vobiblog

Vobiscum. June 2006.

In 1858, Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux created Greensward, their plan for a major public park to be called Central Park, located in Manhattan, New York City. The aim of the plan was to provide a world class park for all of the residents of New York to enjoy. By the time construction was complete, Central Park provided a true rural experience within an urban context. However, Central Park was not created solely for the purpose of creating an aesthetically pleasing landscape. Olmsted and Vaux’s design was influenced by a democratic social reform agenda. While Central Park still exists as an exquisite landscape, it is clear that the original design intent and social reform agenda has been damaged over time.

While the Greensward Plan for Central Park was a collaboration between Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux, history has viewed the partnership as unequal. Olmsted, who had no formal training in landscape design at the time of developing the GreenswardPlan, is often considered the brain behind the project. Vaux on the other hand, was a formally trained architect, who had the skills to turn Olmsted’s ideas into a plan (Rogers, 1972, p. 20). Despite Vaux being more qualified, he has not been recognised as a public figure to the same extent as Olmsted (Fein, 1967, p.43). However, they both played a significant role in the development of the plan. Olmsted worked on the plan at an unrelenting pace for 5 months, viewing the landscape as his canvas on which to develop a beautiful work of art. At night, Vaux would pace over its acres and argue out each of the plans features, and formalise them (Rogers, 1972, p. 21). On the 1^st of April, 1858, Olmsted and Vaux submitted their Greensward Plan and where subsequently awarded the right to develop Central Park (Rogers, 1972, p. 20).

Olmsted’s influences are easy to identify. From an architectural perspective, Olmsted was inspired by the work of Beaux Arts architects such as Henry Hobson Richardson - who were gaining prominence at the time of Central Park’s construction - while dismissing neoclassicism (Rogers, 1972, p. 7). Artistically, two books, Sir Uvedale Price’s On the picturesque and William Gilpin’s Forest Scenery, left a deep impression on Olmsted. Price argued in favour of landscape art which was naturalistic, rather than formal and rigid, while Gilpin evaluated various species of trees for their aesthetic qualities (Rogers, 1987, p. 11) and promoted scenes and landscapes which conformed with the rules of painting. Beyond art and architecture, Olmsted had a keen interest in society.

Initially, Olmsted promoted the merits of an agrarian society. Yet Olmsted’s birth coincided with the birth of technology in America (Rogers, 1972, p. 5). By the time he developed his plan for Central Park, he had become a supporter of urban rather than rural communities. Olmsted identified how developments in technology and transport was changing the methods of farm production, how rural areas were becoming dysfunctional and more dependant on cities. He began to view the Southern United States, which was predominantly agrarian and dependant on slave labour as primitive – a large scale social disaster. In his mind, the development of social institutions and culture accessible to all citizens, not just a privileged few, could only occur in urban environments (Fein, 1967, pp. 12-31). However, Olmsted was able to understand the concerns that agrarians had with urban living.

Olmsted was able to identify problems with the city which separated him from many of his urban contemporaries. In mid 19^th century New York few felt that progress and nature were incompatible. There little concern about about the development of new cities and rapid expansion of old ones, nor the lack of beauty in cities (Rogers, 1972, p. 5). Olmsted expressed concern that the dedication of the city to commerce and industry, was increasing rates of social illness. Central Park, through its design, was Olmsted’s attempt at rectifying some of these social ills. (Fein, 1967, pp. 33-36). Yet Central Park was not the first time that social reform through the establishment of public space was suggested.

A large public park in New York had long been on the agenda but none were ever constructed. As early as 1785, there had been supporters of such parks, with momentum in the movement building in the early 19^th century, with many proposals for different parks (Taylor, 1999, pp. 426-427). Olmsted (1967) claimed that an alternative proposal, Jones Wood, was not constructed due to political and economic interests (p. 52). Similarly, Heckscher & Robinson (1977) highlight the reasons Central Park was chosen:

… in its actual location, Central Park made a statement about the character of Manhattan Island. It indicated among other things that this rocky stretch of terrain, pockmarked and marshy, was somewhat less than desirable for the kind of real estate development envisioned for the growing city (p. 72).

In fact, the name Central Park was only given to differentiate it from the Jones Wood proposal. The site was by no means the centre of the city at this stage. However, Olmsted and Vaux imagined a time where all the nature from around the park had been stripped and that the park would become the centre of the city. The plan Olmsted and Vaux envisaged would be the antidote to this sea of urbanism (Rogers, 1972, p. 21).

The intention of Olmsted’s design was to provide a rural experience in the city. The aim was to offer an “unlimited range of natural conditions – an artful blend of pastoral and woodland scenery” (Rogers, 1972, p. 21). To achieve this, the Greensward plan called for a line of trees to be build around the park between the pavement and the street, shielding out the view of the surrounding buildings (Rogers, 1972, p. 22). One of the requirements of the park was to have four east-west roads traversing the park. These roads could have detracted from the rural experience. However, Olmsted and Vaux specified that the roads should be constructed below grade and through tunnels, preventing visitors to the park from seeing them. (Rogers, 1972, p. 22).

Due to the topography of the site, the park was divided into two parts. The Upper Park contained sweeping views, where formal architectural effects were avoided unless done on a large scale. While the Lower Park had more interrupted views leading to a greater variety of effects (Olmsted & Vaux, 1972, p. 64). Despite the plan discussing the parts of the park in isolation, Olmsted viewed the park as a single work of art (Rogers, 1972, p. 22). Olmsted was opposed to monumental entrances and archways but made concessions to Beaux Arts ideas and architects such as Richard Morris Hunt where he felt it was appropriate (Rogers, 1972, p. 8).

