The main thrust of Loughran’s paper “Parks for Profit: The High Line, Growth Machines, and the Uneven Development of Urban Public Spaces” seems to be the emphasis of the High Line as the paradigm for the new trend in development, in which public works projects and spaces are being hijacked by the elite and turned into spaces catering to the privileged in society, as opposed to the public at large. One of the reasons the High Line turns out to be a strong example of such a project is that the idea was originally conceived in a grassroots organization started by the community for the community (presumably), however as Loughran writes “as the Friends of the High Line continued to gain momentum and financial support, idealistic sentiments were cast aside for pragmatic realpolitik.” As the founders of Friends of the High Line discovered, making a park that would serve to gentrify the neighborhood would get them the financial backing of those who supported that kind of development in the area, notably Mayor Bloomberg, who brokered a deal which helped finance $133.6 million of the projected $153 million cost of the first two phases of the park with government funds (Goldberger).
Perhaps not surprising is the fact that the current Mayor de Blasio has yet to step foot on the High Line. Mayor de Blasio spoke out against developing Manhattan to the exclusion of the other boroughs in his campaign for Mayor, and, once he was elected Mayor, he rallied for funding to revive the older and poorer parks around the city (Grynbaum). It can also be seen from his launching of the Community Parks Initiative, which will invest $130 million in parks in high-need neighborhoods , NYC Parks’ first major equity initiative (nycgovparks.org). That being said, de Blasio has gone on record to say “I am a fan of it. I think it’s done a lot of good for the city, but I haven’t visited”, perhaps due to the pressure from the overwhelming positive responses to the park (Grynbaum).
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/04/ny-high-line/goldberger-text/2
http://www.nycgovparks.org/about/framework-for-an-equitable-future/community-parks-initiative
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/02/nyregion/high-line-draws-millions-but-de-blasio-isnt-one.html
Hey Josh. You definitely brought up a fantastic point, explaining how these organizations begin as a community project, but eventually become skewed for other measures once they gain financial support from others. With many politicians and celebrities supporting the High Line, the community projects eventually become projects geared towards the more established classes. As a result, we see the High Line as an attraction for the upper middle class. It’s simply not enough to “plan” community projects, because the High Line displays just how fast things can change with the right people supporting a project. How can we enforce the continuation of such parks, rather than just planning them? Mayor de Blasio has a great starting foundation to help out these smaller parks, which sounds good in theory, but we can only wait and see if these plans actually have any substance.
I thought Loughran brought up a great point in regards to the inequalities we see in these public spaces. If a wealthy man were to take a nap on the High Line, this would be seen as luxurious. However, if a homeless man were to do it, or if someone of color were to do it, the public space would carry “the stigma of poverty and potential danger.” (62) The fact that we associate a more positive conclusion with the wealthy folk is a problem in itself that these parks only seem to reconfirm.
There are many plots of abandoned space that have been revamped into something useful, just as the High Line was. However, there’s many options with what to do with these spaces. We could turn them over to the public and give them something beneficial and usable by everyone within the environment, but instead, these spaces are usually applied towards commercialism and more entrepreneurial ideas. As we saw, the High Line could’ve become a space for the community as it was initially proposed, but the influence of wealthy investors steered it otherwise.