MHC 200: Power of Parks Does Central Park work?

Does Central Park Work?

During the mid-nineteenth century, urbanization took a toll on the city with increasing pollution, overcrowding, and social unrest, which fostered the concern of how to improve the bustling city. As a solution, people demanded a new public space, and in turn, Central Park came into existence in 1857 with the development of the “greensward plan” by Frederick Law Olmsted and architect Calvert Vaux. The park would change the landscape of public space, and prove to be one of New York’s most valued attractions. With the establishment of the Conservancy, the park has experienced many transformations from a deteriorated state in the late 1970s to its present condition with land and historic statues restored. Indeed, Central Park can be considered a success with the park design as a work of art. However, from a social use point of view, Central Park does not work. To structure the meaning of “work,” we equated success with a high number of users, “active” versus “passive” use, crowdedness, and equitable use. Ultimately, Central Park “does not work” because it does not efficiently utilize the 843 acres of space in Manhattan, and does not promote “active” use by a large number of diverse New Yorkers, which the mission statement and original vision sought to accomplish.

There are a number of methods to define success through social use. In “Humane Metropolis,” Robert Ryan, like William Whyte, asserts that park use is an important measure of success. These experts concurred, “the more crowded a park, the more successful” (Ryan, 63). Though park use is one factor of success, it is also another measure in creating an attachment between people and places. In similar regards, Peter Harnik, the director of the Center for City Park excellence, defines success through equitable access and user satisfaction. Equitable access allows parks to be “…accessible to everyone regardless of residence, physical abilities, or financial resources” (Harnik, 57). In addition, he states how, “Having high usership is the ultimate validation that it is attractive and that it meets people’s needs” (Harnik, 58). Often times, the public’s wants and needs are overlooked when parks are designed. Thus, it is vital to understand how a park is being used and what kind of meaning a park holds for the public.

So, with our definition of success, it is also essential to look at the park’s original ideal and current mission statement to determine whether the park has fulfilled its purpose. Olmsted was inspired by the picturesque movement to create a “pseudo-countryside” within a city to facilitate social harmony and economic prosperity. With the greensward plan, the park incorporated pastoral landscapes, picturesque designs, and a variety of formal elements (Gandy, 87). The park served to provide public health, in which the working class can escape crowded tenements and breathe in fresh air and exercise. However, in reality, the park has remained to this date, an elite playground for the upper-middle class. In 1859, he even suggested “no sport can be permitted which would be inconsistent with the general method of amusement” (Gandy, 101). The park was not one of public interest, but of Olmsted’s elitist design imposed on society. Thus, while Central Park had been established due to the social disorder of urbanization, in actual fact, it formed a more exclusive space.

The exclusive space that Central Park formed is evident today as statistics show that the majority of the people who go to the park are Caucasian residents from the Upper East Side and Upper West Side, the surrounding neighborhoods. Based on statistics from the Conservancy report, there are approximately 37 – 38 million annual visits to Central Park, about 25 million (70%) which are by residents of New York City, and an additional 1.3 million (3%) from the NYC metropolitan area. With this, New Yorkers make up for about 26 million of total annual visits. The remaining 10 million visits (27%) are tourists. Further breakdown of the number of visits by NYC residents between Manhattan and the outer boroughs reveal that 88% of the estimated 26 million visits by New Yorkers are from Manhattan, while 12% are from the outer boroughs. The highest number of visitors is from Brooklyn, which accounts for a mere 5%, while the least amount is from Staten Island at 1%.

