The impact of nature in the metropolitan landscape has constantly been taken for granted in the post-industrial generation. Much of the developed community has become so absorbed with the idea of progress and urbanization that the fundamental experience of being within nature has escaped us. Even the mentality of considering nature as a “luxury” is a clear indication that we are sacrificing our ecosystem for personal gain. It is because of this that the modern park holds so much value. The fate of the natural environment within the urban framework is premeditated; from the planning phase to its execution, the concept of park space in the city is extremely methodic. The species of organisms chosen for the park and the way in which the space interacts with citizens are just two attributes of these spaces, but there are a variety of factors which account for the success of a park project. Central Park and Yorkville Park both aim to provide the public amenity of a park in a dense downtown core, but each respective space interprets the word “park” in a manner tailored for its own longevity. Central Park, a creation of Frederick Olmsted and Calvert Vaux’s, creates an experience that is almost exclusive to within the confines of the park; a plot of land intended to preserve its natural elements while its surrounding landscape became one of the largest metropolitan cities in the world. Yorkville Park, on the other hand, was a design collaboration between Olson Worland Architects and Martha Schwartz/Ken Smith/ David Meyer Landscape Architects Inc. that demonstrates just how intricate and significant an ecological space can be. Both projects share similarities and differences in their designs, but their prosperity within their respective locations begs the
question as to why a park space was conceived at all. Analyzing each project’s history can help reinforce the notion of park space as a wise urban planning decision. The process involving the realization of Central Park was one that stretched over several decades, but if it had not been for the passing of Downing the park would not have been what it is today (Rogers, Barlow, and Alex, 1972). After 1811, New York was designed according to a grid and oriented to present a simple organization for real estate and land dispersal. Elements such as public space, amenities, and hygiene were not concerns for city planners at the time, and the rapid fluctuation of New York’s population over a 30 year period placed emphasis on the lack of these necessities (Wolff, 2016). This left much to be desired from the urban framework, and it was around 1850 that the necessity for a large park in New York entered the public consciousness. In 1853, city government enacted a plan to construct a public park north of the city, but it was not until 1858 that Olmsted took control of the park’s design. What separated Olmsted’s design from his predecessor’s was the principle that he structured his plan around; the use of a public space purely for the arrangement of nature without the employment of program (Wolff, 2016). Simply put, Olmsted had designated a space where the environment was the focus and there was no sign of human intervention (Fig. 1). The irony of this principle would be evident in that the entirety of the park was a product of human construction, but this concept that Olmsted had presented was almost unheard of prior to its proposal. What the public forum deemed “undesirable” for the conditions of a park, Olmsted saw a plot of land which would later become an escape from what was truly undesirable: the congested conditions of the metropolis. Yorkville Park’s creation arose from a different urban issue, but the intentions of the park in comparison to Central Park remain relatively similar. Realized almost 150 years after Central
Park, Yorkville Park incorporates many more modern elements than Olmsted’s design scheme does. During the conception of the Bloor-Danforth subway line in the 1950’s, a row of Victorian homes were demolished to make room for a parking lot (much to the despair of public opinion). However, this decision was retracted when the Toronto government proposed a design competition for a park to replace the parking lot in 1991. It was at this time when the panel of judges (comprised of both local residents and design professionals) chose Oleson Worland Architects and Martha Schwartz/Ken Smith/ David Meyer Landscape Architects Inc. to design a park that “celebrates the history of the Village of Yorkville, and reflects the diversity of the Canadian landscape” (City of Toronto). The proposal from these two firms followed a set of guidelines in order to accomplish what they hoped to represent through this project: to reflect the characteristics of the original Victorian village, to provide unique ecological opportunities for the introduction and display of native plant species, to provide a variety of spatial and sensory park functions/experiences (Fig. 2), and to link the park to existing pedestrian pathways and adjacent areas (City of Toronto). The park itself has won an award from the American Society of Landscape Architects in 2012, prizing the project for its ability in playing a vital role both in the “characteristic of the Bloor-Yorkville neighbourhood” and in “enhancing the lives of citizens” (ASLA, 2012). Although both projects aimed to provide citizens with refuge from the built environment, there are qualities to both parks which separate them from each other. More specifically, it is through the manner in which the designers of both parks chose to interpret the word “park” (and the decisions which helped them inform these interpretations) that makes these projects successful within their respective urban environments.
