著：（英）阿蘭·塔特 譯：曹新 校：吳龍峰

導(dǎo)言

我對于城市公園的研究興趣始于我在香港的工作室受委托設(shè)計(jì)沙田城市公園之時。這個公園有10hm2的面積，是河岸的一個中央公園，為75萬人的新城服務(wù)的一塊再生的土地。在那時，20世紀(jì)80年代，我們認(rèn)識到相關(guān)的資料非常之少，于是我發(fā)誓，一旦公園建成，我要寫本關(guān)于城市公園的書。后來直到1998年我在曼尼托巴大學(xué)任教才開始寫這本書。

《偉大的城市公園》一書，是基于西歐和北美一些重要的城市公園案例的研究。第一版出版于2001年，涵蓋了20個公園，此書也出版了中文譯版。第二版出版于2015年，共包含有30個公園，原有的20個加上10個較新的案例，如紐約的高線公園和阿姆斯特丹的文化公園。在兩版中，公園均以尺度排序，而非建設(shè)地點(diǎn)或年代。第一版的一位評論者認(rèn)為這有些隨意，然而，我仍然堅(jiān)持尺度是公園設(shè)計(jì)方法中的決定性要素。

那么“基于案例研究”是什么意思呢？我的意思是，針對同一個問題分析每一個公園，試圖尋找其共有的經(jīng)驗(yàn)，而這些經(jīng)驗(yàn)在別處或許也有參考價值。因此，兩版都對每一個公園進(jìn)行了如下分析：

·歷史，包括為何選定

·選定時期的場地條件

·負(fù)責(zé)設(shè)計(jì)和建設(shè)的主要人物

·公園的規(guī)劃和設(shè)計(jì)

·促進(jìn)公園發(fā)展的個人

·現(xiàn)在負(fù)責(zé)公園管理的機(jī)構(gòu)

·當(dāng)前的資金來源

·當(dāng)前的使用程度—特別是游客數(shù)的記錄

·公園內(nèi)的犯罪率

·公園的計(jì)劃

這篇文章總體遵循上述主題順序展開。

歷史—選定的原因

公園在歐洲最早是為了適應(yīng)公眾需要將皇家獵苑開放作為游憩之用而產(chǎn)生的。倫敦的海德公園據(jù)說是由查理一世（1625—1649年在位）大約于1635年開放的。查理二世大致在1660年整修開放了圣詹姆斯公園。德國慕尼黑的英國園，在1789年從軍事保留區(qū)轉(zhuǎn)換為公共的公園，是由于查爾斯·西奧多王子的指示，可能是受到法國革命的影響。1818年弗里德里希·威爾海姆三世援請彼得·約瑟夫·萊內(nèi)重新設(shè)計(jì)柏林的蒂爾公園以供公眾使用。這些迅速發(fā)展的對公園的需求亦反映在克里斯汀·凱·洛倫茲·赫希菲爾德（1742—1792）的著作里，她在1785年寫道，“公園是為所有社會階層提供游憩的場所，亦是道義的進(jìn)步”[1]。作為對比的一個例子，北京的北海公園在1925年首次對公眾開放。

早期的歐洲公園模式對于美國的公園發(fā)展有著很大的影響。浪漫的家長主義對于公園的選定有著相似的影響。首先在紐約，主要由安德魯·杰克遜·道寧（1815—1852）和伙伴推動，他們特別重視公園帶來的健康利益和“教化影響”，隨后，衍生至遍及全國的發(fā)展中的工業(yè)城市。從弗雷德里克·洛·奧姆斯特德（1822—1903）的宣言到后來，自19世紀(jì)初起，城市公園為民眾帶來健康利益已經(jīng)成為一貫的主題。近來，特別是由于西方社會日益增長的老齡化以及忙碌的人們對于健康設(shè)施的需求，公園作為簡單鍛煉和享受戶外閑適時光的場所，正變得愈加重要。

歐洲和北美在20世紀(jì)初，公園從消極的休閑場所變?yōu)榉e極的游憩場所。公園盛行的實(shí)體形式如漢堡城市公園、塞維利亞的瑪利亞路易莎公園、芝加哥格蘭特公園等，這些公園從如畫的田園模式（由萊內(nèi)在柏林，帕克斯頓在伯肯黑德，道寧、沃克斯、奧姆斯特德在紐約所推動的模式）而演化，采取了明顯的直線幾何形式，顯然配合了功能的目標(biāo)。

20世紀(jì)后期的公園，有些是個人慈善的結(jié)果，如佩利公園，一個位于曼哈頓市中心的經(jīng)典的口袋公園（1967年開放）；有些是在之前的工業(yè)場地上建設(shè)的，如北杜伊斯堡景觀公園（1994年開放），廣東中山造船廠公園（2001年開放）；有些是作為臨近的房地產(chǎn)發(fā)展的催化劑而建設(shè)或重新設(shè)計(jì)的，如巴黎的安德烈-雪鐵龍公園（1992年），貝西公園（1997年），倫敦的伊麗莎白女王奧林匹克公園（2012年夏季奧運(yùn)會的場地）。

1 慕尼黑市中心的英國園南端的草坪。英國園作為德國第一個公共公園于1789年開放（英國園，慕尼黑）Lawns at southern end of Englischergarten with central Munich in background—opened in 1789 as the first public park in Germany (Englischergarten, Munich)

在21世紀(jì)初，被破壞的土地的再利用，如阿姆斯特丹的文化公園，以及工業(yè)廢棄地的再利用，如紐約的高線公園，這兩類逐漸愈加常見。同樣的，有越來越多的機(jī)會去建設(shè)一些實(shí)際上是屋頂花園的公園，如多倫多的約克威爾公園；西雅圖的高速公路公園；布萊恩特公園，其重新鋪設(shè)的草地覆蓋在臨近的紐約公共圖書館的書庫上；芝加哥的格蘭特公園的北端的千禧公園和瑪吉·戴利公園。最近，伯格就反對高速公路在美國穿越城區(qū)的問題發(fā)表了文章[2]（這一問題的討論始自1976年開放的高速公路公園）。許多高速公路如今已經(jīng)建設(shè)了公園和公共空間。

原有的場地條件

配置為城市公園的土地通?！笆切┥虡I(yè)和住宅建筑不想要的用地，對于已建立的城市生活的格局并不是不可或缺的”[3]。這對于紐約中央公園來說確實(shí)如此，它在景觀營造中是個重要的實(shí)踐。同樣地，在歐洲的許多前皇家公園，包括倫敦的圣詹姆斯公園和柏林的蒂爾花園，因排水和/或地質(zhì)條件而阻礙了建設(shè)的開發(fā)。相似地，芝加哥的格蘭特公園是通過傾倒廢料到密歇根湖填湖造地而建設(shè)起來的，尤其是自1871年的芝加哥大火以來。肖蒙山丘公園曾是個石膏采石場、屠馬場和垃圾場。而倫敦?cái)z政公園在“二戰(zhàn)”期間曾堆滿建筑渣土，影響了它的排水系統(tǒng)。

伊麗莎白女王奧林匹克公園的主設(shè)計(jì)師—喬治·哈格里夫斯指出，“這個世紀(jì)的公園……近似于一個工程……位于困境地帶，被廢棄的、污染的、忽視的場地，或兼而有之……地形通常平坦，缺乏任何重要的植被或其他自然特征，卻靠近城市中心”[4]。然而，在我們生活的時代，衰退的遺跡常引人注目，如北杜伊斯堡景觀公園、貝西公園、高線公園等，許多人認(rèn)為其場所的保護(hù)喪失了某些真實(shí)性而令人失望。拿2個中國的例子做對比，一個是廣東11hm2的中山造船廠公園，另一個是上海17hm2的徐家匯公園（2002年開放）。造船廠公園由土人景觀設(shè)計(jì)，其保留和呈現(xiàn)了克利夫蘭的先見使得湖系的岸線大部分得以保護(hù)起來用于公共游憩。

2 在曼哈頓市中心由私人所有、修建和投資的口袋公園里的瀑布、樹木和可移動的座椅（佩利公園，紐約）Waterfall, trees and moveable seats in the privately owned, built and funded pocket park in midtown Manhattan (Paley Park, New York)

3 會議中心和公園跨越美國5號洲際公路（高速公路公園，西雅圖）Convention Center and park spanning US Interstate Highway 5 (Freeway Park, Seattle)

