What do you think?
Rate this book
Saving Central Park: A History and a Memoir
The story of how one woman's long love affair with New York's Central Park led her to organize its rescue from a state of serious decline, returning it to the beautiful place of recreational opportunity and spiritual sustenance that it is today.
Elizabeth Barlow Rogers opens with a quick survey of her early life--a middle-class upbringing in Texas; college at Wellesley, marriage, a master's degree in city planning at Yale. And then her move to New York, where she starts a family and, when she finds being a mother and a housewife is not enough, pours herself into the protection and enhancement of the city's green spaces. Interwoven into her own story is a comprehensive history of Central Park: its design and construction as a scenic masterpiece; the alterations of each succeeding era; the addition of numerous facilities for sports and play; and finally, the "anything goes" phase of the 1960s and 70s, which was often fun but nearly destroyed the park. The two narratives continue to entwine as she finds a job in the administration of Central Park, founds the Central Park Conservancy, and transforms both the park and herself--a transformation that has led to the writing of her many books, to travels that have taken her to parks and gardens around the world, and to solidifying the prestige of one of New York's most conspicuous landmarks.
Elizabeth Barlow Rogers opens with a quick survey of her early life--a middle-class upbringing in Texas; college at Wellesley, marriage, a master's degree in city planning at Yale. And then her move to New York, where she starts a family and, when she finds being a mother and a housewife is not enough, pours herself into the protection and enhancement of the city's green spaces. Interwoven into her own story is a comprehensive history of Central Park: its design and construction as a scenic masterpiece; the alterations of each succeeding era; the addition of numerous facilities for sports and play; and finally, the "anything goes" phase of the 1960s and 70s, which was often fun but nearly destroyed the park. The two narratives continue to entwine as she finds a job in the administration of Central Park, founds the Central Park Conservancy, and transforms both the park and herself--a transformation that has led to the writing of her many books, to travels that have taken her to parks and gardens around the world, and to solidifying the prestige of one of New York's most conspicuous landmarks.
296 pages, Kindle Edition
First published May 1, 2018
15 people are currently reading
277 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
September 1, 2018
This was way more memoir and not enough park for me. I was hoping to learn more about Central Park but instead I learned about a rich lady who built what sounds like a lovely garden in her house in the Hamptons. Congrats.
August 31, 2018
In the 1970’s New York’s Central Park had turned into somewhat of a scary eyesore. Crime was rampant, graffiti marred walls and structures, and green areas were barren of grass.
Originally, as you will learn in Rogers’ fine book, Frederick Law Olmsted envisioned and created a true nature respite in the heart of a busy city. Saving Central Park tells the story of how the Park fell into such disgrace and ruin, and how a private philanthropic group The Central Park Conservancy established a private public relationship with the New York City Parks Department to bring the park back to beauty and usefulness.
You learn a bit about landscape architecture, gardening, and politics. A fascinating read that takes you from the streets of New York to the gardens at Versailles. Rogers’ own journey is intertwined with that of the park’s and offers a look at a woman dealing with financiers and political figures to save Central Park.
Originally, as you will learn in Rogers’ fine book, Frederick Law Olmsted envisioned and created a true nature respite in the heart of a busy city. Saving Central Park tells the story of how the Park fell into such disgrace and ruin, and how a private philanthropic group The Central Park Conservancy established a private public relationship with the New York City Parks Department to bring the park back to beauty and usefulness.
You learn a bit about landscape architecture, gardening, and politics. A fascinating read that takes you from the streets of New York to the gardens at Versailles. Rogers’ own journey is intertwined with that of the park’s and offers a look at a woman dealing with financiers and political figures to save Central Park.
July 1, 2018
It’s always sad when an author feels it necessary to degrade the memory of others, in their writing. Especially when the person they are degrading is not alive to defend themselves.
In her very self serving, self promoting and verbose book entitled, “Saving Central Park: A History and a Memoir”, and even before she reveals herself to be the grand savior of Central Park, she begins her first chapter called “Near Death”
by placing the blame for the parks demise on one if it’s past Commissioners, the late Thomas Hoving. Hoving had written an outstanding and exciting position paper for Lindsay during his campaign while he was curator of medieval art at the Metropolitan Museum. As a result he subsequently was appointed by the new mayor. This is not mentioned by Rodgers.
In her jaded revisionist opinion, the parks decline into the dark ages is a direct result of Mr. Hoving’s tenure as commissioner, noting in an an old guard parochial manner that because he was a “a scion of the establishment” he should have taken the course and “perspective of a historical preservationist. Instead, he chose the path of radical showmanship”. That the young commissioner went about, “aligning himself with the vibrant hippie era of psychedelic drugs, mass rock concerts, student riots, and Vietnam War protests, he shook things up from the day he took office.
