by John Merivale
The creation of useful landscapes within the town for public enjoyment began, not surprisingly, in England, as a response to industrial growth and as an expression of reforming zeal. It was England, too, that provided the vocabulary for their design: the tradition of the 18th-century romantic landscapes was flexible enough in its informality to be fitted economically to any site and to accommodate new uses. Open pastures could be reinterpreted as sportsfields, rivers and lakes became bathing and boating pools, the garden temple gave way to the bandstand.
Despite the design leadership in this tradition however, Britain has failed at a national level to take a lead in the public park movement. During the 19th century, government took the view that such non-profitable ventures were the business of philanthropists. Disraeli, for example, was firmly opposed to the Battersea Park project when it was formulated in 1844. So when parks appeared it was either through public subscription, through the determination of those local authorities that dared to add to their rate burden or through the gift of wealthy industrialists.
One method of easing the financial problem was to exploit the added value which the amenity would bring. Regent’s Park — initially a private development — was funded in this way, and the method became increasingly popular for both private and public parks. Birkenhead Park must be the first great public example: begun in 1844 to the design of Joseph Paxton, the land acquired covered 226 acres, 125 of which were dedicated to public use, while the remaining area was disposed of as housing plots.
Ten years later, the concept of betterment value became fundamental to the rebuilding of Paris. Georges Haussmann, a Prefect of Napoleon III, was brought in by the Emperor to replace a previous administrator who had dared only to fund new projects out of revenue. Haussmann’s plan for Paris is well known; it included new parks, squares and tree-lined boulevards which together made up a complete park system. Napoleon himself made the first move with the conversion of the Bois de Boulogne, on the western edge of Paris. He transferred ownership from the state to the city, on the condition that they spent Fr2m on transforming it from hunting forest to public amenity. Under Haussmann, both the area and the scope of work were enlarged and a total of Fr14m was spent in forming lakes, streams and drives. However, more than Fr8m were recovered from the sale of building plots on the perimeter.
This same recipe of improvements was then applied to the Bois de Vincennes on the eastern edge of Paris. The east end, however, was unattractive to the wealthier classes and the building plots were hardly taken up. Nevertheless, the parks were seen as an essential antidote to rising social unrest and the full programme was followed through ruthlessly to completion, at direct cost to the city.
London, meanwhile, suffered the same imbalance between west end and east end. The west was already well endowed with the royal parks, while the east suffered appalling disease and lack of amenity. Victoria Park in Tower Hamlets, begun in 1840, was the result of a public petition to the Crown which forced central government into action. The design was led by Sir James Pennethorne, as architect to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. Again, the plans show an arrangement of perimeter villas and terraces. Pennethorne intended the lease of these plots to be a major contribution to the costs of layout and maintenance; but there was still space for development in London’s more salubrious areas and not one plot was taken. Eventually, an act was passed securing the whole of the park for public use.
Victoria Park, after years of neglect, is now host to the familiar inner-city problems of vandalism and crime, but remains the treasured home for a variety of recreational pursuits. In January 1989, Bow Neighbourhood — a division of the Borough of Tower Hamlets — took the imaginative step of commissioning a restoration, development and management plan. RMJM Landscape Architects undertook this study. Historical research revealed a heart-deadening story of fine intentions constantly thwarted by Government commissioners who apparently begrudged the investment.
Proposals for Victoria Park now include:
(a) Completion of what Pennethorne intended — notably improvements to the ground shaping and the introduction of a viaduct to link the east and west sectors of the park which are divided by a main road.
(b) Restoration of what has been lost — many fine buildings have decayed and parts of the lakes have been filled.
(c) New recreational features to increase the use and popularity of the park for the next century.
Consequently, a programme of improvements was prepared, requiring at least £1m capital expenditure annually for 10 years, over and above the normal maintenance costs of £1.25m.
The problems of Victoria Park are not unique. Birkenhead Park and doubtless many lesser places face similar difficulties: How can a rate-capped local authority, its spending power seriously curtailed by government legislation, find adequate funds for the obvious needs of these parks? Some avenues are being explored:
(1) Planning gain. Within reason, a planning authority can require a contribution to a local amenity. For such a demand to hold good, there must be some relationship between the subject of the application and the gain — for example, where the development incurs a loss of amenity which must be replaced. In some states of America, however, there is a mandatory percentage levy on all new developments, which the planning authority can spend on environmental improvements as it thinks fit.
(2) Marketing the park as a venue. Circuses, sporting events and concerts can all contribute to running costs. Battersea Park derives a substantial proportion of its income from such events.
(3) Sponsorship. Businesses and developers stand to gain many indirect benefits from improvements to their area. The potential for attracting sponsors may be limited to the locality, but a park of any size, special character or historical significance, has the ability to broaden its own catchment. Mobil Oil, for example, are now funding the restoration of the boathouse and an educational package for Birkenhead Park.
(4) Development. Many parks are short of facilities, such as restaurants, swimming pools or riding stables, and concessions for these can generate income. Control is needed, to maintain the passive character of some areas.
It may be that local authorities are no longer the most appropriate guardians for our large parks. An alternative would be to set up trusts to which the local authorities could contribute. Such a trust could be quasi-autonomous with powers to promote the park, stage events, attract sponsorship, let maintenance contracts, and involve the users in restoration and planting. A trust could also have the tax benefits of charitable status.
What is missing from the equation is the conviction at a cultural level — and therefore at political level too — that public parks matter. The UK lags far behind Europe and America in the care for its heritage of public parks, let alone the promotion of new ones. In the US the public park movement was led by the pioneering landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted, who in turn, was deeply influenced by Paxton. Olmsted’s work was so prolific, his vision so far-reaching, that he is revered as a national hero. There exists a National Association for Olmsted Parks, to which local societies, such as the Friends of Prospect Park or Boston’s Franklin Park Coalition, are affiliated. Restoration works attract federal as well as state capital.
Holland, Germany and Scandinavia put us to shame, and in Paris, not only are the 19th-century parks well managed and subjected to serious rehabilitation studies but the past decade has also seen three major new park projects — each of them launched through an international design competition.
In this country, central government’s lack of interest and the pressure on local authorities to reduce maintenance costs, are stifling initiative — and, incidentally, eroding a valuable horticultural tradition. The costs and benefits of parks need to be analysed more rigorously and on a wider basis. If the real cost of a reduced workforce includes loss of job satisfaction, a higher rate of vandalism and mugging, bleak gangmown plains of muddy green, patrol by contract security firms and a demoralised community, what are the real benefits? We are left with a very weak conception of what a public park can be.
Planning targets which assess open space only in terms of m2 per 1,000 population are not enough. Design and quality are more important. Ironically, it may be the very strength of the English idealised landscape movement that now blinkers us to the real needs of our public spaces. We are limited by the 18th-century image of what a designed landscape is, and by the romantic notion that parks are an escape from the city. Wide grassy spaces are only one of 100 features that a park can supply. We also need enclosure, privacy, variety, water and dense vegetation. The Paris parks traditionally housed cafes, bars, theatres, fish farms; and the new Parc de la Villette comprises a grid of follies with varied functions, hard surfaces and avenues.
The public sector has not met the challenge. The private sector will not take the risk without encouragement or incentive. We need a new partnership of public policy and private venture to promote new design, and to save even those parks that we have from simply draining our spirits and resources.
References
The Park and the Town, George Chadwick, Architectural Press 1966.
Birkenhead Park, Penny Beckett and Paul Dempster, Landscape Design Nov 89.
Information on American parks provided by Nigel Buchan, landscape architect, RMJM.
