During our discussion of the High Line one question remained: what is the point of the High Line? Financially, it made more sense to keep the structure standing than tear it down but what is the High Line’s main function or goal? Designers and friends of the High Line repeat mantras of keeping it “simple, wild and slow” (62) but does the uber constructed atmosphere refute the statement? It appears that the goal of the High Line was to provide New Yorkers with an escape from their bustling lives but in the process, they ended up perpetuating the divide between the privileged and the disadvantaged.
The High Line is a socio political disaster that hides under a guise of being inclusive and natural when in reality, who is invited and who is discouraged from entering is a highly restrictive process. Loughran used the example of people sleeping on the Diller-Von Furstenberg Sundeck to point at the immense amount of privilege that is commonly paraded on the High Line. Anywhere else in New York, someone sleeping on a bench in public viewed as criminal, especially if that person is of color. This perception changes if you are a white person taking a nap at the High Line. You are viewed as partaking in a leisure activity while others are persecuted. Privilege is also shown in the ways nature is depicted on the High Line. It appears to be perfect and effortless when in reality, even the trash is policed and kept out of plain sight.
Another problem with the High Line is the selective community engagement. Visitors are presented with an illusion of choice that lets them shuffle between a couple art vendors and booths selling artisanal ethnic delicacies that were picked out for them in advance. The application process for vendors is long and tedious and most of the time they end up not selling anything because the visitors look at the art but they don’t buy it. The Friends of the High Line won’t allow typical New York street food vendors to sell on the tracks, instead they hire vendors that sell tamarind popsicles and other treats. The street food vendors continue their business on the ground level street near the entrance.
The High Line caters to the middle and upper class, leaving all those who identify out of the two groups in the dust. Though the mission might label itself as inclusive and open, the practices are extremely restrictive and polarizing for most.
As more and more “High Lines” pop up across the United States, my hope is that they are more intentional with their design. advertising and implementation process so that they don’t repeat the mistakes of the High Line. I don’t think that much is being done to change the space; people have accepted it as the way things are but it’s definetaly not they way things have to be. Hopefully, future spaces will find a way to bridge the economic and social divide by encouraging real cultural engagement and exchange and promoting all types of diversity, not just the kinds that would fit in with the image they are trying to construct.
I think that it is always important and interesting to consider who is really served by public spaces like the High Line and other parks. Drawing both from Loughran and our class discussions, I think that it is clear that the High Line is an exclusionary space intended to serve as an amusement for a particular group of elite individuals rather than a true neighborhood asset that builds community and supports widespread wealth accumulation. However, while it’s clear the high line falls short in many important regards, it seems more difficult to identify what features are necessary to make a park/public space truly democratic. What design and programming features are necessary to make a space accessible to everyone? Is it possible to create effective public parks in the neoliberal social and economic context that Loughran and Logan & Molotch describe?
I believe that Yards Park in Washington, DC offers an interesting case study to consider alongside the High Line. Opened in 2010, the park ties into expansive economic development efforts that have changed the nature of the surrounding neighborhood. The park has won many awards and, like the High Line, the park is hyper-designed and certainly intended to be an attractive feature to more affluent people who may be considering moving to the area. However, the park is also quite different than the High Line in many regards. It is open and there are many obvious points of entry and exit, and the space encourages people to pause and linger. The organization that manages the park hosts free public events, such as concerts during the summer that seem to attract diverse users. Other institutions, such as Anacostia Riverkeeper, use the park to engage new citizens in their mission and work. In design style, however, Yards Park seems quite similar to the high line architecturally/aesthetically. Is Yards Park an example of a better public space or similarly problematic?
I found this post and our class discussion about the New York City High Line to be extremely interesting and highly indicative of pressing social and economic polarization in our society today. When I walked through the High Line this past summer, I was not thinking about the sociological implications at first glance. I did not take a moment to realize the type of people who surrounded me on my walk or the types of vendors who were set up across the mile long stretch. After reading more about the functionality and purpose behind this creation I began to realize how divisive the High Line really is and how much it separates socioeconomic classes.
Thinking back on my own experience, I am now able to recognize how exclusionary the path really is. The High Line not only encourages middle and upper class members of society to participate in the experience, but actively discourages the lower class from feeling as though they can also enter into the space. The location of the High Line alone in the West Side of Manhattan is indicative of the kinds of people that the structure is trying to attract. Because of its location, lower class members feel less inclined to enter the space because they would not fit in with the middle and upper class individuals who are comfortable walking the High Line. Relating this to our more recent class discussions about how identity is linked to place, the poorer members of society feel less comfortable entering the High Line because it is built to reflect a culture and economic class that is much different from their own. We have also talked about how litter can be indicative of a lower class space and the High Line is known for its cleanliness and natural amenities. This alone if proof of the type of people the High Line is meant to attract.
This post and discussion made me think about town centers. In my town, where the majority of people identify as white and upper middle class individuals, the town center has recently been renovated to reflect the identity of its town’s inhabitants. There has been a recent push to keep the town center clean and new small business coffee shops have replaced the Dunkin Donuts. I think about how these renovations are great for those who live in my town but are exclusionary to those who do not identify with the upper middle class. Similarly, I think about how towns centers of lower class individuals make me feel less comfortable and welcome because of the structural implications of the design.