By Alison Cullen

Life in New York City in the early to mid nineteenth century was rapidly changing. As the city itself expanded and developed, the society within it was changing as well. African-American slaves had been emancipated in 1827, adding to the increasingly diverse population of the city. By 1850, nearly half of New York Cityâs residents were foreign-born, mostly from Ireland and Germany. The physical characteristics of the city were also changing. The majority of New Yorkers lived downtown, but as the population multiplied, it became clear that the largely unsettled and uncultivated farmlands farther uptown would soon be explored.

New York City, while it seemed to be on the rise, was not without problems. For example, New York City had the nationâs highest rate of mortality, caused by the unclean streets and crowded housing, among other things. The city was also plagued by problems such as inefficient transportation, political corruption, and an ineffective police force. Specifically, the less affluent citizens were troubled by unsteady employment, unaffordable and unsanitary housing, racism and nativism, low wages and long hours. The gap between the rich and the poor was widening, in political and religious affairs as well as economic. Around the middle of the century, 4% of the cityâs residents owned over 80% of the entire cityâs wealth. Yet in the midst of all of these problems, why did New Yorkers decide to build a public park? In addition, what exactly were the motives of those who brought about its construction? Firstly, all New Yorkers did not suddenly ban together and decide to spend millions of dollars in constructing a public park. The idea for such a venture undoubtedly began in a social circle of elite citizens. In the early nineteenth century, although politics was open to a relatively large range of (male) citizens, the park was an endeavor of a small group of gentlemen who envisioned themselves as acting for the entire population. These wealthy New Yorkers began to justify the construction of the park on a variety of utilitarian, moral, social, and cultural grounds. These included the promotion of the cityâs economic and physical health, the construction of a place to display the culture and cultivation of the upper class citizens, and a means to uplift the poorer citizens.

New York as a commercial city had begun to approach in importance the European centers of trade, and its wealthy citizens hoped to prove themselves equal to the Europeans in cultural sophistication as well. Cities like London and Paris were full of grand public spaces for the wealthy to enjoy, and the smaller parks and public squares around New York City were thought of as inferior and insufficient; the New York Times even found the contrast " Îmortifying.â"

Aside from cultural sophistication, parks were also a place to display wealth. The old promenades, like Broadway, Fifth Avenue, and Battery Park had become disreputable to the more genteel citizens as the working class immigrants began to take advantage of them as well. The upper class needed a new place to see and be seen, and a large park was ideal. In the mid nineteenth century, the ownership of a carriage had become a status symbol for the upper class, most likely also because of European influence. The short-lived economic boom of the time provided more citizens with the ability to purchase carriages. Another envisioned advantage to a park was fostered by a new appreciation for nature. This was most likely caused by a desire of wealthy New Yorkers to dislodge stereotypes of American culture as vulgar and decadent. Poets like William Cullen Bryant also helped to cultivate romanticized notions about the great outdoors, appreciation of which was thought to imply cultural refinement and sophistication. He said in 1845: " ÎIt is a cause of regret that the laying out of New York, no preparation was made, while it was yet practicable, for a range of parks and public gardens along the central part of the island or elsewhere to remain perpetually for the refreshment and recreation of the citizens during the torrid parts of the warm seasons.â" Needless to say, Bryant was an active advocate for the park.

The most intriguing justification for the park, however, is that of uplifting the poor. The economic, social, and political conditions of the mid nineteenth century caused upper class citizens to fear social disorder and unrest from the lower classes. The poorer groups seemed to be gaining in power as their numbers increased. In addition, the various ethnic groups such as Irish and German had begun to set up their own cultural and social institutions, like beer gardens and saloons. Relations between upper and lower classes were strained, and many of the more affluent felt that a park would be a less imposing way to give charity. The rich citizens also seemed to think that their own influence would improve and refine the less fortunate. If a public park was opened, William Cullen Bryant conjectured: " Îthere will be fewer inducements to open drinking houses. Give the people the means of innocent and cheap pleasures and they will be less likely to seek for means of more expensive and vicious ones.â" The pleasures that the people were accused of enjoying included activities such as gambling, drinking, boxing, and cockfighting.

