Prospect vs. Central Park
“I have nothing against Prospect Park. I have actually been to Prospect Park. It is, as I recall, in Brooklyn. I am sure that if I found myself near it again and had nothing better to do, I would be happy to watch the grass grow, or whatever it is people do there.” Such is…
“I have nothing against Prospect Park. I have actually been to Prospect Park. It is, as I recall, in Brooklyn. I am sure that if I found myself near it again and had nothing better to do, I would be happy to watch the grass grow, or whatever it is people do there.” Such is the opening volley in a good-natured debate this weekend in The Times over whether Prospect Park or Central Park is the king of New York City parks. “It’s widely understood among landscape architects that Central Park was a mere practice run, and Prospect Park the true masterpiece — like God making man before woman,” comes the retort. And so it goes. Which do you think is #1?
Park vs. Park [NY Times]
Image from NYC Parks
The correct answer of course is Van Cortlandt Park.
Re PP vs. CP, I would concede that PP is a more impressive work of landscape architecture, but that’s because they had so much less to work with. The steep slopes and rocky outcroppings of the northern half of CP are far more dramatic than anything in PP.
As for amenities, CP has two skating rinks and one pool, while PP has one and zero. Another big plus for CP. And the CP bridle path is better than the soft-surface running in Prospect Park. You really have to know the park well to string together any decent running route in PP that isn’t mostly paved.
The only bad thing you can say about CP is that it’s too popular for its own good. But early in the morning before the tourist hordes, it’s a jewel.
By more4less on July 12, 2010 3:30 PM
golden gate park in san Fran
…
Muir Woods, Presidio, or Acatraz? Tough to choose for sure.
Very odd, though, that you would bring up a National Park with 59 miles of coastline into this discussion…
golden gate park in san Fran
I love Prospect Park, and my vote for it was purely based on my personal experience. The cricket matches, toddlers, barbecues… all great.
If I had the luxury, I would spend the rest of my day writing screed after screed against the privatization of parks. I don’t want them to become revenue streams because American Express, or some other corporate welfare queen. Parks have become cheap advertising venue.
I am abstaining from the vote as a protest against this thread.
The conclusion of this debate was right – the city needs both. Why compare them? The communities around the parks couldn’t be more different, even Park Slope doesn’t have the immense wealth of the residents with Central Park views. I like the wildness of PP too and think the overall design is far superior, but I get depressed looking at all the fallen trees and thick underbrush the park conservancy can’t afford to clean up. If that’s what people compare, the conditions of both parks in any survey then it’s real snotty to gloat over Central Park. Do as Dittoburg says and maintain the parks the same THEN ask people which one they prefer.
Manhattan booo Brooklyn yay
yawn
Oh, apparently it’s called “Lookout Hill” — it’s not a mountain.
By tinarina on July 12, 2010 9:59 AM
PP and CP are run the same way–CP by the CP Park Conservancy and PP by the Prospect Park Alliance. They are funded by the city and also raise money themselves.
The CP Conservancy raises an unbelievable amount of private money to support park upkeep. With all the wealthy neighbors around CP, they’re very successful.
The PP Alliance has done a fabulous job, but doesn’t have anywhere near the private funding that CP does.
…
Some perspective (SOURCE: Charity Navigator)
CPC:
Revenue
Primary Revenue $44,079,596
Other Revenue $26,521,081
Total Revenue $70,600,677
Expenses
Program Expenses $30,608,203
Administrative Expenses $4,884,049
Fundraising Expenses $4,598,093
Total Functional Expenses $40,090,345
Excess (or Deficit) for the year $30,510,332
Net Assets $210,636,850
PPA:
Revenue
Primary Revenue $18,604,710
Other Revenue $128,815
Total Revenue $18,733,525
Expenses
Program Expenses $7,670,837
Administrative Expenses $720,777
Fundraising Expenses $1,132,656
Total Functional Expenses $9,524,270
Excess (or Deficit) for the year $9,209,255
Net Assets $16,086,698
BOTH get the highest rating by CN, four stars – both are efficient and well run. Tupper Thomas deserves all the kudos she is receiving in her retirement year; PP has changed dramatically (for the better) in her 30+ yeas.