Dolores. The Power of Place: Urban Landscapes as Public History. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press, 1995.

Hensman, Donald. Buff & Hensman. Edited by James Steele. With an introduction by
Alex Moseley and preface by Dean Robert Timme. Los Angeles: University of Southern
California Architectural Guild Press, 2004.

––. “Interview with Donald C. Hensman, FAIA.” By Sarah Cooper. Pasadena, CA:
Pasadena Heritage Oral History Project, 2003.

––. “Transcript of Recorded Interview with Don Hensman.” Undated, transcript,
Pasadena Heritage, Pasadena, CA.

Hirahara, Naomi, ed. Green Makers: Japanese American Gardeners in Southern
California. Los Angeles: Southern California Gardeners’ Federation, 2000.

Historic American Engineering Record, Colorado Street Bridge, Spanning Arroyo Seco
at Colorado Boulevard, Pasadena, Los Angeles, CA. HAER No. CA-58. San Francisco:
National Park Service Western Regional Office, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1988.
http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/hhh.ca1502 (accessed September, 2011).

126

Historic Resources Group and Pasadena Heritage. Cultural Resources of the Recent Past
Historic Context Report: City of Pasadena. Hollywood, CA: Historic Resources Group,
2007.

Howell-Ardila, Deborah. “‘Writing Our Own Program”: The USC Experiment in Modern
Architectural Pedagogy.” Master’s thesis, University of Southern California, 2010.
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, UMI Number: 1484253. http://www.proquest.com
(accessed March, 2012).

Hunt, Myron. “Arroyo Park – Report of Civic Committee.” Southern California
Magazine 1, no. 6 (January 1918): 10-13.

Jellicoe, Geoffrey and Susan. The Landscape of Man. 1975. Revised and expanded
edition, New York: Thames & Hudson, 1995.

Jenkins, Virginia Scott. The Lawn: A History of an American Obsession. Washington,
DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1994.

Jones, Grant R. “The Nature of Modernity: Principles for Keeping Historic Landscapes
Alive.” In Preserving Modern Architecture II: Making Postwar Landscapes Visible,
edited by Charles A. Birnbaum with Jane Brown Gillette and Nancy Slade, 84-87.
Washington, DC: Spacemaker Press, 2004.

Jones, Mark. “In the Japanese Garden of Survival.” Los Angeles Times, September 26,
1976. http://www.proquest.com (accessed July, 2011).

Joyner, Brian D. Asian Reflections on the American Landscape: Identifying and
Interpreting Asian Heritage. Washington, DC: National Park Service, 2005.
http://www.nps.gov/crdi/publications/Asian%20Reflections.htm (accessed August,
2011).

Keller, J. Timothy and Genevieve P. Keller. National Register Bulletin 18: How to
Evaluate and Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes. Washington, DC: Interagency
Resources Division, National Park Service, U. S. Department of the Interior.
http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb18/ (accessed September, 2010.)

King, Carol Soucek. E-mails to the author, August 5, 2010, and December 3, 2011.

––. Interview by the author. Tape recording. Pasadena, CA, August 3, 2010.

Kitashima, Lou. “Japanese-style gardening to keep clients happy.” Watase Media Arts
Center, Japanese American National Museum, December 1, 2005; 2 min., 15 sec.
http://www.discovernikkei.org/en/interviews/clips/744/ (accessed May, 2012).

Kuromiya, Yosh. “Reflections of a Gardener’s Son.” Originally published in Japanese
American National Museum Magazine, Winter 2006.
127

http://www.discovernikkei.org/en/journal/2007/7/4/janm-magazine/ (accessed April,
2012).

Lamprecht, Barbara and Daniel Paul. Cultural Resources of the Recent Past, City of
Pasadena. National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form,
April 2, 2008.

Levick, Melba. Japanese-Style Gardens of the Pacific West Coast. With photographs by
Melba Levick and text by Kendall H. Brown. New York: Rizzoli, 1999.

Longstreth, Richard. “The Last Landscape.” In Preserving Modern Architecture II:
Making Postwar Landscapes Visible, edited by Charles A. Birnbaum with Jane Brown
Gillette and Nancy Slade, 118-124. Washington, DC: Spacemaker Press, 2004.