Not all New Yorkers were eye to eye on these points. Many accused the wealthy of being completely self-interested. This concern was not without support, either. Senator James Beekman said on the subject: "The park will benefit all classes ö the holders of large estates, the bankers and lawyers who concentrate in a small sphere like a bee-hive, their work of accumulation." Obviously, Beekman came from a class all his own. Many members of the middle class also opposed the proposed park because many park-advocates owned land in its vicinity and would obviously benefit from the resulting increased property value. In addition, the park would conflict with the interest of uptown residents, because rents would increase. In a letter to the Tribune, a land reformer bluntly expresses these concerns:

Another debate, as shown in this quote, revolved around the question of the funding of this large venture. Usually, when the state had chosen to construct a public space in the city, the adjacent proprietors were charged with appraisals. This was a different situation, however, because of the size and cost of the project. Nonetheless, many groups, mostly from the lower classes, did not want to pay for it. Specifically, the residents of the poorer downtown neighborhoods protested the finance plan, as a park uptown would be useless to them: " ÎThe real workingmen of the City,â who would disproportionately bear the tax burden·Îwould be the least benefited by a large park, because of its remoteness from them and their lack of leisure time.â" Instead, many wondered why the city and its citizens did not put their money to better uses, which could more directly heal many of the cityâs problems. For example, the same amount of money could be used to construct cheap housing in unpopulated areas of the city. Moreover, smaller public parks all over the city could benefit many areas and provide all of the advantages of a park to more people. The idea of a large park, however, had caught steam, and planners began to consider various sites for the future park.

Dozens of plans and ideas for the park were considered before a decision was made. The first proposed site, Jonesâs Wood, ranged from 66th to 75th streets from Third Avenue to the East River. Jonesâs Wood, however, was private property, and when the state attempted to seize it under the guise of eminent domain, the Jones family brought the matter to court. In 1851, a district supreme court judge declared the Jones Wood law unconstitutional. The next site proposed was from 59th to 106th street from Fifth to Eighth Avenue. In 1853, a bill was passed that gave the state the right to seize the land for the purposes of building the park. The landowners would be compensated after the value of the land was assessed, and landowners in adjacent areas would be taxed to help finance the project.

There was only one problem: the site that was intended for Central Park was somewhat heavily populated. The rural districts above 40th Street, considered "uptown," consisted of a bunch of settlements such as Harlem, Manhattanville, and Yorkville. Many have argued that the pre-park territory was only sparsely inhabited, but if one were to have considered those groups of villages a city, it would have been the eighth largest city in the nation. The people that lived in these areas were as diverse as the rest of the city. Approximately 54% were foreign-born immigrants, and only 2% were African Americans. These residents, however, were slightly less affluent, although it is incorrect to assume that they were all starving "squatters," people who occupied property without a right or title to it. The majority of these settlers were of the working class; they worked in the carriage and coach-making industries, and other industries as well. These industries, such as soap, wax, paint, chemical, and bone-boiling plants, were called "nuisance industries" because the wealthy thought these types of factories were unpleasant to live nearby. Therefore, all of these factories and plants had been built uptown, where only the less prosperous citizens would have to deal with them. Uptown was a place for the city planners to dump other unpleasant establishments, such as orphanages, insane asylums, and old age homes. In fact, around 1850, about 15% of the population of this area lived in such institutions. Now it seemed that the wealthy New Yorkers intended to take back uptown. Throughout this period, a few of the affluent citizens had kept country estates uptown, but with the improving transportation systems and the clustering of immigrants around these country estates, it seemed that uptown was in need of a renovation. Many feared that the ever-increasing number of immigrants would drive the rich farther and farther away from the city, and that a central park would help to keep them interested.

