“Does Central Park Work?”

A bird's eye view of Central Park. Photo Credit: mjperry.blogspot.com.

How do we Begin to Answer such a Broad Question?

In order to answer the question “does Central Park work?” the concept of a successful park must be defined. A public park, despite its make up or location is made for the use of the people. The more people who are able to use a public park, the more successful it is. A park that truly caters to the people must be accessible to these people. Therefore the base determining factor of whether or not a park is successful is its level of accessibility. This page will argue that Central Park displays multiple levels of accessibility, in favor of a diverse population of people and is therefore a successful park that “works.”

What is Accessibility? How does it Make a Park Successful?

To understand the ways in which Central Park is accessible one must first understand what accessibility means. The Google Dictionary definition of accessibility is: (of an object, service, or facility) Able to be easily obtained or used. This ability for a public space to be used by a wide arrange of people is what truly measures the success of a park. A park may not be used by all, but as long as it is capable of being used by all, it is doing it’s job.

What do the Experts say about Accessibility?

A wide variety of experts on public parks have contributed scholarly research into factors that make a park more accessible to its users. The scholars who have contributed to this pages definition of what consists of successful parks include: Frederick Law Olmsted, W.H. Whyte, Robert Ryan and Kevin Lynch. According to the experts, there are a select number of crucial components that a park must have to make them easily used by a large number of people and there for accessible to a large number of people.

Olmsted

The first set of beliefs regarding what makes Central Park accessible originated with Fredrick Law Olmsted who designed the park. Olmsted, along with architect Calvert Vaux, proposed a contest winning design for Central Park called the Greensward Plan.  Construction in the park began in 1858 and was completed in 1873.  Olmsted’s Greensward Plan not only included the layout for a visual design but also Olmsted’s proposal to make the park open to New Yorkers of all social classes and backgrounds. Olmsted envisioned Central Park to be an open green space accessible to lower class workers on weekends or after a hard day of work. As he stated, a park should not be “a monopoly, in a very, peculiar manner, of a very few, very rich people” (Schenker,42.) As a result of his beliefs on the social equity of urban parks, Olmsted built certain places within the park that allowed for the convergence of men and women spanning the cities social classes.

Olmsted’s plan to allow easy access for all users of the park is actually built into the design of the park in many ways. For example, to promote easy access amongst citizens commuting to and within the park, Olmsted included a number of pathways, (now called drives) for pedestrians, horseback riders and pleasure vehicles to use as a means of transportation. Today, bikers, inline skaters, skate boarders and joggers also use the drives.  Olmsted, diverted roadway traffic to depressed lanes concealed by shrubbery below the level of the rest of the park. By doing this Olmsted allowed people to access the park without being interrupted by horse and buggies. Today people can freely jog, walk and bike without being moved impacted by traffic.  Olmsted also created certain areas within the park to be equally accessible and unbiased by ones wealth. Olmsted’s original design mostly perpetuates a mental form of accessibility in that once entering the park people were open to equal usage.  The park gradually sinks down in terrain upon entry. Olmsted did this to give users the sense that they were exiting the city (where class division existed) and entering an equally playing field with rustic charm.  Certain places in the park are meant to exclude horse and buggy use, which at the time was a commodity only available to the wealthy, in order to promote an equal amount of usage between the classes. The Conservatory Water section of the park hinders buggy use with the stairs required to access the area. There are no places in the park (aside from the transverses, which aren’t really a part of the park experience) that limit access based on the lack of owning a buggy, or a car.

Ryan

In his article The Role of Place Attachment in Sustaining Urban Parks expert Robert Ryan explains the importance of attachment and it’s role in measuring the success of a park. As Ryan states,

 Although park use is one measure of success, simply observing the number ofpeople in a park does not reveal what the public enjoys about either the park or what meaning it has for them. Some researchers have proposed that people develop an attachment for places, an emotional bond between themselves and a particular place (Ryan, 63).

He notes that certain park features that allow for one to become attached to the park also promote usage. Some of the factors outlined by Ryan are: a variety of seating options, creating comfortable microclimates, responding to the needs of a diverse range of users, increasing park activity with food vendors and festivals (Ryan, 68). Many of Ryan’s concepts can be seen in Whyte’s research as well.

Whyte

Urban expert W.H. Whyte analyzed the ways in which public open spaces like parks and plazas provide accessibility to its users. Many of Whyte’s ideas can be applied to Central Park in discerning if the park is truly accessible.   In his documentary, The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces (1988), Whyte makes the claim that there are a set variety of factors that contribute to comfortable use amongst the average person. In this documentary, Whyte focuses primarily on small urban plazas but his ideas can be looked at within the scope of the urban park since they are used by the same population of people often for the same reason, (i.e. urban recreation). Whyte is also no stranger to the urban park, as he worked on the restoration of Bryant Park in the 1980’s. Whyte argued that the perceived accessibility and level of comfort of a public urban space comes down to a few main base factors: it’s relation to the street, the presence of food, and most importantly, a number of seating options (Whyte 1988).