公園建設(shè)的主要人物

《偉大的城市公園》一書提及了大量無私的支持者，從赫希菲爾德到“高線之友”，他們不求回報(bào)地推動了公園的發(fā)展。他們中許多人只是簡單的熱心市民。也有很多重要的政治人物做出了主要的貢獻(xiàn)。首先比如巴黎，拿破侖三世以及他麾下連續(xù)的塞納省長喬治-歐仁·奧斯曼建設(shè)了整個公園和公共空間系統(tǒng)。隨后，到20世紀(jì)末，政治對手密特朗總統(tǒng)—拉維萊特公園的推動者，和雅克·希拉克總統(tǒng)—安德烈-雪鐵龍公園和貝西公園的推動者，爭相建設(shè)21世紀(jì)最佳的巴黎的公園。

相似地，市長理查德·戴利堅(jiān)定地支持將千禧公園納入芝加哥格蘭特公園，隨后他又在附近建設(shè)了瑪吉·戴利公園，以紀(jì)念他的夫人。在21世紀(jì)初，英國首相托尼·布萊爾與倫敦市長肯·利文斯通一起將夏季奧運(yùn)會爭取到了倫敦，并將新的生機(jī)引入下李谷（lower Lee Valley）。2008年的北京，這也是很明顯的，奧運(yùn)會作為城市長期改善的催化劑有著巨大的潛力，包括建設(shè)新的公園和景觀設(shè)施。

同樣值得注意的是，設(shè)計(jì)人員的連續(xù)性對于新公園建設(shè)的設(shè)計(jì)整體性而言是至關(guān)重要的。這在前景公園中十分明顯，這個公園保持了比中央公園更統(tǒng)一的設(shè)計(jì)，沃克斯和奧姆斯特德一直持續(xù)為之設(shè)計(jì)，從1864年到1872年完成；克利夫蘭對明尼阿波利斯的設(shè)計(jì)從1883年到1900年他去世；舒馬赫為漢堡城市公園做設(shè)計(jì)從1910年到1933年；在曼海姆的路易森公園，豪斯特·瓦根菲爾德，1975年聯(lián)邦園藝展的設(shè)計(jì)者，仍然在其后的40年間為經(jīng)營者們提出建議；Latz+Partner事務(wù)所對北杜伊斯堡景觀公園，凱瑟琳·古斯塔夫森對阿姆斯特丹文化公園，在其建成后許久仍對公園提出建議。大量的場地原有用途的參照，用以獻(xiàn)給之前的造船工人。同樣的，WAA事務(wù)所（Williams-Asselin-Ackaoui）設(shè)計(jì)的徐家匯公園其設(shè)計(jì)焦點(diǎn)在于一個保留下來的磚砌煙囪，這個煙囪以前控制了這個場地。

一個經(jīng)驗(yàn)是來自霍勒斯·威廉·夏勒·克利夫蘭的智慧，他的《關(guān)于明尼阿波利斯公園和園林路系統(tǒng)的建議》認(rèn)為，“保護(hù)這些地區(qū)是必須的”，因?yàn)楣珗@“在它們被占用或被索取價值之前，要使這些地帶不被獲得”[5]。

規(guī)劃和設(shè)計(jì)

盡管建筑通常反映建設(shè)時期的時代思潮，而公園則往往反映了公園建設(shè)所在的場所。公園是它們所處的環(huán)境的在地創(chuàng)造，它們和環(huán)境有著共生的關(guān)系。它們必然是所在城市的不可或缺的一部分。然而它們也能從中分離，即從城市中逃離（特別是在18世紀(jì)）或作為城市的延伸（特別是在21世紀(jì)）。例如，紐約的中央公園，道格·布隆斯基（中央公園管理處前主任）描述其為“從城市生活撤退至風(fēng)景”[6]，它被設(shè)計(jì)為與周遭的城市形成徹底的對比。相反地，高線公園的設(shè)計(jì)原則之一是呈現(xiàn)穿過臨近的哈德遜河、朝向周遭城市的風(fēng)景。

土地經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家約翰·克朗普頓，研究了公園對相鄰地產(chǎn)價值的影響，指出“公園對于地產(chǎn)稅重要影響的決定性因素是公園周長或邊界影響的范圍”[7]。紐約中央公園、舊金山的金門公園、阿姆斯特丹的馮德爾公園等公園的矩形證明了這一點(diǎn)，這些公園每一個都是設(shè)計(jì)作為房地產(chǎn)發(fā)展的焦點(diǎn)。對比攝政公園粗略的圓形，同樣也為了房地產(chǎn)發(fā)展，特別是為了建筑師約翰·納什設(shè)計(jì)的攝政臺地，有著相對一塊區(qū)域的最少周長。這可能是因?yàn)樗瓉硎菄h以作為鹿苑，而圓形可以用最少量的圍籬。與克朗普頓對地產(chǎn)價值的研究相應(yīng)的是，亦有論斷認(rèn)為“如果人們更多地居住在公園附近，他們可能擁有更好的精神健康、更好的生理健康，以及更低的肥胖率……沒有其他健康干預(yù)能給我們?nèi)绱硕嗟母＠盵8]。

19世紀(jì)的“休閑場地”的設(shè)計(jì)深受田園式或如畫式的先例的影響，如萊普頓和納什在圣詹姆斯公園和攝政公園；帕克斯頓在伯肯黑德公園；萊內(nèi)在蒂爾花園；沃克斯和奧姆斯特德在中央公園和前景公園；阿爾方德在巴黎；克利夫蘭在明尼阿波利斯。這些設(shè)計(jì)總的來說基于盡量排除周圍城市的原則，創(chuàng)造了水體、草地和樹林的平衡格局，都設(shè)計(jì)為提供大范圍的顯然較為自然的景觀。在20世紀(jì)初，有些公園如漢堡城市公園繼續(xù)將這3種要素結(jié)合，盡管是用完全幾何的布局。同樣地，設(shè)計(jì)于20世紀(jì)30年代的阿姆斯特丹森林公園，亦由水體、草地和樹林組成，是一種明顯的荷蘭范式。

可以認(rèn)為城市公園有2個普遍的布局類型，一種是直線型的，不論是網(wǎng)格狀的還是有軸線的；另一種是浪漫的或田園風(fēng)格的。直線型的布局常常借用建筑師的靈感，如舒馬赫主導(dǎo)的漢堡城市公園（市民公園的原型），瑪利亞·路易莎公園，有林蔭廣場形成的網(wǎng)格；或網(wǎng)格化的公園，如巴黎貝西公園和拉維萊特公園。同樣，阿蘭·普羅沃設(shè)計(jì)的許多公園，包括安德烈-雪鐵龍公園，都是具有“方向性的景觀”，適應(yīng)了周圍的城市肌理。

另一種類型，浪漫的或田園風(fēng)格的，是從萊普頓或納什在倫敦圣詹姆斯公園和攝政公園的原型發(fā)展出來的。帕克斯頓在伯肯黑德采用了這種風(fēng)格。這種風(fēng)格也是沃克斯和奧姆斯特德的靈感來源之一。這也在一些案例中得以體現(xiàn)，如萊內(nèi)對于蒂爾花園的重新設(shè)計(jì)，再如1975年德國聯(lián)邦園藝展路易森公園的布局，8字形的環(huán)路環(huán)繞著一個湖，與圣詹姆斯公園的布局有所不同。在這些案例中，阿姆斯特丹的馮德爾公園，設(shè)計(jì)通過隱藏水體的盡頭創(chuàng)造了一個更大的想象空間，形成了河流般的面貌。歷史學(xué)家約翰·迪克遜·亨特認(rèn)為“如畫式超越了穿越風(fēng)景的移動，超越了穿越思維的移動”[9]。這在伯肯黑德公園、中央公園、前景公園的馬車道路系統(tǒng)得以體現(xiàn)。而環(huán)繞水體的步行道，比如在圣詹姆斯公園、攝政公園、馮德爾公園、路易森公園，這樣的步行道是直接和安全的，同時又慢慢呈現(xiàn)了景觀，逐漸展開景觀的奧妙。

奧姆斯特德在1866年他與明尼阿波利斯公園委員會的一封信中建議：“享受公園的至佳景色應(yīng)在步行中體驗(yàn)……要把那些乘馬車來的人從車上吸引下來去步行體驗(yàn)。[5]”觀賞中國的古典園林便是這樣的方式，是在移動中的觀賞，而非從一個地點(diǎn)觀看。奧姆斯特德和沃克斯，像18世紀(jì)英國的“萬能的布朗”，和20世紀(jì)美國的沃爾特·迪士尼一樣，將周遭的環(huán)境，鄉(xiāng)村的或城市的，排除在公園之外。然而近來，中央公園周圍的建筑變得愈加明顯，哥倫布圓環(huán)附近的高層住宅區(qū)在公園投下長長的陰影，其對于公園植被和游客的影響已引起了人們的關(guān)注。

