Great article! I'd think a Central Park Conservancy would be a excellent idea to explore. Frankly, after this week, a little buffer from the vagaries of DC politics might not be out of order as well.

Central Park is also better integrated by design and geography with the fabric of New York than Rock Creek. Not that this is an excuse for the Park Service's neglect, but it's a very different set of challenges for whoever runs it.

by TimK on Feb 25, 2011 10:32 am • link • report

As a former New Yorker who admittedly didn't visit Central Park too often (mostly because I lived in Brooklyn), I offer the following reasons why I haven't visited Rock Creek Park

I have no idea how to get to Rock Creek Park. Of course, I know where it is, but where would I go if I just want to go for a run? What if I want to have a picnic? Are there any other activities going on there? Rock Creek Park is an enigma to me. At least, Central Park was a large rectangle in the middle of the city, and I got acquainted with it through NYRR races, concerts and other activities. I have no idea what to do at Rock Creek Park or how to even access the different sections. As a new DC resident and a non-driver, I find the Rock Creek Parkway very intimidating. How am I supposed to get to the park with that "highway" blocking the way?

I realize I sound incredibly naive and ignorant, but I really don't know how to get there or what to do once I'm there.

by Jessica C. on Feb 25, 2011 10:38 am • link • report

Both parks offer roughly the same activities to visitors.

Sorry, this is just not true.

Central Park is an actual urban park.

Rock Creek Park is a giant ravine. You're not going to be able to have baseball diamonds on a steep hillside slope, for example.

You're not going to be able to fundamentally alter the basic design of the park, which is based on the underlying geography.

by Alex B. on Feb 25, 2011 10:39 am • link • report

I would totally support this idea! Rock Creek Park is a beautiful but completely underappreciated natural resource! I'd love to see the day when our own 'central park' more closely resembles the grandeur and awesomeness of the NYC Central Park.

by Matt3470 on Feb 25, 2011 10:40 am • link • report

The Central Park Conservancy model should be used to manage many of the parks in the L'Enfant plan as well as Rock Creek Park. Franklin, Stanton, Farragut, Lincoln, and McPherson Squares are all underutilized public spaces. Local residents and tourists alike would benefit from more vibrancy in these wonderful urban parks. I’ve long thought the Central Park Conservancy would be a great model for managing the parks listed above, but had never considered including Rock Creek. It's a terrific idea.

by b on Feb 25, 2011 10:42 am • link • report

Isn't the obvious answer just the shape of the two parks? Central park is a big rectangle, with huge open spaces, easily accessible and couldn't be hidden from someone if they tried.

Rock Creek Park is a very narrow band running pseudo-subterraneously around the city, in many parts consisting largely of unusable land for recreation (the creek and the parkway), with very few wide-open areas -- at least none remotely like Central Park.

by KB on Feb 25, 2011 10:43 am • link • report

There are a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with NPS.

1. RCP is in a ravine which limits the kind of activity you can have. Where would you have a free concert in RCP? You wouldn't. You'd have it on the mall.
2. RCP is more of a nature preserve than a city park
3. RCP is not the city's premiere space - the Mall is. Most people outside the area have never heard of RCP. Central Park is famous and a must-visit attraction.
4. NYC is way more dense than DC, and residents have fewer options if they want to get to green space. We have tons of green space in the area. Their river is industrial, ours is still pretty wild (by comparison).
5. Central park is easy to reach by subway, RCP is not.

Not that I don't think we can make RCP better, just that it's not a fair comparison.

by David C on Feb 25, 2011 10:45 am • link • report

Because Central Park is, well, central? Am I being obtuse by suggesting that since Central Park is smaller, and surrounded by a large tourist destination, that sees about 3x the number of tourists annually (wikipedia & washington.org) that it would have more visitors? Rock Creek, while great, is not centrally located to most tourists, and many don't stay anywhere near the neighborhoods that are closest to the largest part of the park. Barnaby Woods? Colonial Park? Those just don't compare to Midtown and the upper east/west side. I also see access as an issue, it's not as easy to get in to Rock Creek as it should be.

