“Definition of a park. It’s time to establish precisely what we mean by a “park”. I’m thinking principally of London, but I feel this definition will fit all parks in all cities of the world. There are certain determining characteristics, necessary conditions, for park status. First, there must be tall, mature trees, the older and taller the better. Second, the majority of the trees in the park must give the impression of random planting - no rectangles or neat lines, by and large. An avenue here or there is allowed, an allée, but we need the illusion of spontaneous, unplanned growth. Third, the ground must undulate in a significant way - flatness is not a park-criterion. Fourth, there is the question of scale: you mustn’t be able to see all sides of the park at once - one boundary at least must be invisible from wherever you stand. Fifth, there must be a gated entrance: a park need not necessarily be fenced or walled but it must have a portal - or several. Immediately we see how these five categories allow us to separate, for example, a park from a city square, however large or grand, or from a common. This is a particularly London issue: is Clapham Common a park? Is Barnes Common a park? Wimbledon Common and Richmond Park are perfectly adjacent - can’t Wimbledon be described as a park? By applying my five categories one can see why the answer has to be no (no portals). Is London Fields a park? Is Kew Gardens? The five categories say that they both are. Let’s cast the net a little wider. Is Les Tuileries in Paris a park? No - it’s too flat, there are not enough very tall trees, the trees are planted in straight lines. Les Tuileries is a jardin publique.”
— William Boyd
← Previous Post
Next Post →
