*I am responding to Emillee Carratala’s blog post in this format because the reply box does not appear in her post*
Emillee argues that parks, both past and contemporary, became “symbols of social elitism,” due to the use of rules and measures that seem to target and hinder the lower socioeconomic classes (Carratala 2018). I agree that the development of modern parks, especially those located in profitable commercial areas, very often favor the elite social class over minorities and members of lower socioeconomic classes. However, I believe a stronger distinction should be made between the reasons for discrimination in the early twentieth century compared to the current time.
While it is true that NYC parks have a history of class and racial discrimination, I don’t believe this is the main focus Loughran’s argument. Instead, his argument is that the neoliberal nature of today’s society drives the motivation of using public spaces for profit. As a result, the priority given to making a profit means that the desires of poorer citizens of NYC are neglected. It’s not that private interest groups are purposefully alienating the lower classes, it’s that catering to the poor is not profitable. Therefore, the design and management of these “elite parks” reflect that.
This is why I believe the regulations against the working class that used to be in place in Central Park differ from the security and surveillance measures in the High Line. As Emilee states, the discriminatory rules of early Central Park were specifically designed to discourage the working class from using Central Park due to the elitist belief that the park was a retreat for New York socialites to escape to from the dirty, urban life (Carratala, 2018). On the other hand, the High Line is designed to attract upper-middle-class people who can afford the goods and services provided there and raise revenue that would fund the city. The difference is a matter of active discrimination and class privilege that leads to discrimination.
I find that the development of luxury high-rise housing at Brooklyn Bridge Park’s Pier 6 is reflective of this desire for profit. Recently, the Brooklyn Heights Association (BHA) had dropped their lawsuit against the Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation (BBPC) and their plans to build these apartment buildings in what was originally designated for green spaces (Rosenburg 2018). I’d like to focus on several quotes made by supporters of the BBPC, listed below:
“It is time to act…the need to fund the park and bring affordable housing to this neighborhood is urgent.” -Austin Finan (Barbanel 2016)
“We need to ensure the park is fully funded—that’s the reason we’re doing this development in the first place.” -David Lowin (Rosenburg 2017)
“We are pleased…move ahead with this essential project, which will provide critical long-term funding for Brooklyn Bridge Park.” -Eric Landau (Rosenburg 2018)
“We are pleased with the Judge’s decision, which ensures that a public investment enjoyed by millions and envied in cities across the globe will thrive long into the future.” -Eric Landau (Rizzi 2018)
While the main takeaway from these quotes is that the BBPC believe the new housing is necessary for funding the Brooklyn Bridge Park and overall benefit for the city, it also ties into the belief that it is better to use public spaces to raise revenue for the city rather than creating recreational spaces for residents. The shift in motivation from creating an “ideal park space” to best utilizing public spaces for profit means that the shift in nuances of discrimination in parks should also be recognized.
Reference:
Barbanel, Josh (2016) Vote Is Set on Apartment Towers Inside Brooklyn Bridge Park. https://www.wsj.com/articles/vote-is-set-on-apartment-towers-inside-brooklyn-bridge-park-1464802442?ns=prod/accounts-wsj (last accessed 9 April 2018)
Carratala, Emilee (2018) Public Spaces as Status Symbols. https://eportfolios.macaulay.cuny.edu/larson18/2018/04/06/public-spaces-as-status-symbols/
Rizzi, Nicholas (2018) Plan For High Rises In Brooklyn Bridge Park Gets Go-Ahead. https://patch.com/new-york/heights-dumbo/controversial-pier-6-development-can-move-forward-judge-rules (last accessed 9 April 2018)
Rosenburg, Zoe. (2017) Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation fires back against Pier 6 funding allegations. https://ny.curbed.com/2017/3/9/14847582/brooklyn-bridge-park-pier-6-housing-lawsuit (last accessed 9 April 2018)
Rosenburg, Zoe. (2018) Civic Group abandons fight against Brooklyn Bridge Park’s Pier 6 Housing. https://ny.curbed.com/2018/3/28/17171892/brooklyn-bridge-park-pier-6-housing-lawsuit (last accessed 9 April 2018)
