Parks for the People
In what ways are these new parks and open space amenities—and the systems necessary to support and deliver them—similar to those discussed in previous weeks (esp. those addressing public health)…?
In what important ways are they different? Be sure to think about the scale of these systems, how they are delivered and managed, the effects they have on urban development and the urban environment, and who they serve.
Student Reflection:
Parks represent another facet of public works that provides an essential, albeit sometimes invisible benefit to those living in cities. The transition to an urban environment is accompanied by “disease and misery and vice and crime”; a constant barrage of stimulus, no relief from work and a constant sense of urgency and stress described holistically as “urban malaise.” Early on, people like Olmsted identified the need for a natural space to fulfill this deeply psychological need for freedom and rest, despite questionable “scientific justification.”
Like many of the previously discussed public works (transit, waterworks, etc.), parks have a complex history of ownership: a moving combination of private and public funding. As seen from the landmark example of Central Park, the sheer amount of manpower and capital necessary for the construction of these parks makes it difficult for private investors to wholly shoulder the burden. Likewise, many of the issues associated with large government works were also present—cost overruns, strikes, etc. However, when budgets were cut, we also see private entities like the Central Park Community Fund or John H. Bryan’s remarkable fundraising efforts stepping up to fill some of the gaps.
A significant difference between parks and the other public works we’ve discussed is the sense of intangible and “invisible” benefit they provide. It is much harder to convince politicians or voters that a park provides the same degree of essential benefit as running water, or subway that transports millions of people to work every morning. It is because of this that they are often the first to be cut from the budget, why Central Park saw such neglect and disrepair during NYC’s fiscal crisis during the 1970s. Despite these differences, parks are almost universally enjoyed by residents. People across ages, races, ethnicities, social classes are all able to access these spaces, providing one of the most equitable forms of public works we’ve seen yet. For example, the Charlesbank saw much popularity with Boston’s poor and working class due to serving as a source of education and recreation, especially for their children.
Parks additionally transformed the way people viewed urban landscapes. Although they were equally manmade as steel skyscrapers or brick roads—feats of urban engineering that transformed filthy bogs and marshes into beautiful, clean green spaces—they acted in opposition to the mass industrialization and departure from nature. Parks helped people think of the city as a collaboration between man and machine; not just a place optimized for economic productivity, but where people could settle down and live meaningfully.
[by an MIT student, reproduced with permission]