by Shawn G on Feb 25, 2011 10:45 am • link • report

There is nothing remotely similar about the two, save for they both happen to be in cities.
Forgetting the massively population and visitor differences, Central Park is a constructed open space on basically flat land and Rock Creek is natural growth forest with very little flat land. They aren't meant to serve the same purpose and shouldn't be expected to look and feel the same. Central Park was meant to be a natural escape from the urban jungle of New York City, not as a protected forest in the middle of an urban area like Rock Creek.
Trying manage RC like CP would be like having a plumber try and fix my electrical problems.

by Nope on Feb 25, 2011 10:48 am • link • report

I think a big problem, going off what TimK said, is the geography of the park and the city, and how the two are integrated. Access to Rock Creek Park is only in a few places. There aren't huge buildings and major streets (urban, not a freeway) fronting directly onto the park.

I went to New York this past weekend, and though I didn't go into Central Park, I walked a lot along Fifth Avenue. I always felt like the park was right there. I could see it, I could easily have gone into it if I just crossed the street. Rock Creek Park just isn't an urban park in the same way Central Park is.

That isn't to say that RCP can't improve greatly; it most definitely can. And a conservancy might be a very good way to do that.

by Tim on Feb 25, 2011 10:49 am • link • report

@Alex B. I'd strongly disagree with that. Yes, the part most familiar to downtown DC residents looks like a giant ravine, but farther north, the park encompasses lots of open space that could be easily graded for activities. In fact, there's already picnic areas, horse stables, a golf course (!), a tennis stadium (!!) and an outdoor amphitheater (!!!). I think the real problem is, NPS has made no attempts to make the park accessible for pedestrians, especially during the week. And certainly, they haven't pushed any useful, urban-friendly development past the outer edges of the park. They seem to treat it more like a nature preserve, which would be great, if it wasn't in the middle of a major urban area.

by Sebastian Dangerfield on Feb 25, 2011 10:49 am • link • report

I think a better question is why isn't the Mall run more like Central Park.

by TimK on Feb 25, 2011 10:49 am • link • report

Comparing the two parks is really not possible, because of basic geography (as others have already pointed out).

Also, for instance, I saw Pavement play in Central Park this fall, one of many big-name concerts held in the park every year. I can't think of any place in Rock Creek Park where a comparable concert could be held.

Not to mention Central Park has a zoo, a fairly large body of water on which rowboats can be rented, those horse-drawn carriages at the south end that attract a ton of tourist traffic, and TWO ice skating rinks (one of which converts to a swimming pool).

Central Park is seen as a destination by both NYC residents and tourists: People have so many reasons to go there. Rock Creek Park, while lovely in most parts, doesn't offer enough to draw people in.

by anon on Feb 25, 2011 10:51 am • link • report

It's also worth noting that Central Park is completely man-made. Almost nothing there was there before 1857.

Rock Creek Park is, save for the parkway and some other relatively small details, pretty much the way that swath of land has been for a long time.

Now, if we wanted RCP to be more like Central Park, we could completely destroy and rebuild it for a few billion dollars, and either change the course of the creek or culvert it. I don't think we want that though.

by Tim on Feb 25, 2011 10:54 am • link • report

Considering the relative populations of the the two urban areas, it should hardly be surprising that Central Park should have so many visitors, and we could hardly expect Rock Creek Park to approach Central Park's usage in terms of sheer numbers. Using population figures from Wikipedia, it looks like per capita visits to Central Park are about 4.17 and to Rock Creek Park are 3.32, which doesn't seem to be all that substantial a difference. Given the relative differences in densities between NYC and DC, I'm not sure you're going to see substantial improvement in that number, even if you take steps to improve access, Especially since there is a great deal of green space available throughout much of the city (e.g. National Arboretum, National Mall, Dumbarton Oaks, Cathedral Close, Palisades Park, etc., etc.).

by hkp on Feb 25, 2011 10:56 am • link • report

Central park has huge apartment buildings/condos surrounding all of Central park. Whereas with Rock Creek Park it is surrounded by a few scattered apartments and condos, but mostly private townhomes and houses.

by Steve on Feb 25, 2011 10:57 am • link • report

The more appropriate analogue for Central Park in DC would be the Mall (broadly defined).

by Alex B. on Feb 25, 2011 11:01 am • link • report

@Jessica, I will respond to your question in more detail later about how to access RCP w/o a car and what I think are the best things it has to offer (hint: you have to be okay with getting your shoes muddy).