Los Angeles Times, “Bridge Proposals,” September 26, 1890. http://www.proquest.com
(accessed July, 2011).

Los Angeles Times, “Chicago Man Will Convert Barren Hills Across the Arroyo
Westward from Pasadena Into Hanging Gardens – Significant Transaction,” May 2, 1909.
http://www.proquest.com (accessed March, 2012).

Los Angeles Times, “Let Joy Be Unconfined: The Bridge Across the Arroyo to be Built,”
July 17, 1890. http://www.proquest.com (accessed July, 2011).

Los Angeles Times, “Letters to the Times: Boulevard Suggestions,” April 1, 1897.
http://www.proquest.com (accessed January, 2012).

Los Angeles Times, “Mr. Scoville Will Build Another Dam,” March 12, 1891.
http://www.proquest.com (accessed July, 2011).

Los Angeles Times, “Pasadena: Death of James W. Scoville After a Long Illness,”
November 3, 1893. http://www.proquest.com (accessed July, 2011).

Los Angeles Times, “A Pasadena Park: What Mr. Scoville is Doing in the Arroyo Seco,”
December 18, 1889. http://www.proquest.com (accessed July, 2011).

Los Angeles Times, “Pasadena: What Is Going On In the Arroyo Seco,” January 27, 1893.
http://www.proquest.com (accessed July, 2011).

Los Angeles Times, “Sunday’s Medley: The Boulevard Bridge,” November 17, 1890.
http://www.proquest.com (accessed July, 2011).

Los Angeles Times, “Timber Planting,” February 6, 1882. http://www.proquest.com
(accessed February, 2012).

128

Makinson, Randell. Interview by the author. Tape recording. Pasadena, CA, July 27,
2011.

McCoy, Esther. “Arts & Architecture Case Study Houses.” Perspecta 15, Backgrounds
for an American Architecture (1975): 54-73.

Moseley, Alex. Interview by the author. Tape recording. Pasadena, CA, September 22,
2011.

Nitschke, Günter. Japanese Gardens: Right Angle and Natural Form. Benedikt Taschen,
1993.

O’Brien, David J., and Stephen S. Fugita. The Japanese American Experience.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991.

O’Connor, Pamela and Urban Conservation Section, City of Pasadena Planning Division.
Architectural/Historical Development of the City of Pasadena, Historic Context/Property
Type Report. Pasadena: City of Pasadena, 1993.

Oshiyama, Tom. Interviews by the author. Tape recordings. Pasadena, CA, September
16, 2010, and July 21, 2011.

Page, Henry Markham. Pasadena: Its Early Years. Los Angeles: Lorrin L. Morrison,
1964.

Pasadena Post, “Rubblestone Works in Arroyo Stand as Pioneer’s Memorial,”
September 15, 1940.

Pasadena Star, “Scoville Bridge Down,” January 26, 1914.

Reid, Hiram A. Dr. Reid’s Pasadena Hand-Book. Pasadena, CA: Glasscock’s Publishers,
1905.

––. History of Pasadena. Pasadena, CA: Pasadena History Company, 1895.

Sam. Directed by Margaret Bach, 1971. Beyond the Japanese Garden: Short Films and
Documentaries (Stories of Japanese American Gardeners & Their Gardens), DVD. Los
Angeles, CA: Japanese American National Museum, 2007.

Sanchez, Jesus. “Era Passes From the Landscape: Japanese-American gardeners are
retiring, yielding routes to Latinos.” Los Angeles Times, December 21, 1991.
http://www.proquest.com (accessed June, 2011).

Scheid, Ann. Pasadena: Crown of the Valley. Northridge, CA: Windsor Publications,
1986.

129

Straub, Calvin C. “A Flexible House for Family Growth.” Los Angeles Times, September
14, 1952. http://www.proquest.com (accessed April, 2012).

Tengan, Carla S. “Cultivating Communities: Japanese American Gardeners in Southern
California, 1910-1980.” PhD diss., Brown University, 2006. ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses, UMI Number: 3227947. http://www.proquest.com (accessed October, 2011).

Thomas, Rick. The Arroyo Seco. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2008.