It’s understandable after learning a little about the writers privileged middle class background that she would take this parochial buttoned up position.
Did he shake things up, yes and thank god! The park was simply too dismal for words before he became commissioner.
But how this author can make an undocumented statement that Mr. Hoving had aligned himself with “ hippie era of psychedelic drugs” I am not sure. It’s a patently false statement. I highly doubt the Metropolitan Museum of Art would have hired him to be the Director had he been hanging out with Jerry Garcia. I’m sure this would be frowned on by the matronly Rogers but Hoving did permit the Grateful Dead to play at the Nuremberg Bandshell while he was commissioner, not once but twice! The Conservancy tried to demolish this bandshell, but were stopped due to public intervention, thank god! Sadly, the Conservancy has erected a scaffolding around it and refuses to allocate funds to refurbish it. Hard feelings, I guess.
She accuses Hoving of being a part of the student riots, and Vietnam War protests of the era, which is again patently false and misleading. Personally I don’t recall Hoving taking a position on this but the right to protest is as American as apple pie. In places like New York City the space for large scale protests are few. I suppose the author would have preferred that everyone just stayed home during Vietnam and not protested a war we had no business being in. The conflicts the U.S. inserted themselves in after Vietnam had no draft and hence there no protests, so I guess the Park was saved from undue wear and tear as a result.
With regard to her attributing the “mass rock concerts” with its accompanying alcohol consumption, drug dealing and the environmental damage done to the park to Hoving, this again, is her attempt at distorting the actual facts and timeline.
The massive extravaganza shows, like the Simon & Garfunkel concert, with more than 500,00 people, took place in 1982, long after Hoving was Commissioner. It should be noted that these large scale events are still permitted by the Central Park Conservancy today and for very large fees, or donations to the Conservancy.
What Hoving was responsible for was accepting the proposal of a young man named Ron Delsner, recently honored by the Conservancy, to promote and organize some small concerts at The Wollman Skating ring . These were sponsored by Schaefer Beer. Mr. Delsner went on to a long and prosperous career promoting Rock concerts and bringing huge amount of revenue to the New York area and thanks in a very large large part to Hoving’s keen vision and judgement of character.
According to the Rogers “Hoving also met with community leaders in East Harlem to say that from now on there would be town-hall meetings to hear what kind of parks people wanted.”
This is just a really good example of the autocratic nature the conservancy under Rogers was! Who in their right mind would make a statement that meeting with community representatives to hear what the was on their minds was a bad thing. After all who were the parks established for, the people of New York. I don’t recall the author ever reaching out to the communities surrounding the park.
What the Central Park Conservancy did was to establish strict rules and regulations with no feedback from the citizens of New York City. They just essentially took over and they did this in an extremely autocratic non inclusive manner that essentially said, we know what is good for the parks and you all don’t. So yes Commissioner Hoving met with the community and quite frankly you should have to when the Conservancy was established because the parks belong to the people.
While I will give credit where credit is due The Central Park Conservancy is responsible for the great rejuvenation and restoration of Central Park. No doubt in mind there. But it came at a great sacrifice and cost to the people who live around Central Park in favor of those who simply occasionally visit the park.
What the author fails to mention is the Conservancy has problems. due to it’s always has been an elitist organization. There is little community involvement because they do not want the community involved, they want those with money involved. They exclusively cater to very wealthy people, most of whom never actually use the park, but are in a financial position to donate large amounts of their money to the cause in exchange for a plaque or their name on a bench. The Conservancy ignores and cares little for those who actually use the park. As a result of the city’s complete abdication they began placing strict restrictions and fencing off huge areas of the park, keeping the public off the grass, because it was resting, really the grass needs to rest?
Another problem the Conservancy continues to ignoring is taking some common sense advise from the people who have dogs and use the park several times a day. Allowing unleashed dogs roam around the park in the morning and evening is great. Essentially the entire park becomes essentially the nation’s largest dog run during certain hours. But that comes with a cost because the Conservancy refuses to establish some basic ground rules that every dog run run the nation has clearly posted prior to entering. It would be both dangerous and irresponsible not to have basic rules but so far there are none set by the Conservancy accompanying their off leash policy. Because there are many irresponsible dog owners out there that create many problems for all the other dog owners. The most important rule of any dog run is no intact males are allowed in.
Why? Ask any male dog owner! Intact males create problems that lead to fights that often can’t be controlled and end in an injury either human or canine . People who simply refuse to have their male dogs fixed should not be allowed the privilege of letting their dogs roam free, period. It is disruptive to the other dogs and always ends up in a vicious uncontrollable dog fight. I have personally witnessed and been involved in several and am tired of it. Yet the Conservancy ignores the many requests from the responsible dog owners to do something like enact some basic rules for those unleashed hours.
