Arthur Tarley MHC Final Project
Central Park, designed by Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux after the Central Park Commission selected their “greensward plan” in 1857, was created with distinct intentions (Gandy 87-88). These intentions have morphed over time and present certain shortfalls for the park. Evidenced by writings from Robert Ryan and Peter Harnik, the Central Park Conservancy’s mission statement, data collected by the Conservancy and Social Use Lab 6, Central Park does not work, because it does not effectively utilize its space and fails to adequately promote “active” usage by a large number of diverse New Yorkers.
Robert Ryan and Peter Harnik provide the foundation for the claim that Central Park does not work, or could be improved, due to its lack of efficient use of space and creation of areas allocated for recreational activities and failure to efficiently promote “active” park usage—the Central Park Conservancy defines active recreation, or usage, as “forms of recreation that primarily involve physical activity—such as sports, exercise and playground use—and that often requires dedicated facilities” (Conservancy “Report” 13). Robert Ryan identifies numbers of park users and “crowdedness” as measures for the success of a park (Ryan 63-64). He also stresses the importance of creating attachment to a park—fostering a distinct relationship between the people who use the park and the park itself (Ryan 66). Two important aspects of improving park attachment is understanding why people use the areas of the park that have the highest rates of usage, and “incorporating design features that promote park use”—like food vendors and festivals (Ryan 66,68). Two important factors in Peter Harnik’s definition of a successful park are “equitable access” and “high usership.” (Harnik 57-58). Harnik believes that parks should be accessible to people despite differences in financial resources and resident location. He also stresses that large numbers of users signifies user satisfaction and the success of an urban park (Harnik 57-58). In addition to Ryan and Harnik, the Central Park Conservancy aims to serve all New Yorkers in its mission to manage and improve the park, creating another measurement for success specific to Central Park.
http://www.centralparknyc.org/visit/things-to-see/south-end/sheep-meadow.html
Given these barometers of success, Central Park Conservancy statistics and Social Use Lab 6 show the failures of Central Park and how it does not work. Analysis begins with looking at how people are using the park and how Central Park utilizes its space. Figure 4.1 from an April 2011 Central Park Conservancy report shows patterns related to the volume of use of different areas of the park.
“Report on the Public Use of Central Park”
As seen by the highlighted portions of the graph, four of the areas that attract the most yearly visits are the Pond and Wollman Rink, the Southwest Corner, the Zoo and Heckscher Playgrounds and Ball Fields (Conservancy “Report” 11). Wollman Rink is an attraction for ice-skating during the fall and winter months, and a general attraction at other points in the year, the Central Park Zoo is an obvious attraction and the Heckscher Playgrounds and Ball Fields provide areas for a variety of recreational use. The Southwest corner is located right near the Columbus Circle entrance to the Park, a place in close proximity to commerce. Wollman Rink and Heckscher playground and ball fields provide recreational space, the Southwest corner attracts visitors due to the commercial offerings of Columbus Circle and the Zoo is a big attraction. The high numbers of annual visits to these four areas of the park, out of 32 such designated areas that make up all of Central Park, show how the presence of recreational space, commerce and attractions promote park usage.
Heckscher Playground, http://www.centralparknyc.org/visit/things-to-see/south-end/heckscher-playground.html
Figure 4.2 from the Conservancy shows intensity of use by area of the park, and further supports the high usage of commercial and recreational areas, and attractions in Central Park (Conservancy “Report” 12).
“Report on the Public Use of Central Park”
As the highlighted portion of 4.2 shows, the four areas discussed above, plus Grand Army Plaza which is located at, and just outside, the Columbus Circle entrance to the Park are also among the most intensely used areas of Central Park in terms of visits per acre (Conservancy “Report” 12). Based on the percentage of visits and intensity of visits, there are noticeably areas that do not efficiently utilize space to appeal to visitors. A number of such areas lack the attractions, and recreational and commercial draws of the most visited and most intensely visited areas. The statistics indicate that park usage could be improved if Central Park included more recreational space, areas for events, attractions and diverse commercial food vendors.
