Search

Why does everyone think cities can save the planet? Contemporary planning interventions promise salvation via spatial fixes that might reduce carbon emissions, boost metropolitan economies, and allow urban society to thrive in spite of rising seas and climate disasters. New wetlands, floodgates, and other adaptive infrastructures allow water to coexist with urban space; new parks, such as New York's High Line and Chicago's 606, celebrate the interweaving of built and natural environments and suggest how outmoded infrastructure can be repurposed for civic benefit. While the climate dilemmas at hand are historically new, the use of landscaped environments in the service of solving social problems is not. Dating to the first generation of urban park development in the 19th century, planners have deployed green spaces as solutions to various cultural, political, and economic conundrums of the city. Offering an historical parallel and counterweight to investigations of contemporary urban–environmental dynamics, this paper investigates the period of park development that occurred in the 19th century in North America and Europe, using Chicago's Olmsted-designed South Park (the contemporary Washington and Jackson Parks) as a case study. I argue that green spaces' distinct nexus of (1) normative cultural meanings around nature, (2) power relations bound up in dominant landscape aesthetics, and (3) direct link to the economic realm via the structuring of land values have made green space development a powerful 'cultural fix': a means of using social space to mitigate perceived social crises. Understanding the historical foundations of green spaces' use as cultural fixes can inform contemporary analyses, particularly as new landscape ideologies emerge as part of broader green urbanism development and climate change adaptation strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]