The Central Park Conservancy created initially to restore the park has today become simply one big greedy self promoting money making operation that thinks they own the park. They operate it as though it was their personal venue and they successfully hire it out every single weekend during the spring, summer and fall to whoever is the highest bidder or donor I should say. The people who actually live around the park and use the park actually hate the circus like atmosphere they have to experience every single weekend during these months. But the Central Park Conservancy never bothers to ask the community how they would like to see the park that was created for the people used, because they simply don’t care.
To point finger and accuse the late Thomas Hoving for being responsible for bringing Central park close to death in part because of the number of events held in the park during his tenure s an just an irresponsible exaggeration that shows little insight for the actual facts and circumstances. What is really ironic and a sad testament to the Conservancy’s administration today is they have essentially turned around and done far worse with their never ending corporate events and promotion. It is just pure hypocrisy. The number of events and large scale concerts taking place today under the autocratic regime of the Conservancy in Central Park pale in comparison to those during Commissioner Hoving’s brief tenure.
In her very self serving, self promoting and verbose book entitled, “Saving Central Park: A History and a Memoir”, and even before she reveals herself to be the grand savior of Central Park, she begins her first chapter called “Near Death”
by placing the blame for the parks demise on one if it’s past Commissioners, the late Thomas Hoving. Hoving had written an outstanding and exciting position paper for Lindsay during his campaign while he was curator of medieval art at the Metropolitan Museum. As a result he subsequently was appointed by the new mayor. This is not mentioned by Rodgers.
In her jaded revisionist opinion, the parks decline into the dark ages is a direct result of Mr. Hoving’s tenure as commissioner, noting in an an old guard parochial manner that because he was a “a scion of the establishment” he should have taken the course and “perspective of a historical preservationist. Instead, he chose the path of radical showmanship”. That the young commissioner went about, “aligning himself with the vibrant hippie era of psychedelic drugs, mass rock concerts, student riots, and Vietnam War protests, he shook things up from the day he took office.
It’s understandable after learning a little about the writers privileged middle class background that she would take this parochial buttoned up position.
Did he shake things up, yes and thank god! The park was simply too dismal for words before he became commissioner.
But how this author can make an undocumented statement that Mr. Hoving had aligned himself with “ hippie era of psychedelic drugs” I am not sure. It’s a patently false statement. I highly doubt the Metropolitan Museum of Art would have hired him to be the Director had he been hanging out with Jerry Garcia. I’m sure this would be frowned on by the matronly Rogers but Hoving did permit the Grateful Dead to play at the Nuremberg Bandshell while he was commissioner, not once but twice! The Conservancy tried to demolish this bandshell, but were stopped due to public intervention, thank god! Sadly, the Conservancy has erected a scaffolding around it and refuses to allocate funds to refurbish it. Hard feelings, I guess.
She accuses Hoving of being a part of the student riots, and Vietnam War protests of the era, which is again patently false and misleading. Personally I don’t recall Hoving taking a position on this but the right to protest is as American as apple pie. In places like New York City the space for large scale protests are few. I suppose the author would have preferred that everyone just stayed home during Vietnam and not protested a war we had no business being in. The conflicts the U.S. inserted themselves in after Vietnam had no draft and hence there no protests, so I guess the Park was saved from undue wear and tear as a result.
With regard to her attributing the “mass rock concerts” with its accompanying alcohol consumption, drug dealing and the environmental damage done to the park to Hoving, this again, is her attempt at distorting the actual facts and timeline.
The massive extravaganza shows, like the Simon & Garfunkel concert, with more than 500,00 people, took place in 1982, long after Hoving was Commissioner. It should be noted that these large scale events are still permitted by the Central Park Conservancy today and for very large fees, or donations to the Conservancy.
What Hoving was responsible for was accepting the proposal of a young man named Ron Delsner, recently honored by the Conservancy, to promote and organize some small concerts at The Wollman Skating ring . These were sponsored by Schaefer Beer. Mr. Delsner went on to a long and prosperous career promoting Rock concerts and bringing huge amount of revenue to the New York area and thanks in a very large large part to Hoving’s keen vision and judgement of character.
According to the Rogers “Hoving also met with community leaders in East Harlem to say that from now on there would be town-hall meetings to hear what kind of parks people wanted.”
This is just a really good example of the autocratic nature the conservancy under Rogers was! Who in their right mind would make a statement that meeting with community representatives to hear what the was on their minds was a bad thing. After all who were the parks established for, the people of New York. I don’t recall the author ever reaching out to the communities surrounding the park.
What the Central Park Conservancy did was to establish strict rules and regulations with no feedback from the citizens of New York City. They just essentially took over and they did this in an extremely autocratic non inclusive manner that essentially said, we know what is good for the parks and you all don’t. So yes Commissioner Hoving met with the community and quite frankly you should have to when the Conservancy was established because the parks belong to the people.
