On Friday, February 11, 2005, at 08:44 AM, John Mason wrote:
It's one of those urban parks where they claim it to be "an integrated ecosystem where humans and nature interact."
Yeah, yeah, that's PR, Rich. No basis on which to judge the park itself.
Oh, but it is. PR has much to do with perception--it's a form of propaganda--and my perception of places like Forest Park is much like that of developers naming subdivisions and streets in honor of that which they destroyed in order to build. Forest Park is a misnomer. It should be named People Park. Or Sculpted Park. Or anything but "Forest." Forest Park is a human space which just happens to still have some greenery and open space. And, how many people get to this park without using a motor vehicle? Isn't it just a tree museum ala Joni Mitchell's Big Yellow Taxi?
They took all the trees And put them in a tree museum And they charged the people A dollar and a half just to seem 'em Don't it always seem to go, That you don't know what you’ve got ‘Til it’s gone They paved paradise And put up a parking lot
And then there's the maintenance of these so-called natural spaces which requires the use of weed killers, fertilizers, pollution-spewing lawnmowers, weed whackers and leaf blowers. If they really wanted to do benefit to the planet (and not just recreating humans), they would let the fields lie fallow and the trees to grow as they will--allowing them to return to a truly natural state--and then maintain the structures which have been built for human activity.
un-natural,I see it as one of those places where the landscape is managed to the point where it doesn't really feel natural.... It's one of the totallynatural places we humans are so fond of creating....
Actually, you don't see it. You've never been there. The point of the park is to use it.
The park, of course, is not "natural" and nobody seriously pretends that it is. It is, however, a magnificent public space--a reflection of a democratic vision that we seem to be losing.
People--literally tens of thousands of them in any given year--use it in a stunning variety of ways.
Forest Park is large enough to provide a quiet place to escape the city, if that's what you want to do. It's a terrific place for a family BBQ, which is something very many St. Louis families want do on a summer's afternoon. In winter, there's ice skating. All year long, there's biking and jogging. It contains a fine art museum, one of the country's most notable zoos, and a spectacular outdoor theater. In all seasons, the architecture--building and landscape architecture--is gorgeous.
I understand that it's a place to be used, but I'm one of those people who don't like nature being bastardized for human convenience, and I avoid places such as this. I don't like zoos because they remind me of what humanity has done to destroy countless species and even whole ecosystems. Zoos are a feeble attempt to study and save those species which we haven't managed to decimate as yet.
Please explain what you mean by "a reflection of a democratic vision that we seem to be losing." Doesn't nature have a say, or must everything be managed to suit Man's democratic vision? I think we've lost sight of what it means to be a part of nature, rather than attempting to master it--democratically, or otherwise.
I think it would have been better had the 100 million (yes, 100 MILLION) dollars used to give the park a "face-lift" been spent on planning the growth, functioning and utilization of space in communities being built willy-nilly in the St. Louis area--those that will require people to commute to the great park in the city if they wish to see and use some open space, as well as the planning and utilization of existing urban spaces. Instead of encouraging people to travel to the large city park (in the process spewing pollution, clogging roads and wasting time), they should be thinking of ways to encourage people to stay in their own neighborhoods. For example, wouldn't it be better to tear down the large art museum and build five smaller ones around the city, and then have the exhibits travel from one to the other? Or to have performing artists go to smaller venues around the city, rather than forcing the public to go to one larger location?
To keep this at least remotely on topic, isn't it interesting what can come of viewing and discussing a photograph?
Rich Mason
http://richmason.com