Each of the factors, analyzed by Whyte have the ability to make a space seem more accessible to its users and thus promote further usage. These factors also have the ability to welcome in users and make a public space seem attractive and inviting. According to Whyte the relation to the street and the park is very important in how users will perceive accessibility.  A park that has entrances that invite the pedestrian traffic flow from the street into the park are often successful. This means that a successful park or plaza will need to be visible to and inviting of the people moving about in the city.  This creates a way for people to naturally enter a park and not limit their access to that park.  The presence of food options in or around a public park is also an important factor in its perceived accessibility. According to Whyte, people are more likely to gather in a social setting if there is food present. An abundance of food sources will make a public park more accessible to those using it for social purposes. Whyte also heavily emphasized the necessity for seating in a successful urban public space.  The freedom to sit in a wide variety of spaces facilitates social interactions, which is a domineering factor in the usage of a public urban space.  If the urban park is a space to escape from the on-foot lifestyle of the city, than a truly accessible park will have a variety of places to counter act this lifestyle with seating arrangements that foster social interaction.

Lynch

Whyte is not the only expert who outlines a the variety of ways in which various influences can construct the perceived accessibility of a public open space in it’s users. In his book, the Image of the City, Kevin Lynch brings up the concept of imageability and how it effects how people navigate within public locations. According to Lynch, Imageability is “The quality in a physical object which gives it a high probability of evoking a strong image in any give observer”(Lynch,9). A location that is highly imageable will be designed in a way in which it leaves a strong mental picture within the mind of who is using it. Strong imageability leads to greater accessibility. A place that has evoked a strong image in its user will allow that user to navigate within the location with greater ease than a place that is not very imageable. The easier a place is to navigate the more accessible this place is to its users.

Lynch lays out 5 traits of a location that are important in determining its level of imageability. These imageable characteristics are: paths, nodes, landmarks, edges and districts (Lynch,46-48). When present, each of these characteristics function in a ways that promote strong imageability, easy navigation, and better accessibility within an area. Paths are paved ways in which a person can move within the space. They are the means in which a user can construct an image of a location at various points.  Some commonly found paths are roads, walkways and transit lines. Edges are set boundaries, which define the space of a location within the mind of a user. Edges allow people to construct a general sense of their surroundings. Shorelines, walls and railroad tracks can all be seen as boundaries. Districts are areas within a broader location with common characteristics, distinct from other surrounding areas. They create a sense of organization of the location within the users mental map. Ethnic enclaves within the borough of Manhattan such as Chinatown, Little Italy and El barrio are all examples of districts. Nodes are hubs of activity in which users pass through, usually associated with transportation. Junctions and subway entrances are hubs. They give the user the sense that they are entering within a location.  Finally, there are landmarks, or identifying objects that provide visual point reference to a user. Landmarks are often seen in the form of public art,  like water fountains and statues, signs, and sometimes even buildings.

Testing the Theory of the Experts in the Field

A Central Park Food Vendor. Photo Credit: Gawker.com

According to Ryan, Whyte and Lynch’s views on accessibility, Central Park exhibits the features of a successful urban space. The park definitely fulfills Whyte’s requirement of being accessible from the street. Central Park, with is great greenery contrasting the gray streets of Manhattan can clearly be seen by pedestrians passing by. Not only can the park be seen but, it can be entered. With 18 entrances scattered along the parameters of the park, a pedestrian walking down 5^th avenue or Central Park West won’t have a hard time finding an entrance to the park. Also, these entrances are clear, broad and welcoming. They invite usage as opposed to hindering it.  Whether it is because people flock to food vendors or food vendors flock to people, Central Park has a wide variety of food options surrounding its borders.  As of February 2011, 55 hot dog carts are located within and on the outskirts of the park.  The city has been providing even more food options for Central Park frequenters by replacing these hot dog carts with specialty food carts.  The large number of carts is a way in which the park fulfills the food criteria in an accessible urban location, and the new variety in carts furthers the accessibility that the park offers. Now the park is welcoming to a niche of people who don’t prefer hot dogs or pretzels in their time spent in the park.  Glenn Kaalund of the NYC Park’s department states,  “The public wants a greater variety of food other than hot dogs. Tourists love hot dogs. But those of us that are local, not many of us make a stop at a hot dog stand.” The wider array of food carts means greater perceived accessibility amongst those with different preferences.

However, all of this would be irrelevant to Whyte’s argument if Central Park did not offer a great amount of seating options. In his

The Merchants Gate entrance of the park would be Whyte's dream. It is easily seen from the street and equipped with food and movable chairs. Photo Credit: Central Park NYC

documentary, Whyte made an important finding in his analysis of public usage of space. “People tend to sit where there are places to sit”(Whtye,1988). During lab 5, our findings were comparable to Whyte’s.  People made great use of Central Parks seating options, and the seating options seemed to be placed conveniently for those who wanted to sit. In distinct places within the park, like near the Alice in Wonderland exhibit, people had a choice of many benches to sit. There were also a number of movable chairs in this area, near a cafe. The movable chair is an important factor is Whyte’s argument because they are so versatile. The movable chair not only allows people to sit within the space, but it also gives them the option of how they want to sit. Thus making the park even more accessible.  During this lab we also observed a businessman walking through the park on one of the paved roadways. The man suddenly got a phone call, which seemed to be of great importance and would last quite long. He walked for a few seconds and was in range of a bench where he chose to sit. The man did not have to struggle to find a seat, because there were plenty benches scattered about the roadway, the park was accessible for the use that this man was seeking at the current moment. We also observed that there is no struggle for chairs within the park.  In Whyte’s film, people improvised and used the ledges of water fountains as seats. While we observed people, there were no people sitting on the fountain ledges or other uncomfortable spaces, because there were a number of seats around them, and if they did not find seats in that area, they would simply walk to another part of the park.