While I will give credit where credit is due The Central Park Conservancy is responsible for the great rejuvenation and restoration of Central Park. No doubt in mind there. But it came at a great sacrifice and cost to the people who live around Central Park in favor of those who simply occasionally visit the park.
What the author fails to mention is the Conservancy has problems. due to it’s always has been an elitist organization. There is little community involvement because they do not want the community involved, they want those with money involved. They exclusively cater to very wealthy people, most of whom never actually use the park, but are in a financial position to donate large amounts of their money to the cause in exchange for a plaque or their name on a bench. The Conservancy ignores and cares little for those who actually use the park. As a result of the city’s complete abdication they began placing strict restrictions and fencing off huge areas of the park, keeping the public off the grass, because it was resting, really the grass needs to rest?
Another problem the Conservancy continues to ignoring is taking some common sense advise from the people who have dogs and use the park several times a day. Allowing unleashed dogs roam around the park in the morning and evening is great. Essentially the entire park becomes essentially the nation’s largest dog run during certain hours. But that comes with a cost because the Conservancy refuses to establish some basic ground rules that every dog run run the nation has clearly posted prior to entering. It would be both dangerous and irresponsible not to have basic rules but so far there are none set by the Conservancy accompanying their off leash policy. Because there are many irresponsible dog owners out there that create many problems for all the other dog owners. The most important rule of any dog run is no intact males are allowed in.
Why? Ask any male dog owner! Intact males create problems that lead to fights that often can’t be controlled and end in an injury either human or canine . People who simply refuse to have their male dogs fixed should not be allowed the privilege of letting their dogs roam free, period. It is disruptive to the other dogs and always ends up in a vicious uncontrollable dog fight. I have personally witnessed and been involved in several and am tired of it. Yet the Conservancy ignores the many requests from the responsible dog owners to do something like enact some basic rules for those unleashed hours.
The Central Park Conservancy created initially to restore the park has today become simply one big greedy self promoting money making operation that thinks they own the park. They operate it as though it was their personal venue and they successfully hire it out every single weekend during the spring, summer and fall to whoever is the highest bidder or donor I should say. The people who actually live around the park and use the park actually hate the circus like atmosphere they have to experience every single weekend during these months. But the Central Park Conservancy never bothers to ask the community how they would like to see the park that was created for the people used, because they simply don’t care.
To point finger and accuse the late Thomas Hoving for being responsible for bringing Central park close to death in part because of the number of events held in the park during his tenure s an just an irresponsible exaggeration that shows little insight for the actual facts and circumstances. What is really ironic and a sad testament to the Conservancy’s administration today is they have essentially turned around and done far worse with their never ending corporate events and promotion. It is just pure hypocrisy. The number of events and large scale concerts taking place today under the autocratic regime of the Conservancy in Central Park pale in comparison to those during Commissioner Hoving’s brief tenure.
February 26, 2022
Overall, I found this book to be a fascinating account of the history and ideologies of Central Park and the Central Park Conservancy. As a place that has had such important meaning in my life, I found the story of the deliberate designs that have given it such magic to be very captivating. I feel a renewed sense of appreciation for the beauty of this place. I also completely disagree with some of the reviews I've seen here thay say the book is more about Rogers' life than about the park itself. I'm actually pretty confused by that assessment because the book is almost entirely about the long history of Central Park, with only slight deviations into other parts of Rogers' life at times.
That being said, I think it's important to keep in mind that this story is told entirely from the perspective of a very wealthy white woman. And as such, there are a lot of discussions of equity that were unfortunately absent from the book (perhaps most notably the absence of any mention of Seneca Village). Overall, despite the rather one-sided view of the many struggles in Central Park's administration over the years, i thoroughly enjoyed this memoir and learned a lot about one of my favorite places on Earth.
That being said, I think it's important to keep in mind that this story is told entirely from the perspective of a very wealthy white woman. And as such, there are a lot of discussions of equity that were unfortunately absent from the book (perhaps most notably the absence of any mention of Seneca Village). Overall, despite the rather one-sided view of the many struggles in Central Park's administration over the years, i thoroughly enjoyed this memoir and learned a lot about one of my favorite places on Earth.
July 3, 2019
Ms. Rogers definitely did her homework with the research on this book, plus the knowledge she probably acuired over her lifetime. This book is filled with small pockets of fascinating information about Central Park which I loved. But most of the book is Ms. Rogers discussing the work that she has done eith Central Park and the Conservancy in an autobiographical format which I didnt find very interesting. The pictures are cool and the history is fascinating, but im sorry I dont care about her life. I sidnt even feel compelled to finish it, but it is a good book for schools to read if they were reading about Central Park maybe in botany class.
