I feel Loughran does a good job of highlighting some of the hypocrisies present in upper middle class society: how the people who visit the High Line devour anything “artisan”, when the High Line’s 5-artist limit is actually damaging to artists; how many of the High Line visitors value food that is “local” and “organic”, when the High Line was built with wood from rainforests; how sleeping is regarded as a luxury when perpetuated in the elite High Line atmosphere, but regarded as a danger and eyesore when done anywhere else by those who have no choice; how people come to experience the “wild” nature of the High Line with carefully manipulated foliage and the erasure of “assaults” on “quality of life”.
In terms of it being a “public space”, I certainly have to agree with Loughran when he says that it’s not. I went to the High Line with a friend for an assignment during my first semester; initially we were laughing and being silly, but we kept bumping into people and running out of space and kind of had to resign to just calmly walking. Because it’s true–the only three things you can really do on the High Line are walk, buy, and rest. Anyone who wants to do anything else is totally out of the park’s intended audience, and pretty much completely out of luck.
Actually, the impression Loughran gives of the High Line (i.e., large groups of white / similar people doing the same, leisurely things) to me seems eerily similar Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World society. Everyone is encouraged to do the same leisurely activities under constant government surveillance, with the government encouraging mindlessness to the point where people are forbidden to read and encouraged to consume relaxants / mood enhancers regularly, especially if the alternative is confrontation or being unhappy (supported by the moral mantra “it’s better to give a gram than a damn”). Obviously the High Line’s conditions aren’t that extreme, but it does give off the same sort of feeling of groupthink and general societally encouraged, organized mindlessness.
Following that, reading about the Community Parks Initiative made me hopeful and nervous at the same time. Yes, parks that many low-income children rely on for stimulation are being revamped–but is it possible this part of some other grand scheme to bring money into New York “for the good of the city”, that these parks are being fixed for someone other than the people who actually rely on them? Amanda Burden, for example, touted how the High Line would be “the greatest public space in the world” not too long after she approved a universally “beneficial” plan to gut Harlem of its historically significant commerce and community.
There is an article from The Observer that acts as a source of optimism, though. It details how Bloomberg’s team fought against the accusation that, compared to de Blasio’s parks initiative, Bloomberg’s park renewals were concerned only with bringing in wealthy visitors. Considering how the Bloomberg administration opposed this idea–notably by arguing how Bloomberg did not focus solely on “tourist destinations” by arguing that one of the places he revamped was Coney Island–this news could be critical to turning public awareness and opinion on development projects in New York.