Right off two of the main differences I see between the two parks are geologic history (its a valley or ravine as Alex B points out that makes access more tricky than a flat place) and cultural history.

Central Park is famous in American cultural history. It shows up in numerous important works of literature, in songs, in movies, in lore, etc. People who have never been to NYC know about Central Park. A large reason for that is because its NYC. If RCP was in NYC, London, Paris etc. it would be as well known as Central Park. People like to visit famous places or things they've heard about or seen in photos. Generally no one outside DC knows RCP exists. Its not in the mind of visitors who come for the Capitol bldg, white house, US history and monuments the same way visiting Central Park while in NYC is a pre-determined stop.

Quick name a well known cultural reference to RCP. For Central Park one might start with "Strawberry Fields" and compile a long list. Georgetown is more well known than RCP.

by Tina on Feb 25, 2011 11:01 am • link • report

@Tina, Chandra Levy

by charlie on Feb 25, 2011 11:05 am • link • report

Link to 32nd most visited park broken.
I would love to see the data.
Great article!

by David on Feb 25, 2011 11:08 am • link • report

^..and all the other reasons the two parks can't be directly compared pointed out by other commenters. And as said the Mall is a better comparison

by Tina on Feb 25, 2011 11:10 am • link • report

I have removed a comment (by charlie) which was again criticizing the author of the post instead of discussing the merits of the points being made.

by David Alpert on Feb 25, 2011 11:10 am • link • report

I realize I sound incredibly naive and ignorant, but I really don't know how to get there or what to do once I'm there.

Yep - this. Quite simply, Rock Creek Park is hidden from the rest of the city, unlike Central Park. It takes a whole lot of effort to figure out how to safely get into the park on foot or bike -- it's completely biased towards car access. There's nothing obvious on the surrounding surface streets that would direct you to the park. And shamefully, the "directions" page on the NPS website only gives driving directions!! http://www.nps.gov/rocr/planyourvisit/directions.htm.

Furthermore, DC just isn't as dense as NYC, so Rock Creek will never have the same usage patterns. Central Park (and its prettier cousin Prospect Park in Brooklyn) both function as giant communal backyards for city dwellers. In part, this has to do with layout and location -- but it's also a question of density. DC residents, on the other hand, have much more space at home than people in New York, and we'll never use Rock Creek Park like a second back yard.

by M on Feb 25, 2011 11:16 am • link • report

The Central Park Conservancy has done a remarkable job in fixing up the Park. In comparison when I was a kid and lived in NY, Central Park looks much better today than it did then. But the people who live around the Park include some of the richest people in the country/world, pretty densely packed into large apt buildings. To raise large amounts of money from them is surely much easier than it would be from folks who live near RCP; there's hardly a comparison.

by Alex Liebowitz on Feb 25, 2011 11:17 am • link • report

"And it seems unlikely that NPS will transfer control of Rock Creek Park over to the DC Parks and Recreation Department, particularly since the park crosses state lines."

The map of the park on the NPS page seems to indicate that its jurisdiction is solely in the District. In Maryland, the Rock Creek Regional Park is under control of the MD-MCPPC

by KenB on Feb 25, 2011 11:18 am • link • report

@charlie-touche! I think my point is still valid though

by Tina on Feb 25, 2011 11:18 am • link • report

I think a lot of the other commenters have hit on the fundamental reason for the huge disparity in visitors: they are not really that similar at all. I have lived in DC for almost six years now (two years each in College Park, Takoma Park, and now Silver Spring), but never visited the park until I moved essentially across the street from its northern edge in downtown Silver Spring. The park just isn't that accessible and is completely surrounded by comparatively low-density residential areas rather than hotels, tourist attractions, and high-density 15+ story apartment buildings as Central Park is.

While I love spending time in the park, I'm not there enough to really comment on what improvements could be made. But from a personal standpoint, I wouldn't really care to have all that many more visitors. I usually go there on weekends when there is limited motor vehicle access, and the reason it is such a great park is that although I live in a dense urban area, I can take a short walk or run to a beautiful mostly undeveloped forest with relatively few other people. The lack of visitors and the ability to get away from the city is a huge part of its appeal. If the visitors are doubled, a large part of that appeal is lost.

by Ted on Feb 25, 2011 11:19 am • link • report

Like the others here, I'd rather keep RCP as "natural and wild" as possible. It's actually a fairly unique feature for a city to have.