February 6, 2021
I enjoyed this memoir, really liked that there were so many photos & pictures, but was disappointed there was no map - as a non-New Yorker who has only been to Central Park a couple times I was not familiar with all the specific places she mentioned within the park & it would have been helpful to flip to a map to orient myself. I found the history of the park through the different administrations & alterations interesting & would have liked a little more detail as to how she & others actually went about coming up with & implementing the idea of the public-private partnership for the park. Overall, not a bad read - liked that she finished up with the Christo/Jeanne-Claude `Gates' installation story
May 3, 2018
This book made me miss running in Central Park very much, but I found the story rather boring.
April 2, 2023
Soft, interesting book that was both covered the rebirth of Central Park with the formation of the Central Park Conservancy and the author’s own memoir. I wish she had only written about the rebirth and the formation and use of the conservancy. The author also had an irritating view of the rightful responsibility of public life versus her privately funded entity where she and other people without any direct responsibility to the voter made decisions. Clearly, she had a view that the park should stay in the frame of designer Frederick Law Olmsted, holding up his work and vision as Gospel, one that should not change with time or decisions of those who had to go up for a vote. It’s disturbing how she repeatedly attacked those appointed by the elected officials without other evidence or research that would support her allegations.
Still, the book is well worth reading for anyone who loves this mammoth park – and history. She speaks to the park as a place to offer, “spiritual sustenance as well as recreational opportunity.” Talking about the history of the park and how the city was looking at two locations – one hugging the water and the other the 843 acres of its current location that allowed multiple access being in the middle of the 1811 grid street system. The candidates for Mayor in 1850 both supported the park, promoted by residents, wanted a large park emulating those in significant European cities.
The land was further north from the city – at that point. It was filled with squatters who lived in shanties and grazed goats – and certainly didn’t pay taxes. Within 15-years, most of the park had been built. Then the park took a journey on its own, including by 1910, the Parks Budget had grown, and they hosted 314 performances in the music pavilion on the Mall and had entrances from so many areas of the city. She speaks to the vandalism done even a century ago and the various building projects – some took place and others didn’t – that brought some conflicted in this metropolitan.
Rogers speaks about how the park changed radically between 1934 and 1961 when Parks Commissioner Robert Mosses replaced open space with facilities for “sports, games, and children's play.” She also spoke about how crime in the city seeped into the park, making it unsafe. Budget cuts and patronage made the park unsafe and didn’t allow it to maintain upkeep. Her idea of creating the conservancy provided a “working partnership between city government and a group of private citizens.”
Much of her book focuses on her obsession to maintain the integrity of Olmsted’s vision of the park, according to her own view. I found it unusual that she felt that her privately funded crew somehow had a better vision of what the park should look like than those who were ultimately responsible to the voter. I also found it interesting that she didn’t talk about how they regularly engaged those using the park on what they found most helpful. It’s clear from what the author shares on who chaired her board, she both had a close relationship with these businesspeople, and one was left wondering if she engaged with people who didn’t have access to large checkbooks. Did they ever survey the park participant who, ultimately, was paying the taxes for the park to operate.
The discussion about the donation from Yoko Ono and the formation of the spot to celebrate her husband’s life was interesting; the quiet, soft spot is certainly a major tourist spot and point of reflection. Yet, one has to wonder why we honor a talented singer cut down due to gun violence in Central Park instead of giving a similar honor to those veterans who lose their lives in service to our country.
The author’s personal story isn’t compelling, and this reader could do without it. Her discussion about her courtship with her husband, whose corporation donated to her nonprofit and he was on the board and married to a woman who he said they had no marital problems, but their marriage was “flat,” was fairly sad. She spoke about enjoying being picked up by the employer’s Mercedes and taken to all the high-class culture in town. As an Ohioan, I did find it interesting to read that her husband grew up in Lorain Ohio where his dad was a manager at U.S. Steel plant then later in Middletown at the Armco plant where he worked. The pages she used to share how she bought a home in an uppity town and growing a garden could have been better used to share more about Central Park – and include a map.
Still, the book is well worth reading for anyone who loves this mammoth park – and history. She speaks to the park as a place to offer, “spiritual sustenance as well as recreational opportunity.” Talking about the history of the park and how the city was looking at two locations – one hugging the water and the other the 843 acres of its current location that allowed multiple access being in the middle of the 1811 grid street system. The candidates for Mayor in 1850 both supported the park, promoted by residents, wanted a large park emulating those in significant European cities.
The land was further north from the city – at that point. It was filled with squatters who lived in shanties and grazed goats – and certainly didn’t pay taxes. Within 15-years, most of the park had been built. Then the park took a journey on its own, including by 1910, the Parks Budget had grown, and they hosted 314 performances in the music pavilion on the Mall and had entrances from so many areas of the city. She speaks to the vandalism done even a century ago and the various building projects – some took place and others didn’t – that brought some conflicted in this metropolitan.
