Just as encouraging and instructive is the way New York has come up with the necessary money for new and existing parks. The High Line, built mostly with public funds, is maintained primarily with private ones. The plan for Brooklyn Bridge Park is for its operation and upkeep to be paid for by assessments on the real estate developed around it.
In Urban Parks, Our Newly Lush Life - NYTimes.com
I have to admit to some territoriality when critics and columnists from other realms suddenly discover architecture and urbanism. Nothing Frank Bruni says in this piece counts as news, and he gives it little spin. But that’s the thing about the New York Times, and especially the Sunday paper: now the indeed amazing new parks and green spaces of New York become general knowledge, and we who already knew this should be grateful.
What we shouldn’t be grateful for is this paragraph. Instructive, yes, but encouraging? It is an ongoing political and social problem (Bruni’s area of expertise) that only through private funding can new parks be maintained. What does that mean about where parks can be built? Exploring that topic would make a column that was news.
-
mydadsname reblogged this from abitlate
-
unsubstantialtrade likes this
-
unavidamoderna likes this
-
anechoicchamber reblogged this from abitlate
-
abitlate posted this