There is an irony that exists between Central Park and Yorkville Park; neither of these parks are natural. The decision to reconstruct a natural landscape using elements that are foreign to each site is making a much greater statement about the parks than the parks themselves. We as urban dwellers have lost our ability to understand the natural environment for what it is and are much more involved with its aesthetic representation. If we as consumers are fascinated with the newest line of products (whether it be in the technology sector or the architecture sector), then it can certainly be interpolated that our sensory experience within a natural environment will be much more pleasant if the environment we are experiencing is actually a fabrication of our own desires. Olmsted’s consideration of the park’s existence years ahead of its conception is what makes the park such a marvel today. In the words of Kinkead, the park is a “wondrous slice of nature smuggled into the city by sleight of hand” (Kinkead, 1990), and any image of the park from a bird’s eye view will illustrate this comment (Fig. 3). Yet, of the elements that exist within the park, how much of it is truly “natural”? Central Park became a reflection of national pride; a visible symbol of New York’s affluence and its leadership in America’s economic/cultural life (Miller, 2003). Would it not be appropriate that the park would be a manifestation of the ideals that a public landscape should be? The notion that Central Park would become a national icon would incentivize the “perfection” of Olmsted’s proposal, and this idealization is seen throughout the park. The system of pathways attributes to the manipulation of the existing environment; the sunken roads and curvilinear paths that “meandered through the changing
terrain” (Fig. 4) were organized for their ability to separate carriage/pedestrian traffic and create a fabricated, romantic experience for those to cross through the park (Miller, 2003). Even the lakes, which appear to be so natural and unpremeditated, are manmade and artificial (having taken years of labour and miles of drainage pipes), only adding to the “organic” aesthetic. The overriding design principle for Olmsted during the formulation of the park was the integrity of the park as a whole, and this could only have been achieved through the fabrication of nature in order for the park to be viewed as an icon long after its realization. On the topic of artificial material, Yorkville Park makes no attempt at hiding the nonorganic elements used within its site. Rather, it shows it off as though it were meant to exist alongside nature, but in doing so it controls any organic attribute it may have. Walking through the park, the orthogonal pathways look much more restrictive than Central Park’s. Yorkville Park has limited its paths of movement to a set of paved lanes that force visitors to have an experience specifically designed by the architects. Additionally, the most controversial element of this artificial landscape is certainly the $283,000 granite rock that was pieced together as a central monument within the park (Freedman, 1993). Amongst the gardens of various plant species which sits within the park, one giant stone exists, questioning the necessity of spending 9% of the park’s budget on an element that neither grows nor provides any real ecological benefit (Fig. 5). The architects claim that the park is “collecting landscapes of Canada… and arranging them in the manner of the nineteenth century row houses” (City of Toronto). While this may have been the driving principle, the concrete paving which unites all of these elements together makes these natural elements static and rigid (Fig. 6/7). Thus, it is evident in Central Park and Yorkville Park that nature’s aesthetic is the true driving principle for each project.
