==Introduction==

When trying to determine if something works, that is, if it is successful, it is important to define what exactly ‘success’ means. While, at a glace, this seems to be a simple question, it is actually quite convoluted. Take, for example, a successful person; what is it that makes a successful person? Is it a large paycheck or a high-ranking career position? Is it a house with a backyard and a family to fill it with? Or is it something much simpler, like just having someone to say “goodnight” to before you fall asleep? The point is that success has a specific meaning which is often dependent on whom you are asking. How then, can you define whether or not a park works?

==Thesis==

A successful park is one, which is accessible both easily and to a wide range of customers. Based on field observations and the specifications and recommendations of experts, from scientists to urban planners, Central Park is markedly accessible both on paper, as it heeds the advice of the aforementioned experts, and in practice, based on our field data.

==Method==

Our first step, and perhaps our most difficult one, was to define exactly what success means in the context of Central Park.  William H. Whyte, in his book and video, The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces, seemingly defines the success of an urban space by its population density. ((“William H. Whyte – Social Life of Small Urban Places on Vimeo.” Vimeo.com. Vimeo, Video Sharing For You. Web. 06 Dec. 2011. http://vimeo.com/21556697)) However, this seemed to parallel the aforementioned materialistic definitions of success that were mentioned earlier. Additionally, we agreed that Central Park has areas, which are designed specifically for serenity and as an escape from the masses and chaos of the city.

We turned then to Galen Cranz and Michael Bolen to define a successful park.  In their piece on sustainable parks, Defining the Sustainable Park: A Fifth Model for Urban Parks, in the Landscape Journal, they argue that since the mid 19^th century there have been a number of different types of parks – four, to be exact. These types of parks are the pleasure ground, the reform park, the recreational facility and the open space system. ((Cranz, G., and M. Boland. “Defining the Sustainable Park: A Fifth Model for Urban Parks.” Landscape Journal 23.2 (2004): 102-20.)) The park types are separated by time period and each one of these park types has a specific social goal and contains certain elements, according to Cranz and Bolen. Since Central Park was opened in 1873 it was considered a pleasure ground. Furthermore, Central Park is consistent which the elements that define a pleasure ground, that is, woodlands and meadows, curving paths, placid water bodies and other pastoral features. ((Cranz, G., and M. Boland. “Defining the Sustainable Park: A Fifth Model for Urban Parks.” Landscape Journal 23.2 (2004): 102-20.)) At first we thought we had struck gold, and we were ecstatic. This gave us a specific goal – public health and social reform – by which to judge central park by. However, we were quickly disappointed.

Taking a look at the social goals and elements that define the other park types, it became clear that Central Park fit a number of the alternative definitions and it was easy to see why this was the case. Although Central Park was opened in 1873, it has been operational throughout, and continues to be, up to current day. Therefore, as the social goals of the parks have altered over time, so too has Central Park, while at the same time maintaining some of it’s original elements. This brought us to an eye-opening conclusion; a conclusion which will be stressed throughout the duration of this paper.

When talking about Central Park, it is important to keep in mind that the park has a multitude of purposes. The sheer magnitude of the park, and its resilience to the changes that the times have brought, has made Central Park into one with a plethora of facilities: from the rustic structures of the Ramble and Belevedere Castle, consistent with the pleasure grounds, to the baseball fields, and basketball and volleyball courts that litter the Great Lawn, consistent with the elements of reform and recreation facilities. Therefore, while isolated areas of the park may conform to specific labels, the park as a whole does not. This means that Central Park cannot be analyzed as a single unit, but rather each specific area must be evaluated individually before they are all brought together. Although interesting, this conclusion brought us back to square one.

