Social Equity  When Frederick Law Olmsted created the plan for Central Park he did so with the vision that Central Park would foster greater social equity. He emphasized that nature should not be “a monopoly, in a very, peculiar manner, of a very few, very rich people”((Schenker, Heath. 2002. Why Urban Parks: A Matter of Equity?  The George Wright Forum. 42 )) Herein, Olmsted expresses a key point: that parks should be usable by a variety of different persons, not just specified groups of persons. He also found that these parks were symbols of democracy in that they are means of educating the political base. In this way, accessible parks help to foster equality and democracy by intermingling persons from various boroughs, backgrounds, and socio-economic groups. Heath Schenker furthers this assertion in his paper: Why Urban Parks: A Matter of Equity? Herein he asserts that accessible parks allow users to exercise their “right to pursue happiness” While parks were originally constructed as private parks for the aristocracy, in the 19th century these parks were transformed into public institutions in which all classes could indulge in the happiness afforded by these parks ((Schenker, Heath. 2002. Why Urban Parks: A Matter of Equity?  The George Wright Forum. 40-44))

==Responding to the needs of a diverse range of users==

===Olmsted’s Vision: Now & Then===

In order for Central Park to be easily used, and thus be accessible, it must respond to the needs of a variety of users. However, the Central Park design in 1957, did not necessarily cater to accessibility in this sense.

Though Olmsted was greatly committed to diverse users within the confounds of Central Park,  “a democratic institution by virtue of the mixing of classes within its boundaries”,   his original plan for Central Park of the 1850’s, didn’t necessarily cater to “universal usage” because Olmsted perceived aesthetic appreciation to be the major activity for Central Park Goers, an activity that does not necessarily attract a broad range of users. The original plan for the park, Olmsted’s Greensward plan, thus did not include many great fixtures seen in Central Park today, many which faciliate much of the usage within. In fact, Olmsted would eventually lose his managerial position within Central Park because of refusal to include such athletic fields, because his objections were perceived as disdain towards American popular culture ((Gandy, Matthew. Concrete and Clay: Reworking Nature in New York City. Cambridge Mass. [etc.: MIT, 2003. Print.; Olmstead, Frederick L. “Public Parks and the Enlargement of Towns.” American Social Science Association (1870): 1-36. Print.))

In order to preserve the park as Olmsted envisioned it, Central Park originally was not greatly utilized for activities. For that reason, many of the fields and ballparks within did not exist. As discussed in individual Field Lab 2 ((http://eportfolios.macaulay.cuny.edu/groupd/sam-rodriguezs-lab-two-d/)), as the perception of Central Park’s purpose has changed, as have some of its physical attributes. One such being athletic fields like North Meadow which consists of multiple baseball and softball fields. North Meadow was not what Olmsted’s original plan had in mind for Central Park.  However, the addition of these fields has facilitated an increase in usage. Now that those wishing to partake in speculation of nature, are joined by those wishing to engage in athletic activities, within the confound of Central Park, the park has become more accessible to various peoples.

Over time, Central Park has become a monument in which various persons can participate in a vast range of different activities. This diversity in activity has emerged from a shift in the Parks original purpose–a shift that has allowed more of the park to be devoted to usage rather than simple speculation. Increase ease in using Central Park has increased it’s accessibility.

===Imageability===

Another influencing factor in Central Park’s ability to meet the needs of a diverse range of users is “imageability”. Imageability is “The quality in a physical object which gives it a high probability of evoking a strong image in any give observer” ((Lynch, Kevin. 1960. Image of the  City. pg 160-172)). Imageability is important because greater imageability allows users better orientation within a space which facilitates greater participation with said space. The more usage the space receives, the more accessible it is. Lynch outlines 5 main physical features which contribute to imageability. These factors are:

Landmarks are objects that provide visual point-reference to the user. In Central Park landmarks include monuments like the Alice in Wonderland Statue.

Edges are boundaries which set distinctions between to regions of the location. Central Park has clear distinct edges given that its surrounded by the greatest city in the world. Edges include 5th avenue, 59th street, Central Park North, and Central Park West.

Districts are sections within a location that share common characteristics. Districts within Central Park include  The Great Lawn, the Ramble, Strawberry Fields, and the Mall.

Paths are routes in which the user can move throughout the location. In Central Park examples of paths are prevalent. They include paved paths for cars and buses, paths throughout the park for pedestrians to move throughout the park, and even forged paths through the trees for nature exploration.