When it comes to the definition of what a park truly represents, there is no static answer. Instead, without referencing the dictionary, the creation of “park” space can be interpreted as the result of two outcomes; the ability for a park to become a space for a wholesome natural program (like Central Park), and/or the ability for a park to act as the solution to an urban issue (like Yorkville Park). By evaluating the similarities and differences in the experiences offered through both Central Park and Yorkville Park, we can extrapolate a better understanding for what a park truly hopes to accomplish. Central Park is quite simply one of the best modern examples for what an urban park should become. As bold as this claim may be, this park has existed for over 100 years and is still one of the most discussed parks of this generation, having impacted so many designers worldwide. Going back to the origin of the park’s conception, the construction of the park had been easily achieved because the industrial population of New York had been wise enough to require it and rich enough to pay for it (Miller, 2003). Olmsted knew that the best way to sustain the growth of a park within a flourishing city was to cater to the desires of the upper class but to design for the benefit of the lower class. The park stood as an “educative and civilizing agency, standing in winning competition against the corrupting temptation of the town” (Beveridge, Rocheleau, and Larkin, 1995), effectively bringing the experience of a suburban landscape into the congested city. And to this day, this is the experience visitors can share. Central Park provides an opportunity for anybody to step into the “rustic” space and view the wonders of Olmsted and Vaux’s creation (Fig. 8), rather than excluding the land solely to those more
fortunate. The emphasis on scenery and limited provision of space for structures devoted to purposes outside of the organic program furthered the notion that there would be little focus on profiting from the space (Beveridge, Rocheleau, and Larkin, 1995). Thus, Olmsted imagined Central Park as a space which existed purely for the benefit of its visitors to enjoy its natural beauty, an appreciation which would only grow as the city became more and more vertical. Yorkville Park also exhibits a range of nature within its confines. But instead of trying to make these natural elements appear vernacular, the architects display each aspect of the park as though it were a museum for the public to glance at. Yet, this only adds to the allure of the park, as its natural and unnatural features alike are an inviting experience. Yorkville Park’s convenient placement beside the Bay Street subway station and close proximity to the surrounding commercial buildings (which envelope its boundaries) allows for its location to see an influx of activity from passersby, even if they had no intention of visiting the park (Fig. 9). This, along with the novelty of seeing lush natural elements within a neighbourhood suffocating in concrete office towers, encourages interaction from those in Yorkville. It is no wonder Yorkville Park has been extremely successful in its execution; similar to the way in which Central Park “smuggles� nature into the city, the design of the park fully capitalizes on a busy location of the city to maximize participation from visitors and creates a visual spectacle for all to enjoy (even if the ecological significance is completely underappreciated).
I have had the pleasure of visiting both Central Park and Yorkville Park recently. The personal experiences I had within both of these spaces were not exclusive to each other, as I discovered that there were many design attributes which could be found in both parks. Central Park is an incredibly remarkable wonder of landscape architecture, but I believe it is because of its immensity that this park is such a success. In no way did I plan on experiencing all of Central Park, but Olmsted’s focus on respecting the integrity of the park as a whole evoked an appreciation of the space without having to view its entirety. The notion that there is such a large span of pristine landscape existing within present-day New York is what makes Central Park so valuable; the “constant suggestion to the imagination of an unlimited range of rural conditions” (Rogers, Barlow, and Alex, 1972) is what encourages visitors to keep returning back to the park. Yorkville Park was almost identical to this principle; although the scale is incomparable, each visit to the park brings about a refreshing experience. Freedman’s article reviewing the park is titled most appropriately; “the architects of Cumberland Park in Toronto's Yorkville have packed so many details into one project, it’s hard to believe that it only occupies one acre” (Freedman, 1993). It’s difficult to avoid the park as you pass through Yorkville, as the various plant species within the park are so visually appealing. Olmsted interpreted recreation as “recreating the body and mind through juxtaposition with (and observation of) nature” (Kinkead, 1990), and I believe that this is the best description for what Central Park and Yorkville Park represent as an experience. The word “park” has been approached differently in both projects, but through the experience offered within each space, they become complete urban triumphs.
Figure 1: The embedding of Central Park in Manhattan evokes a greater sense of appreciation for the natural environment
Figure 2: Yorkville Park has harmonized nature and structure, displaying the aesthetic qualities of their unity
Figure 3: The beauty of the park on the surface is astounding, but its presence within the larger urban context is immaculate
Figure 5: $283,000 budgeted to place a rock in the park. Does anybody actually know the significance of its presence?
Figure 4: Winding paths in Central Park are made to look natural to add to the “natural� experience
Figure 7: A colourful selection of environmental elements are proposed in plan, but present a very rigid experience
Figure 6: What colour is more prominent: green or grey‌?
