Underrated Preservation

There is something to be said about untouched nature. Although it is unrefined it has an elegant beauty that can not be recaptured easily. Murtagh defined three different landscapes which are designed landscapes, cultural landscapes, and natural landscapes. When walking around in Lake Park I had a better understanding on how to differentiate between the three types. Clearly Lake park is a designed landscape since it is "altered under a plan by a professional or avid amateur with verifiable results." The park was created by Fredrick Law Olmsted who was also the designer for Central Park. As I was walking around the park you could tell that there were preplanned green spaces with bridges to connect the areas. I was disappointed that there were hardly any real wildlife areas. I remember walking down the bluff over to the indian mound and thinking that this is what parks need to feel more like. To have untouched nature around you compared to walking on a glorified green lawn. I realize that preserving landscapes is to avoid development from taking place in general, but I believe there needs to be a stronger emphasis on preserving the nature aspect and not having a refined picnic area. Further in the chapter cultural landscapes are discussed with the definition of areas that are "altered with human function in mind." I understand that these areas are for the general public so there needs to be adjustments made that allows nature it to be easily accessible for everyone. However there can be adjustments to the maintenance of the park to make it seem less 'modified'. The grass does not have to look like your walking onto a golfing green and it doesn't have to be like your walking in a field either. There can be walking paths with longer green grass, abundance of fallen leaves, weeds and wildflowers galore, there is no need for an asphalt path. Not only would it cost less to maintain it but it would be more realistic and inspiring. It reminds me of the hiking paths in hawaii or the trails on the west coast into the mountains. There needs to be a larger sense of wild life in the parks. This does not mean that you need to cut out the clean cut areas all together but it just would not be as pronounced. Some may say that if it not maintained this well it would be an 'eye sore' to the city or make it harder for others to use it for running on the path. My thoughts on this is that you would have just as likely roll you ankle from trying to run on Milwaukee's uneven pavement as you would if you had to run on hiking path. And as far as and eye sore issue, a park's whole purpose is to allow people who live in areas under large amounts of development an place to escape man-made objects. I believe man-made parks fall under that category as well.

I loved the lighthouse! I have always enjoyed seeing a well preserved museum with actual artifacts from the time period. It really does show how far mankind has come with technology, which has it's upsides and downsides. When we were up in the tower and the tour guide was describing how the lighthouse keeper would have to wake up periodically in the night to refill the lamp with oil made me appreciate how much electrically has enhanced our lives. The downside is that because of radar on ships there is no need for lighthouses anymore. In a way it allows you to see how the world used to operate and how we are developing constantly. First it was oil lamps, then the use of a lightbulb, then no need for lighthouses in general because of radar.