Tsuchida, Nobuya. “Japanese Gardeners in Southern California, 1900-1941.” In Labor
Immigration Under Capitalism, edited by Lucie Cheng and Edna Bonacich, 435-469.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984.

Tsukashima, Ronald Tadao. “Continuity of Ethnic Participation in the Economy:
Immigrants in Contract Gardening.” Amerasia Journal 21, no. 3 (Winter 1995/1996): 53-
76.

––. “Cultural Endowment, Disadvantaged Status and Economic Niche: The Development
of an Ethnic Trade.” International Migration Review 25, no. 2 (Summer 1991): 333-354.

––. “Notes on Emerging Collective Action: Ethnic-Trade Guilds Among Japanese
Americans in the Gardening Industry.” International Migration Review 32, no. 2
(Summer 1998): 374-399.

United States. Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians. Personal
Justice Denied. With a new foreword by Tetsuden Kashima. Washington, DC: Civil
Liberties Public Education Fund; Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1997.

Wayte, Beverly. At the Arroyo’s Edge: A History of Linda Vista. Los Angeles: Historical
Society of Southern California and Linda Vista/Annandale Association, 1993.

Wilkerson, Laura. “Spencer and the Rose Parade.”
http://owenlib.blogspot.com/2012/01/spencer-and-rose-bowl.html (accessed January,
2012).

Winter, Robert, ed. Toward a Simpler Way of Life: The Arts & Crafts Architects of
California. Berkeley: University of California Press / Norfleet Press, 1997.

Wood, J. W. Pasadena, California, Historical and Personal. Pasadena, CA: The author,
1917.

Wright, Frank Lloyd. Frank Lloyd Wright: An Autobiography. Petaluma, CA:
Pomegranate Communications, 2005. First published 1934 by Duell, Sloan and Pearce.

Young, David and Michiko. The Art of the Japanese Garden. North Clarendon, VT:
Tuttle Publishing, 2005.
130

APPENDIX

RESIDENCES BY BUFF & HENSMAN WITH LANDSCAPES BY HOWARD OSHIYAMA

YEAR NAME ADDRESS CITY

1955 Norton Residence 820 Burleigh Drive Pasadena

1964 Gill Residence 1385 El Mirador Drive Pasadena

1975 Coppersmith Residence 1665 Euston Road San Marino

1977 Conrad Buff III Residence 1430 Wicks Road Pasadena
(also known as “Rapor”)

1979 King Residence 60 El Circulo Drive Pasadena

1979 Company Office, 1450 West Colorado Pasadena
Buff, Smith & Hensman Boulevard

1981 Shiell-Shallack Residence 1405 Afton Street Pasadena

1985 Conrad Buff III Residence 480 Glen Holly Drive Pasadena

1985 Haptor Residence 3721 Alomar Drive Sherman Oaks

1993 Rabinovitz Residence 1010 Kewen Drive San Marino

Abstract (if available)

