Central Park: Early History of New York

Video Transcript:

Hi, I'm Mitchell Rocheleau. I'm an Architect searching the world to learn more about the buildings and environments humans have created from the modern era, all the way back to pre-history. I believe that our buildings reflect the culture and the context of the people who built them, and they can reveal fundamental insights about ourselves.

Using Architecture as our lens, we can learn more about who we are and where we come from. With this knowledge, we can build environments for our future that will facilitate our thriving and our vitality.

Today we're going to be talking about Central Park.

CENTRAL PARK:

Why is Central Park in New York City important for our generation to understand? Why would a park constructed in the late 1800s be significant for our contemporary society?

Central Park is the product of a cultural shift in New York City in the late 1800s. The city began to question the quality of the environment that was developing. There was a moment of awakening when they realized they needed to reintegrate nature into the fabric of their fast growing, industrialized town. At that time, industry, capitalism, efficiency and progress were the priorities and the drivers in New York society.

Despite its zeal, groups of citizens sensed that the character and makeup of New York was becoming imbalanced as it reflected the overpowering presence of these industrial and capitalistic forces. The city was growing somewhat unconsciously, becoming increasingly unhealthy physically and mentally. Overcrowding, pollution and improper disposal of human, animal and industry waste was rampant. New Yorkers were disconnected from nature and deprived of fresh air and water.

In addition, a growing chasm between social classes was evolving within the city. Uprisings and violence in France, due to the exact same circumstances that were happening in New York, raised eyebrows as an increasing concern among New York citizens.

The creation of Central Park can be seen as an attempt to counterbalance and return to New York City's urban environment and society to homeostasis. The city is an organism. Like any organism, it sensed an imbalance and sought to recalibrate itself. This recalibration would come to fruition in the shape of a public park and aspire to invigorate an evolved environmental, societal, and political ethos within the city. The park was not just a park, but a mechanism for expressing and implementing the values of a new culture.

BEGINNING IDEAS FOR A PARK

In 1848, Andrew Jackson Downing began circulating ideas for a large-scale public park for New York. Downing received word of a social revolution because of the growing chasm between the classes in Paris, and he became concerned that this could also happen in New York City. New Yorkers were steadily separating themselves into distinct classes through society for quite some time. There was no space where the different classes could coexist together. He believed that a large-scale public park would facilitate the co-mingling of classes, thus reducing tensions and frustrations amongst the working class.

Downing believed that a beautifully designed natural public space had the power to elevate the quality of a working man's life, allowing him to enjoy the pleasures of the upper class. He felt a large park would help psychologically and physically by providing respite from the city's polluted air and unnatural environment. The park would have the power to heal.

Famously, he suggested that the park “would be the lungs of the city”

Another prominent citizen and businessman named Robert Browne Minturn began supporting the idea of a public park at a similar time. Through his business, he had the opportunity to travel to Europe. He observed that many European cities had beautifully designed public parks and spaces. At the time, New York had nothing that could compare. Minturn believed that in order to be a significant commercial hub, New York needed a large public space.

In doing so, it would elevate the city's cultural and commercial status. Initially, a location named Jones’s Wood was considered. It was a 150-acre plot located along the East River. However, the owners of the plot were unwilling to sell the land. Backed by Senator James Beekman, a group of wealthy New Yorkers, many of whom had land adjacent to the park and would be the beneficiaries of a significant property value increase, pushed to find a solution to obtain the land. In 1851, a bill was introduced that allowed New York to take control of the land through Eminent Domain. Eminent Domain is a political and real estate tool where governmental agencies can force the sale of private land for governmental use if the landowners are compensated appropriately.

CENTRAL LOCATION

People on the Upper West Side of New York, on the other side, were unhappy about this proposition, because they felt that the park would be too far away from them to enjoy. They also felt that their properties would not benefit from the increased real estate values offered by the park. The closer to the park, the higher the value of the property. This is certainly the case today. They proposed a park roughly halfway between the two locations and a more central area. The land in the proposed area was already hilly and rocky, which made it a poor building site anyway. A park could take advantage of these topological characteristics, and it would be perfect for this area. The land in the area was much less expensive than the riverfront land on the East River Proposal. The city also owned much of this land, hopefully making the acquisition more straightforward and allowing them to build a more extensive park than the one proposed at Jones’s Wood.

After several years of consideration over the two sites, the plot of land at the island's center was determined to be the best location for the park. The state acquired the land by eminent domain in 1853, initially for 778 acres. The total cost for the acquisition was five million dollars. The state then established a board of Central Park Commissioners to administer the park's design, construction, management, and maintenance.

It's important to note that in the process of the governmental agencies acquiring the land through eminent domain, that many homes needed to be demolished in the area where the park was planned. This shouldn't be overlooked, as it was a detrimental effect of the planning and the construction of Central Park.

THE DESIGN COMPETITION OF 1857 to 1858

The Board of Commissioners held a competition for the park's design. Frederick Law Olmstead and Calvert Vaux partnered to submit the Greensward Plan. Olmstead was the site manager of the park at the time, and he had a deep knowledge of the land. Vaux was a practicing architect, well versed in technical drawing and artistic rendering. Together, they offered a well-balanced proposal, addressing both the technical and practical issues, also a highly intellectual and artistic solution based upon the fundamentals of naturalistic design principles. Their design also intended to showcase the city's democratic values. The commissioners selected their plan to construct the park.  