One important uptown settlement was called Seneca Village. This particular area is important because its characteristics challenge public assumptions about the pre-park uptown community as a whole. Seneca Village ranged from 82nd to 88th Streets, between 7th and 8th Avenues. It was the most densely populated area of the pre-park territory. The two groups most largely represented in the village were African-Americans and Irish immigrants. In fact, the first settler there is said by some to have been an African-American. In 1819, Bill Dove, a runaway slave, hid out with black families around the area. In 1825, John and Elizabeth Whitehead, who owned a fair amount of the land there, began to parcel out their farmland to African-Americans. By 1832, at least 24 out of the 50 land parcels sold were sold to African-Americans. The other ethnic community there, Irish immigrants (and some Germans) began to settle there after 1850. In 1855, about 30% of the community was Irish. This diverse community seemed to mingle in a way unlike the rest of the city, and many citizens engaged in intermarriage.

Another stereotype of these villages was that there was a great deal of residential instability, and that the settlers were a wandering population. In fact, there was more residential stability there than in any other area, as a result of the intermarriages and deep roots that many families established there. More than half of the African-American families in Seneca Village owned their land, a rate higher than any other area in the city. This unusual stability had enabled the community to develop independent institutions. For example, many churches were established, such as the American Methodist Episcopal Zion Church (A.M.E. Zion) and the African Union church. These churches had many members in the Seneca Village community. Another important institution was developed by the African Union. The Colored School No. 3 was one of only a few black schools in New York City.

The members of this community were, needless to say, opposed to building a park. Although the landowners would be compensated, these compensations did not take into account any of the home improvements and work that people had done on their homes. Aside from this, there were other things to be lost with the destruction of the Seneca Village and other surrounding communities. These settlers had set up a way of life different from any other area in the city. Whites, blacks, and immigrants intermingled with each other. The community had set up churches and schools with barely any money for public institutions. These people lived in less wasteful way, and were self-sufficient. Many community members pleaded their case to the politicians, but the residents of the pre-park land are barely even mentioned in legal documents.

When Central Park as we now know it was being planned, the opinions of a few were strongly emphasized, while the feelings of many were ignored. The residents of New York City should have joined together in a type of town meeting, in order to allow each group to be represented. Such a meeting would have given each of the following viewpoints a voice·

Andrew Williams, an African-American bootblack, and one of the first landowners in Seneca Village (bought his lot in 1825)

I have lived on this land here for over twenty years with my family. I live with my wife, four kids, and one boarder in a room that is nine by eleven feet. That might not seem like much to you, but not everyone (and certainly not most people uptown) have land to call their own. I have worked hard for all that I have, and I am not ready to give it up. I have a good job here, and I am proud of our community. My wife and I often go to the AME Zion Church, and my kids attend the Colored School No. 3. If we lived somewhere else, they would not be able to go to school. Our community is very stable, and most of us African-Americans fare better here than anywhere else. We have all worked very hard to set up our institutions, and what right does anyone have to destroy them? I hear that the rich folks say that making a park here would uplift us and make all of our lives better. Well, I can say for myself that I do not need any uplifting, and watching some old rich people be drawn around in their fancy carriages on top of what used to be my home would do me more bad than good. They also say that the park would help everyone to get back in touch with nature, but I never left it. I have everything I want right here. Putting a park here would only be bad news. It would drive up the costs of all the houses here, and my family and I would have to move farther up the island. What would I want with a park anyway? I donât have the time to lounge around, looking up at the trees. I have to work all of the time, and my wife and children work too just so we can live here. And those rich folks expect us to pay for this park? If they want it, they should at least pay for it. But what makes me the angriest is that I am an American citizen. I ainât no slave anymore. Who says that they can just take over our homes, our churches, and our schools, so that the rich can have a place to picnic? They call us citizens, but we ainât got no rights.

William Cullen Bryant, American poet and journalist and strong advocate of Central Park

A park would benefit all levels of our society. Our fair city has become congested with thousands upon thousands of people, buildings, streets, omnibuses and carriages. For the health of our city, we must give it room to breathe. New Yorkâs citizens deserve a place for recreation, a place to free themselves from the stifling atmosphere of downtown. Neighborhoods like the Five Points are threatening to take over, especially uptown, and we must salvage this prime real estate with its beautiful rolling hills before it is too late. Not to mention the people of Five Points and other similar areas, who frequently engage in unhealthy forms of recreation such as drinking, boxing, and gambling. A park would encourage family outings and expel such barbaric forms of play; it would uplift the poorer citizens of our society and encourage "good morals and good order."