That said, it definitely needs better connections to the city, and could certainly be greater greater.

Personally, I'm no huge fan of the mall's current configuration. It makes no sense for a city with DC's climate, and is vastly underutilized compared to what it could be. Even the McMillan plan never intended for it to be a huge empty lawn. (I also quite like the symmetry that McMillan wanted to bring to the mall and capitol grounds, which sadly never happened)

by andrew on Feb 25, 2011 11:19 am • link • report

Seems like a better idea would be focusing on neighborhood or BID-run conservancies for some of the downtown squares/parks.

But it's really all academic since NPS has given no indication of wanting to change the status quo or even of caring that many of the downtown squares are populated mainly by pigeons and the homeless.

by Fritz on Feb 25, 2011 11:20 am • link • report

I'd have to agree in large part with Alex B.

"Central Park is an actual urban park.
Rock Creek Park is a giant ravine."

A beautiful ravine, with georgeous views, but land that wasn't considered desirable to develope (pre air-conditioning) and thanks to the forsight Theodore Roosvelt, converted into a park. The city fathers of New York saw the future of Manhattan as a gridded hell, and stepped in to remove prime land from development to ironically spur higher quality development because of the (socialist ?) amenity.

All this is not to say that the city could and probably should focus on the park as a whole and how it could be more welcoming to the various neighborhoods that surround it.

For Downtown, the Mall is a better equivalent, if they ever disperse the government office ghetto that is the south side of the mall and redevelope it with mixed use.

by Thayer-D on Feb 25, 2011 11:23 am • link • report

I don't think the comparison with Central Park is correct, Fairmount Park in Philadelphia is a much better example. They are both large and have facilities that few people know about. While I do think NPS is part of the problem the vastness of Rock Creek also is a problem and that it makes it hard to navigate. The conservancy idea, within the District anyway, could help focus on more accessible areas and promote areas like the stables and the tennis center.

by Randall M. on Feb 25, 2011 11:24 am • link • report

I'm with Jessica -- I've lived in the DC area for 4+ years, and I still don't understand how to simply walk to RCP.

Anyone willing to suggest the best access points? (I know this doesn't relate directly to the CP vs RCP discussion, but I think the most pertinent points have already been made and agree whole-heartedly with them... now I just want to know how the heck to actually GET to this giant park of ours!)

by Pedestrian on Feb 25, 2011 11:24 am • link • report

Comparisons to Central Park really aren't valid. If anything, I'd agree that the mall is more like Central Park.

In any case, what Rock Creek does need is better management, design and features, as well as much investment in revitalization (for both its natural areas and programmed/designed areas). These would include: the delapidated stone bridges, run down trails, dangerous staircases and uninviting gateways (think woodley park) and a problem with too many cars (Beach Drive should be closed and programmed more.)

All this said, the NPS is not really set up (culturally or legally) in a way that allows for the type of Conservancy that have helped not just Central Park, but so many other urban parks across the country. Getting over this key challenge seems to be far more difficult than repairing the staircase at Connecticut and Calvert.

by neb on Feb 25, 2011 11:30 am • link • report

Pedestrian,

1. Go to the Woodley Park Metro station.
2. Walk south along Shoreham drive. There is a path along the west side of Shoreham that will take you down to the park.

That's the easiest way. But you can also get there with a longer walk from Foggy Bottom or Dupont Circle.

by David C on Feb 25, 2011 11:30 am • link • report

As others have said, how come the Mall is an open wasteland that is not pleasant to walk down on a summer day rather than a pleasant shaded place like Central Park?

Honestly if you want to make downtown less deserted on the weekends, putting trees all over the Mall would be a good first step.

by MLD on Feb 25, 2011 11:31 am • link • report

I bet if you count the commuters (car and bike) traversing it on a daily basis, you'd find a lot more people using the park that the stats reveal.