THE DESIGN PHILOSOPHY BEHIND CENTRAL PARK

The philosophies embedded inside of the park's design were essential to Olmstead and Vaux. They were equally as important as the technical requirements and functionality of the park.

What would the park say about New York and America? Central Park would be the iconic landmark at the center of an evolving city that was to be one of the most prominent cities in America. Olmstead and Vaux believed that the park was not just a park, but a mechanism to make a broader societal and cultural statement on behalf of the nation.

Around this time, philosophical and environmental ideas led by thinkers such as Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau were brewing. They suggested reconnection with the natural world and the importance of examination, appreciation and exposure to nature in an individual's life. These ideas inspired a wide range of fields, from medicine to design. Emerson and Thoreau's ideas influenced Olmstead and Vaux’s design for the park.

Rather than promoting the highly manicured, symmetric, and regimented landscape designs commonly found in European gardens, palaces, and aristocratic estates. Naturalistic design principles sought to create environments that more closely mimicked a natural meadow or forest. It was based upon the philosophy that Mother Nature was the best designer. They included winding, meandering paths, irregular shaped planning arrangements, water features mimicking ponds, exposed rock formations, and native groundcover and plant material.

Olmstead and Vaux believed that a well-designed public park could strengthen the social fabric by intermingling and promoting interactions between various people and social classes. They felt that the city's working class would be exposed to the pleasures of nature and beauty, and thus be allowed to improve themselves, which would then improve society. They wanted the park to be a sanctuary or retreat from the city, offering a completely natural environment that any citizen could enter and feel complete escape from the city. Their intention was for the normal stresses of business and daily life in the city to be left behind once entering the park. In their minds, experiencing the park through an afternoon walk was a much healthier way to escape the city from the common methods at the time, which often included alcohol and debauchery.

A DESIRE FOR A DEMOCRATIC PARK

Along with their naturalistic design philosophy, they also hoped to capture the ideas of democracy in their design. Although the early conceptions of the park may seem to have been influenced, at least to some degree the desire of the wealthy upper class to have an elite park, Vaux and Olmstead would take the park's design and intention in another direction. They wanted to build a Democratic Park that would benefit all classes of people.

Democracy, equality and liberty were the nation's founding principles, and the park would be an opportunity to express these ideas to the world. The design of the entrances to Central Park speaks to this idea. Vaux and Olmstead did not want one large formal entrance to the park. Instead, they designed multiple smaller entrances, spread out on all sides and accessible from all of the surrounding neighborhoods. People from anywhere in the city could easily access the park, despite their socioeconomic status, and the neighborhood in which they lived. They did not want to limit access strategically by placing a single access point near the wealthiest neighborhoods. Had this park been built during the Baroque period, when the ideologies of order, hierarchy, extravagance and formality reign supreme, the park’s entrance locations, design and naming conventions would have most likely looked very different. Instead, Olmstead and Vaux wanted to challenge historical conventions and offer a new solution that was more in alignment with the evolving ideas at the time.

They named each of these entrances according to the city's different professions. The names of the original gates are as follows: Artisans. Artists. Boys. Children. Engineers. Farmers. Girls. The Gate of All Saints. Hunters. Mariners. Merchants. Miners. Pioneers. Scholars. Strangers. Warriors. Women's and Woodman's. This is a clear example of how political and philosophical shifts in society directly affect the architecture and design of a city.

INTITAL “RULES” LIMITING A TRULY DEMOCRATIC PARK

Although there was a solid effort to democratize the park, there was also the residue of less democratic ideologies present in its operations and regulations. Although many of these have been dissolved today, they are important to mention, as they illustrate, a society still grappling and evolving with a cultural shift. Marital displays, civil processions and public oratory were not allowed in the park at the time. Parts of the park were reserved for silent promenades and others limited political discussions. The park attempted to limit and control actions, so much so that over 125 types of posters and signs were posted all over the park, intended to direct, instruct, and control behavior in specific areas. A park police force was created to enforce these regulations and controls. Because many of these restrictions and controls were temporary and regulatory injunctions, many dissolved over time.

There's still an argument that the park was created primarily for the pleasure of the upper class. However, it was marketed in the guise of a public park. Regardless of these motives, the result of the park today is a democratic space for the public to seek and balance in nature and find a moment of respite from the intensity of the city.

SIGNIFICANCE OF CENTRAL PARK TODAY

We need to ask ourselves why is the park important today? Why is it essential for us to recount the development of Central Park?

It illustrates a moment of a city's collective self-awareness, maturation and growth. Before this, New York City was obsessed with its capitalistic and industrial tendencies, possibly losing sight of its concern for humanity. This brought about social unrest, death, class and racial separation, horrid living conditions and cultural rot from within the city. The fact that New Yorkers chose to take action to rebalance themselves and their city shows noteworthy collective growth. Just as an individual human grows and develops emotional awareness, New York City was collectively operating in the same way.

What are the imbalances in our society and cities today? Are our current preoccupations and cultural obsessions distracting us from creating urban environments that facilitate human flourishing and health? Can these be addressed through environmental design, public spaces and architecture? These are questions that have complex answers, but I urge you to think about them more deeply.

Thanks so much for listening. If you like this, please like and subscribe on our YouTube channel. Please check out more of our articles and videos at rostarchitects.com. Thanks so much.