環(huán)境

盡管一些公園把周遭排除在外，我在《偉大的城市公園》里討論的要點(diǎn)之一是公園對周圍環(huán)境做出直接回應(yīng)的程度。這些公園反映了一種方法，它基于理解、闡釋和表達(dá)獨(dú)特的、固有的自然和文化特性。風(fēng)景園林教授巴利·格林比將這種方法描述為“首先思考那里有什么，而不是像建筑師那樣思考將什么放在那里”[10]。

在這一點(diǎn)上值得一提的是，約瑟夫·帕克斯頓，伯肯黑德公園的設(shè)計(jì)師，曾寫給他妻子說他“走了至少30英里”（約48km）從而使自己能“掌控場地”[11]。同樣地，奧姆斯特德被沃克斯邀請加入團(tuán)隊(duì)參加中央公園的設(shè)計(jì)競賽，是因?yàn)樗麑龅氐氖熘?。而阿蘭·普羅沃，安德烈-雪鐵龍公園大部分的設(shè)計(jì)者，說他到達(dá)場地時，他尋求“區(qū)分2種類型的場地：一種有主體，有精華，有靈魂，有某種特性，面對這樣的場地，要謙遜；而另一種沒有特殊的特質(zhì)，強(qiáng)烈的干預(yù)是優(yōu)點(diǎn)而非錯誤”[12]，如位于巴黎拉德芳斯的狄德羅公園，就是一塊完全建造出來的場地。

同樣地，Latz+Partner事務(wù)所設(shè)計(jì)的北杜伊斯堡景觀公園是如此地實(shí)用，拉茨回憶，在現(xiàn)場的階段，拉索斯時時狐疑擔(dān)心拉茨同事們的設(shè)計(jì)，挪揄道：“可你們什么都沒做啊”[13]。這引發(fā)了這個爭議性的問題，公園設(shè)計(jì)是否應(yīng)該顯得不可或缺或者說它們的人造屬性是否應(yīng)該顯而易見。

持續(xù)性

風(fēng)景園林師邁克爾·凡·瓦肯伯格認(rèn)為“建造公園實(shí)際上是非常便宜的，而長久維護(hù)起來卻是非常昂貴的”[4]。和這一觀點(diǎn)一致，《偉大的城市公園》里許多公園的成功依賴于管理人員長期的服務(wù)和貢獻(xiàn)，以及設(shè)計(jì)師的技巧和持續(xù)的投入。這個方面的代表人物包括：

愛德華·坎普—伯肯黑德公園1843—1891年的主管

詹姆斯·斯特拉納漢—前景公園1860—1882年的主管

約翰·麥克拉倫—金門公園1890—1943年的主管

塔帕·托馬斯—前景公園1980—2011年的主任

丹尼爾·彼得曼—布萊恩特公園1980年至今的主管

4 迪勒·馮·弗斯滕伯格曬臺的行人和日光躺椅（高線公園，紐約）Pedestrian traffic and sunbeds on Diller von Fürstenberg Sun Deck (The High Line, New York)

5 人行天橋跨越約瑟夫·凱賽爾街，連接公園的2個區(qū)域（貝西公園，巴黎）Pedestrian bridge over Rue Joseph Kessel, linking two sections of the park (Parc de Bercy, Paris)

約阿希姆·克勒茨—路易森公園20世紀(jì)90年代到21世紀(jì)10年代的經(jīng)理，任職合同規(guī)定在他管理期間公園的布局、功能或特征不能改變。

另外值得一提的是許多案例是近20年左右的，表明了西方國家的公園受益于較長期的管理穩(wěn)定性和連續(xù)性。同時，越來越明顯的是歐洲的公園，像美國的公園一樣，僅靠公共撥款難以繼續(xù)生存。正如凡·瓦肯伯格指出的，維護(hù)公園太貴了。拿伯肯黑德公園來說，除了因其歷史狀態(tài)和本身的設(shè)計(jì)質(zhì)量，我將之收入《偉大的城市公園》第一版，還有就是為了說明特別是財(cái)政緊縮地區(qū)依靠地方撥款的公園的命運(yùn)，其結(jié)果是不得不與法定托管的當(dāng)?shù)卣疇幦∪粘芸睢?/p>

另一個問題是政治上對于短期高影響力的項(xiàng)目的傾斜，如塞維利亞的都市陽傘，削減了瑪利亞-露西亞公園替換樹木的預(yù)算，僅僅是因?yàn)橐娦л^慢。因此越來越多的歐洲和美國的城市公園，被迫去尋求其他收入來源，特別是通過舉辦舞臺活動、特許經(jīng)營、停車、其他直接收費(fèi)項(xiàng)目，以及慈善捐贈和志愿計(jì)劃。

盡管對于公園的公共投資有明顯的下降趨勢，而公園的使用卻有著明顯的上升趨勢。假設(shè)，舉辦活動增加了對于完善公園的投資；投資于公園的完善吸引了更多的游客；有更多的游客使得人們感覺更安全；安全的公園吸引人們住在附近；對于有吸引力的公園周圍的住房的需求提升了地產(chǎn)的價值，使得居民更可能投資于當(dāng)?shù)毓珗@的維護(hù)和進(jìn)一步的完善。游客數(shù)的總體上升也有助于更多的人在主要城市里集中居住，也有助于城市和公園的更好的運(yùn)營。有些公園如巴塞羅那的奎爾公園，對游客如此有吸引力，故而城市對非居民開始收門票，如今，高迪設(shè)計(jì)的部分其門票收費(fèi)7歐元。

連接

有觀點(diǎn)認(rèn)為公園規(guī)劃正變得更有戰(zhàn)略性，公園管理正變得更積極主動，并且更加市場導(dǎo)向。詹姆斯·科納，高線公園的設(shè)計(jì)師，指出“為了努力提供較大的公園系統(tǒng)，可以漫步、騎車、跑步數(shù)英里，并且因其區(qū)域尺度和連接性而使生態(tài)系統(tǒng)繁榮，如今大尺度場地的更有力的連接、集合、連續(xù)的趨勢更加明顯”[4]。簡而言之，公園越來越被視為城市景觀設(shè)施的不可或缺的要素。

基于這種思考我曾于2017年6月在曼徹斯特進(jìn)行演講?；镜挠^點(diǎn)是雖然公園之前被視作孤立的綠色避難所，與周遭城市形成對比，它們現(xiàn)在被認(rèn)為是“綠色廣場”，對于未來城市極其重要。例如，巴黎的綠蔭步道在1853—1969年曾是一條鐵路，在1987—2000年間被轉(zhuǎn)換成一條4.5km長的抬高的步行道。巴黎市政府也在積極地探索環(huán)城鐵路的游憩潛力，這條鐵路環(huán)繞巴黎中心，長達(dá)30km，靠近安德烈-雪鐵龍公園，穿過了肖蒙山丘公園。

在《偉大的城市公園》一書里討論的許多公園持續(xù)促進(jìn)了生態(tài)的作用，特別是較大的公園，如金門公園，圣路易斯的森林公園，中央公園，阿姆斯特丹森林公園。阿姆斯特丹森林公園現(xiàn)在依然被認(rèn)為參與到了“以游憩和自然保護(hù)為目標(biāo)的生態(tài)管理”中[14]。更顯著的是伊麗莎白女王奧林匹克公園的設(shè)計(jì)和管理，作為一個在起作用的景觀，“將管理水位和洪水，控制河岸侵蝕，創(chuàng)造一系列的連接起來的棲息地，易于管理和維護(hù)”[15]。

《偉大的城市公園》一書總結(jié)了由于地球人口愈加城市化，城市公園可能變得愈加重要。公園作為自然景觀的人工模擬而建立，意圖與城市形成根本的對比。但有植物的公園現(xiàn)在更可能被視作后工業(yè)城市的生態(tài)和經(jīng)濟(jì)的不可或缺的要素。公園也將繼續(xù)作為慰藉的場所，集會的場所，減輕創(chuàng)傷的場所，敬畏的場所，魅力的場所，逃避的場所，游玩的場所，人們可坐下來思考的場所。用杰弗里·杰里科的話來說，“提升人們出離日常生活”。公園將繼續(xù)作為城市整體的一部分，以及人和其他物種的棲息地。