Rogers speaks about how the park changed radically between 1934 and 1961 when Parks Commissioner Robert Mosses replaced open space with facilities for “sports, games, and children's play.” She also spoke about how crime in the city seeped into the park, making it unsafe. Budget cuts and patronage made the park unsafe and didn’t allow it to maintain upkeep. Her idea of creating the conservancy provided a “working partnership between city government and a group of private citizens.”
Much of her book focuses on her obsession to maintain the integrity of Olmsted’s vision of the park, according to her own view. I found it unusual that she felt that her privately funded crew somehow had a better vision of what the park should look like than those who were ultimately responsible to the voter. I also found it interesting that she didn’t talk about how they regularly engaged those using the park on what they found most helpful. It’s clear from what the author shares on who chaired her board, she both had a close relationship with these businesspeople, and one was left wondering if she engaged with people who didn’t have access to large checkbooks. Did they ever survey the park participant who, ultimately, was paying the taxes for the park to operate.
The discussion about the donation from Yoko Ono and the formation of the spot to celebrate her husband’s life was interesting; the quiet, soft spot is certainly a major tourist spot and point of reflection. Yet, one has to wonder why we honor a talented singer cut down due to gun violence in Central Park instead of giving a similar honor to those veterans who lose their lives in service to our country.
The author’s personal story isn’t compelling, and this reader could do without it. Her discussion about her courtship with her husband, whose corporation donated to her nonprofit and he was on the board and married to a woman who he said they had no marital problems, but their marriage was “flat,” was fairly sad. She spoke about enjoying being picked up by the employer’s Mercedes and taken to all the high-class culture in town. As an Ohioan, I did find it interesting to read that her husband grew up in Lorain Ohio where his dad was a manager at U.S. Steel plant then later in Middletown at the Armco plant where he worked. The pages she used to share how she bought a home in an uppity town and growing a garden could have been better used to share more about Central Park – and include a map.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 3, 2018
As James Joyce would say, I have a strong weakness for Central Park. "Saving Central Park" takes the reader through the up and down history of the park, picking up during its lowest "down" period in the mid 1970s. When Central Park was originally conceived in the 1850s it was intended to be a quiet and restful retreat from the burgeoning hustle and bustle of the city for all New Yorkers. Designed by Frederick Law Olmstead and Calvin Vaux, they blasted rock, felled, planted, and replanted trees, imported dirt, sodded meadows and grass-seeded acres of land to provide a beautiful oasis in a city that was growing, and not so pleasantly, by leaps and bounds. And there the park remained for decades until mismanagement and funding cutbacks brought it to a state of disrepair. Enter Robert Moses in the 1930s who, with good intentions toward those most affected by the depression, repurposed much of the park by installing playgrounds, paving over acres of land, and building Tavern-on-the-Green and other money-making ventures. Again, all this until the money ran out and budgets were cut back in the 1970s. Add in the impact of the 1960s when the social order of the city broke down and vandalism, symbolized by the scourge of graffiti on 50,000 square feet of rock and other park property (a truly staggering figure), was rampant. This is where Ms. Rogers enters who, through the Central Park Conservancy which she founded, attempted to take the best of both the Olmstead and Moses models. But leaning toward the Olmstead view which created a more artistic view of the park. Times being what they were there were plenty of opponents on each side as well as rules and regulations, environmental laws, and politics that forced her to compromise and give in on some issues that seemed pretty obvious to rational thinkers. But for the most part her views prevailed and her work and impact is obvious to anyone entering the park today. A beautiful read but I could have done without the details of her personal life. But the book's subtitle is "A History and A Memoir" so I was warned. I hope you read this most enjoyable book about one of my favorite spots in the best city in the world.
September 24, 2018
I would give this book the time and courtesy of a thoughtful review, but EBR's complete dismissal of Seneca Valley, legitimate graffiti artists, and her own first husband prove to me that she is purely interested in self-mythology at the expense and erasure of others.
This book is filled with wrongful mythologizing for Olmstead (who was problematic on a good day), all so that EBR can align herself with his version of Romanticism, and therefore play into her own legacy. She had no idea what she was doing, but insists that this was why she was successful. Why she was really successful, though, was because she was a woman of privilege. There is so much privilege, so much elitism, and so much border-line-racism/blatant racism in the way that EBR is completely blind to the world around her, especially in the communities around Central Park. I understand that the '80s were a time, and while I was personally not alive, I have always had doubts that the way well-off white people who lived in Manhattan at that time perceived it. This book made me double down on my doubts. There is one time where she insists that, while pushing a baby-stroller, who 'avoided a mugging' [I believe at gunpoint], but to me, that sounds like either the blindness/naivety of privilege, or a straight-up lie. There is one section where she praises Donald Trump. (Keep in mind, this book was written during the last few years, when Trump became a faux-pas.) There is one diary entry that goes on for too long, and ends with her listing off prominent graffiti artists and then saying "Who the hell are these people even?" When I read this, I heard the tone of racist dismissal that older people insist isn't racism, but is exactly where those problems stem from.