Figure 8: Central Park has monumentalized a natural experience within a sea of skyscrapers and taxis
Figure 9: Location, aesthetic, ample sitting space. Yorkville Park is a pedestrian’s dream
Beveridge, Charles E., Paul Rocheleau, and David Larkin. Frederick Law Olmsted: Designing the American Landscape. New York: Rizzoli, 1995. Kinkead, Eugene. Central Park, 1857-1995: The Birth, Decline, and Renewal of a National Treasure. New York: Norton, 1990. Miller, Sara Cedar. Central Park: An American Masterpiece. New York: Harry N. Abrams Publishers in Association with the Central Park Conservancy, 2003. Olmsted, Frederick Law Jr., and Theodora Kimball. Frederick Law Olmsted, Landscape Architect. New York & London: G.P. Putnam, 1928. Rogers, Elizabeth Barlow, and William Alex. Frederick Law Olmsted's New York. New York: Praeger, in Association with the Whitney Museum of American Art, 1972. Beardsley, John. Ken Smith: Landscape Architect. Vol. 1. New York: Monacelli Press, 2009. Susan Reid, TORONTO STAR. "Yorkville 'Rock' Park 40 Years in Making." Toronto Star, Feb 01, 1993 Andrighetti, Rick. "Village of Yorkville Park, Toronto." The Canadian Architect 39, no. 8 (08, 1994): 20-21. Freedman, Adele. "SIGHTLINES between a Rock and a Hard Place Grows a Garden of Myriad Detail DESIGN " the Architects of Cumberland Park in Toronto's Yorkville have Packed so Many Details into One Project, it's Hard to Believe it Only Occupies One Acre." The Globe and Mail, Nov 06, 1993. "Village of Yorkville Park - Featured Parks - Parks & Trails | City of Toronto." Village of Yorkville Park - Featured Parks Parks & Trails | City of Toronto. Accessed March 27, 2016. http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=5c39dada600f0410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD. "Village of Yorkville Park Toronto." ASLA 2012 Professional Awards. Accessed March 27, 2016. https://www.asla.org/2012awards/034.html. A Walk through the Village of Yorkville Park. Toronto: Parks and Recreation, 1994. Pirk, Herb. Cumberland Park Design Competition. Toronto: Dept. of Parks and Recreation, 1991. Wolff, Jane. "Landscapes and a North American Dilemma, Continued." Lecture, Topics in Landscape Architecture, Koffler House, Toronto, January 20, 2016. Corner, James. "Ecology and Landscape as Agents of Creativity." The landscape urbanism reader. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2006. 80-90. Print.
Title: http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-vector-vector-cityscape-cozy-corner-city-a-bench-under-a-big-tree-andlanterns-on-the-sidewalk-along-the-106815470.jpg, Mar. 27, 2016 Fig. 1: http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/2008/new_york/ny_central_park.jpg, Mar. 27, 2016 Fig. 2: http://www.artonfile.com/images/LAIII-06-09-04.jpg, Mar. 27, 2016 Fig. 3: http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/science/Amateur-built-environment-1-Sergey-Semenov.jpeg, Mar. 27, 2016 Fig. 4: https://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/rschwart/hatlas/campus_environment/olmstead_plan/centralparkpath.jpg, Mar. 27, 2016 Fig. 5: http://newregionstoronto.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Granite-boulder-yorkville.jpg, Mar. 27, 2016 Fig. 6: https://www.asla.org/2012awards/images/smallscale/034_01.jpg, Mar. 29, 2016 Fig. 7: http://urbantoronto.ca/sites/default/files/imagecache/displayslideshow/images/articles/2012/10/6466/urbantoronto-6466-20940.jpeg, Mar. 29, 2016 Fig. 8: http://www.deeproot.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/stories/2013/04/The-Mall_iPhilPhoto.jpg, Mar. 29, 2016 Fig. 9: http://www.bloor-yorkville.com/img/content/about-us/history/view-of-park.jpg, Mar. 29, 2016