The miasma/lungs theory that was used to justify the Olmsted parks movement was discredited even before most of them were built.
What’s the best second line of defense justifying *keeping* the parks now that they’re built?
Why *shouldn’t* they be razed in favor of housing etc?
Conversation
Show replies
Replying to
They add amenity value to the adjacent housing stock and, perhaps, the city more widely? Its hard to imagine NYC without Central Park (e.g.).
Those amenity values also have powerful backers (the Central Park Conservancy is well-endowed for a reason...)
1
2
Replying to
Parks don't age like architecture.
They are evergreen in people's imaginations and represent a sort of social fabric embroidery.
Impossible to repeal and replace earth care with roof care.
I'd rather have NYC build subterranean housing than raze a park.
You’re unable to view this Tweet because this account owner limits who can view their Tweets. Learn more
Replying to
Increasing housing supply could lead to a drop in rents for existing properties. In many localities this concern can induce the use of politics (lobbying) against further development, with excellent reasons presented.