But, more importantly, as has already been pointed out, the Mall is the better comparison to Central Park than Rock Creek. Rock Creek is a nature preserve in an urban area. The Mall, like Central Park, is an artificially created park coming out of the "City Beautiful" movement which so often get derided on this blog. The Mall was formed out of river that got filled in (and fields and a railroad station that got bull dozed over), and following the guidelines of the McMillan Plan, was created as a very formal park ... to be used for urban activities ... In the same manner that the rocky hills in the center of Manhattan got flattened and lakes dug and a master plan brought to bear to create Central Park as one of the premier City Beautiful movements. Rock Creek on the other hand, is simply the first National Park in the nation ... meant to be enjoyed in its 'somewhat' natural state.

by Lance on Feb 25, 2011 11:34 am • link • report

I dunno where the Trust for Public Land got their numbers for "visitors" to each of these city park, but NPS says that 24 million people visit the mall every year and TPL says 10 million...

by MLD on Feb 25, 2011 11:41 am • link • report

Is Rock Creek Park like Central Park or Yosemite?

Neither. The big difference with Central Park is twofold. First, RCP is not one of the prime tourist sites of DC. Central Park is. Second, RCP is much fewer access point compared to Central Park, and way fewer people living around it.

It disagree that Central Park is centrally located in NYC. It is not. It is centrally located on Manhattan, which is a small island and on the North West side of NYC. Central Park is not even close to Staten Island, or the south and east sides of Brooklyn and Queens. Central Park is as central to NYC as National Harbor is close to DC.

by Jasper on Feb 25, 2011 11:42 am • link • report

Although I appreciate the differences in geography and population density between the two parks, the majority of the comments above follow this pattern: "The parks are different because I've heard/visited/seen Central Park and not Rock Creek Park."

But that's exactly the author's point: the National Park Service has failed to make the park sufficiently accessible to residents and visitors, and a conservancy may help with this.

As some other commenters pointed out, Rock Creek park has numerous facilities and has both hotels and apartment buildings alongside in places. It is also accessible from either 16th Street or Connecticut and the Woodley Park metro. With better management and improved connections to the rest of the city, more people could enjoy this wonderful resource.

There is the fundamental issue of whether a forest within an urban area should be treated as a nature preserve (primarily for plants/animals) or an urban park (for people), but let's not confuse this with the issue of accessibility.

by mattxmal on Feb 25, 2011 11:48 am • link • report

Ya, just look at the differences in topography and population density around Central Park and Rock Creek Park and you'll find your answer.

More trails would be nice. Lots of lighting, pavement, concrete, a zoo, and hot upper east socialites sunbathing would not be so nice. Okay, maybe the last thing would be alright.

by aaa on Feb 25, 2011 11:48 am • link • report

As an FYI, NPS only manages the DC part of RCP- the part in MD is owned & managed by M-NCPPC.

by James on Feb 25, 2011 11:50 am • link • report

This is a silly comparison.
For starters, the population of Manhattan is much, much higher than the population of DC. And Central Park is, as the name might suggest, _CENTRAL_. It's within walking distance of a huge fraction of the city. You're not going to get a park like that in DC unless DC significantly ramps up its population density, and nobody wants that.
As others have said, in DC the Mall fills the role that Central Park plays in New York. It's admittedly much smaller, but it is the centrally located urban park that people can go to and play frisbee or volleyball or what have you. Rock Creek Park is long and narrow and much more of a biking/hiking/jogging park than a central park.
What a bizarre article this is. It's like you took statistics about size and usage and decided they are the only two variables that are important.

p.s. Who the heck thought the audio captcha was a good idea? I tried it after being given two illegible words in the visible captcha, and the audio sounded like four people murmuring in a foreign language, and by "foreign" I mean something out of the European mainstream of Romance and Germanic languages. It sounded like the background chanting from the coven in Rosemary's Baby.

by RickD on Feb 25, 2011 11:50 am • link • report

Comparison is silly. However Rock Creek Park is a major city asset that probably doesn't get the funding necessary to really provide for upkeep. Every spring I thank Lady Bird Johnson for the flowers than line the so called ravine. The Nation has the mall the city has the park. My recollection is that some sections of Beach Drive are often restricted to bicycle traffic on weekends.

by Interested on Feb 25, 2011 11:53 am • link • report

@DaveAlerpt, so sorry. Let me rephrase:

This is another post by Ken Archer which fails to make any logical sense. As pointed out by other commentators, the better analogy is Central Park and the National Mall. In addition, what park of Rock Creek is in another state?