Abstract In the years following World War II, there were few sights more ubiquitous in Southern California than that of the Japanese gardener. What was less commonplace, however, was the opportunity for any one gardener to move beyond their perceived societal role. In most cases, the work of a Japanese gardener was limited to maintenance-related tasks, with little allowance for creativity or individual artistry. ❧ One such gardener, Howard Oshiyama (1917-2003), rejected the notion that his career would be confined to mowing lawns and blowing leaves. He transcended the limited scope of the ethnic gardening industry to become a landscape contractor, planning and installing landscapes during the heady postwar years of Southern California’s architectural renaissance. His most important collaboration was with architects Conrad Buff III and Don Hensman, with whom he would work for nearly forty years. Their partnership culminated in the plan for the landscape of Buff & Hensman’s King Residence, constructed in 1979 in Pasadena, California. Following the installation of an initial landscape plan completed by the architects, Oshiyama continued to maintain the property for almost a quarter of a century, making sensitive alterations and additions to the landscape until his death in 2003. ❧ Having received little formal education in landscape design, Howard Oshiyama relied upon his own instinctive interpretations of the tenets of Japanese garden design. As a practicing Zen Buddhist, he recognized the aesthetic principles inherent in the design of Japanese gardens, but it was the spiritual beliefs the principles embodied, and to which he subscribed, that gave his landscapes their true meaning. ❧ While Howard Oshiyama gained the personal and professional respect of his peers for his spiritual approach to the landscape, widespread recognition of his artistry in landscape design went unacknowledged and his body of work as a designer has been largely ignored. His work at Buff & Hensman’s King Residence highlights his mastery of landscape techniques and demonstrates the impact of his ongoing stewardship. This thesis explores the contributions of Howard Oshiyama to the field of postwar landscape design by highlighting his work at Buff & Hensman’s King Residence, provides a context within which to understand and evaluate his work, and makes recommendations for the future preservation of the King Residence landscape. ❧ Chapter One of this thesis provides a historical overview of the development of the western banks of the Arroyo Seco, where the King Residence now stands. Chapter Two details the design and construction of the King property by architects Conrad Buff III and Don Hensman and the subsequent stewardship of the landscape over time by Howard Oshiyama. Chapter Three addresses the history of Japanese American gardeners in Southern California and provides a context in which to consider Oshiyama’s career and accomplishments. Chapter Four explores Howard Oshiyama’s life and work, the philosophical beliefs and historical landscape motifs that informed his aesthetic, and the evolution of his career-long collaboration with Buff & Hensman. Concluding comments evaluate the significance of Oshiyama’s contributions to the King Residence landscape, provide suggestions for further research, and make recommendations for the future stewardship of the King property.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Society's child: the gardens of the Felipe de Neve Branch Library

PDF

The early career of architect Robert Henry Ainsworth: from draftsman to practitioner

PDF

Building on the hillside: community planner and architect Franz Herding (1887–1927)

PDF

A survey of the public: preference for old and new buildings, attitudes about historic preservation, and preservation-related engagement

PDF

The Schindler Terrace, an early modern garden: a case for conservation

PDF

Citius, altius, fortius: filling a void in the identification and designation of historic venues from the 1932 Los Angeles Olympics

PDF

Isolation and authenticity in Los Angeles' Arts District neighborhood

PDF

Mussolini's Rome: how the city changed with the rise and fall of the Duce

PDF

To answer a need: the history, significance, and future of the women's club house

PDF

Defining the City of Gardens: the conservation of Pasadena's bungalow courts

PDF

Preserving California City: an exploration into the city plan preservation of a mid-century, master-planned community

PDF

A different kind of Eden: gay men, modernism, and the rebirth of Palm Springs

PDF

In search of a “genuine” Southern California park: evaluating the early cultural landscapes of Ralph Cornell for today

PDF

Celebrating conformity: preserving Henry Doelger's midcentury post-war suburb

PDF

A silent legacy: the influence of Gin D. Wong's work on the Los Angeles built environment

PDF

The Wuzhen model: analyzing a strategy of old town tourism in China

PDF

Preserving street names in Los Angeles, California

PDF

Russell Forester, F.A.I.A.: “Skin and Bones Architecture” in San Diego

PDF

A unifying vision: improvement, imagination and Bernhard Hoffmann of Stockbridge (New England) and Santa Barbara (New Spain)

PDF

An odyssey in B-flat: rediscovering the life and times of master architect Robert A. Kennard

Asset Metadata

Creator Goers, Heather Marie (author)

Core Title A life in landscape: Howard Oshiyama and the gardens of Buff & Hensman's King residence

School School of Architecture

Degree Master of Historic Preservation

Degree Program Historic Preservation

Publication Date 08/23/2013

Defense Date 07/09/2012

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Buff,Carol Soucek King,Conrad Buff,contractor,Don Hensman,Donald Hensman,Garden,gardener,Hensman,Japanese,King,Landscape,OAI-PMH Harvest,Oshiyama,Richard King

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Breisch, Kenneth A. (committee chair), Saito, Leland T. (committee member), Sandmeier, Trudi (committee member)

Creator Email goers@usc.edu,hmgoers@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-90850

Unique identifier UC11288778

Identifier usctheses-c3-90850 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-GoersHeath-1166.pdf

Dmrecord 90850

Document Type Thesis

Rights Goers, Heather Marie

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA