Today Central Park can be recognized as being the “park for the people,” but this was not always the case. Although the park now welcomes people from all walks of life from places all over the world, the park was once a place for only the wealthy and elite residents of New York City. All residents of the city were in great need of a public space for leisure time activities, but as Central Park was being constructed and developed, it was becoming clear as to whom the park was really intended; the wealthier classes.
In the nineteenth century, “the leading landscape architects and park advocates believed that parks were important instruments of enlightenment and social control” (Taylor). Landscape architects promoted public parks for their beneficiary characteristics and for their personality building capabilities. Keeping these ideas in mind, landscape architects tried to use these two arguments to help persuade government officials to invest in and promote the creation of city parks. As more city parks and public spaces were being built, the parks started to become spaces of political and social debate. Central Park was intended to be a space for city dwellers to escape the chaotic city life, but instead, the discontent between the social classes grew.
“In the first decade of the park’s completion, it became clear for whom it was built. Located too far uptown to be considered within walking distance for the city’s working class population, the park was a distant oasis to them” (NY.com). Traveling to the park was of greater expense than the majority of the working class citizens could afford, and therefore in the late 1800’s the park continued to be a space for the wealthy. The park’s paths were lined with lavish carriages, symbolizing one’s status and economic class. On the weekends and afternoons, women crowded the park with their spouses for concerts and carriage rides, while Saturday afternoon concerts drew more middle class audiences. Sundays in the park welcomed the working class population and as it was the day that they did not have to work, they could therefore use the time to spend in the park, that’s if they had the means to travel to the site. By the late nineteenth century, the working class comprised all but a fraction of Central Park’s population, and they fought to convince the city department to hold concerts on Sundays as well for them to enjoy.
Central Park was becoming a space that was primarily used by the upper and middle classes, but as the working class gained more access to amenities in the park such as concerts on Sundays, a clash between the classes began to emerge, and conflict over what is considered to be appropriate park behavior and use became an area of conflict. Olmstead and Vaux hoped that through creating a park, they would be able to provide city dwellers with access to a world of extraordinary culture, and it would help instruct the large population of urban and working class people about the conventional American life values and way of life. “A place for the poor to breathe the pure air and for the affluent to enjoy riding and driving—such was the primitive notion of the originator of the plan for Central Park” (NewYorkTimes) Tension between classes gave rise to working class activism to achieve more access to park space, and for greater freedom in defining workingclass leisure time activities and behavior. These tensions and struggles gave way to the foundation for a recreation movement, and they were critical in the rise of urban, and multipurpose parks that were designed for passive and active recreational use. The change in demographics from being a park for primarily middle and upper class individuals to a space that was more welcoming of working class citizens paved the way to new methods of thinking about and using the park as a public space for recreational and leisure activities.
Although Central Park first appeared to be a park intended for the wealthier classes, Olmstead, and the city’s government officials “uhoped that social ills would be swept away, as the beauty of the city would inspire civil loyalty and moral rectitude in the impoverished” (Rose).