Olmsted was pioneer of city parks,
City parks as we know them today began to appear in North America during the mid-1850s. Park historians have identified four phases of park development. Pleasure Ground (1850s to 1900) This type of park is associated with landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted, who designed Montreal’s Mount Royal Park and Central Park in New York City, among many others. These parks were typically located at the edge of the city, and designed to simulate nature or a rural landscape aimed at giving people a respite from city life. Because they were at the edge of the city, they were not particularly accessible to working-class people. Reform Park (1900-1930s) The idea behind these parks was to socially reform cities, which were coping with increased immigration. Parks were seen as places to bring people together to encourage them to speak the same language in order to be able to participate in civic activities, such as voting. While the size varied, most were no larger than four square blocks, and featured playgrounds and field houses — large buildings that could house anything from pools to classrooms used for language lessons. Recreational facility (1930s to 1960s) Park creation expanded into the suburbs and areas without parks. There was an emphasis on recreational activity for all age groups, so facilities beyond playgrounds — such as football fields and swimming pools — began to appear in parks. Open space system (1960s onward) City planners began to see the potential for recreation in other open spaces besides parks, such as downtown plazas. Small parks — known as “vest-pocket parks” — also were built.
Today’s parks The modern city park is a lot like older parks, said Raphaël Fischler, director of McGill University’s School of Urban Planning. There are still playgrounds, and natural spaces, but there is more of a focus on biodiversity and organized activities for citizens in parks.
But they still reflect the vision park pioneer Olmsted had during the 1850s, he said.
“For Olmsted, certainly, the great park was a democratic space, a space that was accessible to everyone of all classes,” Fischler said, adding that he thinks Mount Royal Park is that kind of space. “It is open to everyone, there are no language or other issues, class issues are not present there. You have people from all walks of life who use it.” SOURCES: PROJECT FOR PUBLIC SPACES, THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND, SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING AND URBAN RENEWAL ASSOCIATION