And to Tina, the other reference is to Teddy Roosevelt hiking through rock creek with his ambassadors.

After much though, I suspect Ken, like many others, is confused about Rock Creek Park vs. the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway. I've spent a lot of time in Rock Creek park, and you can go for miles without seeing a road or cars. The parkway was deliberately added later, and south of Tilden it isn't primarily designed for recreation. Trying to make it so would be a disaster.

by charlie on Feb 25, 2011 11:53 am • link • report

Combine RCP with the National Mall - problem solved.

I say that as a joke, but it makes a point. Some parts of central Park are more visited than others. If you cut up Central park into two pieces, you could get a piece that has fewer visitors than RCP.

by David C on Feb 25, 2011 11:54 am • link • report

@ Pedetrians and adding on to David C.'s comment:

3) The rear entrance of the zoo (Woodley Park Metro), or along Adams Mill Road (Columbia Heights Metro)
4) The trail along the waterfront that passes by the Thompson Boat Center also leads into the park
5) P Street just West of 23rd
6) Secret entrance from Dumbarton Oaks Park
7) Dirt trail along Pinney Branch Pkwy

by Erik on Feb 25, 2011 12:00 pm • link • report

It seems that a lot of people are forgetting that Rock Creek Park *has* a zoo, and one that is in fact one of the premier ones in the world.

by Kolohe on Feb 25, 2011 12:03 pm • link • report

Said already, but added for emphasis: Manhattanites don't have yards, most DC residents too. Manhattanites go to CP to walk in the grass. Take away DC residents' backyards, and more people would search out RCP.

And do CP numbers include CPZoo? If they do, shouldn't RCP's numbers include National Zoo, too.

by Crin on Feb 25, 2011 12:05 pm • link • report

Why does Central Park get used more? Really? Let's see.

1) Manhattan has 1.6 million people in 22 square miles. DC has 600,000 in 65 square miles.

2) Central park is, er, central. The concentration of population near it is far higher, as well as loads of people who work in the city who can easily access it during the day. I doubt anyone who just works in DC ever uses it.

3) Central park has walking access from all sides, right in the urban center. Rock Creek Park has virtually no walking access except for those lucky enough to live right near it.

4) Much of Rock Creek Park is inaccessible even after you drive in except on long walks on unimproved trails.

Your comparisons are also innacurate at best:

"Traffic banned after 7pm and on weekends (Rock Creek has partial closures on weekends)"

Only on the loop road.

"25 mph speed limit (Rock Creek Parkway is 35 mph)"

Rock Creek Parkway with its 35 MPH speed limit is hardly "rock creek park", that is only in the tiny wedge at the south. The vast majority of RCP's 1700+ acres are 25 MPH.

"21 playgrounds
9,000 benches"

... and what portion covered by trees?

"58 miles of trails (25 miles in Rock Creek)"

There are way more than 25 miles of trails in RCP. Where do you get this from? Just the paved paths must cover 15 or 20 miles.

They are totally different in the way they are used. There is nothing surprising here.

by Jamie on Feb 25, 2011 12:07 pm • link • report

Sorry, forgot:

8) Porter Street (Cleveland Park Metro)

by Erik on Feb 25, 2011 12:09 pm • link • report

There's an outstanding music and play venue in the park where good jazz, blues and until recently Shakespeare was played. The old "virginia slims/nations bank classic/whatever" tennis match is still played at a pro level tennis stadium. There are at least 3 usable soccer fields/ 3-4 baseball fields, a running track, gobs of parking, a dozen tennis courts (covered in the winter), a public golf course and they close many roads on the weekends for bikes, runs, etc. Other parts of the park lead to some very interesting historic grounds like the hillwood estate and gardens, dumbarton oaks, etc.

