As I’ve gathered from the readings, NYC parks serve several functions. They give children a psychological outlet to explore and learn. They create a recreational space for the community, and are an escape from the concrete jungle of the city. However, Bloomberg seems to have even bigger plans for the park; making them environmentally-friendly, and fulfill public health needs. This seems pretty bold for the “passive landscapes” of the NYC parks. And to be funded almost entirely by private entities surrounding the park? This seems impossible. What sort of incentive do these private parties get from supporting Bloomberg’s “high performance” parks? Also, how will the parks in poorer neighborhoods receive funding?
What “NYC Mayor Bloomberg Needs to Start Building More Parks in Poor Neighborhood Like Harlem” doesn’t suggest is how we plan to fund the parks in these areas. I agree that parks like the high line would attract positive tourism to these areas and might even boost the economy and business. I feel parks are a very important part of a neighborhood, but what happens if the neighbors can’t afford it? Bloomberg should pool all his donations from private parties and redistribute it evenly among the neighborhoods with parks. This way, everyone gets an even share, and the opportunity to sit back, and enjoy the outdoors.
