On Friday, February 11, 2005, at 08:44 AM, John Mason wrote:
Hi John, Rich, and anyone else following along.
Mindful of length, I'm trimming, but aimed not to distort. An I'm putting my text all together at bottom. And, subject change, as `going OT' didn't seem to cut it once I'd finished typing.
<SNIP>
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
<SNIP>
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.
<SNIP>
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.
<SNIP>
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?
<SNIP>
Rich Mason
Rich, don't knock tree museums. They can be great; I had the priveldge to grow up walking distance from one. A few kilometres into Canada from the US border and the Pacific there is this fabulous park called Redwood Park. It is on something near a half square mile, and was donated to the city by these 2 half-mad and mostly harmless hermit brothers who lived there in a treehouse they'd built. (Sadly, the city's fear of lawsuit lead to its replacement by a more modern structure.)
The park is largely forested, but not naturally. 70-80 years ago, the brothers obtained seeds and seedlings from all manner of trees from around the world -- it literally is a tree museum, though in a way much more appealing than what Joni Mitchell meant. (The park gets its name from the sequoia it has -- I believe the only ones outside CA, but most certainly the most northernly.)
I was further spoiled -- not too far away is Vancouver's Stanely Park, (I believe) the largest urban park in N. America. It too is largely forested,much of it old-growth. It does (did? -- I've moved some time ago) however have a zoo and aquarium, and is bisected by a major roadway. (Can't win them all.)
Such things require foresight -- for much of N.A. it is too late to provide large or even medium-sized reasonably natural parks. In far too many cities, even the ersatz sort of nature that displeases you cannot really be provided. (Though, much of the explanation of the last has to do with lack of political will.) Here in Montreal where I now live, with the exception of one large and wonderful, albeit thoroughly designed, central park, Parc Mount Royal, there are no greenspaces of any real size certainly none large enough to lose yourself in. There are plenty of nice and small manicured parks, but something is lost with a park where it is impossible to get all cars out of your line of sight. Creating large, natural parks so that everyone had at least one a bike-ride away, while a lovely idea, simply is never going to happen. For those in dense city cores, it generally is the ersatz or nothing. (And too often, nothing wins.)
I think (not to put words in his mouth) that what John meant about the democratic nature he sees in Forest Park is that without such parks, in N.A. as it is now, the experience of large natural or even ersatz natural places is one reserved for those with means (car, time and money) for trips to the country.
I very much doubt it is true, but I have seen it claimed that the New Jersey Parkway (I may not have the name right) was purposely built with low overpasses, etc. to keep the sort of people who would travel with campers out -- the idea being that in a pre $50,000 Winabego time, only the poor would so travel. Now it doesn't have to be true to ring as possibly true -- and it would be the anti-democratic way of managing access to greenry taken to an ugly extreme.
I know that as a carless student, were it not for Parc Mount Royal I'd see no near-natural green for stretches too long to bear. The ability to get to real nature is one that far to many people don't have. I've managed occasionally, but not very often. And there are plenty of people with far fewer means than I. So `go to real nature' is almost necessarily foreclosed to many.
Best,
Brian vdB