We sought, instead, to define a measure of success, which can be applied to all parks, and not Central Park specifically, and the parameter we thought to utilize was accessibility.  Again, defining accessibility in regards to a park became our main goal. As a starting point, we found that the dictionary defines accessibility as something that is “able to be easily obtained or used”. ((accessibility. (n.d.). Collins English Dictionary – Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition. Retrieved December 19, 2011, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/accessibility)) But this was a rather colloquial definition and we aimed to find a more academic one. For this, we turned to Heath Schenker. In his essay, Why Urban Parks: A Matter of Equity?, Schencker claims that parks “symbolize the principle of equity”, which he defines as “justice according to natural law or right; specifically freedom from bias or favoritism”. ((Schenker, Heath. “Why Urban Parks: A Matter of Equity?” The Georgie Wright Forum 19.2: 40-42.)) Olmsted, the landscape designer of the park, himself said that a park should not be a “monopoly … of a very few, very rich people”. ((Olmsted, Frederick L. “Public Parks and the Enlargement of Towns.” American Social Science Association (1870).)) Finally, we combined these two concepts to create our amended definition of a successful park: a park that does not have any inherent features which promote bias and which inhibit use by a specific group, whether it be age, sex, gender, socioeconomic status, or even special interest groups, and is therefore equally able to be reached and used by all, is a successful one. Various methods of promoting accessibility had been laid out by urbanist William H. Whyte and city planner Kevin Lynch. We used these standards to supplement our definition of accessibility. By, finally, determining that the extent of Central Park’s accessibility would dictate its level of success, we were ready to go out into the field and acquire some hard data.

Over the course of three months, from September to November, we made numerous visits to Central Park. Our observations were typically made during the hours of 10am to 1pm and in a variety of weather conditions. The area of study was generally between the area of the park that is between the southernmost edge at 59^th street and approximately 80^th street and generally on the east side of the park. These observations aimed to explore the criteria for accessible spaces as defined by William White and Kevin Lynch, as well as to disprove counter arguments we came across over our course of study. We, additionally, used external sources to supplement our results with evidence that we could not find in the field.

==Results==

Although we originally discredited William H. Whyte’s definition of a successful urban space as being the only measure for a park’s success, it is clear that there is some association between the amount of people that utilize an open space and its accessibility. That is, an open space that is greatly utilized, generally, is more accessible. In order to increase the utilization of an open space, Whyte proposed several principles for urban plazas to abide by. These are: availability of sittable space, seperate from yet close relationship to the street, abundant sunlight, at least during the colder times of the year, availability of food, presence of trees and water, and “the characteristic of a public place that can bring people together” or as Whyte calls it, triangulation. ((“William H. Whyte – Social Life of Small Urban Places on Vimeo.” Vimeo.com. Vimeo, Video Sharing For You. Web. 06 Dec. 2011. http://vimeo.com/21556697)) According to Whyte’s research, an open space that abides by these guidelines will have the most traffic. Although Central Park, in its entirety, is not a public plaza similar to the ones that Whyte studied, as mentioned earlier, various areas of the park serve different purposes. Isolated areas of the park can most certainly be considered public plazas, such as The Mall and the Conservatory Water. Looking for patterns in public plazas that attract large amounts of people was not the only thing Whyte was paying attention to during his observational studies.

Whyte also spent a large amount of time analyzing exactly how the guests of public plazas were making use of the space. Whyte says: “The first thing that strikes you is the extraordinary diversity of activity”. These activities range from people watching, impromptu business meetings, “lovers” interacting with each other, and even people simply just standing there, allowing the world to pass them by. ((“William H. Whyte – Social Life of Small Urban Places on Vimeo.” Vimeo.com. Vimeo, Video Sharing For You. Web. 06 Dec. 2011. http://vimeo.com/21556697)) We therefore, made sure to we paid attention to the ways in which people were utilizing the park during our observations and whether or not this diversity of activity was displayed in Central Park’s open spaces.

During our first visit to The Mall, we were surprised by just how much its design exemplifies the advice of William Whyte. In this picture alone of The Mall we can see a large availability and variety of seating space and options. The area is well lit by a shower of sunlight and it is in close proximity to placid bodies of water surrounded by trees. There is, furthermore, an availability of food and the statue that adorns the fountain clearly provides a site for triangulation. The amount of people that is occupying the space is exemplary of just how much Whyte’s guidelines for an urban plaza contribute to its success. On this same day of field observations, we made note of the activities that the guests of the park were taking part in, both at The Mall and along the path that we took to get to The Mall from the east 67^th street entrance. Like Whyte, we observed a diverse range of activities that the park was home to, from relaxing leisure to physically active recreation. ((Sideris, Michael, Samantha Riddell, Samantha Rodriguez, Guillermo Rodriguez, and Bianca Rosa. “Social Life in Central Park.” Case Studies on Central Park’s Success. 2 Nov. 2011. Web. 19 Dec. 2011. <http://eportfolios.macaulay.cuny.edu/groupd/)) A handful of the activities we observed and where we observed them are displayed on this map. Whyte’s guidelines for a public plaza, however, are not the only ones, which promote social use.

