Upon going to Lake Park, although it was not the first time, I never really associated it with preservation. I grew up in Chicago and we had “forest preserves” throughout the entire city in which you could run a whole marathon in the connected parks without ever seeing the city. This is what I associated Lake Park with. There were many people running and doing recreational activities while we were there, and I couldn’t help thinking this was a nice place to be. I believe it is very important to save the natural landscapes and to have rural areas throughout cities. It is beautiful to our health and beautiful to escape to after or before a long day at work.
Natural landscapes are just as important in preservation as Mount Vernon. Without our land and natural resources we could not survive in this world. As people we are always trying to build more to make the most profit, that is why we need to preserve parks. Mount Vernon may have had a president live in its residence, but Lake Park was designed by Olmstead, a famous park designer. Why does it make it any less significant?
The lighthouse was a great start to the park. The docents were very knowledgeable about the history of the lighthouse. It was also funny to see the progression of the North Point Lighthouse. First it was a small shack, and then it was moved, and moved again then made taller because of the trees. It was just very entertaining to hear about all the “well what should we do about that?” every time something changed.
It was greatly appreciated that our tour guide was apart of the Lake Park Friends Association. Without them, the park still could have been in such disrepair and bring in the wrong crowd. The lion bridges were a beautiful sight, especially because they were recently restored. I’m not sure if I enjoyed the original footpath being brought back in, instead of the carriageway. It did seem slightly out of place next to the large concrete landings. The old cannon spot was a nice place to stand, but before finding out that it was made for a cannon, I though it was the perfect place for a bench to watch the sunrise. It was also a pleasure to learn that Music Monday’s had been going on for at least ten years and brings in a lot of money for the park. It was interesting to see the pavilion that will be built for Music Mondays.
The fact that the park was designed by Olmstead makes it significant to preserve and opens up the community to a place that they can get away and see some trees. Without parks in cities, they would just be hills and valleys of concrete and be a mess of people, are natural landscapes are meant to be preserved so we don’t destroy everything.
I really liked that you connected Lake Park to your experiences growing up in Chicago. I read interpreted this as a way we can find connections between everywhere we live and experience. I agree that the Lake Park Friends have contributed greatly to the park. Without them, I do not think that the park would be what it is today; it has become such a welcoming and beautiful place for everyone to visit. In addition, I also find that landscapes are just as important to preserve as buildings. Although we can create perfect buildings, we often cannot do the same for nature unless it is in a controlled environment. I think this is one of the things worthy of preservation: the randomness of nature that we have played a limited role in. Although some of Lake Park's nature was planned out and sculpted, it still has features, such as the forest areas, that have limited interference from man.
ReplyDeleteAlthough you mentioned that the park should be preserved because of its beauty, you also specifically mentioned that it should be preserved because it was designed by Olmstead. Do you feel that this man's contribution is perhaps the only "solid" reasoning behind preserving the park, or would you consider the overall history of the park and all of its significant features to be a larger deciding force towards its preservation?
Olmstead as designer - of course we should preserve it. I absolutely agree. I really enjoyed hearing the history of the park as in connection with the history of Milwaukee. For example, the turnaround that used to be where the trolleys would go. Or, the paths that used to be roads for carriages. The fact that the landscape is basically the same made me feel as though I could see those things as they were being told to me - that I could stand on the path and a carriage could roll right past me. If preservation efforts had not been made at Lake Park, I believe there is no way that sense of historical connection or authenticity would exist.
ReplyDeleteWhy do we need so many reasons to save the places and things we love, the things that define us? Why are we in such a hurry to conquer the land that we are in charge of? I feel as though Americans are like a bunch of little kids that break every toy they open on Christmas morning by noon that same day. I think that people who work to preserve places such as this have everyone's best interests at heart - they would be akin to the parent who takes the toy away from the child five minutes before they break it. That is preservation. That is love (haha). Corny, but true. I would hate to think one day we would all wake up, look around at our concrete jungle depleted of all natural resources, and wish that we had done things differently. Why don't we just do those things right now?
It is nice to have a place to go to in Milwaukee where all you see around you in nature, and not the city. Though Milwaukee has many parks, few do this service of really making it feel like you have escaped the city. Though this part was designed by Olmstead and that is a very good reason to preserve it I don't think that should be the main reason for doing it, like Mount Vernon's main point was to preserve Washington's property; I feel the real importance of preserving parks is just to make sure we still have a bit of nature around us.
ReplyDeleteThe light house was very interesting as well and the docents did a great job of giving us some of the history. I liked that in the multiple moves and modifications to the lighthouse it seemed to be important that the park was preserved. At one point it was said that the lighthouse was raised because the trees were getting so tall, and they built up the lighthouse instead of just cutting down the trees. I was relieved that the option to raise the light house was voted over cutting down all the beautiful trees.
I had already written my blog post before commenting on yours and hadn't even thought to touch base on the social importance of naturally preserved areas. Aside of that I also agree with the area in the lawn of the lighthouse for the bench to watch the sunset. It would be picture-perfect. I, however, wish to see a cannon (replica) back in it's place because the cannon itself is part of Milwaukee's history. I agree with what you said about natural landscapes holding equal importance in preservation as such places like Mount Vernon. It just seems that people are more aware and intrigued by areas where 'famous' historic figures roamed.
ReplyDeleteExcellent points regarding the social importance of naturally preserved areas. That was in part what I was trying to get at as we were looking at this site. It is important to recall that there was a conscious effort in the late nineteenth century to really consider what we (society) were losing to industrialization and how we could "save" the landscapes for the health and well being of humans.
ReplyDelete