這導(dǎo)致了如下討論，即城市公園是城市景觀設(shè)施的最為重要的要素之一。這個討論基于風(fēng)景園林師總在尋求景觀的鏈接，即城市景觀的連接和連續(xù)。討論可擴(kuò)展到，將來風(fēng)景園林師將必須在日益密集開發(fā)的城市中尋求更多實(shí)難發(fā)展的鏈接。這個討論先以2個早期的倫敦公園為例，攝政公園（始于1811年）和圣詹姆斯公園（于1827年重新設(shè)計(jì)），通過波特蘭大街和攝政大街連接，是景觀作為基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的一個較早的例子。隨后很快，在1829年，倫敦北部的多山的漢普斯特德荒野，在開發(fā)對其產(chǎn)生威脅之后，約翰·勞迪斯·勞登（1783—1843）提議設(shè)置環(huán)繞城市的“大都市的呼吸空間”的同心環(huán)。倫敦的方案反映了公園作為“城市之肺”的觀點(diǎn)出現(xiàn)。這是早期對城市景觀的作用的認(rèn)識，認(rèn)識到公園是城市物質(zhì)的和精神的健康設(shè)施的一部分。

6 埃菲爾設(shè)計(jì)的步行橋通往殘余的石膏孤島（肖蒙山丘公園，巴黎）Eiffel-designed footbridge to residual island of gypsum (Parc des Buttes-Chaumont, Paris)

而與上述進(jìn)行類比，值得一提的是拉維萊特公園設(shè)計(jì)競賽的目標(biāo)，描述公園“并不像肺而更像心臟”[16]，它會再造城市那一部分的活力，激發(fā)和調(diào)控其他的所有要素。相似的故事支撐了拿破侖三世和奧斯曼的巴黎的規(guī)劃和設(shè)計(jì)，首先，他們將巴黎邊緣2個大的皇家獵苑—文森森林（東邊）布洛涅森林（西邊）轉(zhuǎn)換為公眾使用。然后他們開發(fā)了促進(jìn)健康（也易于管轄）的林蔭大道模式，建立了公園和植被空間的網(wǎng)絡(luò)，設(shè)計(jì)為促進(jìn)所有的“循環(huán)”—交通，空氣和人們的呼吸。

相似的案例還包括有著技術(shù)派生的法國式曲線的肖蒙山丘公園（1864年）。“肖蒙”的意思是光禿的山丘，這是對先前狀況的一種反映，這里之前是石膏采石場、屠馬場（屠宰老馬）、垃圾場，甚至有公開處決的絞刑架。如今和附近的拉維萊特公園一起，它是新區(qū)的“心臟”……如潮的人們在這里欣賞城市的全景，也同時享受從城市的逃離。經(jīng)過一段時間以后，它可能會通過城市環(huán)線，與巴黎其他公園連接起來，比如在城市西南部的安德烈-雪鐵龍公園，這個環(huán)線是一處潛在的綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施，可與正在發(fā)展的美國亞特蘭大35km長的環(huán)行線相提并論。

我們可以看到將城市公園引入北美的相似的模式，這始于中央公園，它建于多石的土地，遠(yuǎn)離那時高價的曼哈頓海濱……如今卻呈現(xiàn)了世界上最昂貴的景觀。沃克斯和奧姆斯特德的草坪規(guī)劃（1857—1858年）是基于樹林、水體和草地的田園模式，最早在伯肯黑德公園（1845年）出現(xiàn)，被多石場地的中央公園采用。這種模式在前景公園（1866年）應(yīng)用十分完美，其外圍有防護(hù)性的堤岸環(huán)繞。

在前景公園之后，奧姆斯特德和沃克斯發(fā)展了公園的連接，正如他們設(shè)計(jì)了從前景公園到布魯克林海灘的公園路，他們設(shè)計(jì)的林蔭大道穿越了紐約布魯克林地區(qū)。奧姆斯特德的這種連接手法發(fā)展到頂峰的是，9個公園組成了波士頓和布魯克萊恩的“翡翠項(xiàng)鏈”（1878—1895年）。這條項(xiàng)鏈主要順應(yīng)了一條自然的排水廊道，證明了確認(rèn)和保護(hù)城市地區(qū)的自然財(cái)產(chǎn)的重要性。1871年大火之后的芝加哥公園系統(tǒng)，奧姆斯特德和他的同事克利夫蘭對其發(fā)展做出了貢獻(xiàn)，包括著名的湖濱路和其他公園以及林蔭大道系列。隨后丹尼爾·伯納姆和愛德華·貝納特所做的芝加哥規(guī)劃（1909年）是美國城市美化運(yùn)動的閃光點(diǎn)。格蘭特公園的中心在藝術(shù)學(xué)院的白金漢噴泉，位于重新設(shè)計(jì)的城市的軸線上，是綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施作為再建城市的焦點(diǎn)的一個典例。

7 平面圖顯示了2個皇家公園以及它們之間沿著波特蘭大街和攝政大街的連接（攝政公園和圣詹姆斯公園平面圖，倫敦）Plan showing the two Royal Parks and the linkage between them along Portland Place and Regent Street(Plan of Regent’s and St James’s Parks, London)

如前所說，克利夫蘭從芝加哥到規(guī)劃明尼阿波利斯公園系統(tǒng)，應(yīng)用了奧斯曼在巴黎的經(jīng)驗(yàn)和大火后的芝加哥的經(jīng)驗(yàn)，創(chuàng)建了一個最佳的范例，即，在開發(fā)可及之前，在私有化之前，在阻止公眾進(jìn)入之前，連接景觀基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施。到今天，在眾多湖泊中僅有一個湖—雪松湖，有私人的岸線。并且，像美國眾多的城市一樣，特別是內(nèi)陸城市，景觀基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施穿越市區(qū)的高速公路已被重新連接起來，如跨越94號州際公路的橋，連接了明尼阿波利斯雕塑公園和洛林公園，有效地連接了明尼阿波利斯中央公園。另一個例子是互相連接的景觀基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施，加拿大溫哥華斯坦利公園的海堤，約405hm2的“陷阱荒野”，這個城市渴望2020年成為“世界上最綠色的城市”。最重要的一點(diǎn)是海堤連接到城市范圍的綠道系統(tǒng)，這是由規(guī)劃師哈蘭德·巴塞洛繆于1926年做出的規(guī)劃。雖然這些理念需花費(fèi)漫長時間去實(shí)現(xiàn)，但必須去發(fā)現(xiàn)機(jī)會并盡早踐行。

同時，在歐洲，阿姆斯特丹森林公園，1930年代制造工作機(jī)會的項(xiàng)目（也有重要的森林、水體和草地的區(qū)域），仍然在南向擴(kuò)張直達(dá)申克爾森林，在阿姆斯特芬的體育公園和網(wǎng)球中心介入之后北向?qū)⒓~威米爾湖納入。繼續(xù)對連接進(jìn)行時間的縱覽，阿伯克龍比和佛朔所做的始于1943年的倫敦郡規(guī)劃證明了景觀作為基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的原則，但一個快速郊區(qū)都市化（suburbanization）、都市人口收縮和公園衰退的年代，于“二戰(zhàn)”之后在歐洲和北美大部分地區(qū)到來。從2000年開始，城市中心收縮已經(jīng)有些開始反轉(zhuǎn)，但歐洲和北美仍然處于一個相對低密度的都市蔓延的時代[17]。

“二戰(zhàn)”之后，新的公園發(fā)展較慢，如紐約的佩利公園，建設(shè)很慢而且是私人所有。但自一些項(xiàng)目后，情況有了反轉(zhuǎn)，如哈普林先驅(qū)性的高速公路公園，穿越西雅圖市中心5號州際公路建設(shè)。2017年獲得ASLA 全國獎的位于達(dá)拉斯市中心的柯林德沃倫公園（綜合設(shè)計(jì)獎的最佳設(shè)計(jì)獎，譯者注），建在伍道爾羅杰斯高速路，是一個新近的更激動人心的案例，一個連接先前被分割的社區(qū)的景觀基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的極佳案例。對于連接的投入在所有尺度都是明顯的，如巴黎貝西公園的2個區(qū)域之間的橋，還有伊麗莎白女王奧林匹克公園內(nèi)大量的橋，公園南向與泰晤士河的連接，以達(dá)成與42km長的李谷區(qū)域公園的連接（這是由阿伯克龍比和佛朔在1943年對倫敦郡做的規(guī)劃中提出的）。