This chart also details the breakdown of the estimated visits by Manhattan residents according to each neighborhood. It demonstrates how the Upper West Side and the Upper East Side are the top two neighborhoods garnering the highest estimated visits of 9 million (25%) and 6 million (16%) respectively. Following the UWS and UES are Midtown and Harlem at 6% and 4%. The lowest estimated visits are from Lower Manhattan and Roosevelt Island. The farther the neighborhood is away from Central Park, the lesser the amount of estimated visits. Figure 17 also presents the different kinds of users based on perceived appearances. Park users are divided fairly even among females and males. Almost 99% of visitors are perceived to have no disability. However, based on race or ethnicity, there is a large disparity as Caucasians make up 70% of visitors, Hispanics around 10% of visitors, and Asians and Blacks around 7% of visitors each. Hence, these results show that in fact, Central Park is still really an “elite playground,” given that the majority of residents from the UWS and UES are white middle to upper class people.

Central Park is after all a park. Generally, people visit the parks closest to where they live. Hence, why is it even necessary to expand park use when there are other parks dispersed in different neighborhoods? Isn’t it common sense that Central Park would be most frequented by residents who live around the park? These are all valid questions, but the key answer is that Central Park was designed for all New Yorkers. Olmsted had a vision to create a “democratic pleasureground,” where people of all kinds can take pleasure in the park’s beauty and engage in recreation. Furthermore, the Central Park’s mission statement seeks “to restore, manage and enhance Central Park in partnership with the public…and to improve the quality of open space for the enjoyment of all New Yorkers.” This includes not only the rich middle to upper class residents, but also the low-income residents that typically live farther away from the park. Despite the fact that Central Park is an open public park, visitors of the park are primarily wealthy Caucasian residents from the UWS and UES. While the park can be accessible by subway, for many working class people of color, it is still an inconvenient task to reach there. Thus, using Harnik’s definition of success, he would argue that equitable access in Central Park is deficient.

There are two different kinds of recreation, passive and active, in considering park use. Activities such as walking, relaxing, reading, picnicking, and bird watching – those that generally include observation or idle enjoyment of one’s environment – count as passive recreation. On the other hand, active recreation refers to activities that mainly involve physical activity such as sports, exercise, and playground use. According to the Conservancy statistics, Figure 5.2 shows how roughly 90% of park visits include one or more forms of passive recreation, and 22% include one or more forms of active recreation. Since some visits involve both passive and active recreation, the total is greater than 100%. The most popular activity is walking or sightseeing at nearly 64%, and second is relaxing or socializing at 36%. For active recreation, the most popular is exercise with 14% of visits, and playground visits at 8.5%. People visit the park for passive enjoyment; “landscape” and “retreat from city” consist of the top reasons people cited as the single thing that they appreciate most in the park, followed by “activities.”  Thus, we can see that the vast majority of visitors engage in passive forms of recreation rather than active forms in Central Park. However, the reason for the small amount of people reporting on active recreation might be because of the fact that there is simply a lack of recreational areas. The number of people taking part in active recreation might increase if the number of these active areas increases as well.

While most visitors engage in passive recreation, a chart of the survey zones visited illustrates that places with more passive recreation tend to be some of the least visited places. Places such as the North Woods, The Ravine, Conservatory Garden, and the Ramble and Lake garner a range of total from 1.5% to 8%. On the other hand, areas that support active recreation such as the baseball fields, playgrounds, the zoo, and the Southwest Corner tend to be some of the most visited places. The park’s most visited landscapes are the 59th Street Pond and Wollman Rink at around 5.5 million (15%) visits annually and the Southwest Corner, which is near Columbus circle and the Merchant’s gate, at about 4.8 million visits. These areas, including the Grand Army Plaza, located outside the perimeter wall near Columbus Circle, are also among the most intensely used areas in terms of visits per acre as shown in Figure 4.2. The number of visits and intensity of use of the most prominent commercial and recreational areas act to efficiently utilize space. Therefore, since places for active recreation draw such a large amount of visitors, there is without a doubt a demand for active recreation. Even though the statistics shows that there are more people visiting for passive recreation, this is because there are a lot more areas that support passive recreation. This data indicates that park usage could be improved with more recreational space, including events, attractions, arts activities, and different commercial food vendors.

