This is part 4/6 in a series overviewing The Normal Requirements of American Towns and Cities in Respect to Public Open Spaces, an article written by Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. and John Nolen that appeared in Charities and the Commons journal of social work in 1906.

Boston’s Public Garden is a wonderful neighborhood park enjoyed by people from across the city.

Under this heading may be included grounds of from 10 to 100 or even 200 acres in area. Except in extent such parks are not essentially different in the purpose they serve and the character of their design from city squares and gardens. But this difference in extent affords an opportunity for a degree of breadth and freedom that is unobtainable in the smaller grounds.

Hundreds of acres seems rather large for a “small or neighborhood” park.  Oklahoma City’s new “Central Park” will only be around 30 acres, so it would fall into this class in terms of size, but will likely include programming that serves a much broader audience than would be normal.

On the other hand the seclusion from the city and the broad and beautiful natural scenery that characterize the larger “rural” parks can not here be had.  Yet small passages of interesting and agreeable scenery are often possible. This scenery can seldom be natural in appearance but it can often be quite beautiful, a certain elaboration, elegance and even magnificence taking the place of the more quiet and restful simplicity of the large park in a way that appeals yery obviously to many people. And there is, therefore, more or less tendency to develop large parks in the same direction. It is unfortunate that it should be so, for these ends can be attained almost as well upon small parks as upon large, and therefore it is clearly a mistake to treat a large park in this style. It is because more cities have small parks of this elaborate and what might be called gardenesque character than have large and simple rural parks that many people have a perverted conception of what constitutes a park.

Okay, so small parks are more formal and programmed, while large parks do not have to be so programmed.  Rather wordy, but apparently the point was important in the park design and planning world of the early 1900s.  And it is a point well taken: it is difficult to create a pastoral experience in a small park that is of any use.  You can’t hide the fact that you are still in the city.  Likewise, it is all but impossible to formally program every inch of a large park, which is more suited to serving as an escape from the city.

These small parks are frequently used for the display of interesting and showy flowering shrubs and trees and make a feature of fountains, statues and other sculpture. In moderation such objects, together with terraces and other architectural work, are entirely appropriate and desirable in parks of this class and add much to the effect of elegance and richness, for the enjoyment is closely related to that offered by architecture and decorative design and other pleasures forming a part of daily city life.

The neighborhood park is thus one that provides a place for contemplation, memorialization, the appreciation of beauty, etc; but remains connected to the urban fabric that it serves.  The park may be a garden, such as Boston’s Public Garden.  Or, contain a mixture of programming that includes some elements of a playground, such as Oklahoma City’s Memorial Park on the corner of 36th and Western:

This is one category in which Oklahoma City seems to grade fairly well – at least in the close in parts of the city developed prior to WWII.  There are actually a number of great neighborhood parks and even more that have all of the potential and just need a little TLC.