I’m talking about a massive park in the absolute heart of the city. Located such that is naturally surrounded by city high rises. *People are giving examples of parks that are way off in the boonies. I’m trying to say located centrally, heart of the city, you know where the high rises are. Yes I understand nyc has more, the point is centrally located.

Copied by younger cities in North Americ. You know, the cities younger than NYC that could have seen the value of setting aside a large area for parkland before it was developed.

  • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    because no one values green spaces.

    Which is why government typically rubberstamps every developer request to clearcut new forests and turn under new grassland, to build a new poorly built development of McMansions that will probably have to be extensively rebuilt within 5-10 years due to the apalling build quality.

    Same reason no one builds affordable homes. Why develop homes for the poors, for 100k, when they can make McMansions on the same land, and sell them for 1mil+ a pop.

    If Central Park was proposed today, it would be decried as a waste of valuable property (and probably liberal wokeism)

    • nucawysi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      a lot of central park was for rich people actually or designed with rich citizens to use it in mind

      • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        They spent billions to fix traffic issues and failing infrastructure.

        The greenspace was a byproduct. That was only allowed to happen because buildings along the former elevated roadway would see a massive increase in land value with the roadway gone that was more valuable than shoving more buildings into the strip of land.