The trimmed and fenced American Linden does not interfere with park usage. Photo Credit: Samantha Riddell/Lab 3

Ryan’s factors that promote special attachment were also exhibited in the park and observed during field labs.  Ryan emphasizes that a park should exhibit a range of microclimates that combat extreme weather conditions in the park. Central Park has areas of shade as well as open locations to soak up sun. On the day of field lab 5, many people flocked to Bethesda Terrace to sit in the sun. This happened to be on a chilly day. For those looking for shade, the Ramble may be an ideal place for usage. As observed in field lab 3, the park exhibits a range of flora that invites usage, rather than deters it. As Ryan states, parks should use vegetation in a way “that creates a preferred setting rather than an overgrown, densely planted, or chaotic design.” In field lab three we observed well maintained trees and shrubbery that created a shaded, green atmosphere but did not interfere with usage. For example, the American Linden, which seemed to be growing up and out had been both trimmed and fenced in to prevent chaos. The park also fulfills Ryan’s requirement of responding to the needs of a diverse range of users. In field lab 5, we observed children playing soccer, people jogging, walking, reading, chatting, eating, taking pictures and even filing a short film. Central Park offers a variety of locations for people to engage in a variety of activities. There are playgrounds for children, quiet spaces for those looking to relax, paths for joggers and fields for sports.

Landmarks like Balto lend a hand to the strong imageability of Central Park. Photo Credit: Central Park NYC

As with Ryan and Whyte’s factors of accessibility, Lynch’s can also be seen heavily throughout Central Park. By Lynch’s standards Central Park is a highly imageable location. The park itself has a wide variety of routes in which one can orient themselves within.  There are drives, bridle paths, hiking trails and paved pathways spread throughout the park. Central Park also has four distinct edges that create a sense of strong imageability within New York City.  These edges are Central Park West, Central Park North, 5^th avenue and 59^th street. The park is also made of districts like Strawberry Fields, The Great Lawn, The Ramble and The Mall. Nodes are prevalent throughout the park. There are 18 entrances, or hubs in which users pass through in various parts of the park. Lastly, Central Park is filled with landmarks like the Alice in Wonderland exhibit, Balto, Cleopatra’s Needle and many fountains.

Combating Arguments Against Central Park’s Accessibility

Author and former New Yorker, David Owen stakes the claim that Central Park is a highly inaccessible feature in New York City that deters usage rather than promoting it in his book Green Metropolis. Owen suggests that Central Park in a seemingly impenetrable barrier in which New Yorkers are not willing to pass through (Owen 2009). He claims that it is unclear and confusing for people walking about the city. This claim however does not stand up to Lynch’s theory of an imageable location. Central Park exhibits the characteristics of an imageable location and therefore promotes a strong sense of orientation when someone enters the park.

All Subway rail lines run though Manhattan, with the exception of the Franklin Avenue Shuttle. Photo Credit: NycSubwayMap.net

There are also various arguments that state that Central Park is in accessible because of its location.  Most state that the park is not easy to use amongst people in the outer boroughs. This however is quite far from the truth. Central Park’s location in the middle of Manhattan is actually ideal for promoting use amongst members from the other 4 boroughs. There is no better place to put a park that can be used by people of  all the boroughs than the borough that experiences the greatest influx of activity on daily basis. In fact, all MTA train services (except for the Franklin Avenue Shuttle, which is located in Brooklyn) run through Manhattan.  Manhattan is the most accessible borough in terms of public transit and thus the perfect place for Central Park. In total, 11 subway lines are located around the parameters of the park, making the space open for use to anyone who can access the MTA.

Closing Words

Central Park is not a place that is used by all. It is not a place that has everything or caters to everyone. Such a space cannot exist and is too broad to define. However, for what it is Central Park works. Within the working definition of accessibility, the park is easily able to be obtained and use. Such an argument is validated by the outlining factors of accessibility drawn out by the experts and demonstrated through fieldwork.

_______________________

References

Lynch, Kevin. 1960. Image of the  City.

Olmsted, Frederick L. “Public Parks and the Enlargement of Towns.” American Social Science Association (1870): 1-36. Print.

Ryan, Robert L. (Platt, R. ed.) 2006. Humane Metropolis. The Role of Place Attachment in Sustaining Urban Parks.

Schenker, Heath. 2002. Why Urban Parks: A Matter of Equity?  The George Wright Forum.