A History of New York City Open Spaces by Liz Christy

Liz Christy was an artist, painting in oil on canvas, who lived in the Lower East side in the 1960's and early 1970's. She used her sense of color and composition, botany and urban planning to design community gardens throughout New York City. She founded the Green Guerillas and was the first winner of the American Forestry Associations “Urban Forestry Award”. She also had a radio program on WBAI called “Grow Your Own” dealing with urban gardening and was the first director of the Open Space Greening Program within the Council on the Environment New York City. Liz Christy died of cancer at the age of 39 in 19__. [Based on an article prepared by Liz Christy, this text was edited by Donald Loggins.]

In Saxon England, people used communally held land for farming, and other essentials such as grazing, fuel   gathering, water, air and exercise. Notable examples include Hempstead Heath, Epping Forest and Wimbleton in what is now called London. In England today over 1.5 million acres of   common land have been set aside for footpaths, byways, common greens, heaths, rights of way lands and allotments.

The early Dutch and English settlers of New Amsterdam here in what was to become New York City set aside a common at   Bowling Green described by Joost Hartger in 1651 as a "place for bowling, the Maypole, a playground for small children   and a parade grounds for soldiers, grazing animals and agricultural fairs."

In the Fall of 1748, Peter Kalm, a Swedish scientist and naturalist visited the City to catalog the great number of species of animals and plants in the New World for his   teacher, Lineaus. Peter Kalm wrote " I found it exceedingly pleasant to walk in the town for it seemed quite like a garden; the trees which are planted for this purpose are    chiefly of two kinds, the Water Beech are the most   numerous...and the Locust...Likewise elms and Limes but they're not so frequent. Tree frogs are so loud it is difficult for a man to make himself heard. Homes are shingled with White Fir Pine.

A second commons eventually became necessary and the present City Hall Park was known as the Plat. Every resident is    reputed to have had their own vegetable and flower garden   as well as a place for domestic animals.

Our gridiron street plan is the legacy of an 1807 commission that included New York's Governor Morris, Dewitt and    Rutherford who after four years of deliberation did not   flinch from their prudent and businesslike duty. "Straight sided houses were the most cheap to live in" and this   economic reasoning was decisive." They went on to state " It may to many be a matter of surprise that so few vacant spaces have been left, and those so small, for the benefit of fresh air and consequent preservation of health." They   further justified this with the explanation that the City was surrounded by the arms of the sea, and from a health or pleasure view, more open spaces were not necessary,    "Besides, considering the uncommonly great price of land, it was along the line of duty to be economical."

Central Park, previously known as Jones Woods and the Sheep Meadow was set-aside as a common grazing area by the State of New York in1851. In 1870 the Department of Public Parks was created to control and   manage all public parks and public places above Canal   Street. An amendment to the city charter in the same year   placed all parks and public grounds south of Canal Street   under the jurisdiction of this new Department which was   also authorized to estimate the cost of improving all the   parks and open spaces including roads and avenues under its control, a total of 1,0007.251 acres in Manhattan alone.    Great care and attention to detail went into the    improvements of this land from 1870 to 1915.

 

Despite the steady rise in population during the later half of the 19th century, little additional open space was set   aside for public use. Social reformers were concerned about New York City's paucity of open spaces for residents; in   1932 only 7.28% of the City was set aside for   recreation. This was less then any of the ten largest cities in the United States at that time.  In addition there was   only one playground for every 14,000 children under 12 in   New York City in 1932.

    

 

Robert Moses created 255 new parks in the 1930's.  Most of   these parks were built in middle and upper class sections   of the City.  Over 200,000 minority youths were left to play amid broken bottles and debris, according to Robert Caro in "The PowerBroker". Robert Moses commanded the acquisition of 60 sites for revitalization, some as small as 100 by 20 feet.  Little money was available for open space development during the depression years so Moses found $338,395 in the unused War Memorial Arch Fund to use for open space   development. These small spaces built by Moses included     playgrounds that were characterized by a sea of asphalt   punctuated by a few shade trees, benches and iron fences.   Maintenance costs were disastrously expensive.