Olmsted’s Central Park was a bold democratic experiment. All classes were invited to socialise in the same rural setting. As the park prospered during the 19^th century with its well maintained pleasurable surroundings, many agree that it succeeded in its mission (Rogers, 1987, p. 12), while others argue that the social reform stemming from the parks construction did not occur (Taylor, 1999). Ultimately, Olmsted’s approach to harmonising the city with artistic mega-parks was superseded by the City Beautiful movement (Rogers, 1972, p. 8).

Olmsted’s used his deep understanding of natural processes to transform his landscapes. However, his understanding of social and political processes, was not as strong, which has led to his design intent being compromised (Spirn, 1995, p. 111). The uses of the park have also changed over the years. Baseball fields and tennis courts were added around 1900, roads were surfaced to cater for cars, and in the 1930’s the central reservoir was developed into the Great Lawn (Wade, 1998, p. 42). Changes in pedestrian circulation patterns resulted in desire lines where paths do not follow the most direct route to the pedestrians destination (Rogers, 1987, pp. 34-35). Yet changes in use are not only to blame for the decline in the park

The biggest threat to Central Park to date has been that of encroachment. Under the 26 year rein of Parks Commissioner Robert Moses, many buildings, facilities and playgrounds were constructed. While these may have had their followers, they were implemented without consideration of the original intent or design of the park (Rogers, 1987, pp. 13-14). Gugenheimer (1969) expressed dissatisfaction at what had become of the park: “… that in place of the constant updating, improvements and additional beautification of parks, we have substituted deterioration, encroachment, and the installation of facilities that are out of character with a park setting” (p. 142). However, encroachment and the subsequent decline of the park, ultimately lead to its preservation.

Residents of New York are now fiercely protective of Central Park. In a sense, Olmsted was too clever in disguising the artifice of his landscapes, which are now viewed by many as natural rather than human created. This had lead to a reluctance to update the landscape, which is arguably not what Olmsted would have wanted (Guggenheimer, 1969, p. 142; Spirn, 1995, pp. 91-111). Concern for the park is so extreme, that it took the artist Christo and his partner Jeanne-Claude 26 year to realise their dream of completing an art installation in Central Park. Only after they gave assurances that every stick and leaf would be left the way they found it was the project allowed to proceed (Webb, 2005, p. 27-28).

Few of the original structures in Central Park have survived its 150 years, but the landscape is largely still intact. The overall design intent, that the park visitor is surrounded by trees and cannot see the extent of the park from any position is still present (Wade, 1998, p. 42). Since the construction of Central Park, and Omsted’s other major project, Prospect Park, there have been few large parks designed as works of art. It is unlikely, that any similar parks will be constructed in future due to the shear cost involved, despite the increase in societal wealth

There is no doubt that Olmsted and Vaux produced one of the most artistic and aesthetically pleasing public parks in the world. Central Park is an icon and a source of pride for residents of New York City. Despite encroachment, periods of neglect, changes of use and deviation from Olmsted’s vision the landscape has endured and is still a fine example of what a public park should be. While the social reforms that the park was supposed to inspire appeared, it is questionable how successful they were. Plans for social reform through large public parks like Central Park were quickly superseded by the City Beautiful movement, suggesting that a park in isolation, is not enough of a catalyst for long lasting social reform.

References

Economist Newspaper Group. (1997). Shrubbed out of existence. [Electronic Version]. Economist, 12(8023), 90-91.
Fien, A. (1967). Landscape into Cityscape: Frederick Law Olmsted’s plans for a greater New York City. Ithica, New York: Cornell University Press.
Guggenheimer, E. (1969). Planning for Parks and Recreation Needs in Urban Areas. New York: Twayne Publishers.
Heckscher, A., & Robinson, P. (1977). Open spaces: the life of American cities. New York: Harper & Row.
Olmsted, F. L., & Vaux, C. (1967). Description of a Plan for the Improvement of the Central Park: “Greensward”. In A. Fein (Eds.), Landscape into Cityscape: Frederick Law Olmsted’s plans for a greater New York City (pp. 63-88). Ithica, New York: Cornell University Press.
Olmsted, F. L. (1967). The beginning of Central Park: A fragment of Autobiography. In A. Fein (Eds.), Landscape into Cityscape: Frederick Law Olmsted’s plans for a greater New York City (pp. 49-62). Ithica, New York: Cornell University Press.
Rogers, E. B. (1972). Frederick Law Olmsted’s New York. New York: Praeger.
Rogers, E. B. (1987). Rebuilding Central Park: a management and restoration plan. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Spirn, A. W. (1995). Constructing Nature: The Legacy of Frederick Law Olmsted. In W. Cronon (Eds.), Uncommon Ground: Toward Reinventing Nature (pp. 91-113). New York: W. W. Norton & Company
Taylor, D. E. (1999). Central Park as a Model for Social Control: Urban Parks, Social Class and Leisure Behaviour in Nineteenth-Century America. [Electronic Version]. Journal of Leisure Research, 31(4), 420-477.
Wade, B. (1998) Central Park: If you can maintain it there. [Electronic Version]. American City & Country, 113(4), 42-56.
Webb, M. (2005). Park Life. [Electronic Version]. Architectural Review, 217(1297), 27-28.