結(jié)語

《偉大的城市公園》一書討論了一系列的高成本高知名度的項(xiàng)目，如紐約的布萊恩特公園，多倫多的約克威爾公園，芝加哥格蘭特公園內(nèi)的千禧公園，北杜伊斯堡景觀公園，阿姆斯特丹文化公園，他們都是處于極困難的地帶，不是有毒性的土壤就是有一堆設(shè)施。像文化公園一樣，他們?nèi)匀粚で笫紫冉鉀Q內(nèi)在的（或承繼的）場地問題，去與環(huán)境和背景呼應(yīng)，然后發(fā)展與更廣闊的場景的聯(lián)系。

而且，即使是高成本、高知名度、高維護(hù)，高線公園依然試圖擴(kuò)展和提供與過去的視覺鏈接以及與城市的視覺鏈接，它是城市不可分割的一部分。如科納所說，高線公園是一個致力于“寓多于少”的典例。這對中國尤其重要，因?yàn)橹袊诮酉聛?5年的城市化進(jìn)程中，將產(chǎn)生2.3億新的城市居民①。

高線公園是如此受歡迎，以致高峰時段需得限制游客數(shù)量。而且，如前提到的，奎爾公園的史跡部分現(xiàn)在對非居民需要收門票。對公園日益增長的巨大需求顯然十分普遍，不論是居民，還是游客?？赡苓@種需求最顯著的發(fā)展是發(fā)生在此書2001年和2015年兩次出版之間。這影響了2015年版本的案例選擇，如在布萊恩特公園，每個午餐時段都會計(jì)算游客量，包括女性比例，這基于高比例的女性游客意味著公園更安全的理論。簡而言之，正如赫希菲爾德在200年前他的《園林藝術(shù)理論》一書中談過對于公園的需求，這一論點(diǎn)如今在歐洲、在北美……在中國，依然有效。

注釋 (Notes)：

①引自王向榮教授于2017年6月22日在英國曼徹斯特城市大學(xué)舉行的英國皇家風(fēng)景園林學(xué)會年會上的“Integrated Places: Where People and Nature Meet”主題演講。It was quoted from a series of keynote lectures under the heading “Integrated places: where people and nature meet”, delivered by Prof. WANG Xiangrong at the Landscape Institute of the United Kingdom Annual Conference in Manchester Metropolitan University,Manchester, England on 22 June 2017.

②圖1、3、6、8～9、13～15、20由阿蘭·塔特?cái)z；圖2、5、10、18～19由Marcella Eaton攝；圖4、16～17由Belinda Chan攝；圖7由Peter Siry攝；圖11由Peter Neal攝。Figure 1, 3, 6, 8-9, 12-15, 20 photoed by Alan Tate; Figure 2, 5,10, 18-19 photoed by Marcella Eaton; Figure 4, 16-17 photoed by Belinda Chan; Figure 7 Drawn by Peter Siry; Figure 11 photoed by Peter Neal.

：

[1] SCHMIDT H. Plans of Embellishment: Planning Parks in 19th Century Berlin[J]. Lotus International, 1981, 30: 83.

[2] BERG N. Goodbye Highways[J]. Landscape Architecture, 2017, 107(2): 74-81.

[3] SUTTON S B. Civilizing American Cities: Frederick Law Olmsted Writings on City Landscapes[M]. New York: Da Capo Press, 1971: 11.

[4] Dialogues[J]. Landscape Architecture, 2009, 99(10): 56-65.

[5] WIRTH T. Minneapolis Park System 1883-1944: Retrospective Glimpses into the History of the Board of Park Commissioners of Minneapolis, Minnesota and the City’s Park, Parkway and Playground System[M]. Minneapolis: Board of Park Commissioners, 1945: 38.

[6] BLAUNER A. Central Park: An Anthology[M]. New York /London: Bloomsbury, 2012: 213.

[7] CROMPTON J L. The Impact of Parks and Open Spaces on Property Values and the Property Tax Base[M]. Ashburn,Virginia: National Recreation and Park Association, 2000: 11.

[8] City Parks Alliance. Cityparksalliance[EB/OL]. (2017).org/action-center/city-parks-americas-new-infrastructure.

[9] HUNT J D. The Influence of Anxiety[M]//CARR E,EYRING S, WILSON R G. Public Nature: Scenery, History,and Park Design. Charlottesville and London: University of Virginia Press, 2013: 13-26.

[10] GREENBIE B. Restoring the Vision[J]. Landscape Architecture, 1986, 76(3): 54-7.

[11] COLQUHOUN K. 'The Busiest Man in England': A Life of Joseph Paxton, Gardener, Architect and Victorian Visionary[M]. Boston: David R. Godine, 2006: 14.

[12] PROVOST A. Interview with Gérard Mandon[J]. Studies in the History of Gardens and Designed Landscapes, 2002,23(2): 208.

[13] DIEDRICH L. No politics, no park: the Duisburg-Nord model[J]. Topos, 1999(26): 69-78.

[14] Stedelijk Beheer Amsterdam. Amsterdamse Bos:Visitors' Information on Forestry Practice[Z]. 1994.

[15] HOPKINS J, NEAL P. The Making of the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park[M]. Chichester, England: John Wiley and Sons Ltd, 2013: 188.

[16] BALJON L. Designing Parks[M]. Amsterdam:Architectura & Natura Press, 1992: 39.

[17] OSWALT P. Atlas of Shrinking Cities[M]. Ostfildern:Hate Cantz, 2006.

（編輯/王一蘭）

Introduction

My professional interest in city parks was piqued when the office that I was running in Hong Kong was commissioned to design Sha Tin Town Park—a 10-hectare riverside central park on reclaimed land for a new town planned to accommodate 750,000 inhabitants. Back then,in the 1980s, we realised that there was relatively little literature on the subject and I vowed that,once the park was f i nished, I would write “a book about parks”. Writing that book had to wait until I took up an academic position at the University of Manitoba in 1998.

This becameGreat City Parks,a case-studybased examination of some significant urban parks in western Europe and North America. The first edition, published in 2001, covered twenty parks. It was also published in Chinese. The second edition, published in 2015, covered thirty parks—the original twenty updated plus another ten—including some more recent ones like the High Line in New York and the Westergasfabriek in Amsterdam. In both editions the parks were ordered by size—rather than by location or by age.One reviewer of the first edition suggested that this was a somewhat random basis. Nevertheless, I maintain that size is a principal determinant of the approach to park design.

And what do I mean by “case-study-based”?I mean looking at the same issues for each park in order to try and identify common lessons that might be relevant elsewhere. Accordingly, both editions examined, for each park:

·history including the reasons for their designation

·condition of the site at the time of designation

·principal figures responsible for their design and establishment

·planning and design of the parks

·individuals responsible for their development

·organizations responsible for their current management

·current sources of funding

·current use levels—particularly records of numbers of visitors

·crime levels in the parks

·plans for the park.

This essay generally follows that order of topics.

History：Reasons for Designation

Public parks in Europe were first created in response to demand from the public to use royal hunting parks for recreation. Hyde Park in London is said to have been opened by King Charles I (reigned 1625—1649) in about 1635,and King Charles II “seems to have” opened St James’s Park to the public at the Restoration in 1660. The Englischergarten in Munich, Germany was converted from a military reserve to a public park in 1789—on the instruction of Prince Charles Theodore, probably influenced by the French Revolution. In 1818 Peter Joseph Lenné was instructed by Friedrich Wilhelm III to redesign the Tiergarten in Berlin for public use. This burgeoning demand for parks was also ref l ected in the writings of Christian Cay Lorenz Hirschfeld (1742—1792),who wrote in 1785 about them as “places of recreation and moral improvement for all social classes”[1]. By comparison, Bei Hai Imperial Park in Beijing was f i rst opened to the public in 1925.

Early European public park models had a strong influence on park development in the United States. There was a similar strain of romantic paternalism underlying the designation of parks, first in New York—promoted primarily by Andrew Jackson Downing (1815—1852)and associates, particularly with respect to their health benefits and “civilizing influences”—and subsequently in growing industrial cities across the country. The human health benef i ts of urban parks has been a consistent theme since the early nineteenth century—from the pronouncements of Frederick Law Olmsted (1822—1903) onward.More recently, and particularly as a result of the demands on health services from an increasingly ageing and under active population in the western world, the role of parks as places for simple exercise and for spending restful time outdoors has become increasingly important.

8 在湖中心步行橋上的游客（圣詹姆斯公園，倫敦）Visitors on footbridge at centre of the lake (St James’s Park, London)

9 庫策湖上的始自1975年聯(lián)邦園藝展的小游艇（路易森公園，曼海姆）Gondolettas from 1975 Bundesgartenschau on the Kutzerweiher Lake (Luisenpark, Mannheim)

10 奧運(yùn)會期間在李河旁的濕地劇場（伊麗莎白女王奧林匹克公園，倫敦）Wetland bowl alongside the River Lee during Olympic Games (Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, London)

During the early twentieth century in Europe and in North America, parks changed from being places of passive leisure to being places of active recreation. The predominant physical form of parks such as the Hamburg Stadtpark, the Parque María Luisa in Seville and Grant Park, Chicago,evolved from the picturesque pastoral model promoted by Lenné in Berlin, by Paxton at Birkenhead and by Downing, Vaux and Olmsted in New York, to adopting a distinctly rectilinear geometry and to accommodating distinctly functional purposes.

Later twentieth-century parks included some that were a result of personal philanthropy,like Paley Park the quintessential pocket park in Midtown Manhattan (opened in 1967); many that were created on former industrial sites, like the Landschaftspark Duisburg-Nord (opened in 1994)and, in Guangdong Province, the Zhongshan Shipyard Park (opened in 2001); and some that were created or re-designed as catalysts for adjacent real estate developments such as Parc André-Citro?n (1992) and Parc de Bercy (1997) in Paris and, and Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park in London, site of the 2012 Summer Olympic Games.

In the early 21st century, re-use of damaged sites like the Westergasfabriek in Amsterdam and industrial remnants like The High Line in New York, became increasingly common. Equally, more and more opportunities have been taken to create what are, effectively roof gardens—including Village of Yorkville Park in Toronto; Freeway Park,Seattle; Bryant Park with its re-laid lawn overlying storage stacks of the adjacent New York Public Library, and Millennium and Maggie Daley Parks at the northern end of Grant Park, Chicago. The current extent of the fightback against freeways through urban areas in the United States (which started with Freeway Park, opened in July 1976) is documented by Berg[2]. Many of them have been covered by parks and public spaces.

Original Site Conditions

Land allocated for urban parks has often been“some site undesirable for commercial or residential buildings, and in no way integral to established patterns of city life”[3]. This was particularly true of Central Park—which was a major exercise in landscape creation. Equally, many of the former royal parks in Europe, including St James’s Park in London and the Tiergarten in Berlin, suffered from drainage and/or geological conditions that precluded built development. Similarly, Grant Park,Chicago was created by dumping waste, particularly from the “Great Fire” of 1871, into Lake Michigan;the Parc des Buttes-Chaumont was a gypsum quarry and then a knackers’ yard and a garbage dump, and Regent’s Park in London accommodated building rubble during World War II, impacting its drainage.

George Hargreaves, principal designer of the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, noted that“parks in this century … almost to a project … are located on distressed sites—abandoned, polluted,neglected, or all three … often f l at, devoid of any significant vegetation or other natural features,yet close to city centers”[4]. Nevertheless, we live in an era that is drawn to decaying relics—an era in which many people regard the conversion of places like the Landschaftspark, Parc de Bercy and the High Line into parks as lamentable losses of something authentic. Two comparable examples in China are the eleven-hectare Zhongshan Shipyard Park in Guangdong province and the seven-hectare Xujiahui Park in Shanghai (opened in 2002). The shipyard park, designed by Turenscape, retains and presents numerous references to the site’s former use, and is dedicated to former shipyard workers.Equally, the focal point of the design by WAA Inc.(Williams Asselin Ackaoui) for Xujiahui Park is the retained chimney from a brickworks that used to occupy the site.

One of the lessons from this is the wisdom of Horace William Shaler Cleveland’sSuggestions for a System of Parks and Parkways for the City of Minneapolisabout “securing of the areas that are needed” for the parks “before they become so occupied or acquire such value as to place them beyond reach”[5]. Cleveland’s foresight led to the majority of the shoreline of the Chain of Lakes being protected for public recreation.

Principal Figures in the Establishment of Parks

Great City Parksidentified numerous altruistic advocates from Hirschfeld to the Friends of the High Line, who promoted parks for little or no personal return. Many of them were simply concerned citizens. There have also been some significant political figures who have made major contributions. Paris, for instance, had, f i rst,Napoléon III and his relentless Prefect of the Seine Georges-Eugène Haussmann producing an entire system of parks and open spaces. Then,towards the end of the twentieth century, political adversaries President Francois Mitterand—promoter of Parc de la Villette—and Jacques Chirac—promoter of Parc André-Citro?n and Parc de Bercy, vied to produce the definitive Parisian park for the twenty-f i rst century.

Similarly, Mayor Richard M. Daley was a determined advocate for the addition of Millennium Park to Chicago’s Grant Park—followed by the adjacent Maggie Daley Park, in memory of his wife. And early this century British Prime Minister Tony Blair worked closely with the first Mayor of (Greater) London, Ken Livingstone to bring the Summer Olympic Games to London and to bring new life to the Lower Lee Valley.And it is evident from the Beijing in 2008 that the Games have huge potential as a catalyst for longterm urban improvements, including new parks and landscape infrastructure.

It is also noteworthy that continuity of design personnel is critical for design integrity in the construction and establishment of new parks.This was evident at Prospect Park—which remains a more unified design than Central Park—with Vaux and Olmsted being retained from 1864 until completion of the design in 1872; in Cleveland’s proposals for Minneapolis from 1883 until his death in 1900; in Schumacher’s involvement with the Hamburg Stadtpark from 1910 to 1933; in the Luisenpark in Mannheim, where Horst Wagenfeld,designer of the 1975 Bundesgartenschau, was still advising the managers forty years later, and at the Landschaftspark and Westergasfabriek, where designers Latz + Partner and Kathryn Gustafson,respectively, maintained an overview long after construction was completed.

Planning and Design

11 世界上第一個公眾投資的公園里的護(hù)堤、草地和樹林（伯肯黑德公園，默西塞德）Mounds, meadows and trees in the first publicly-funded park in the world (Birkenhead Park, Merseyside)

12 格蘭特公園西北部的4.7億美元的公園區(qū)域（千禧公園，芝加哥）US$ 470-million park area at northwest of Grant Park(Millennium Park, Chicago)

13 從水塔和天文館開始的公園主軸線（城市公園，漢堡）Main axis of the park from the Water Tower / Planetarium (Stadtpark, Hamburg)

14 從5號高爐看過去的以前的鋼結(jié)構(gòu)和新近栽植的樹木（景觀公園，北杜伊斯堡）Former steelworks and recent tree planting seen from Blast Furnace #5 (Landschaftspark, Duisburg-Nord)

Whereas buildings tend to ref l ect the zeitgeist(spirit and/or fashion) of the time in which they are built, parks reflect the places in which they are built. Parks are earth-bound creatures of their surroundings. They have symbiotic relationships with their settings. They are inevitably an integral part of the city in which they are set … and yet they can also be set apart from it—caught between being escapes from the city (particularly in the eighteenth century) and extensions of it(particularly in the twenty-first century). By way of example, Central Park, New York, described by(former President of Central Park Conservancy)Doug Blonsky as “a scenic retreat from city life”[6]was conceived as a complete contrast to the surrounding city. Conversely, one of the principles driving design of The High Line was the presentation of views outward to the surrounding city and across the adjacent Hudson River.

Land economist John Crompton, addressing the impact that parks have on adjacent property values, noted that “a determining factor of the magnitude of a park's impact on the property tax base is the extent of the park's circumference or edge”[7]. This is demonstrated by the rectangular shape of Central Park, of Golden Gate Park, San Francisco and of the Vondelpark, Amsterdam—each of which was designed as a focus for real estate development. By contrast the roughly circular form of Regent's Park—also the focus of property development, particularly architect John Nash’s Regency terraces—has the least possible edge for the enclosed area. This was probably because it was originally fenced-in as a deer park—and a circle would require the least amount of fencing.Parallel with Crompton’s studies of property values,it has also been asserted that “when there are higher concentrations of people who live closer to a park they are more likely to have better mental health,better physical health, lower levels of obesity …there’s no other health intervention that can give us those sorts of benef i ts”[8].