Frederick Law Olmsted, an American landscape architect and planner of Central Park

As I have pointed out in my work, "Civilization," I believe that there are two opposing states of existence here in America. The first, frontierism, expels a doctrine of self-reliance to the point of selfish individualism. Civilization, on the other hand, results in an organized and cohesive society. The key element of civilization is the spirit of people that asks "What can we do to help each other?" My Central Park means to appeal to this spirit by providing a place where all of New York Cityâs residents can mingle without the pressures of the competitive, capitalist world in which we live. This park will strengthen the feelings of community, which are necessary for a successful and orderly society.

George W. Curtis, a wealthy New Yorker

It is high time that New York City has a new public park. I was in Europe recently, and I visited the parks in England and France, among other places. When I returned home, I could not help but to feel ashamed of the state of our city. If a tourist were to visit me from Paris, where would I bring him? The Battery, or Broadway, now covered with "troupes of whiskered and mustachioed chatterers?" And I suspect none will argue with me that we desperately need a clean and respectable place to drive our carriages, without the danger of encountering local boors. We need a refined leisure space, and as for the poor, they will undoubtedly appreciate and be improved by our splendid public displays.

Jupiter Zeuss Hesser, a music-teacher-turned-gardener, lived on the Central Park site

"Hesser professed his deep reluctance to Îgive up that place as my finished homestead,â of which he was only now finally Îenjoying the pleasures.â While he acknowledged the overriding public benefit of a park for the Îenjoyment for poor and rich, young and old, great and small and all kinds of religious and political believers in one union of happiness in the true [love] of natureâ·[He pleaded] on behalf of less articulate park dwellers. ÎA very great number of poor families·who worked a number of years on these [lots], squatters and leaseground, will be entirely ruined when they must give up their cultivated land and move away without compensation. Please to have mercy on the Poor, then the Lord will have mercy with you.â" - quoted from The Park and the People, p. 83-4

* * *

Central Park was built for a number of reasons. These included the actions of the self-interested wealthy classes, an appreciation for nature and a wish to return to it as opposed to the increasingly industrial city, and a feeling of social responsibility. The builders of the park ignored many of the opinions of New Yorkâs less affluent citizens. Specifically, the residents of many pre-park settlements, such as Seneca Village were forced to leave their homes and communities. The park, at that time, was an institution that would benefit only those who had the extra money and leisure time to enjoy it, mainly the privileged few. The construction of the park, however, provided hundreds with new jobs, as there was millions of dollars of work to be done. The Central Park of today has changed a great deal. The park is a home to many different kinds of activities, as well as many different kinds of people. While in some ways it is still elitist, such as the expensive cafes and boat rides, the park of today seems much more public than when it was first built. Free activities, like an Easter egg hunt for kids and Shakespeare in the Park, make it much more accessible.

The park was built for some good reasons and some bad reasons. One cannot excuse the expulsion of hundreds of people from their homes and the destruction of their culture, which we have little to no evidence of today. However, one cannot help but understand the desire for such a park in the grim, industrialized period of the mid to late nineteenth century. Overall, sacrifices were made, but today, Central Park is enjoyed by everyone, and it was indeed worth it.

Bibliography

1.) The Park and the People: A History of Central Park By Roy Rosenzweig and Elizabeth Blackmar 2.) A Clearing in the Distance: Frederick Law Olmsted and America in the Nineteenth Century By Witold Rybczynski 3.) The Encyclopedia of New York City Edited by Kenneth T. Jackson 4.) New York: An Illustrated History By Ric Burns and James Sanders with Lisa Ades 5.) www.auburn.edu/nroakri/principles.html 6.) http://projects.ilt.colombia.edu/seneca/Student/Source/newspaper.html