Compounded with the fact that the writing itself is overwrought, and the memoir sections suffer from self-centeredness. She believes I should care about her life because it's her life, but never gives me a reason to care. Why should I care about you as a person? If this were a novel, and I were a creative writing teacher, I'd be able to give the age-old critique that just because the protagonist is a self-insert, you as a writer still have to give the audience a reason to care. Since this is nonfiction, it's trickier, but still the same problem. And in 2018, with blatant problems and misunderstandings of the political intricacies she dealt with while restoring Central Park going unacknowledged by either the author or the editors (who should've known their audience, mind you), I don't like EBR as an individual, so when she insists that I should care about why she fell in love with a married man, or how difficult it was for her to find the right dress for a hat party...I don't. I really don't.
This book is a person who achieved success on no merits of their own, insisting that their success is of great importance, aligning that success with the success of other figures in the past who also did not deserve their success and reaped the work of others, and then erasing anything or anyone who disrupts this misconstrued narrative. Sure, the Conservancy may have helped restore Central Park, but I think EBR is overstating her role, and erasing the history of others in the process.
Easily one of the most obnoxious, elitist, blinded books I've ever read.
This book is filled with wrongful mythologizing for Olmstead (who was problematic on a good day), all so that EBR can align herself with his version of Romanticism, and therefore play into her own legacy. She had no idea what she was doing, but insists that this was why she was successful. Why she was really successful, though, was because she was a woman of privilege. There is so much privilege, so much elitism, and so much border-line-racism/blatant racism in the way that EBR is completely blind to the world around her, especially in the communities around Central Park. I understand that the '80s were a time, and while I was personally not alive, I have always had doubts that the way well-off white people who lived in Manhattan at that time perceived it. This book made me double down on my doubts. There is one time where she insists that, while pushing a baby-stroller, who 'avoided a mugging' [I believe at gunpoint], but to me, that sounds like either the blindness/naivety of privilege, or a straight-up lie. There is one section where she praises Donald Trump. (Keep in mind, this book was written during the last few years, when Trump became a faux-pas.) There is one diary entry that goes on for too long, and ends with her listing off prominent graffiti artists and then saying "Who the hell are these people even?" When I read this, I heard the tone of racist dismissal that older people insist isn't racism, but is exactly where those problems stem from.
Compounded with the fact that the writing itself is overwrought, and the memoir sections suffer from self-centeredness. She believes I should care about her life because it's her life, but never gives me a reason to care. Why should I care about you as a person? If this were a novel, and I were a creative writing teacher, I'd be able to give the age-old critique that just because the protagonist is a self-insert, you as a writer still have to give the audience a reason to care. Since this is nonfiction, it's trickier, but still the same problem. And in 2018, with blatant problems and misunderstandings of the political intricacies she dealt with while restoring Central Park going unacknowledged by either the author or the editors (who should've known their audience, mind you), I don't like EBR as an individual, so when she insists that I should care about why she fell in love with a married man, or how difficult it was for her to find the right dress for a hat party...I don't. I really don't.
This book is a person who achieved success on no merits of their own, insisting that their success is of great importance, aligning that success with the success of other figures in the past who also did not deserve their success and reaped the work of others, and then erasing anything or anyone who disrupts this misconstrued narrative. Sure, the Conservancy may have helped restore Central Park, but I think EBR is overstating her role, and erasing the history of others in the process.
Easily one of the most obnoxious, elitist, blinded books I've ever read.
April 2, 2019
During a work assignment in the years 2001-2005 that brought me to NYC multiple times for week-long periods I took advantage of the opportunity to visit Central Park many times. It was always a pleasure to find something of new and of great interest. Ranging the magnificent views from Belvedere Castle, exploring the pathways of the Ramble and the North Woods, the eretheral sounds of a lone saxophone player on the Mall early in the morning before the coming of crowds later in the day, listening to a rendition of Imagine at the Strawberry Fields mosaic, positively being enthralled by The Gates, “discovering” various statues throughout the Park (e.g., Balto, Cleopatra’s Needle, the easy to miss Still Hunt, Bethesda Fountain’s Angel of the Waters, Robert Burns, Alice in Wonderland, and Hans Christian Anderson), to watching my oldest son complete the NYC Marathon, it was was a special experience.
Saving Central Park offers the reader a detailed narrative of the Park's evolution from the mid-1800s to the early 2000s. However, I must agree with other reviewers that the self serving and overwhelming text of the author's role is hard to take. Again, as others have noted, the cover of the book states that it is not just a history but a memoir. Fair warning was given.