It says a lot more about the lack of investigative capabilities and urban curiosity of the author, than the lack of park resources. That said, the major facilities are only available by bus or car. They aren't right in the middle of where 20 year olds want to live, shop and dine. The park is not a "central park" where everything is crammed together, it's more distributed making the benefits more distributed to different neighborhoods in the city. That makes them outstanding facilities for those of us who know the city better than superficially.

by eb on Feb 25, 2011 12:12 pm • link • report

It may not be as convenient to many people, but RCP is also very easily accessible from the Silver Spring Metro Station. It's probably about a half-mile walk down Colesville Road and then North Portal to Beach.

by Ted on Feb 25, 2011 12:16 pm • link • report

I think as others have alluded to it would be a lot more reasonable to compare the facilities offered on the National Mall to Central Park.

NYC has nothing like Rock Creek Park. We are incredibly lucky to live in a city where such a huge piece of land has been preserved, largely undeveloped, in perpetuity. What other city can you go for a hike in the woods, and hardly see a soul for miles? Hear birds, see foxes, hike on rough trails, enjoy peace and tranquility?

We shouldn't be asking "why can't RCP be more like Central Park." We already have the mall for playing volleyball and sitting on benches and walking out for lunch from your office building. We should be doing everything we can to preserve RCP.

DC is not lacking for places to do all the things you think RCP could be better used for.

by Jamie on Feb 25, 2011 12:16 pm • link • report

The zoo is not part of Rock Creek Park. It's part of the Smithsonian.

by Herschel on Feb 25, 2011 12:39 pm • link • report

I think it's also curious that of the few Metrobus lines that go through the park, few, if any, actually stop within the park. I might be wrong. In any case, if they exist, I don't know about them.

There are a couple that skirt the edges of the park and connect with trails at Whittier Street and, I think, Holly Street on 16th Street. Is there a bus stop that connects with the trails on Klingle Road?

I'm more of an ambler than a jogger or hiker, so I would prefer to take a bus directly to a trail in the park and then go from there.

by retrostyleguy on Feb 25, 2011 12:45 pm • link • report

The zoo is not part of Rock Creek Park. It's part of the Smithsonian.

It's physically integrated with it the park though. Likewise, the Central Park Zoo isn't run by the people who run Central Park, it's run by the Wildlife Conservation Society http://www.wcs.org/

by Kolohe on Feb 25, 2011 1:04 pm • link • report

Because Rock Creek Park is a dog park filled with unleashed dogs.
Compare it with other dog parks, not with something nice.

by dog hater on Feb 25, 2011 1:26 pm • link • report

While most of the oft repeated points above are mostly valid, for me the reason I don't go to RCP is that there's not anything I'm interested in doing once I get there. The southern section (near which there is the most debsity) is dominated by a highway and a multi-use path. All well and good, but there are more interesting uses in one acre of central park than in a square mile of RCP. To me it's a question of built environment. Central park has so, so much there. RCP doesn't. I don't think any conservancy could afford to change that, even if adequate locations could be found.

A bigger concern I have is the way invasive species are absolutely killing all the natural flora of the park. It looks green, but it's dying.

by TM on Feb 25, 2011 1:27 pm • link • report

@Jessica and Pedestrian-I consider myself a RCP afficianado. I passionately love RCP. Here's my fav no car/no bike 1-3 mile loop (depending on your choices of path to take). Wear hiking boots and clothes you don't care if they get dirty. Be prepared to get muddy especially this time of year. This is not a typical "walk in a city park". Its a hike in a national park. This is what I love love love about RCP. Bring a picnic-the trail passes picnic tables.