Designs for nineteenth-century “Pleasure Grounds” were strongly influenced by the pastoral/picturesque precedents established by Repton and Nash in St James’s and Regent’s Park; by Paxton at Birkenhead Park; by Lenné in the Tiergarten; by Vaux and Olmsted in Central and Prospect Parks; by Alphand in Paris, and by Cleveland in Minneapolis. These designs were generally based on the principle of excluding the surrounding city as far as possible and creating balanced compositions of water, pasture and woodland, all arranged to provide sweeping views of apparently natural scenery. In the early twentieth century, parks like Hamburg’s Stadtpark continued to combine these three elements—albeit in strictly geometric layouts. Similarly,the Amsterdamse Bos, designed in the1930s, is composed of water, pasture and woodland in a distinctly Dutch model.

It can be argued that there are two generic types of layout for city parks—rectilinear,whether gridded or axial—and the romantic /pastoral. The rectilinear layouts are often building architect inspired—like the Schumacher-led Hamburg Stadtpark (the prototypical Volkspark)the Parque María Luisa—with its grid of shaded glorietas or the gridded Parc de Bercy or Parc de la Villette in Paris. Equally, many Allain Provostdesigned parks—including Parc André-Citro?n—are “directional landscapes”, adapted to the surrounding urban grain.

The other type—the romantic/pastoral model—derived from the Repton/Nash prototypes at St James’s and Regent’s Parks in London and picked up by Paxton at Birkenhead—became one source of inspiration for Vaux and Olmsted. This is also demonstrated in examples like Lenné's redesign for the Tiergarten or the layout of the Luisenpark for the 1975 Bundesgartenschau, with a f i gure-of-eight circuit around a lake comparable to the layout of St James’s Park. In these examples,and in Amsterdam’s Vondelpark, the designs create an illusion of greater space by concealing the ends of water bodies and giving them a riverine appearance. Historian John Dixon Hunt argued that the “picturesque was above all about movement,movement through a landscape, and the movement of the mind”[9]. This is demonstrated in the carriage routes around Birkenhead, Central and Prospect Parks. And the pedestrian circuits around the water bodies in St James’s Park and Regent’s Park, and in the Vondelpark and Luisenpark, are direct and safe at the same time as presenting views that are revealed slowly and with unfolding mystery.

Olmsted suggested, in a letter to the Minneapolis Park Commission in 1866, that“enjoyment of the best scenery of the park should be had from its walks … to draw many who will come to it in carriages to leave them and take walking exercise”[5]. There is a parallel here with the modes of viewing Classical Chinese gardens—through viewing in movement (as opposed to viewing from a single position). Olmsted and Vaux, like Capability Brown in eighteenth-century Britain and Walt Disney in the twentieth-century in the United States, were determined to exclude the surrounding landscape—rural or urban—from their parks.Latterly, however, surrounding buildings have become increasingly obvious around Central Park—to the extent that high-rise residential blocks around Columbus Circus has aroused concern about the effect on vegetation and visitors of long shadows across the park.

15 詹姆斯·斯特拉納漢雕像，前景公園1860—1882年的主管（前景公園，布魯克林，紐約）Statue of James Stranahan, Commissioner for Prospect Park from 1860 to 1882 (Prospect Park, Brooklyn, New York)

16 從安戴爾拱門望向長草坪（前景公園，布魯克林，紐約）View through Endale Arch to the Long Meadow (Prospect Park, Brooklyn, New York)

Context

Despite this exclusion of their surroundings,one of the strongest points to emerge inGreat City Parksis the extent to which the parks are a direct response to their context. They ref l ect an approach based on comprehension, interpretation and expression of their unique and intrinsic natural and cultural characteristics. This reflects an approach that landscape architecture professor Barrie Greenbie described as thinking “f i rst of what is there,rather than, as architects tend to think, in terms of what one can put there”[10].

It is worth noting in this connection that Joseph Paxton—the designer of Birkenhead Park—wrote to his wife that he had “walked at least thirty miles” to make himself “master the locality”[11]. Equally, Olmsted was invited by Vaux to join his team for the Central Park competition for because of his intimate knowledge of the site. And Allain Provost, designer of the largest part of Parc André Citr?en, commented that in his approach to individual sites he sought to“distinguish between two types of site: those that have a body, have marrow, have a soul, a certain character, in which case it’s better to be moderate,and those which have no special interest and where strong intervention is a virtue and not a fault”[12]—like Parc Diderot, on completely made ground just off La Défense in Paris.

Similarly, the Latz + Partner’s design for the Landschaftspark “was so pragmatic, Latz recalls,that during the workshop phase on site Lassus would look over the shoulders of Latz’s co-workers and tease: ‘But you aren’t doing anything’”[13]. This begs the challenging question of whether park designs should appear inevitable or whether their artif i ciality should be self-evident.

Continuity

Landscape architect Michael Van Valkenburgh commented that “it’s actually incredibly inexpensive to build a park, and it’s incredibly expensive to care for it in perpetuity”[4]. In line with this comment,many of the parks examined inGreat City Parkshave been as reliant for their success on the dedication and long service of their managers and superintendents as on the skill and continued involvement of their designers. Figures who stand out in this respect include:

17 在綿羊草地附近的巖石露頭（中央公園，紐約）Rock outcrop near the Sheep Meadow (Central Park, New York)

·Edward Kemp—Superintendent of Birkenhead Park from 1843 to 1891

·James Stranahan—Commissioner for Prospect Park from 1860 to 1882

·John McLaren—Superintendent of Golden Gate Park from 1890 until 1943

·Tupper Thomas—Prospect Park Administrator from 1980 to 2011

·Daniel Biederman—who has been involved with Bryant Park since 1980

·Joachim K?ltzsch—Manager of the Luisenpark between the 1990s and 2010s, under a contract of employment that stipulates no alterations to the layout, function or character of the park.

It is also worth noting that many of these examples are from the last twenty or so years,suggesting that parks in the western world have been enjoying one of their longer periods of managerial stability and continuity. At the same time it has become increasingly clear that European parks, like US parks, can no longer survive on public funds alone. As Van Valkenburg noted, they are expensive to cater for. Taking Birkenhead Park as an example, apart from its historic status and intrinsic design qualities, I included it in the first edition ofGreat City Parksto illustrate the fate of locally-funded parks—particularly in financially poorer areas—that have to compete with legally mandated local government services for their day-today funding.

Another issue in this connection is political preferences for short-term high-impact projects—like the Metropol Parasol in Seville—whereas cutting funds for tree replacement in Parque María-Luisa will only manifest itself relatively slowly.So city parks in Europe as well as the United States have been increasingly obliged to seek other sources of income—particularly through staging of events, through concession franchises,through car parking and other direct charges, as well as through charitable giving and volunteer programs.

While there has been a clear pattern of falling public investment in public parks, there has also been a clear pattern of rising park use.Hypothetically, staging events raises funds that can be invested in park improvements; investing in park improvements attracts more visitors; having more visitors makes people feel safer; safer parks attract people to live near them; demand for housing near attractive parks raises property values, and makes residents more likely to invest in the maintenance and further improvement of their local park.The general rise in visitor numbers can also be attributed to more people living centrally in major cities, and to better marketing of cities and/or their parks. And then there are places like Park Güell in Barcelona, which has become so attractive to tourists that the city has imposed an entry charge for non-residents, currently €7, to the original Gaudí-designed section.

Connections

It can be argued that park planning is becoming more strategic, and that park management is becoming more proactive and more market-oriented. James Corner, designer of the High Line, noted that “the thrust today is clearly toward a more emphatic connection, assembly,and continuity of large-scale sites in an effort to provide larger park systems where one can walk,cycle, and run for miles and where ecosystems can thrive because of regional scale and connectivity”[4].In short, parks are increasingly seen as integral components of urban landscape infrastructure.

This kind of thinking underpinned a talk that I gave in Manchester in June 2017. The fundamental argument is that whereas parks were previously seen as isolated green refuges that contrasted with the surrounding city, they are now regarded as “green squares” that are critical to the future of the city. For instance, the Promenade Plantée in Paris—a railway from 1853 to 1969,was converted between 1987 and 2000 into a 4.5 kilometre-long elevated walkway. The Ville de Paris has also been actively exploring the recreational potential of the 30-kilometre Petite Ceinture rail line that circles central Paris, running close to Parc André-Citro?n and through the Parc des Buttes-Chaumont.

Many of the parks examined inGreat City Parkscontinue to promote their ecological credentials—particularly larger parks like Golden Gate Park, Forest Park in St Louis, Central Park and the Amsterdamse Bos. The Bos is still seen as being engaged in “ecological management for recreation and nature conservation purposes”[14]. More emphatic has been the design and management of the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park as a working landscape that will “manage water levels and flooding, limit bank erosion, create a series of connected habitats, and ensure ease of management and maintenance”[15].