Ryan and Harnik’s claims about successful parks fail the test in the face of Conservancy statistics on volume and intensity of park use. These statistics are useful for understanding aspects of Central Park that promote park attachment, what design features attract visitors and what would bring more visitors to the park. Recreational facilities, commerce and attractions are all major factors bring people to the park and promote attachment. Central Park does not allocate enough space or facilities for the park features that Ryan would say supports park attachment, high number of users or “crowdedness” and that Harnik would say support high “usership.” Ryan would also say that Central Park, at its current state, fails to understand what people use the park for most.
Conservancy statistics also make specific distinctions between active recreation and passive recreation—“taking a walk, reading a book, picnicking, bird watching…or passive enjoyment of one’s surroundings” (Conservancy “Report” 13). The Conservancy estimates that roughly 85% of all park use is in the form of passive recreation and 15% in the form of active recreation (Conservancy “Report” 13). In a separate calculation, the Conservancy surveyed park visitors asking them what they did in the park on that visit—allowing visitors to give multiple answers. Figure 5.2 shows the results of this survey organized into active and passive activities. The chart reinforces the Conservancy’s estimates that passive recreation takes place approximately 70% more than active use (Conservancy “Report” 14).
"Report on the Public Use of Central Park"
Figure 12.1 shows that another survey of the park concludes that visitors appreciate and enjoy the landscape and retreat from the city at a rate about six times more than for activities (Conservancy “Report” 22).
“Report on the Public Use of Central Park”
The statistics on active and passive recreations exhibit the lack of active recreational use of Central Park and that the mindset of visitors represents that Central Park is not primarily thought of as a park for active recreation. Looking at these statistics with the earlier statistics on volume and intensity of use, the problem reveals itself not to be that there is a lack of demand for active recreation, but that there is a lack of space and facilities for active use. Heckscher Playgrounds and Ball Fields, and Wollman rink rank among the highest and most intensely visited areas of the park; if there were more areas of the park dedicated to recreational activities, overall park use, crowdedness, and park attachment would increase—making Central Park more successful.
Group observations during Social Use Lab 6 offer good supplementary evidence for the under-allocation of space for active recreation in Central Park, and the high density of people at locations designed for active recreation. Observations were made of how people were using Central Park from East to West side, between 65th and 72nd streets, on October 26th between 10:30 a.m. and 12:50 p.m. The weather was overcast, mid-50’s and rainy. Though not ideal conditions for these observations, they are useful in conjunction with the Conservancy statistics.
The below Google My Places Map outlines the observed locations and activities.
View Social Life in Central Park in a larger map
On the map, the green symbol, which depicts a figure playing soccer, indicates areas where active recreation was observed. Two instances of active recreation occurred in areas designed for active use—children playing in Tots Playground on West 68th street and boating near Bethesda Fountain—and two instances occurred at points in the park not designed for such activity—jogging on a path and a Physical Education Soccer class of young schoolchildren on a patch of grass near East 67th street (Social Lab 6). The majority of observed activities, denoted by a variety of other markers on the map, involved people engaging in passive recreation (the map signifies what each marker more specifically represents).
The observations illustrate the extremely small amount of designated active recreation space relative to the size of the area of the Park that was studied. In addition, Tots Playground, one of these designated spaces for active use, had the highest density of people of any area observed that day (Social Lab 6). The lab also shows that some open space not designed for active recreation is used for such. The large majority of space observed between 65th and 72nd streets facilitates passive recreation—including Sheep Meadow, a large open green space which is designated as a quiet zone and does not allow active recreation (Conservancy “Sheep”)—with little consideration for space intended for active use (Social Lab 6).
Tots Playground, http://www.centralparknyc.org/visit/things-to-see/south-end/tots-playground.html
As conveyed by the conservancy statistics, areas designed for active recreation attract a great number of visitors and are most intensely used. Sadly, there are few such designated areas in comparison to the total size of the park, and such areas lack diversity in what types of active recreational activities they promote. If more areas were created specifically for active recreation and offered a broad range of active recreational activities, the park would fulfill the desires and demand of park visitors, enhance park attachment with these desired park features, attract more visits and increase active and total users.
