The risk when extrapolating from Manhattan is when extrapolating to places significantly unlike Manhattan. When Central Park was started, Manhattan already had a population density in excess of 10,000 people per km^2. Even Boston today is little more than half that. Munich, less than half. San Jose little more than one fifth.
Central Park worked because the existing density was already high and there was no way for Manhattan to grow outward (dredging excepted).
>Central Park worked because the existing density was already high and there was no way for Manhattan to grow outward
Central Park was built before the first subway and before the bridges connecting Brooklyn, Queens and Jersey. The dirt dug from the tunnels was added to lower Manhattan. Prior to elevators buildings rarely went higher than 5 stories. There was in fact ways for Manhattan to grow outwards (effectively).
Hmm, but consider that it works in both directions. In places that are not as dense and expensive, the public places won't increase rents of the surrounding properties as much, but neither will they take away as much tax revenue. Both scale proportionately. I think this applies just as much to a park in small town as it does to Manhattan.
most of that population was still well south of the Central Park area. Streets had been laid out, and the occasional building erected in the area. But the population density was downtown, in the tenements.
Astor and others benefited as population expanded north.
Central Park worked because the existing density was already high and there was no way for Manhattan to grow outward (dredging excepted).