If you can get by the memoir portion you should be able to gain an appreciation of the intricacies of the on-going management and historical significance of Central Park.
Saving Central Park offers the reader a detailed narrative of the Park's evolution from the mid-1800s to the early 2000s. However, I must agree with other reviewers that the self serving and overwhelming text of the author's role is hard to take. Again, as others have noted, the cover of the book states that it is not just a history but a memoir. Fair warning was given.
If you can get by the memoir portion you should be able to gain an appreciation of the intricacies of the on-going management and historical significance of Central Park.
July 16, 2018
As a lover of New York City and Central Park in particular, I enjoyed learning more about the history of the park. I found the juxtaposition of Rogers' interpretation of Olmsted and Vaux's vision for the park with the changes wrought by Robert Moses fascinating. The overall arc of the book's timeline for the park and for the development of the Central Park Conservancy brought clarity to some of the changes that have occurred in the Park's history. The writing at times was uneven and repetitive but if these topics are of interested to you, the book is worth reading.
June 4, 2018
Interesting history of Centerl Park and personal journal of author Elizabeth Barlow Rogers that coincides with the narrative. Central Park is a fantastic place filled with natural wonder, romance, activity, scenic landscapes and open spaces. For those who have felt is magic or are interested in it's history, stories of restoration and learing more about it, will find this book by a long term New Yorker and naturalist an informative and good read.
July 5, 2018
I might have preferred this to be a bit more linear in structure as I had some trouble following it. It was also a bit uneven with some parts that were really interesting and others that were a bit too bureaucratic and detailed especially for someone who doesn't live in NYC. I do appreciate what a jewel the park is though.
March 30, 2022
I enjoyed this book; but, additional photos of the original park areas compared to the current locations would have clarified their stories of restoration. Also, a current park map would help envision the stories told. I like exploring the park- I just need to have a visual to help me follow the stories within the book (just reading street name locations becomes confusing).
July 25, 2023
I picked up this book because I was really interested in the history of Central Park and I did enjoy the history aspects in this book. However, I wasn't too interested in the memoir parts and there were many pages of those.
November 5, 2018
Honestly, I know the content is good, but I couldn't even finish it because it was so dry and couldn't keep my attention.
March 17, 2021
Fascinating history of Central Park and the Central Park Conservancy.
May 10, 2023
I very much enjoyed reading about the park's history and some of the work and politics that went into its restoration.
July 27, 2018
Inspiring book which shows the huge difference one person can make in the life of a whole city — or least in the greatest borough of what many would say is the greatest city in the world. Central Park in the 1960’s and 70’s was increasingly becoming a place for sports, recreation, and commerce, and losing its original intent as a scenic haven from the stresses of urban life. The author was committed to bringing Central Park back to its original glory as envisioned by its designers Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux. A must for anyone who believes in historic preservation and/or the central role of parks in the lives of great cities and their inhabitants.
July 20, 2022
This book was on sale and I live quite close to Central Park so I bought it because, why not?
I love to buy books on a whim. When it works out, it’s like having a great conversation with a stranger — an experience that reminds you to assume that the world outside of your familiarity is interesting and meaningful.
Barlow’s journey with the Central Park Conservancy is fascinating. Her work brings her into responsibilities of gardener, landscape architect, politician, and philanthropist. Her determination and energy are impressive, almost fantastical in quality at times. I loved when she would include past journal entries — you get to experience more closely her dedication to, and, when successful, her confidence in her work. It’s very, “I’ve been working on this and I made it happen and I’m proud of that.” That’s the kind of relationship we should all have to our work, right?
Her writing was good, but was it great? No. I don’t think so. The story, though, is definitely great. I am so glad someone like Barlow gave her life to something like Central Park.
I love to buy books on a whim. When it works out, it’s like having a great conversation with a stranger — an experience that reminds you to assume that the world outside of your familiarity is interesting and meaningful.
Barlow’s journey with the Central Park Conservancy is fascinating. Her work brings her into responsibilities of gardener, landscape architect, politician, and philanthropist. Her determination and energy are impressive, almost fantastical in quality at times. I loved when she would include past journal entries — you get to experience more closely her dedication to, and, when successful, her confidence in her work. It’s very, “I’ve been working on this and I made it happen and I’m proud of that.” That’s the kind of relationship we should all have to our work, right?
Her writing was good, but was it great? No. I don’t think so. The story, though, is definitely great. I am so glad someone like Barlow gave her life to something like Central Park.
May 13, 2019
Wanted more about Central Park
It does appear to me that there was a lot of heart and effort that was put into this book. My criticism is rooted on how this book is more about Mz Rogers and less about the park itself.
It does appear to me that there was a lot of heart and effort that was put into this book. My criticism is rooted on how this book is more about Mz Rogers and less about the park itself.
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews