The High Line

THE HIGH LINE Carla Salehian | Spring 2014

OFF THE BEATEN TRACK

A Case Study on New York’s High Line

Carla P. Salehian UP 282 – Urban Design Prof. Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris 03 June, 2014

Carla P. Salehian UP 282 – Urban Design Prof. Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris 03 June, 2014 OFF THE BEATEN TRACK

A Case Study on New York’s High Line INTRODUCTION

In summer of 1999, West Chelsea residents and stakeholders shuffled into a community board meeting to discuss the High Line, an abandoned elevated railway winding one-and-a-half miles across the southwestern side of Manhattan. Viewing it as blight in their community, most arrived to argue for its demolition; but, as fate would have it, the two men that had attended the

meeting to voice their support for the High Line’s preservation—two complete strangers (and local community residents)—happened to sit side-by-side. Marketing and internet consultant, Joshua David and freelance journalist Robert Hammond, had each entered the meeting expecting to connect with an existing community coalition to save the High Line. Discovering no such organization existed, they decided to form one together, and the “The Friends of the High Line” was born. David and Hammond knew very little about preservation, architecture, or community organizing, but their shared vision of restoring this landmark and transforming it into a public space drove them to create what has arguably become one of New York City’s most popular (if not controversial) tourist destinations today. *** Construction for the High Line began in 2006 and upon its opening, the project was deemed an instant success. Critics praised its design for breaking the confines of modernism’s metaphorical “box”, its programming for its seamless interweaving between people and nature,

1

and its larger concept for creating a unique experience for visitors while delightfully “maintaining the memory of the past.” Furthermore, the increasing values of surrounding real estate and its continued ability to lure thousands of tourists have made this project a tremendous economic and political triumph. In more recent years, however, some have voiced concerns over a different, darker side of the High Line suggesting that it may have become a victim of its own success—that its economic impact has now made it New York’s “monument to gentrification”, or that its tourist draw has caused it to become a “Disney World on the Hudson.” This essay explores both sides of the High Line debate, while tracing its evolution from an abandoned railroad, to a community-established neighborhood park, and, finally, to a modern luxury brand.

HISTORIC BACKGROUND

The High Line’s history can be traced back to the days of industrialism in New York City. In 1847, a series of street level train tracts were installed to carry freight deliveries and connect warehouses and factories on Manhattan’s lower west side. Around the beginning of the 1930’s, the widespread Rationalist urban design movement that was classified by notions such as “purity of form”, logic, and efficiency was increasing in popularity throughout major cities across the United States, prompting Robert Moses to develop New York’s West Side Improvement project (Broadbent, 1996). Consequently, the city elevated the tracks thirty feet on a steel and concrete trestle built to support locomotives and full freight cars, moreover streamlining deliveries to warehouses in West Chelsea and improving the alarmingly negligent safety conditions caused by the street-level rail lines (Grant, 2013).

In 1934, the High Line was constructed at a total cost that, in today’s dollars, would amount to a total of $1 billion (See Figures 1, 2, and 3). At its southern end, the trestle runs through the city’s meatpacking district, an area that in the 1930’s included nearly 250 2

slaughterhouses. The middle portion of the High Line runs through West Chelsea, an area that predominantly consisted of industry and worker housing. Finally, the northern section of the High Line runs around the West Side Rail Yard, a series of tracks that feed into Pennsylvania Station (See Appendix A). Despite the overwhelming costs to build the trestle, its lifespan was considerably short. The High Line and similar aboveground trestles grew obsolete after thirty years when construction of the interstate system and the growth of air cargo usage led to a nationwide decline in rail usage. Commodity rail circulation declined and the warehouses and factories so commonly associated with the Chelsea area were forced to relocate to places such as New Jersey with the increase in land costs. (Grant, 2013)

Figures 1,2, and 3: Historic Photographs of the High Line Source: thehighline.org

The High Line’s use as a train trestle stopped completely in 1981. Different parts of the elevated tracks throughout the city were torn down in stages but the parts of the High Line that remained were left untouched and forgotten, creating a decaying ruin of a once glorified industrial past. The trestle would remain like this for nearly two decades as New York transitioned from an industrial city to a postindustrial one. During this time the industrial area’s degradation and loss of jobs began to attract new sorts of residents: artists (converting warehouses 3

to studios) and land speculators (eager to capitalize on the cheap land, especially under the tracks.) As galleries and recovering economic conditions began to improve the surrounding area, landowners began to pressure the city to demolish the High Line and allow for further growth in the area as allowed by the city code, which at the time allowed for a building height of five stories (Washburn, 2013). Not long after, Mayor Giuliani began to process the demolition order. This was where the High Line’s history took an unexpected turn for the better – a turn catalyzed by two Chelsea residents whose decision to attend a community meeting would eventually stir the emotions of an entire city and lead to the creation of a treasured park and landmark.

THE VISION

In 1999, Robert Hammond and Joshua David met at a community meeting organized to consider the High Line’s demolition. At this time, neither Hammond nor David had a clear idea on what they wanted to propose the High Line should be used for. However, their shared concern and inclination for protecting and preserving the landmark caused them to join forces and form “Friends of the High Line” (FHL). Eventually, they received permission to walk the High Line from the company that owned the tracks and upon visiting it, their assumptions were immediately confirmed: wild vegetation was overtaking the railroad tracks and upon observing its natural beauty combined with the stunning vistas overlooking the city, they knew at once they were standing on a treasure. (Washburn, 2013) Hammond and David strategically began to share the site and the view with friends and local residents, including several of the landowners keen on its demolition, as a way of harnessing support for its preservation. Among those friends was photographer, Joel Sternfeld, whose photographic documentation of the site were published in the New Yorker magazine, introducing millions to the FHL cause and the unfettered potential existing on the trestle (See 4

Figures 4 and 5). With an explosion of interest (including that of a fair share of celebrities such as Edward Norton, Kevin Bacon, and Diane von Furstenberg), the donor list of High Line preservation supporters continued to grow (Sternbergh, 2007). At the same time, the group began to establish their political connections and their design ideas, including the idea to create an international design competition to help develop their ideas of creating a new public park.

Figures 4 and 5: Joel Sternfeld’s High Line Photographs Source: thehighline.org

Just as Mayor Giuliani’s term was coming to an end and the Friends of the High Line were facing increased pressure to beat the demolition order, they received tremendous help when Michael Bloomberg took office and appointed FHL member Amanda Burden as planning commission chair. Upon this appointment, the demolition order was soon retracted and now equipped with the city’s support, the Friends of the High Line’s next step was to transform their vision into a reality. (Washburn, 2013)

5

THE PLANNING PROCESS

While Hammond and David may have been instrumental in setting forth the vision toward transforming the High Line, the project’s success would not have been possible without the muscle of the city’s planning commission. Individuals such as Amanda Burden were instrumental in making the public space project a priority and demonstrated this by implementing the use of key planning tools to ensure its success and champion “good design by using zoning as a weapon to enforce her vision” (Gordon, 2011). In 2002, the city’s Economic Development Corporation issued an economic development study to weigh the costs and benefits of converting the High Line into a public park. Despite the project’s steep estimated cost of around $152.3 million, this report concluded that the reuse of the High Line would be economically feasible and that the tax revenues would outweigh the costs of construction (Washburn, 2013).

With assurance of economic viability, the City Planning Department spent the next three years (2003-2006) developing a redevelopment plan to transform the High Line into a park, revitalize the surrounding neighborhood and existing uses, and provide incentives for landowners to drop their demands for demolition. Central to this plan was the proposal for a rezone. At the time, the area was zoned for manufacturing. New zoning proposals would maintain the manufacturing zone at the center of the redevelopment area (in an attempt to preserve the neighborhood’s existing characteristics) and allow for residential use at the neighborhoods periphery with ground floor retail typical of much of New York City. (Washburn, 2013) Also included in this redevelopment plan was the allowance for the opportunity of a transfer of development rights for landowners underneath or immediately surrounding the High Line, essentially allowing them to sell their “air rights” or undeveloped space to surrounding developers. These receiving sites would ideally include developers in the newly established 6

residential areas at the perimeter (See Figure 6). This proved to be an effective strategy. In fact, demand for development rights was so high that planners were also able to leverage zoning regulations as a means of increasing the supply of affordable housing. As such, in addition to the potential for the transfer of development rights, regulations included an additional bonus of 30 percent more development rights if the owner devoted 20 percent of its building as affordable housing. (Washburn, 2013)

Figures 6 and 7: High Line Transfer Mechanism and Bulk Rules Source: New York Department of City Planning via Washburn, 2013

Finally, new zoning designations also enforced several sub-districts of varying densities that would play a significant impact in the physical design of the buildings surrounding the High Line (See Figure 7). Special height and setback requirements were set in place to tailor to the bulk of the trestle and ensure the penetration of light and air (Washburn, 2013). These requirements were also used to maintain the High Line’s sight lines and vistas to the rest of the city and would preserve one of the project’s most attractive features.

7

THE DESIGN

In 2004, while city planners were implementing their measures to enable the success of the High Line project, the city’s Economic Development Corporation and the Friends of the High Line proceeded with the design process by selecting their design team, which included architecture firm Diller Scofidio + Renfro, landscape architects at James Corner Field Operations, and renowned Dutch garden designer and vegetation expert Piet Oudolf. At this time, the city committed $50 million for construction. (Washburn, 2013) Together, this design team put a list of eight principles and goals that would guide the design process. The principles are listed as follows: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Keep it simple; keep it wild; keep it quiet; keep it slow Preserve typical railings and upgrade to fulfill code and ensure safety Preserve north-south sight lines and linear consistency of the High Line Preserve slow meandering experiences through varied conditions Preserve and reveal the structure providing opportunities to inhabit and appreciate details 6. Preserve unusual and fond conditions on the High Line 7. Preserve wild, opportunistic landscape by enhancing existing plant species 8. Preserve industrial presence of the High Line at the street level (Designing the High Line, p. 31) From these principles, one understands how the main focus of the designers was to preserve the unique and private garden-like experience the team experienced when first setting foot upon the abandoned rail line. By encouraging the project to preserve the site’s simplicity, wildlife growth, quietude, and removed, leisurely pace, they made a pronounced effort to create an overall experience of relaxation and, as was described by Richard Scofidio, to create “a place to reflect about the very categories of ‘nature’ and ‘culture’ in our time.” (Grant, 2013) Other more specific design features of the High Line contribute toward achieving each of the other design principles or project goals. With regard to its safety and access, railings, stairs and elevators were constructed to conform to code while still maintaining focus on the trestle,

8

itself. To guarantee that the High Line is kept public and accessible to all visitors, there are no private entries to the High Line from surrounding buildings. Were a building to request a direct entrance to the High Line, the access point would have to remain fully accessible by the public and in addition, the applicant would have to pay an additional fee for this privilege (Grant, 2013). This feature of complete openness is also translated in the design’s consideration toward maintaining sight lines. While it is common for many gardens to feature tall walls and dense vegetation to give the visitor a sense of privacy and enclosure, no such elements are found in the High Line. Instead, the design calls for low-lying plants and simple infrastructural elements that preserve visual corridors in relation to the city skyline, while maintaining separation from street level activity and a sensation of observing the city from an elevated platform; a quintessential New York City experience (See Figures 8 and 9).

Figures 8 and 9: High Line Vegetation Source: thehighline.org

The promotion of slow meandering experiences on the High Line was achieved through the incorporation of a variety of materials and pathway options. Stairs, serving as primary access points to the landmark, are located every two blocks and are made up of long treads to ensure

9

the movement on them is safe and easy. A number of them are even referred to as “slow stairs” for they give the user “pause and time to transition” from Manhattan proper to the space of the High Line, further contributing toward their ability to promote a relaxed and leisurely experience (Richard, 2011). In addition, by incorporating a variety of paving patterns and opening the concrete to allow vegetation to grow through the empty spaces, visitors are forced to move in a winding pattern and are given the impression that plants are colonizing the plank-like concrete carpet running the entire length of the High Line (See Figure 8 above). In this sense, the design embraces the ability urban designers have to choreograph movement and utilize English architect and urban designer, Gordon Cullen’s concept of “serial vision” to allow for a series of interesting sights and views to unfold before them (Cullen, 1961).

The High Line’s seemingly wild and unmanicured vegetation is another one of the park’s defining characteristics. As the project designers sought to preserve the site’s “wild, opportunistic landscape,” they appointed Dutch garden designer, Piet Oudolf, for the task. Oudolf’s works are featured internationally and range from Millenium Park in Chicago to commissions in Germany, Great Britain, and Sweden. They are characterized by their controlled, yet naturalistic qualities.

While flowers are often used as a focal point of garden decoration, Oudolf pushes against this by designing the High Line’s gardens from a holistic, four season perspective that is meant to be sustainable and less labor-intensive while immersing the visitor in the life cycle of nature (See Figure 10, 11, and 12). Also evident in the High Line’s planting scheme is the attention to detail in selecting vegetation natural to the surrounding landscape (Barrett, 2011). The planted areas of the High Line precisely distribute the various woodlands, grass, bogs, thickets, lawns and wildflowers that naturally grew on the High Line between the 1980’s and early 2000’s as a testament to Mother Nature and the conditions by which the High Line was found upon falling into disrepair.

10

Figures 10, 11, and 12: The High Line’s Seasonal Gardens Source: flickr.com/photos/friendsofthehighline

Finally, the High Line’s physical characteristics are designed to preserve the industrial character of the neighborhood and reveal the trestle structure, itself, “providing opportunities to inhabit and appreciate details” (thehighline.org). Train rails were reinstalled as the High Line’s centerpieces, the staircase at Gansevoort leads visitors underneath a section of the High Line allowing them to see the structural components in its underbelly, and a glass floor at 30th Street further exposes the riveted underside; all visual reminder of the its once industrial past (Grant, 2013).

PROJECT ACHIEVEM ENTS

Construction for the High Line began in 2006 and after two years of heavy construction, landscape construction and planting followed. Section one of the High Line, running at the southern end from Gansevoort Street to West Twentieth Street was opened to the public in 2009. Section two of the High Line, running northward from West Twentieth Street to West Thirtieth Street was opened a few years later during the summer of 2011 (Washburn, 2013). The critical acclaim and positive public reception for the park came almost immediately. Diane

11

Cardwell of the New York Times wrote about its universal appeal to tourists and native New Yorkers, alike, claiming they were “openly relishing a place where they can reflect and relax enough to get a new perspective on Manhattan” (2009). Nicolaus Ouroussoff, also of the New York Times, ogled at the High Line’s ability to allow visitors to make “entirely new visual connections between different parts of Manhattan while maintaining a remarkably intimate relationship with the surrounding streets” (2009). Wall Street Journal critic, Karrie Jacobs, even went so far as to describe her realization that the High Line “might be a truly rare phenomenon: a widely anticipated event actually better than its hype” (2009). The “hype” Jacobs spoke of has certainly been reflected in the park’s visitor numbers. In 2010, less than one year of its opening, the High Line received its two-millionth visitor and by 2012, the High Line had more than 4.4 million visitors, making it the city’s most-visited park per acre.

Transformation of a Neighborhood:

Amidst the acclaim, several particular project achievements received a considerable amount of attention. First, was the High Line’s ability to contribute toward the complete transformation of an uninviting industrial neighborhood that was distant from public transport and offered less retail options than other downtown neighborhoods to an attractive tourist destination known for its art galleries, restaurants, and night life. By enhancing the rail line’s physical characteristics and enacting the appropriate planning measures to encourage further growth and development, the High Line project has inspired some of the city’s most interesting architecture, including that of Frank Gehry and Jean Nouvel (Karmin, 2011).

Additionally, in huge contrast to the negative image of the poverty and crime-ridden, conflict-inducing industrial cities of the past, the High Line has also contributed toward improving the social characteristics of the area, as well, particularly with regard to crime. Two years after the opening of the High Line, the city’s Department of Parks and Recreation and the 12

High Line’s founders released a report claiming zero incidents of crime (including that of assault, robbery, etc.) in the High Line area since its opening (Wilson, 2011). The heavy police and security enforcement, the open concept design, the limited (and highly controlled) entryways, and the frequent activity and opportunity for what urban design advocate, Jane Jacobs, would call “eyes on the street” are likely to all contribute to this impressive achievement (1961).

The physical and social changes are not the only characteristics to contribute to the neighborhood’s transformation. As one might expect, the High Line had a tremendous economic impact on the surrounding area, as well. Upon the project’s completion, the number of real estate development projects skyrocketed. In the five years after the High Line was constructed, twenty-nine projects were built or were underway in the surrounding neighborhood. This included more than 2500 residential units, 1,000 hotel rooms, and around 500,000 square feet of office or gallery space. Furthermore, properties in neighborhoods such as Chelsea saw a 103 percent increase in median price from the years 2003-2011 (Goodsell, 2012). Among these projects is a 111-unit luxury rental property at Tenth Avenue and 23rd Street by Chicago “property baron” Sam Zell. Given the strength of Manhattan’s high-end rental market and everpresent buzz over the High Line, the average studio rents for just over $3,000 a month and small two-bedroom apartments average more than $5,800, further emphasizing the social and demographic transformations that are expected to occur as a result of the High Line park (Karmin, 2011).

Innovative Design:

Another notable achievement of the High Line was its success in incorporating innovative design methods. The project received particular attention for its “adaptive reuse” qualities and its reclaiming and conversion of the railway – a “once-vital piece of urban infrastructure” – into a “post-industrial instrument of leisure, life, and growth” (thehighline.org). At the same time, the 13

project received a lot of praise for embracing continuity and historic preservation and for implementing a design that “preserves the character of the High Line” (thehighline.org). An article on the “Romance of Abandonment” by Hugh Hardy pointed to urban renewal projects such as that of the High Line as an example of how “the intelligent reuse of industrial sites can provide a genuine sense of place, one that celebrates both a rich history and an off-beat aesthetic” (2005, p. 37). As such, it is suggested that projects such as these can provide urban designers and planners with a better alternative to the featureless places devoid of heritage created by urban sprawl.

Aside from its nod toward historic preservation, others praised the High Line’s design for incorporating environmentally sustainable designs. The High Line embraces a form of landscape urbanism conceptualized by key environmentalists such as Ian McHarg by realizing a potential for an intermingling of natural and human-made systems and architecture. Rather than strengthening the dichotomous concepts of “city” vs. “country”, landscape urbanism emphasizes the natural systems that already exist in the metropolis (Scheer, 2011). As a result, these natural systems serve as an inspiration for imitating natural processes. With the High Line, this was most evident with its implementation of “agri-tecture”, a strategy that “accommodates the wild, the cultivated, the intimate, and the social” (highline.org). Examples of this include the landscape designers’ conscious effort to preserve the wildlife and vegetation that was observed to be naturally growing on the trestle during its years of abandonment. In addition, it purposefully blurs the lines between city and country by interweaving paved and planted surfaces along its walkways (Steiner, 2011).

Powerful Demonstration of Grassroots Efforts:

Perhaps the greatest legacy of the High Line project is its demonstration of the potential powers in grassroots efforts and community activism. The Friends of the High Line’s multi14

pronged public outreach program included everything from the use of public forums to photojournalism. Building upon the publicity and increased awareness from these pragmatic strategies, the small group was able to attract the attention of influential planners, architects, and celebrities and eventually obtain government backing and funding. Furthermore, it introduced a successful new business paradigm in urban design and development that requires an “integrated, all-inclusive, triple bottom line approach: business, community, and environment” (Goodsell, 2012). Ultimately, this ground-up method of activism provides an inspirational example of how proper backing and support (and perhaps ideal timing) can allow for inexperienced but passionate residents to influence public opinion, government action, and change a neighborhood.

Most impressively, the project’s fundamental statement on preserving historic artifacts and promoting public space struck a chord with much of the city and served as a means of unifying New Yorkers toward similar ideals. As Friends of the High Line member, Josh Wood, once put it, “Everyone in New York City has been so supportive of the High Line, It’s probably the one public-works project that no one has anything bad to say about” (Sternbergh, 2011).

PROJECT CRITICISM S

While there is no denying the success of this project and the incredible symbolic message it serves for other community-driven projects, a number of individuals did eventually begin to express their doubts over the project’s ‘failproof’ success and as the years passed and the broader effects of the High Line were starting to take root, people began to express concerns over the neighborhood changes they were witnessing. In more recent years, the criticisms over the “High Line Effect” have been growing and have included such statements such as the concerns over the park’s “Disneyfication”, the myth of philanthropy, and gentrification.

15

The “Disneyfication” of the High Line:

The claims of the High Line’s “Disneyfication” come as a result of the park’s continued attraction to large numbers of tourists (Moss, 2012). A visit to the park today is likely to not to be considered a quiet and calming experience it once was. Rather than providing an idyllic place for solitude and meditation, the High Line is now characterized by long waits in lines and droves of visitors posing for pictures (See Figures 13 and 14). Additionally, as in any controlled amusement park, the High Line park enforces a large number of rules including the prohibition of dogs, walking on rail tracks, gravel, or plants, the use of bicycles, skateboards, or any recreational modes of transportation, or any gatherings greater than twenty persons, except by permit (thehighline.org). Some visitors have even gone so far as to say the highly restrained rules gave them the impression that they were visiting a museum rather than a park. Heightening the commercialized experience that has become a visit to the High Line, large billboards surround much of the area to capitalize on the park’s success. The High Line began to feature food vendors featuring boutique-like eateries such as “La Newyorkina” or “Melt Bakery” beginning in the year 2011. Finally, crucial to any amusement park experience, the High-Line “Shop” features a wide selection of T-shirts and merchandising featuring the now iconic High Line logo.

Figures 13 and 14: High Line Crowds Source: thehighline.org

16

The Myth of Philanthropy:

Other critics even go so far as to question the authenticity of the project’s philanthropic efforts, believing the park’s commercial success have eclipsed its community activist roots.

According to authors such as Aleksandr Bierig, the High Line is a classic example in which money is spent for the “betterment of the better off” and that its wealthy supporters stood to profit from their donations, especially those that own properties close to elevated railroad tracks (2010). Apart from this, others point toward the fact that the Chelsea Waterside Park and Clement Clark Moore Park exist within two blocks from the High Line, indicating that the claim for improving public space access could have been better utilized elsewhere. Landscape architect and founder of Sustainable South Bronx, Majora Carter, has dedicated much of her career toward advocating for the construction of parks in low-income neighborhoods and once sited this case as an illustration of environmental injustice, claiming those with deeper pockets are more likely to get the “good stuff” (American Society of Landscape Architects).

The Neighborhood’s Gentrification:

Finally, as is so often the case in any urban renewal project that attracts a lot of economic growth, the greatest argument critics have posed against the High Line is that of its contribution (or tremendous boost) toward the neighborhood’s gentrification. Previous sections of this essay discussed the increase in property values in the West Chelsea area and transformation of the area in which glassy towers with names like High Line 519 and HL23 replace older buildings. While this was an achievement for investors, landowners, city officials, and developers, it came at the cost of those that had lived and worked in the neighborhood for decades. Prior to its construction, West Chelsea was comprised of a mix of working class residences and light industrial businesses. As property values rise and rental rates increase, many of these individuals

17

and businesses are being pushed out. In a notorious op-ed piece by Jeremiah Moss in the New York Times, he cites multigenerational family-owned businesses such as “Olympia” parking garage that closed after their rent quintupled (2012). Other industrial/mechanic type businesses such as “Brownfield Auto” described a feeling of displacement referring to the High Line as a place for the “city’s glamorous people”. Evidently, even the most well-intentioned neighborhood improvement efforts have their downsides. (Moss, 2012)

CONCLUSIONS

The High Line ultimately presents a fascinating and complex example of an urban design project in which one may witness both nature’s triumph over man (in the breathtaking display of natural beauty on the abandoned rail line) and man’s triumph over the city (as a small group of activists banded together to reclaim the structure.) In studying the High Line’s history and design process, one finds that this is a modern-day David and Goliath story echoing that of the head-to head confrontation between Jane Jacobs and Robert Moses a few decades prior. The High Line was built upon the concrete foundations of Rationalism and the intention of improving the health and well being of New York citizens with modern infrastructural and technical innovations.

When the rail line grew obsolete several years later, Rationalism reared its powerful head yet again when the High Line was scheduled for demolition as a part of a larger redevelopment plan, fueling the “growth machine” that was the city. At the same time, two inexperienced neighborhood residents challenged landowners and the City and, in a very pragmatic and Jane Jacobs fashion, created a grassroots movement to preserve the High Line structure and convert its use to a public park that would benefit all.

While it is very likely that Jacobs would applaud these efforts, it is probable she would take issue with some of the High Line’s more latent effects, namely those of gentrification and 18

displacement. Despite the fact that Joshua David, Richard Hammond, and the friends of the High Line met their proposed design and programming goals and that the High Line project has boasted several astounding achievements, a holistic examination of this case study reveals that less favorable consequences have resulted including issues of commercialism, overcrowding, and gentrification. Consequently, this raises the question of who benefits from the city’s investments and sheds light upon the unfortunate truth that a public good might not necessarily be shared by all.