View MHC 200 Lab 5 Group 4 in a larger map
Kevin A. Lynch, in his book The Image of the City, outlines five elements of space, which promote imageability. Imageability, according to Lynch, is “the quality in a physical object which gives it a high probability of evoking a strong image in any given observer”. ((Lynch, Kevin. 1960. Image of the  City.)) In other words, it is the ability of a space to allow an observer to spatially orient himself or herself, facilitating participation with the space and repeated interaction with it. As mentioned earlier, the greater the interaction and participation with the space, the greater the accessibility, as it demonstrates an inherent ability to be accessed and used. The five elements that Lynch claims promote imageability are paths, edges, districts, nodes and landmarks. Paths are routes by which the user can move throughout the location. Edges are boundaries, which set distinctions between to regions of the location; these can be mental or physical. Districts are sections within a location that share common characteristics. Nodes are hubs of high traffic or large intersections. Finally, landmarks are objects that provide visual point-reference to the user. ((Lynch, Kevin. 1960. Image of the  City.)) On yet another field day, we observed the existence of these five elements in Central Park.

Central Park proved to have multiple examples of all five of Lynch’s elements. For example, paths are abundant throughout the park. There are pedestrian pathways, streets and even hiking trails. The four streets that border the periphery of the park can by thought of as edges as they symbolize the transition from park to city. Some well-known districts of the park include the aforementioned Ramble and Mall as well as others, such as the Great Lawn and Strawberry Fields. All eighteen of the entrances to the park can be considered nodes as they are intersections between parks paths and city paths and are often adorned by entrances to subway stations. Finally, the park is, of course, littered with multiple landmarks, such as the Alice in Wonderland statue and the statues of Balto. The existence of all five of these elements promotes the imageability of the park and are the underlying reason why visitors frequent the park on multiple occasions. In fact, the park receives some thirty eight million visitors annually. Yet this doesn’t detract from arguments, which dispute the accessibility of Central Park.

A common argument we heard throughout the course of our observational survey was that Central Park’s location detracts from its accessibility. Central Park is located in Manhattan, which the smallest borough in terms of land area and is trumped by both Brooklyn and Queens in terms of population. ((“Total Population New York City and Boroughs.” Nyc.gov. New York City Department of Planning. Web. 03 Dec.  2011. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/census/census2010/t_pl_p1_nyc.pdf)) Additionally, Manhattan is an island. Therefore, at first glance, it seems as though Central Park’s location causes it to be accessible to only a fraction of the population of New York City. However, this summary of the population is quite misleading as it fails to take into account the human element. That is, the constant movement of people, especially in a city with a transportation system as affordable, diverse and ample as any other.

Although the place of residence of the majority of New Yorkers is not in Manhattan, the shift of people into Manhattan tips the scale in favor of the small island. The visual display shows how the population in Manhattan spikes during the day and then relaxes again at night. In fact, over 1.4 million workers commute from the other four boroughs and surround regions on a daily basis. ((“Area of New York City.” Hypertextbook.com. Web. 19 Dec. 2011. http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/JordanLevine1.shtml)) ((“Many Workers Travel To Manhattan, But More Stay in Their Boroughs.”Observer.com. The New York Observer. Web. 04 Dec. 2011. http://www.observer.com/2010/politics/many-workers-travel-manhattan-more-stay-their-boroughs)) Furthermore, the statistic and graph alike only account for commuters of the work force. If we were to account for students, tourists and people just running their everyday errands, the population spike would be even more substantial.

==Conclusion==

In order for Central Park to be successful we agreed that it needed to both display easy access and availability of use along with a potential for a diverse range of uses while simultaneously refraining from any bias or favoritism towards specific groups. The high visitation rate is representative of the pure ability of the park to be accessed. The causative agent of this large amount of access is the park’s ability to adhere to Whyte’s and Lynch’s public planning guidelines for open spaces. This is then furthered by Central Park’s location in Manhattan, which receives the highest amount of daytime population allowing it to be accessed by the largest proportion of people, since the daytime is when the park is open to the public. Finally, by using a people watching method inspired by Whyte, we found that the park is home to a diverse range of activities and uses, exemplifying it’s ability to equitably allocate space and resources for the park’s potentially vast array of uses that the park’s visitors desire. We can, therefore, conclude, that Central Park does work as it is able to be both accessed and used in agreement with the social equity standards set forth by Schenker.