Blog #7 - Lake Park

We visited Lake Park on a rainy morning in late October. Emerging from the dry safety of our cars, we walked down some concrete stairs and convened in a sort of alcove behind and underneath the main building. A group of women practiced yoga on one end of the alcove while Dr. Chris introduced us to the park. The drizzling rain subsided and we set off on our exploration. The park consisted of elements common to most parks; grass, trees, and a series of small landmarks connected by paths. Lake Park has the added bonus of (as its name suggests) a view of the lake.

We met up with a member of the Lake Park Friends, who explained some of the history of the park. He told us about the designer, Frederick Law Olmsted, who is famous for designing Central Park in New York City. This fact instantly elevated my perception of the park. This wasn't just some park in Wisconsin anymore, this was a slice from the mind who carved that famous green rectangle into the Big Apple. This wasn't just any park, this park had credentials, and for that reason I understood why this place was significant enough to be preserved. This space had been carefully designed by capable minds, our experiences while walking these paths were carefully engineered. It seemed to me that preserving a park like this simply involved two parts routine maintenance and one part "let it be." Altering the park would not only be offensive to the intent of the original designer, but also to the people who have come to love it. After all, that's what is important about a park like this. It belongs to everyone, it's a part of us. Mount Vernon was important to save because it was the home of someone beloved to us, but Lake Park deserves to be saved because the park itself is beloved to us. The park and our collective experiences there belong to all of us.

That doesn't mean the park isn't in a constant state of flux. Time marches on, after all, and there's plenty to consider as it marches across the many opulent bridges in the park. We were told that the bridges had recently undergone massive restoration, which goes far beyond my recipe of routine maintenance and "let it be," but in this case a necessary ingredient in preserving what is most important about the park, the experience. After all, it isn't the metal and stone making up the bridge that belong to us. It's the experience of walking across it, looking over the side and out to the lake, strolling along and listening the rustle of the wind in the trees.

Later that day we entered the old North Point Lighthouse where we were greeted by a pair of lighthouse enthusiasts. After listening to the biographies of every keeper in the history of the lighthouse, we were invited to climb the spiral staircase to where the light once marked the coast. As we climbed to the top our guide grilled us on our knowledge of lighthouses. I don't remember much of what was said, but I do recall his enthusiasm. The view from the top was nice, but I felt that the reasons for the preservation and restoration of the lighthouse were separate from the reasons for the preservation and restoration of the rest of the park. Where as the park was an open space made to be discovered and experienced, the lighthouse was a nonfunctional artifact turned into a museum. It wasn't an exploration, it was a tour, and as such it didn't feel as if it belonged to me like the park did. It belonged to the lighthouse enthusiasts.

Not to say the lighthouse is underserving of preservation, it makes me happy to know that it is there and it is loved. It is interesting to me that it represents a different kind of preservation from the park. Where as the park is living and changing while preserving the experience, the lighthouse is dissected and frozen in a new state that retells the story of its past, but ceases to be a part of it. The lighthouse no longer lights, its fresnel lens rotates in a glass case on the ground floor. It hasn't been preserved so much as turned into a mausoleum for itself. Which case can we point to as an example of preservation? Is it one, the other, both, or neither?