In reflecting upon this case study, one might choose to sulk at the inevitability of gentrification in economically successful projects such as the High Line, but a planner might find solace in the fact that there still remains much to be celebrated about the process and end product and the project’s success and achievements will surely continue to inspire similar projects across the globe.

19

APPENDIX A

Map of the High Line

20

REFERENCES

American Society of Landscape Architects. Interview with Majora Carter, Founder, Sustainable South Bronx, and Majora Carter Group. Retrieved from http://www.asla.org/contentdetail. aspx?id=20586 Barrett, S. (2011). Q&A: Piet Oudolf on Designing a Winter Garden. New York Times.

Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/10/garden/10garden.html?page wanted=all&_r=1& Bierig, A. (2010). The High Line And Other Myths. Log, 129-134.

Bourne, M. (2012). The High Line: New York’s Monument to Gentrification. The Millions.

Retrieved from http://www.themillions.com/2012/06/the-high-line-new-yorks-monument-togentrification.html Broadbent, G. (1996). “Philosophical Bases” in Emerging Concepts in Urban Space Design. pp. 79-86.

Cardwell, D. (2009). For High Line Visitors, Park is a Railway Out of Manhattan. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/22/nyregion/22highline.html?_r=0 Corner, J. (2006). Terra Fluxus in Waldheim, C. The Landscape Urbanism Reader.

Cullen, G. (1961). “Introduction to the Concise Townscape.” . In Larice, M. and Macdonald, E. (2013). The Urban Design Reader. Routledge. pp. 118-124.

Dawid, I. (2012). The Downside of the High Line. Planetizen. Retrieved from http://www.planetizen.com/node/58191 Designing the High Line: Gansevoort Street to 30th Street. Ed. Friends of the High Line, Finley Printing: New York, 2008.

Goodsell, A.V. (2012). Civilizing the Neighborhood: The High Line Park Creates Economic, Social, and Environmental Value. CATALYST Review: Leading Creative economies. Retrieved from http://catalystreview.net/2012/05/civilizing-the-neighborhood-the-highline-park-createseconomic-social-and-environmental-value/ Gordon, M. (2011). Champion of Cities; With New York’s High Line park expansion, Amanda Burden’s urban revitalization efforts set a model for the world. WSJ: The Magazine from the Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/873460974?accountid=14512 Grant, S. W. (2013). Gardens Are a Physical Manifestation of Culture: Postmodern Public Parks of the Twenty-First Century Will Be Built on the Infrastructure of the Industrial Age. Hardy, H. (2005). The Romance of Abandonment: Industrial Parks [Awards Jury Commentaries]. Places, 17(3).

21

Jacobs, K. (2009). Beyond the Hype. Metropolis Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.thehighline.org/press/articles/061709_metropolis/ Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Random House LLC. Kamvasinou, K. (2006). Vagueparks: the politics of late twentieth-century urban landscapes. arq, 10(3/4).

Karmin, C. (2011). The property report: New York development is drawing luxury digs --builders aim to capitalize on next section of 'high line' project. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/867307833?accountid=14512 Meinharter, E (2012) (re)designing nature – Current Concepts for Shaping Nature in Art and Landscape Architecture and On The Water/Palisade Bay. Journal of Landscape Architecture, 7:1, 88-90 Mills, N. (2009). The High Line. Dissent, 56(4), 132-132.

Moss, J. (2012). Disney World on the Hudson: In the Shadows of the Hudson. New York Times.

Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/opinion/in-the-shadows-of-the-highline.html?_r=1& Ouroussoff, N. (2009). On High, a Fresh Outlook. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/arts/design/10high.html?pagewanted=all Richard, J. (2011). Linear Landscapes.

Scheer, B. (2011). Metropolitan form and landscape urbanism. Companion to Urban Design, 611618.

Steiner, F. (2011). Landscape ecological urbanism: origins and trajectories. Landscape and urban planning, 100(4), 333-337.

Sternbergh, A. (2007). The High Line: It Brings Good Things to Life. New York Magazine.

Retrieved from http://nymag.com/news/features/31273/ Washburn, A. (2013). The Process and Products of the High Line. The Nature of Urban Design. New York: Island Press/Center for Resource Economics. 137-160.

Wilson, M. (2011). The Park is Elevated. Its Crime Rate is Anything But. New York Times.

Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/11/nyregion/the-high-line-park-is-elevatedits-crime-rate-is-not.html?_r=0

22