((Lynch, Kevin. 1960. Image of the  City. pg 160-172))

===Nodes===

In order to respond to the needs of a diverse ranger of users, Central Park must actually be geographically accessible. In order to do so, Central Park must have “Nodes”, the last physical attribute relating to Imageability.

Lynch describes nodes as the following: “points, the strategic spots in a city into which an observer can enter, and which are intensive foci to and from which he is traveling. They may be primary junctions, places of a break in transportation, a crossing or convergence of paths, moments of shift from one structure to another. Or the nodes may be simply concentrations, which gain their importance from being the condensation of some use or physical character, as a street-corner hangout or an enclosed square … ” ((Lynch, Kevin. 1960. Image of the  City))

In other words, in order for Central Park to used, it must have locations in which it can accessed by travelers from various regions of New York, as well as other surrounding (and even far reaching) areas.

Because of New York City’s uniquely vast and interconnected subway system, Central Park has a variety of nodes that satisfy this factor of accessibility.

Thus, even if a traveler from Long Island, or the tri-state area is looking to access Central Park, there are public transportation connections they can easily access (Penn Station on 1 line, Grand Central on the 6 line).

==Variety of Seating Options==

===Whyte===

A Park or any open space often yields increased usage from the ability of its users to enjoy the space sedentary. In Whyte’s video on Open Spaces, he explores this fact, explaining that when open spaces have a wide variety of seating option, greater attachment to the space and socialization occurs. Central Park very clearly fills this requirement for successful accessibility. Within the park, as shown in Field Lab 5, people often flocked around areas with seating, including the fountain monument, and benches around the paths. These areas were utilized because they allowed people to stop for a moment as simply enjoy their surrounding. Thus, their ability to use the park (IE it’s accessibility) increased because of the availability of seating.

==Activity Within the Park==

===Field Lab 5: People of Central Park===

In Field Lab 5, we observed first hand the activities in Central Park. Via observation we came to the conclusion that Central Park was indeed being used, and its use represented a variety of different activities and persons.

Follow this link for more information on Field Lab 5:http://eportfolios.macaulay.cuny.edu/groupd/

 Activities ranged from playing the Harp like in the picture to the right, to jogging, reading, tourists taking pictures, children playing, and bikers riding. These activities were done by persons of various ages, thus supporting the theory that Central Park is accessible for various activities by various persons. Additionally, this lab allowed us to view exactly where there groups congregated. It was clear that users were prevalent everywhere from the paths, to the benches, to the monuments within the park. These various areas provide places for diverse activities, thus increasing the Park’s ability to used.

==Counter-Arguments==

===Central Park as a Barrier===

In Owen’s Green Metropolis, he posits the assertion that Central Park may in fact serve as a barrier. He writes “Central Park is like a mountain range that functions as an impenetrable divide between the valleys on each side”. He further asserts that people tend to walk on busier paths with more pedestrian traffic, because it creates the “perception” that they are walking less. This perceived benefit would thus deter potential users from straying into Central Park because of its vast open spaces and unclear pathways across. He thus concludes that small parks, like Greenwich Village’s Washington Square park are more successful in this sense, and receive more foot by foot usage.((Owen, David. 2009. Green Metropolis. Ch. 4, pp. 163-201)) Even the photograph to the left depicts this vast difference between Central Park and its surrounding area, yet is this truly a barrier?

Central Park may be in many ways perceived as a barrier to those NOT attempting to use the park, but is indeed NOT a barrier to those trying to use it. Central Park is used in various capacities, including simply strolling through, bicycling, jogging, relaxing, and socializing. These activities are not blockaded because of Central Parks design, on the contrary, the enjoyment that Central Park creates is largely made possible by its design, and is thus not a barrier. In Field Lab #5 (http://eportfolios.macaulay.cuny.edu/groupd/), we found that most people engaged in leisurely activities like reading and taking pictures, activities that would be made impossible if Central Park had a higher population of pedestrian traffic.

===Location===

 The diagram to the left shows a contrast between the population of New York City visitors during the day as opposed to night. Thus while there are significantly lower levels of residents whom call Manhattan home every night, it receives much more traffic by day in terms of visitors than the surrounding boroughs. Thus, the location of Central Park in Manhattan would be most beneficial for the most amount of people.