Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
I think it is a strange comparison, but mostly because Central Park was an architecturally designed, landscaped, and manufactured park, while Fish Creek is a protected area. Central Park is impressive because it doesn't at all feel like an artificial landscape, when in fact it is. Fish Creek is no less special for actually being a natural environment in the middle of the city (although it was not always "inside" the city).
|
I hear people say this all the time but can't for the life of me figure out where in Central Park they were when they came to this conclusion. There are areas in the North end of the park that don't feel artificial, largely because for the most part they aren't. There are areas in the middle and southern portions of the park that are lovely, but I've never had any sense that it was anything that wasn't cultivated. Perhaps spending a lot of time around the park has lead me to see it differently than people who haven't had that degree of exposure. That said, I love the place and wouldn't change a thing about it.