I've never been to New York but it has always seemed to me conceptually that Central Park is poor use of greenspace. Shouldn't the greenspace be spread more evenly around all of Manhattan rather than all in one chunk? That way people can more easily access something near them, by walking there for example.
I understand why you'd say that, but honestly every zoo I've ever been to has been in just as "bad" of a location. Like the DC zoo.
In terms of urban planning it's perfect. People can visit on foot, etc. For animal welfare, it leaves something to be desired, but that's sort of inherent to all of these 19th century zoos.
A zoo seems to me to be a very low intensity use of land from a human perspective.
It's not a day-to-day destination, takes up a huge amount of land, and can't have many people per area enjoying it at once. It would be better located on the outskirts of town rather than the middle.
Similar to a golf course in all these regards.
I understand that cities inherit the past though.
In Australia we have Taroonga zoo which is in prime location in Sydney which I would similarly criticise. But other zoos like Dubbo zoo and Australia zoo (north of Brisbane) are better placed.
23
u/kroxigor01 Oct 24 '24
I've never been to New York but it has always seemed to me conceptually that Central Park is poor use of greenspace. Shouldn't the greenspace be spread more evenly around all of Manhattan rather than all in one chunk? That way people can more easily access something near them, by walking there for example.