Gregory Zhenin Final Project
In the mid 1800’s the aristocracy of New York City, inspired by the beautiful and vast public grounds in European cities, demanded the creation of a rivaling park in their city. Such a public space would provide an attractive setting for carriage rides and a retreat for the working class from the tumultuous city while granting the city a chance to gain in international standing. The debate over where such a park would be built began in 1850 and lasted three years. In 1853 the state granted the city to take over about 700 acres of land in the center of Manhattan utilizing eminent domain, displacing approximately 1600 mostly poor residents who lived on the land. Following the acquisition of the land, the Central Park Commission was instated to organize the creation of the park and a contest was held for the best park design. Frederick Olmstead and Calvert Vaux’s Greensward Plan won them the right to design and oversee the construction of the park (Blackmar and Rosenzwieg 1). The plan, in accordance with Olmstead’s ideas on the utilization of urban parks as a means to promote public health while being aesthetic, followed the tenets of the picturesque movement. It blended elements of pastoral landscapes and picturesque designs to create a “pseudo countryside.” The construction of the park, one of the largest public works projects in the history of New York City, was undertaken by over 20,000 city workers and involved massive earthmoving and planting (Platt 23). The park was opened for public use in 1859.
As an early product of the development of Manhattan, it is of interest to explore whether Central Park “works” in the New York City of today. In other words, the park was created to serve the community as it was in 1850, does it still serve the community today? Is the park successful and effective in serving the public needs? This article postulates that in terms of social and recreational use, Central Park is successful and does indeed work.
There are many ways to consider the social success of a park. In his essay “The Role of Place Attachment in Sustaining Urban Parks” Robert Ryan identifies the success of a park according to William H. Whyte’s analysis of successful urban spaces coupled with the idea that a successful park fosters a feeling of attachment in its patrons and the people that live in the surrounding areas. A successful park would therefore have physical properties that attract a large number of users and invoke an emotional connection to the park (Ryan 64). Such physical properties may include the allowance of a whole range of activities, both passive and active. Only by subtly integrating areas where visitors can engage in active recreation such as sport with areas for passive recreation such as sunbathing without negative overlap can a park be truly successful in fully catering to the needs of the public. In “The Excellent City Park System” Peter Harnik writes that a park system must have equitable access; parks should be easily reachable from every neighborhood and usable and available for all. He also states, “high usership is the ultimate validation that [a park system] is attractive and that it meets people’s needs” (58).
According to figures from the “Report on the Public Use of Central Park,” Central Park is “visited an estimated 37 – 38 million times by approximately 8 – 9 million different people” every year. Of these, approximately 1.5 – 2 million are people who live or work in NYC and others who live in the metropolitan area and visit the park at least once a year. They account for about 27 million (72%) of the annual visits. The rest of the visitors, 6.5 – 7 million people, are tourists who account for about 10 million annual visits. Together these numbers show that Central Park receives a very significant amount of patronage and is successful at attracting tourism and thus revenue for the city. These numbers support the idea of a successful park as put forth by Whyte, Ryan, and Harnik.
Originally, the allowed activities in the park were highly restricted. The purpose of the park was rather singular: it was for relaxation, picturesque walks and carriage rides. In the winters ice-skating was popular on the frozen ponds. Group picnics were not allowed, nor were a majority of active uses of the space; only schoolboys with notes from their principal were allowed to play ball on the meadows. Over time, New Yorkers objected to these restrictions and the park became an area that offered active recreation for the middle and lower classes. Playgrounds, swimming pools, and other attractions such as the carousel and zoo were added to the park (Blackmar and Rosenzwieg 2). In such a way the park adapted to the needs of the public and became more equitable in terms of catering for the lower and middle classes and to people who desired different forms of recreation. In such a way, Central Park also doesn’t fall into a niche where patronage would be expected from a certain type of individual. There are areas to be enjoyed by the young and the old, the sportsmen and the disabled, those seeking to relax and those seeking to exercise. In fact the breakup of visitors by age group and sex shows a fairly even distribution (survey 19-20).
Studying the activities people engage in when in the park, 89.5% of visits included passive recreation while 21.9% of visits included active recreation. The most engaged in activity in the park, at 63.8% of visits, is walking/wandering/sight-seeing which implies that the park is still used for the most part for it’s original purpose: as a scenic get-away from the City. The following table shows the list of activities that people engaged in and the percentage of visits that these activities were engaged in (survey 14).
While it may be argued that Central Park does not provide equitable access to all New Yorkers, it must be understood that the park is not meant to cater for the entire city as the main “go-to” neighborhood park. That would be an unreasonable expectation since the park would have to be within easy walking distance of all neighborhoods. Access to the park cannot be arbitrarily improved for all New Yorkers without the creation of some sort of teleportation devices. However, if examined from the point of view of the purpose that was intended by Olmstead – that the park be a pseudo rural countryside for city workers to inexpensively “escape” to (Platt 23) – the park is most certainly accessible from all over the city by train and/or bus routes. In fact, 8% of the total annual visits by New Yorkers to the park are by residents of the outer boroughs (survey 17). As for equitability for bordering neighborhoods, it can be seen from the maps provided in the survey that the majority of Manhattan residents that visit the park are from these neighborhoods.
As for peoples’ perceptions of and attitudes toward the park, the average rating given by survey takers of how well maintained the park is was an 8.8 out of 10, 76% of visitors do not avoid any areas of the park, most visitors appreciate the park most for its landscape, that it is a retreat from the city, and the activities offered at the park (survey 21-22). 65% of the park patrons visit at least once a week. This shows that a large number of people have an attachment to the park and supports Ryan’s qualification of a successful park.
Our direct observations of Central Park on a chilly, rainy, overcast morning on October 26 also support the assertion that Central Park is successful. Despite the inclement weather and the time of our visit – during work hours 10 AM -1 PM – we still observed people engaging in various forms of recreation throughout our tour from the east to the west sides between 65th and 72nd streets. As can be seen in the interactive map, we observed children playing soccer, joggers, people walking around and sightseeing, socializing on the benches, walking dogs, visiting the café, and children playing in a playground. While there were likely less people there than on a warm, sunny day, the fact that all this activity was occurring during inclement weather is only further support for the vast success of the park in drawing people in.
In conclusion, Central Park is a prime example of a successful and effective public space that works. While it may have come to existence due to the influence of the aristocracy in their pursuit of personal gains without any true consideration of the working class, the park has come to be not only an iconic symbol at the heart of New York City, but a truly effective public space that serves the public and the community. It provides residents with a place to escape from the City and enjoy beautiful landscape and do anything from sunbathing, to playing on the ball fields, to enjoying a walk through the zoo. It attracts a great deal of people daily, even during bad weather, and along with all the positive effects of a large green space in any city, it also brings in revenue for the city by attracting tourists.
Works Cited
Central Park Conservancy Annual Report 2010 ed.
http://www.centralparknyc.org/about/inside-the-conservancy/annual-reports/
Gandy, Matthew. Concrete and Clay: Reworking Nature in New York City. Cambridge Mass. [etc.: MIT, 2003. Print.
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.
Olmstead, Fredrick Law. 1870. Public Parks and the Enlargement of Towns. (Monograph)
Platt, Rutherford H. The Ecological City. From Commons to Commons: Evolving Concepts of Open Space in North American Cities. 1994.
“History | Your Complete Guide to Central Park.” Your Complete Guide to New York City’s Central Park | CentralPark.com. Web. 20 Dec. 2011..