 

The allotment garden movement of the late nineteenth   century was in direct response to the dire needs of the     burgeoning lower class population. Social reformers recalled the traditional common.  Allotments were given to the poor by factories, through schools, orphanages and even found or created in public parks.  Brooklyn Botanic Garden   started its children’s garden in 1908 and today uses many of the same tools purchased over 80 years ago.  There were   several reasons to spur the establishment of these   "community" allotment gardens.  Fresh food, fresh air   exercise and education.  The education including the    benefits of moral and social training that would make more productive use of men, women and children in society.    Children who participated in these gardens were said to be less nervous and excitable.   They were taught that unless    the proper method was followed there would be no successful result. Muscles seldom used were developed.  They became   accustomed to cold fresh air, and were supposed to develop a sense of ownership (through their own allotment plot) and respect for the property of others, a sense of    responsibility and a "reverence and love for Nature, Nature’s Laws and God". Dewitt Clinton Park, Thomas   Jefferson Park, Corlears Hook Park and numerous school   farms found the garden experience a solution for educating, controlling and training youth.  The era of World War I saw the propaganda expanded further.  It became patriotic to grow vegetables, and canning the produce took on new meaning with such slogans as "Can the Kaiser".  Those left on the   home front could do their part with hoes and rows of   vegetables.  Union Square Park changed its demonstration    backyard garden into victory garden allotments. These   liberty gardens were recalled again to meet the need of the poor with relief gardens of the depression and glorified as Victory Gardens with the outbreak of World War II.  However, few of these commons/gardens were permanently set aside.    The Parks Department in 1973 listed only five throughout the boroughs.  Most were unused and unknown even to the Parks   Department, except for those whose usage was designated in the old literature.  The use of what was called "lazy lots” or vacant land for allotment gardens had failed to preserve a space for common use.  Open space development by planners looked to more distant areas for recreation, farther away   from the slums and ghettos. Most of the new parks built in mid century were for the small percentage of the population with the money to purchase an automobile. Jones Beach for   example was designed for the upwardly mobile population that owned a car. Expansive and scenic parkways were planned and designed around this population. And when the city became   unbearable, many of these middle and upper class moved to the suburbs. The development of new small parks dropped considerably after World War II due to the desperate need   for new housing, and new construction for business and industry.                                                       

 

COMMUNITY GARDENS TODAY

 

There are at present over 750 community sponsored open space project sites in New York City.  Some of these are allotments for individual vegetable or flower plots; some are parks involving community participation in maintenance and management; other is multi use, including both passive and active recreation.  Most have the word "community" in    their names, followed by "park",  "garden" or  "farm". Almost every project is different.

                               

                                                           

People have historically joined together to grow plants for survival and pleasure and the term community garden expresses traditional dependency of two life forms, linked   together by basic needs, giving benefit to each   participant. Thus we have the "community" in community gardening and the cultivation of plants by men and women   throughout history.

                                       

                                                          

The transient nature of the current community garden period can be best put in perspective by looking at the seven ages of allotment vegetable gardens here in the United States: The Potato Patches (1894-1917), the School Gardens (1900- 1920), the Garden City Plots (1905-1920), the Liberty   Gardens (1917-1920), the Relief Gardens (1930), the Victory   Gardens of World War II, and the current community   allotment gardens, dating from 1970.

                      

                                                          

What is striking is that vacant or what is called "lazy" or "wastrel" land is not considered permanent, but is    inextricably linked with economic and social health. When   we as a society are hurting, only then do we turn to   community gardening as a panacea.

                          

                                                          

It is my contention that the Mayor presently has under his jurisdiction more acres of open space than any mayor since at least the turn of the century.  These vast and scattered acres of wasted land, "lazy lots", acres of rubble and debris represent a tremendous opportunity to start to plan humane and vital areas for the city and its future    residents.  Long range, practical and creative planning is going to come with money from the public and private   sectors and monitored by public pressure and opinion.   However, keep in mind that public park acreage has   decreased in Manhattan since 1915 while the borough's   population has risen.

                                     

                                                          

As Marty Gallent, the former vice-chairman of the City   Planning Commission said at the first Community Open Space Greening Conference, sponsored by the New York Botanical   Garden and the Green Guerillas) held in the Spring of 1975 in New York City  "there is no constituency for trees, open space, whether parks or vacant lots. Where are the   interested voters at budget and estimate hearings?"

       

                                                           

An increase in the number of advocacy groups for particular parks, street trees, bike lanes and anti-pollution interests has made a small impact on New York City government in the last 5 years. There is a network, with better communication, and the voters in our city are in the   process of becoming a more involved, educated     constituency. The energy and enthusiasm from neighborhood residents for open space development cannot be measured in strictly economic, social, psychological or political terms.

                                                    

                                                          

Secure neighborhoods are beginning to respond to devastated blighted areas with the question "can it happen here?" But there is hope. The urban resident of today has an   opportunity to grow vegetables as our ancestors did only in times of depression, war or other crisis. The imposed   interim nature of most allotment gardens was documented in studies by the Trust for Public Land and various other     Open Space advocacy groups.

                               

                                                          

The wonderful thing about open space projects is that each is unique; each project is tailored to the needs of the     neighborhood, evolving as necessary to meet new needs and   functions. The types of projects are classified as follows:

 

                                                          

                            

                                                          

In the last ten years, participants in community sponsored   open space projects have gained experience, matured, and evolved politically as a necessity. In New York City, the   Play lots program under Mayor Lindsay during the late 1960's demonstrated that play equipment and asphalt could not be   dropped into a neighborhood--as if by helicopter-- and    enjoy more then a temporary heyday with the neighborhood    residents. The absence of block resident input into the     design process, and the omission of active participation of the user population in the actual construction diminished   the benefits of the gift play equipment. This was especially evident when the responsibility for maintaining the site    later fell on community residents, of whom only a small     percentage actually used the developed space. The equipment chosen met the traditional criteria of low maintenance of   the municipal bureaucracy, but the actual job of repair and maintenance fell to unprepared hands. In some cases, residents wondered when the "City" (that amorphous money and maintenance giant) would come back to sweep up the litter and broken glass off the cracked asphalt or replace the   safety rubber matting under the slide.

                    

                                                          

Eventually these play lots --devoid of any living thing--a touch of shade, color or seasonal interest, and with no   neighborhood imprint, disintegrated and fell into the   Seventies' waste pile. Yet there were a few surviving   structures: an indestructible slide, a climbing structure   made by residents of utility wire spools in the shape of a dog. The point to be learned here is that the project was   handed to community leaders with a lordly, "Look what we're giving you--now keep it clean and no more riots." The City in the late Sixties was generous with materials to keep low-income residents content with their own neighborhoods because the conclusions reached in the studies of urban     riots stressed increased facilities for recreation.  But   what was provided was "in perpetuity" equipment, hardware   that is as indestructible as possible, lowering maintenance requirements. The side street and rectilinear play lots   remained locked into the urban grid, with more hard     surfaces such as asphalt, concrete and temperature sensitive metals conductive to hard play, with little to soften the

At about this time, the number of vacant lots in the    City began to increase at a phenomenal rate. The   combination of arson and landlord abandonment led to rows of burnt out, bricked up buildings and ugly, refuse filled   vacant lots.  As the City's financial condition worsened, urban renewal and other building plans were postponed; the bulldozed areas lay empty.

Once land was given grudgingly to community gardens   during the war and depression years.  Now it is estimated   that vacant land in the City may be as much as 15,000 acres. The sight of the vacant lots was an added incentive to the neighborhood groups that spring up over the past 15 years--sometimes acting as the unifying factor and the   focal point of the groups activity, starting as just a neighborhood effort to stop illegal dumping.

The Parks Council, New York City good government watchdog for urban parks and neighborhood improvement, began to investigate the potential of this vacant land. Their publication of May 1969, "A Little About Lots", spawned many do it yourself, intimate neighborhood projects. They also sponsored a Wall Street Flower Show on the   steps of Federal Hall with flowering trees and shrubs, which they gave to community groups who needed plant materials    for projects from 1970 to 1974. If you were really   persistent 20 years ago, you and your neighbors could make  "a something from a nothing", and it was alive--better than the sophisticated, metallic play lots built by the City.      During the same period Molly Parnis, the dress designer, funded the Dress Up Your Neighborhood Contest with cash    prizes going directly to community for their efforts. The   Green Guerillas, an organization of multi-disciplined     professions and experienced volunteers was formed in 1973 to improve the quality and quantity of green open space in the city. Their help to community residents with acquiring    leases, planning and design, construction and organization   further spurred these efforts. Practical technical assistance "on site" was given where it was needed by volunteer Green Guerillas. Now the famous seed grenades of old Christmas tree ornaments or water balloons filled with palletized, time    release fertilizer and wildflower seeds helped sow a grass roots revolution on "acres of opportunity" as they were dubbed by one Green Guerilla member.

The early seventies produced a handful of some really   beautiful community open spaces such as Ruppert Green, the Village Green, and the Asphalt Green which were large, open space projects privately funded with foundation support and professionally designed. The post "flower- power" population was growing up. City residents looked     more realistically upon the growing decay in housing        stock, urban renewal promises, Vietnam, and Watergate, and    the fact that the Parks Department could not take care of our parks; nobody was going to take care of the   neighborhood, the building, the sidewalk, the tree--if you had one--except you!

The Environmental Action Coalition (E.A.C.) and the   Council on the Environment (CENYC), both outgrowths of the first Earth Day in 1970 responded to the environmental      education gap that had previously existed.  E.A.C. dealt    with the Street Tree and waste issues. In 1973 CENYC   produced "New York's City Streets" by Mary Grozier and      Richard Roberts. In 1975 the CENYC Open Space Greening      Program was started by Liz Christy (who also founded the   Green Guerillas). The Open Space Greening Program provided a tool and book lending library, on-site assistance to    groups in all 5 boroughs, the publication of practical, how to information regarding leasing, site evaluation, participatory design principles, composting to help groups   recycle organic wastes for conditioning the alkaline rubble to make a better soil. Exhibits, lectures and eventually a GROW TRUCK were added to provide essential services to needy community projects anxious to transform a vacant lot into a tiny Eden. Through CENYC seedlings were     distributed, when available. Other groups including the      Green Guerillas also distributed free trees, shrubs, and   other plant materials starting in the mid 1970's. In 1978   Liz Christy added a Plant-A-Lot program to the Open Space   Greening Division of CENYC. This new program provided cash for soil, trees, and shrubs for community projects whose    sponsors have demonstrated their diligence and dedication.  Participatory planning, design, and training in the    construction of these new open spaces are exciting and hopeful.

The entire process of designing and developing a site is quite complex.  It involves more than one from column A and two from column B. The question of what is appropriate to the site, the immediate needs of the residents' maintenance and funding for materials and actual construction is overwhelming in interim projects.  In a more long range view however, the tiny oasis's that are created today as interim parks may possibly be the parks of some future urban renewal program.  The parks and recreation areas favored by developers tend to low cost per square foot and low maintenance budget factors.  Is the site worthy of possible permanent designation as recreational space for future residents?  Of course, if you have enough money you can build almost anything anywhere. But in community-sponsored open space projects, the immediate demands are "we want" and "we need." The people who live on the block. in the neighborhood, have the best feelings for and understanding of what can or will work. Often dream and visions are limited to a play area, seating or just a place to hang out. Thinking of the project as a permanent, unvandalizable open space is unrealistic.  Is anything really indestructible? So the first step is to list the needs and wants of the interested project sponsors, taking care not to rely solely on their views, for there are usually others in the same neighborhood that have different ideas and dreams for a utopian open space project.  The second step is to locate and cultivate the opinions, ideas and dreams of those other groups.  Without feeling for the pulse of the neighbor hood, taking all people into consideration, a project is doomed to eventual apathy. The general principle here is to:

1. Define the site --create a transition space with texture color and life to encourage the people entering the site to shift into low gear. I personally find nothing so obnoxious as a cyclone fence. These chain link marvels are not the fences that Robert Frost spoke of when he wrote "Good Fences make good neighbors.'  A fence necessary to fulfill present insurance requirements does not have to be inanimate. It can be a living barrier of shrubs, pleated, sheared, wild and flowering, thorny or entwined.  A fence can be made of wood in pickets; poles, trellises or it can be a combination of the two.  It should be in keeping with the style and scale architecture of the neighborhood's brick arches, wrought iron, stonewalls, granite or slate slabs, etc.  One project in Queens used a wall of 4 to 5 foot weeds as a barrier.

2. Communicate interest and site plans. The sign should tell what is happening, in the language (s) of the residents, explain how others can be involved, state times and places of meetings, telephone numbers of sponsors, fundraising and work projects that need community support.  The permanent sign should provide a map of the site and an evaluation date (annually) for change and adaptation to more appropriate use.

3. In locating usage areas it is most important to count the days and hours that people we are able to use these areas on an annual basis.  How many playgrounds have you seen that kids cannot, use because the site gets no sun, gets no shade, has no benches for mothers, or worse yet the area is inaccessible to a parent with a carriage or stroller? How does the sun strike the site between the hours of 3:00 and 6:00 p.m., after school play hours?  Are the materials chosen for equipment hard, metallic, dangerous, slippery, cold, hot, sharp, rough throughout any season of the year? What are the (winter) capacities for recreation? Is the equipment selected placed in such a way that it can be used e.g. a basketball court during the high usage times - will afternoon players at one end of the court be setting up into the sun? The location of something so simple as a sitting area becomes complex when you consider the safety and comfort and accessibility of the users. Different age and interest groups have at once one thing in common, in today's cities, the need for privacy and visibility.To create this security the cyclone fence screen was born.

4. The you can't get in feeling of security; stifles enjoyment when the realization matures that you can't really get out either.  Benches that are placed so that there is little or no opportunity for privacy from the street, or so that there is no opportunity for conversation.  Noise, pollution fallout, smells of nearby garbage, or industry, exhausts from sighing busses, are all factors that should be considered.  Young people aged 12 to 18 have different needs for personal use and expression. Yet the same need for safety and privacy prevail. Do not opt for a wall so dense that your friend is the first one to be a victim.  Teenagers can often be reached by asking whether they would individually be afraid to visit the site by themselves. Yes, there will probably be a few who would like to build a back room for nefarious activities, but most will opt for a place that can be adapted to the simple need of self expression, communication and gaining confidence, through learning and experience. Noble words but when translated into the thing in vogue dancing, singing, listening to music, talking, necking, it all becomes rather ageless.

5. After locating the optimum usage areas for natural features and protection from urban intrusions and tempered by human needs, there is the importance of creating a path system that will allow for entrance and exit--this means a route which will provide an opportunity for escape and emergency exit.  This system must be defined and again plants seem the most beneficial, providing color, form, bulk, and interest for not just human but birds as well. The landscaping provides winter form and interest for an otherwise depressing, muddy, flat, litter-covered space in Fall, Winter and early Spring.  On the other side of radical planning is the space that has been designed so that people can only look at usage areas, and not participate in the lure of natural attraction, e.g. "Don't walk on the grass - do not..." Benches and activities as well as potential for activities must be planned into the site. This definition by landscaping is not easily accepted because it is contrary to our less work for your society. Convincing sponsors that the benefits long term far outweigh the nurturing, minimal maintenance is not easy either.  What is at issue is creating the potential for future participation without sacrificing the over all appearance of the site.  The responsibility of accepting a site that will need some care, some time, some money, some opportunity for learning and sharing is not transferred without a reinforcement of the principles of the very democracy upon which our nation was founded.  Reduced to a Peanuts cartoon level, it is the opportunity to care. So many people in an urban context are deprived of the opportunity of contributing because they are not needed, somebody else

6. The rest of the design options can be separated into passive and active elements and further reduced to recreation in almost alphabetical order after the five senses needs are satisfied. Noise is screened out by barriers and other more tranquil decibels such as birds chirping, water gurgling, trees rustling, sounds that *preceded the sounds of the city's great mechanized, industrialized roar.