Large Parks
Large Parks is the title of a new book edited by Julia Czerniak and George Hargreaves. Large Parks examines what the back cover of the book claims to be “an increasingly hard-to-define landscape type: the urban park.” And urban parks may be hard to define these days because of a disjunct between what we might think of when we think of urban parks versus areas we might not be sure what to call that seem to occur in urban and suburban areas, which are green with remnant natural areas and planted areas, and that may be used more or less actively by surrounding populations.
My idea of an urban park is Van Horne Park in Montreal, named after the entrepreneur who made the transcontinental railway a reality in Canada in the late 1800s. Van Horne Park is a block away from the flat where I spent most of my childhood and across the street from the primary school I attended (which accounts for the rest of my childhood). It is about 2 hectares (5 acres) and consists, or did then, of a baseball diamond, a public open air pool, a large flat turf multipurpose playfield used for football in summer and hockey in winter, a couple of concrete chessboard tables-with-chairs, and enough pedestrian paths paved with asphalt, ornamental borders, and benches to afford a pleasant walk. This was the park in which at the age of six I learned to ride a bicycle. “Hang on!” I yelled to my Dad who gripped the seat as we experimented with my first ride without training wheels. “Hang on!” I yelled as I increased my speed, forcing Dad to run beside. “Hang on!” I yelled as I glanced back at him – only to discover to my amazement, terror, and exultation that he was a small figure in the background and that I was moving fast entirely under my own pedal power and direction…
What is “large”? By a sort of consensus among the essays, the book considers large to be 500 acres (200 hectares) or greater. An accompanying figure compares to scale diagrams of some of the world’s large parks from Sausset (Paris) at 446 acres to Casa de Campo (Madrid) at 7000 acres. “Yet size is not the only question” writes Czerniak in the Introduction “for as important as size is shape with implications for perimeter and interiority.” And in fact how do you compare parks when for example Golden Gate Park (San Francisco) is an elongated rectangle, Stanley Park (Vancouver) is a reasonably rounded shape, and the Emerald Necklace (Boston) is a developed riparian corridor?
What is a “park”, Czerniak then considers in the Introduction. She provides a brief history but leaves the question open. But concluding the brief discussion she writes “Beyond size, the criterion for selection (for discussion in the book) is relevance to urban life”.
This may be a much more profound criterion than might seem at first – for the simple reason that most people on earth now dwell in cities. In addition rampant urbanization has swallowed and transformed agricultural and wildland areas surrounding new and old cities, so that in North America at least cities no longer have definable boundaries, but peter out far beyond the center of the city in some sluggish urban tracts, all the while incorporating remnant natural areas too difficult to develop for one reason or another (e.g., ravines), or preserved by ownership (e.g., a large estate or a never-built railway right-of-way).
So what the book is really addressing is the interdigitated interface between urbanized areas and areas dominated by ecological processes that nevertheless have strong demands for recreational and other human use programming. And by extension, the book is really addressing the larger human – nature interface, because this urban edge is where all the action takes place.
Posted by geoffreykatz
at 7:39 PM PST