I’m talking about a massive park in the absolute heart of the city. Located such that is naturally surrounded by city high rises. *People are giving examples of parks that are way off in the boonies. I’m trying to say located centrally, heart of the city, you know where the high rises are. Yes I understand nyc has more, the point is centrally located.
Copied by younger cities in North Americ. You know, the cities younger than NYC that could have seen the value of setting aside a large area for parkland before it was developed.
Something seems odd with the idea that high rises were ‘natural’ :-)
For me, the “concept” is terribly wrong.
A park itself is fine, but you can’t use one park as an excuse for not having other parks, green areas etc. anymore in a big city.
New York has 5 times more people than Munich. But Munich’s biggest park is about the same size as New York’s Central Park (a little bigger even). And if you count all the green areas, parks etc. in Munich together, they are 6 times larger (counting only the ones that are publicly accessible and listed in wikipedia) than that Central Park.
So, give your New Yorker’s 30 central parks and lots of other green spots, and you got a concept.
They are better than spreading single family homes and ground floor commercial spaces over a huge swath of land that would inevitable need clearcutting and plowing under to be suitable for development.
Central Park is not New York’s largest park. It’s the 5th.
Located such that.
Who said I want to use it an excuse for no other parks?
What’s with all the bad faith discussion.
Nobody said you wanted to use it that way. OP’s probably referring to the lack of parks in Manhattan.
Good question. Do you need a mirror to figure it out?