View Social Life in Central Park in a larger map

Our observations in Central Park also support the idea that there is a lack of space for active recreation. We visited the Park between 65th and 72nd Streets on a rainy, overcast day on October 26th. While the observations may vary based on the day, time, and weather, our data is important to examine along with the Conservancy statistics. As can be seen on the interactive map, most of the activities we observed involved passive recreation such as people taking pictures, appreciating the nature, sitting on benches, sight seeing, and dog walking. The only designated places for active reaction we observed was the Tots Playground at West 68th Street and the Bethesda Fountain, where boating service is provided. We also saw many joggers, and a gym class by the East 67th Street entrance playing soccer. Thus, based on our observations and the conservancy statistics, there are only a few small areas designated for active recreation relative to the size of the park. We passed through Sheep’s Meadow, which was closed on that day so there was no one there. However, even if it was reopened on a sunnier day, the open space is a quiet zone where active recreation is not allowed. This is an example of a large open space that permits passive recreation but could have the potential to foster more active recreational activities.

As we walked deeper into the park, there were noticeably less and less people. Our own observations match the Conservancy report in that people tended to stick near pathways and perimeters rather than the interior regions in the park. In The Green Metropolis,” David Owens argues that the “isolated regions of Central Park…act as borders within borders,” which discourages park users to walk across the park or to use some of the road systems inside the park (Owen, 171). He contends that people tend to avoid isolated areas, and usually congregate at places with high levels of activities, especially near storefronts or at bustling attraction sites. This can be seen particularly with the children playing soccer near the entrance. There could have been a larger open space or a field to play soccer if they delved farther into the park, but because the middle of the park is perceived to be more dangerous, the children played near the entrance where they could be seen in sight. This was also evident in our observations as we witnessed several people at a cafe and some tourists around hot dog stands and at the attraction site, Bethesda fountain. Central Park’s large open space is what Owens would argue as a barrier in New York City that acts as a buffer zone between the east and west side. He points out that although the distance across Central Park and from Grand Central to Times Square is around the same, few people would walk through the park than on the streets because of a sense of unfamiliarity of the paths, lack of other people, and perception that the distance is longer. Thus, based on Owens argument, our own observations and data from the Conservancy maintain the idea that Central Park operates as a barrier.

In conclusion, while Central Park does garner 8 to 9 million visitors per year, this immense amount itself is not telling about how the park is actually used – namely that large open areas, specifically for passive recreation, are being underused. The park is most frequented by tourists or affluent residents from the surrounding neighborhoods. Hence, there is a lack of diversity among the users, as a part of Central Park’s mission statement states to serve the entire community of New York. Furthermore, there is an inefficient use of space, where many areas of passive recreation are those that are least used compared to the considerably few areas of active recreation that are most used. Harnik notes that people should be no farther than ten minutes away from a park, and that ideally more small parks should be created than large ones to enable people more equitable access. However, Central Park cannot be cut up into small pieces and be redistributed into other neighborhoods. Therefore, to support more active recreation, we would suggest implementing more recreational facilities because there is a demand as demonstrated by the data and to balance some of the large amount of land used for passive recreation. These recreational facilities along with attractions such as commercial food vendors, festivals and seasonal events, farmer’s markets, or even concerts, as Ryan noted, are some park designs that can generate more revenue for the park and hopefully serve a wider community, promote usage of the more isolated areas, and draw in more people from other boroughs.

__________________________________

Bibliography

1. Central Park Conservancy. 2011. Report On The Use Of Central Park 4/11.
2. Gandy, Matthew. 2003. Concrete and Clay: Reworking Nature in New York City.
3. Harnik, Peter (Platt, R. ed.) 2006. Humane Metropolis. The Excellent City Park System: What makes it great and how to get it there.
4. Olmstead, Fredrick Law. 1870. Public Parks and the Enlargement of Towns.
5. Owens, David. 2009. Green Metropolis.
6. Ryan, Robert L. (Platt, R. ed.) 2006. Humane Metropolis. The Role of Place Attachment in Sustaining Urban Parks.