Great City Parksconcluded that city parks are likely to become increasingly important as the earth's human population becomes more urbanised.Parks were instituted as manufactured simulacra of natural landscapes. They were intended to be complete contrasts to cities. But vegetated parks are now more likely to be seen as integral components of both the ecology and the economy of postindustrial cities. Parks will also continue to serve as places of solace, places of congregation, places of relief from traumatic events, places for awe,places for seduction, places for escape, places for play, places where people can sit and think, places that—in Geoffrey Jellicoe’s words—“l(fā)ift people out of their everyday lives”. They will continue to be integral parts of cities and habitats for humans and for other species.

18 奧姆斯特德公園的步行道（翡翠項(xiàng)鏈，波士頓）Footpath through Olmsted Park (The Emerald Necklace, Boston)

This leads to an argument that city parks are one of the most important components of urban landscape infrastructure. That argument is based on the premise that landscape architects have always looked for landscape linkages—for connection and continuity in urban landscapes. And the argument can be extended to suggest that, in future,landscape architects will have to look for more unlikely linkages in increasingly densely developed cities. The argument begins with the two early London parks—Regent’s Park (from 1811) and St James’s Park (redesigned in 1827)—linked via Portland Place and Regent Street, providing an early example of landscape as infrastructure.Shortly thereafter, in 1829, following a threat of development on the hilly Hampstead Heath to the north of London, John Claudius Loudon(1783—1843) proposed concentric rings of“Breathing Spaces for the Metropolis” right around the city. Loudon’s proposal ref l ects the emerging idea of parks as the “l(fā)ungs of the city”. This was early recognition of the role of urban landscape as part of the physical and mental health infrastructure of cities.

And pursuing the anatomical analogy, it is worth noting that the objectives for the Parc de la Villette design competition described that park as“not so much a lung as a heart”[16]that would reanimate that part of the city—performing as the organ that inspires and regulates everything else. A similar story underpinned the planning and design of Paris under Napoleon III and Haussmann.First they converted two large royal hunting parks on the edge of Paris—the Bois de Vincennes (to the east) and the Bois de Boulogne (to the west)for public use. Then they developed the pattern of health-bringing (and easily policed) boulevards creating a network of parks and vegetated spaces—all designed to improve all sorts of “circulation” …of traff i c, air and human respiration.

Those parks included the Parc des Buttes-Chaumont (1864) with its technology-derived French curves. The Chaumont in its name means bald hill—a reflection of its previous life as a gypsum quarry, a knacker’s yard (for slaughtering old horses), a garbage tip and even a gallows where public executions took place. Now, along with the nearby Parc de la Villette, it is the “heart” of the district … f l ooded with people who can enjoy both the prospect of the city and an escape from it. And in time it may be linked to other parks in Paris—like the Parc André-Citr?en away to the southwest of the city—via the Petite Ceinture, a piece of potential green infrastructure comparable to the 35-kilometre Beltline being developed around Atlanta in the United States.

19 紐威米爾湖到公園北部的景色（阿姆斯特丹森林公園）View towards the Nieuwe Meer to the north of the park (Amsterdamse Bos)

20 沿著小島湖岸邊的步行道（明尼阿波利斯公園系統(tǒng)）Footpath along the shore of Lake of the Isles (Minneapolis Park System)

We can see a similar pattern in the introduction of urban parks to North America—starting with Central Park, built on rocky ground, away from the then highly-valued Manhattan shoreline … and now providing some of the most expensive views in the world. Vaux and Olmsted’s Greensward plan (1857—1858) was based on the pastoral model of woodland,water and meadow first seen at Birkenhead Park(1845), adapted for the rocky site of Central Park.This model was perfected at Prospect Park (1866)with its protective bund around the periphery.

And after Prospect Park, Olmsted and Vaux developed their commitment to connection—like their proposed Parkways from Prospect Park down to the Brooklyn shoreline—which remain as boulevards through that part of New York. This commitment culminated for Olmsted in the nine parks that comprise Boston and Brookline’s Emerald Necklace (1878—1895).The Necklace largely follows a natural drainage corridor, demonstrating the importance of identifying and protecting natural assets in urban areas. Olmsted and his then colleague H. W. S.Cleveland contributed to the development of the park system in Chicago following the “Great Fire” of 1871, with its celebrated Lakeshore Drive and its less celebrated chain of parks and boulevards. Daniel Burnham and Edward Bennett’s subsequent Plan of Chicago (1909) was the high point of the City Beautiful Movement in the United States. Grant Park sat at its centre with the Beaux-Arts Buckingham Fountain on the axis of the re-designed city—a clear example of green infrastructure as a focus of the restructured city.

As mentioned, Cleveland moved from Chicago to plan the Minneapolis park system—applying lessons from Haussmann’s Paris and from post-fire Chicago to create one of the finest examples anywhere of linked landscape infrastructure before development could reach it,privatise it, and preclude public access to it. To this day, only one of the many lakes—Cedar Lake—has a private shoreline. And, as in so many cities in the United States—particularly inner cities—landscape infrastructure has been re-connected across downtown freeways … like the bridge over the Interstate-94—connecting the Minneapolis Sculpture Garden to Loring Park, effectively the Central Park of Minneapolis. Another example of parks contributing to interconnected landscape infrastructure is the Seawall around the 405 hectare “trapped wilderness” of Stanley Park in Vancouver, Canada—a city that aspires by 2020 to be the “Greenest City in the World”. The signif i cant point here is that the Seawall ties into the city-wide system of greenways proposed by planner Harland Bartholomew in 1926.Although these ideas take time to materialise,opportunities have to be recognised and acted upon as early as possible.

Meanwhile, back in Europe, the Amsterdamse Bos—a 1930s make-work project (also with signif i cant areas of forest, water and meadow)—is still expanding southward through the Schinkelbos,and northward to absorb the Nieuwe Meer after incursions like the Sport Park and Tennis Centre on the Amstelveen side of the forest. Continuing this chronological overview of connections, the County of London Plan from 1943 by Abercrombie and Foreshaw demonstrated the principles of landscape as infrastructure—but an era of rapid suburbanization, shrinking city populations and park decline followed World War II in most of Europe and North America. There has been some reversal of central city shrinkage since 2000 but Europeans and North Americans still live in an era of relatively low density urban expansion[17].

The emergence of new parks after World War II was slow, and in a case like Paley Park in New York, slow and private. But the fightback continued with projects like Halprin’s pioneering Freeway Park, built over the Interstate-5 in downtown Seattle. The 2017 ASLA National Award-winning Klyde Warren Park in downtown Dallas, built across the Woodall Rodgers Freeway is a more recent and more dramatic example of this fightback—a prime example of landscape infrastructure linking a previously dissected community. This commitment to connection is evident at all scales—such as the bridge between the two sections of Parc de Bercy in Paris or at the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park which includes numerous bridges within the park and connections southward to the River Thames—to complete the link with the 42-kilometre-long Lee Valley Regional Park (proposed by Abercrombie and Forshaw in that County of London Plan from 1943).

Conclusion

AlthoughGreat City Parksexamined a series of high-cost, high-profile projects like Bryant Park, New York; the Village of Yorkville Park in Toronto; Millennium Park in Chicago’s Grant Park; Landschaftspark Duisburg-Nord, and the Westergasfabriek in Amsterdam, they were all extremely difficult sites either with toxic soils or on top of structures. And, as in the case of the Westergasfabriek, they still seek, first, to solve intrinsic (or inherited) site problems—to respond to their circumstances and context, and then to reach out and connect with their wider settings.

And even the high-cost, high-profile, highmaintenance, High Line seeks to reach out and provide visual links to its past and to the city of which it remains such an integral part. As Corner has noted, the High Line is an outstanding example of looking to make the most out of the least.This will be particularly important in China with anticipated urbanisation over the next 15 years including some 230 million new urban dwellers①.

The High Line is so popular that numbers have to be restricted at peak times. And, as mentioned, charges are now made for nonresidents to visit the historic part of Park Güell.This apparently ubiquitous pattern of a huge rising demand for parks—both from residents and from tourists—was probably the most striking development that occurred between the 2001 and 2015 editions ofGreat City Parks.This influenced the choice of cover for the 2015 edition, showing Bryant Park, where the number of visitors is counted every lunchtime—including the proportion of women, on the principle that a higher proportion of women visitors indicates a safer park. In short, the argument that Hirschfeld made more than 200 years ago in hisTheorie der Gartenkunstabout the demand for parks remains valid in Europe, in North America … and in China.