Shifting to a look at demographics will help examine what people are using Central Park, and if the Park is succeeding in regards to Harnik’s claim of equitable access and the Conservancy’s own mission statement which claims that the Conservancy strives to build, sustain, manage and improve the park “for the enjoyment of all New Yorkers” (Conservancy “Mission”).
The Conservancy statistics show a large discrepancy between borough usage, neighborhood usage in Manhattan, usage by the disabled and usage by different races. Figure 9A.2 gives statistics on park use by borough of residence and shows that 88% of park visitors from New York live in Manhattan, dwarfing the percentage from all other boroughs (Conservancy “Report” 9A.2).
"Report on the Public Use of Central Park”
Figure 9.3 shows that within Manhattan, the Upper West and Upper East Side neighborhood residents makeup 41% of all New York visitors to the Park (25% for Upper West Side and 16% for Upper East Side). Each neighborhood’s percentage on its own is much larger than the third ranking neighborhood, Midtown with 6% (Conservancy “Report” 18). Beyond the geographic inequity in Central Park use, the neighborhoods with most use of the Park are financially well off, indicating another source of inequity in park usage.
“Report on the Public Use of Central Park”
Figure 17 demonstrate differences between park use for people of different races and the disabled and non-disabled. 70% of those interviewed were Caucasian, much larger than the second highest race, Hispanic at 10%, and other races considered—Black and Asian (Conservancy “Report” 33). The Conservancy does note that, because of survey methods, these numbers are not definitive statistics, but numbers which provide indications of racial usage. What the Conservancy does consider statistically accurate is their data that the disabled constitute only 1.2% of park users (Conservancy “Report” 33).
“Report on the Public Use of Central Park”
This Conservancy data displays the lack of success Central Park has had in meeting Harnik’s requirement of equitable access. People from Manhattan, specifically from only a few neighborhoods, comprise the vast majority of New Yorkers who visit Central Park. In addition, the percentage of overall Caucasian park users is severely disproportionate to use by other races. Also, the percentage of disabled park users further illustrates the unequal access of another demographic type. Harnik’s goal of equitable access is not reached due to the unequal access and usage of residents of Manhattan, specifically the Upper East and West Side, wealthier individuals, Caucasian people and the non-disabled.
Possibly even more indicative of Central Park’s lack of success is its failure of the Conservancy mission to serve all of New Yorkers (Conservancy “Mission”). It is indeed an ambitious mission, but when so few New Yorkers outside of Manhattan use the Park and so many of the Park’s visits come from a few select Manhattan neighborhoods and a certain class of financially well-off people, the mission to serve all New Yorkers does suffer greatly.
In conclusion, Central Park fails, or needs improvement, in three important ways: the inefficient use of space, ineffective promotion of active recreation and inequitable access. Conservancy statistics and the Social Use Lab show the high and intense use of areas where active recreation is available and commerce and attractions are located. Ryan would want the Conservancy to increase park attachment by realizing that visitors value these features of the park and, then, by creating more areas for recreation, events, attractions and different food vendors. Demand for active recreation is clear and creating more spaces specifically for recreation will boost crowdedness and continue to promote public attachment to the park, as Ryan wants. Furthermore, finding ways to promote equitable access and bring in more diverse New Yorkers, in terms of finances, borough, neighborhood, race and disability, will help fulfill Harnik’s measure of success and the Conservancy’s mission statement.
Works Cited
Central Park Conservancy. 2010. “Mission Statement.” Accessed at http://www.centralparknyc.org/about/mission.html
Central Park Conservancy. 2011. “Report on the Public Use of Central Park”. Accessed at http://www.centralparknyc.org/assets/pdfs/surveyreport_april2011.pdf
Central Park Conservancy. 2010. “Sheep Meadow.” Accessed at http://www.centralparknyc.org/visit/things-to-see/south-end/sheep-meadow.html
Gandy, M. 2003. Concrete and Clay, Reworking Nature in New York City, Cambridge, MIT Press
Harnik, Peter (Platt, R. ed.) 2006. Humane Metropolis. The Excellent City Park System: What makes it great and how to get it there.
Ryan, Robert L. (Platt, R. ed.) 2006. Humane Metropolis. The Role of Place Attachment in Sustaining Urban Parks.
