In Kevin Loughran’s Parks for Profit, an interesting argument is made as to why the High Line is more catered towards the privileged rather than being an open space fit for everyone. Aspects of the High Line, ranging from the food vendors to the recycling collection, play an influential role in the type of people that would be interested in coming to visit the park. Loughran suggests that by the Friends of the High Line having strict rules on garbage/recycling collection, they could be trying to prevent bottle collectors. These bottle collectors, who are usually associated with people of a lower income status, are seen as “quality of life violations” that would potentially degrade the High Line’s appeal (Loughran 2014). The Friends of the High Line also control the type of food that would be sold there, preferring more artisanal and fancier food options, by making the application process difficult. In the report, a food vendor by the name of Ricky describes the process by saying, “It took about two months. [The Friends of the High Line] wanted to meet all our employees and taste all our food. It cost a thousand bucks to apply, too – non-refundable” (Loughran 2014). Restrictions such as this would make it hard for poorer food vendors that sell cheaper foods, like hot dogs, to work on the High Line. This, in return, also influences the type of visitors that would be attracted to the High Line.

While reading the report, I couldn’t help but to compare my observations and experiences at the High Line to that of Loughran’s. I too noticed the expensive food options and the majority tourist population. I remember thinking how expensive the tacos being sold there were when considering how small they were in size. I can see why aspects like this would make people feel out of place and create an unwelcoming vibe for those that are not super wealthy. It makes sense then for those that are hungry and not willing to pay for the high priced tacos to leave and look for more affordable food options. I also found it interesting how Loughran described the spatial practices of the High Line. He states, “The High Line’s narrow, linear space – coupled with relatively few places to play, sit, or linger … structures the most typical movement within the park: a bucolic walk from one end to the other” (Loughran 2014). I would have to agree with this interpretation. From my own personal experience at the High Line, I found it hard to do anything but walk. If I wanted to stop to look at something, there would be a crowd of people behind me yelling at me to stop blocking the way and move along. Besides sitting down at the various designated spots, walking across the High Line seems like one of the only activities available. The High Line feels more like walking through a museum than walking through a park. The regulations and associated limitations make the High Line feel less free, unlike the atmosphere of most other parks and public spaces.

Reading the NYC Parks article entitled “Community Parks Initiative Targeted Improvements” helped to show how different types of parks were designed to serve different populations of New York City residents. For example, the parks and playgrounds that were remodeled in underserved neighborhoods under the Community Parks Initiative placed more of a focus on the youth of those neighborhoods. By improving playgrounds and basketball fields this will attract more youth to come out and benefit from those facilities. The High Line, in contrast, doesn’t allow for many activities such as throwing objects, skateboarding, bicycling, and walking dogs (Friends of the High Line 2017). This may prevent youth from such neighborhoods, along with other individuals, from coming to the High Line because it doesn’t offer any of the activities they may be interested in. The High Line, with all its subtle restrictions, prefers richer visitors who don’t mind the overpriced food and the lack of possible activities. Parks that want to make a profit will want to attract individuals that could do that for them.

Works Cited:

Longhran K (2014) Parks for Profit: The High Line, Growth Machines, and the Uneven Development of Urban Public Spaces

 NYC Parks (2017) Community Parts Initiative Targeted Improvements: NYC Parks Completes Improvements in 60 Parks and Playgrounds in Underserved Neighborhoods 

https://www.nycgovparks.org/about/framework-for-an-equitable-future/community-parks-initiative/caring (last accessed 15 April 2017)

The Friends of the High Line (2017) Park Access & Info http://www.thehighline.org/visit/#/access (last accessed 15 April 2017)

While reading Reichl’s Reconstructing Times Square and Delany’s Times Square Red, Times Square Blue, I found it hard to picture the older versions of Times Square and what kind of atmosphere they must have had. I am only familiar with what Reichl describes to be the “Disneyfied” version of Times Square, filled with families, tourists and mostly family-friendly entertainment. It’s crazy to think that this now family-friendly area of NYC was once known for drugs, sex shops and prostitution. A CNN article described this transition as, “We found people pushing strollers rather than pushing drugs on the street” (Chakraborty 2016).

Both readings bring up the question of whether the previous versions of Times Square were better than the newer, reconstructed version. I feel like it would be difficult to make such a decision because you are comparing two totally different atmospheres. Certain individuals, who would associate land value with moral value, would say that the sex industry along Times Square was ruining its value and making it “slum-like” and crime-ridden (Reichl 1999). People could also be argued that the sex industry brought in business for Times Square and attracted a large male population. We see that in the early attempts to morally cleanse the city, through the Prohibition, there was actually a negative impact on the theater industry and a change in the dynamic of Times Square (Reichl 1999). Delany mentions in his paper that he preferred the earlier version of the 42^nd Street area stating, “My personal life as a New Yorker was a lot more pleasant from, say, 1980 to 1992 than it has been, after a three-year transition period, from 1995 to now.” One of his main reasons for feeling this way was because of the increased opportunities for street contact during that time (Delany 1999). Even though one version may be more morally conservative than the other, that doesn’t necessarily translate it to being better. They are simply just catered to two different groups of people and different cultures.

When it comes to the issue of violence, it is generally perceived that the reconstructed version of Time Square was more safe due to the increase policing in the area (Chakraborty 2016). Delany looked at this in a different light and choose to downplay the violence of the old Time Square. In his paper, he argues “Many non-city residents still do not realize that their beloved small towns are, per capita, far more violent places than any big city” (Delany 1999). He also mentions the importance of knowing how to navigate the city in order to avoid being a victim of crime. I find it interesting to see the varying opinions people had on crime and violence in the city. It seems to be somewhat based on perception and whether certain people let things, like violence, alter their view of Times Square. This further goes to show why it would be hard to prefer one version over another. A general decrease in violence and crime rates is certainly a positive thing, but its probably not enough to ultimately determine that the reconstructed version of Times Square was better.

I would refrain from using the term revanchism to describe the transition between the old version of Times Square and the new version of Times Square. The old version of Times Square, no matter how raunchy or immoral, still contributed to the culture of New York City and influenced its’ development. I don’t feel like it would be fair to consider the older versions of Times Square any less than than its’ current version. Instead, I would like to think that Time Square just changed its vibe over the years and was reborn to a different type of cultural center.

 

Works Cited:

Chakraborty D (2016) When Times Square was Sleazy http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/18/us/80s-times-square-then-and-now/ (last accessed 16 March 2017)

Delany S R (1999) Times Square Red, Times Square Blue. New York and London: New York University Press

Reichl A J (1999) Reconstructing Times Square: Politics and Culture in Urban Development. University Press of Kansas