-Take redline metro to Cleveland Park, exit east side.
-Walk north 2 blocks on Connecticut Ave (the gas station will be on your right. Cross Porter St.)
-In one block there is a T intersection at Conn. Ave and Rodman St. Rodman "T's" w/ Conn Ave on the west side of Conn Ave so you won't cross Rodman.
-At Rodman St. (on your left across Conn Ave as you face north on Conn Ave) you will see von your right a brown NPS sign that says "Melvin-Hazen Trail" . This is the trailhead.
-Turn right/east and follow the trail along the side of the condo bldg. into the woods. In 50 yards you will not hear cars.
-In 1/2 mi. the trail leads to picnic area#1 thats equipped with restrooms, water fountain, a covered pavillion with a stone fireplace with a big hearth in which you are allowed to have a a fire! (burning wood collected from the park is a federal crime. Bring your own wood). First come first served this time of year. All summer picnic area #1 is reserved for parties, but you can still use bathroom and water fountain. This is across the street from Peirce Mill, a historical site, and the new fish ladder around Pierce Dam on Rock Creek.
-From Conn Ave to Picnic area#1 the Melvin-Hazen trail winds up and down and crosses Melvin-Hazen creek 4 times. There are stepping stones or you can jump over it. At one point there is a fork. To go to the picnic area stay left.
-At the picnic area the M-H creek and Rock Creek confluss. Its really pretty; there is a big open grassy area with sunbathers, frizbee players, soccer players etc. (in summer)
-The M-H trail connects to the paved RC bike trail at the picnic area.
-Have your picnic then go back to the little foot bridge over M-H creek you saw at the end of the trail when it opened up onto the big grassy area at the confluss.
-From there follow trail markers for either "difficult' (only recommended if you're an experienced hiker in good physical condition) or "moderate" trail. I'm more familiar with the difficult. part of it requires scrambling on rocks-prepare to get your hands dirty.
-The difficult trail follows a ledge above Rock creek and then goes down to a beach.
-From the beach take the trail that goes back uphill(west) through the woods -this trail is before you get to the footbridge at the beach that goes over Rock creek and before reconnecting with the bike trail.
-Follow this trail as it loops back to the right/north (as you go uphill with Rock creek at your back). You can stop and see Klingle Mansion on the way.
- At the road/driveway to Klingle Mansion the path splits-one way goes up and one way goes down. take the up-way.
-This is a beautiful trail that follows the hills above Rock creek where white and rose quartz are exposed on the surface and you pass 300 year old trees. At this time of year (no leaves) you can see the curves of the hills, the "bones" of the land deep into the forest as it goes up and down.
-Follow the trail as it eventually curves to the right/north and connects back up with the Melvin-Hazen creek and trail. This is the place where the M-H trail forked on your way in and you stayed left.
-Turn left/west and head back to Conn. Ave at Rodman St.

Alternatively, on your way in stay right at the fork and take the hilly trail with exposed quartz 1st, pass Klingle Mansion, then head down to the beach and head north (left as you face the creek) along the "difficult" ridge trail above Rock creek and end at the picnic area. I think the "difficult" trail is easier to hike south-to-north this way than it is north-to-south from the picnic area.

If you are a woman (like me) never wear head phones and don't go alone. Take your dog or go with a buddy. (Chandra Levy would be alive if she'd had a dog with her). Even a small dog. No one can sneak up on you if you have a dog (unless your dog is deaf and/or blind/has lost its sense of smell).

Have fun! You will see whitch hazel and snow drops blooming this time of year.

by Tina on Feb 25, 2011 1:33 pm • link • report

Fantastic and stimulating question. One element: Central Park has multiple "named" microlocations, like Strawberry Fields and the Shakespeare Garden; RCP has fewer (Pierce Mill comes to mind). Easily remedied. Give the picnic spots memorable names instead of numbers, label the Sherrill Dr. footpath and the Klingle Valley Trail as access points. Allow special events at the Joaquin Miller Cabin.

by Lisa on Feb 25, 2011 1:43 pm • link • report

@Jamie 4) Much of Rock Creek Park is inaccessible even after you drive in except on long walks on unimproved trails.

This is RCPs best attribute and distinguishing feature. those who don't appreciate this feature will not appreciate much of what RCP has to offer.

But there are other atributes: the only NPS planetarium in the nation. Its at the Nature center.

A horse stable where you can not only board your own horse but, if you don't have a horse, go for a guided horseback trail ride! Also at the nature center.

Nature center can be accessed by hiking or biking.

by Tina on Feb 25, 2011 1:47 pm • link • report

@Tina, I totally agree. I think it's misguided to ask why we don't get the same kind of use from RCP as they do from Central Park. Instead, we should be saying "isn't it awesome we have something unique like RCP that they don't have in NYC, while still having the mall which functions like their central park?"

RCP is a true gem. It's value is that much of it is NOT developed, easily accessible, overwhelmed by users. We have the rest of the city - city parks, the mall, and so on, for those purposes.

by Jamie on Feb 25, 2011 1:55 pm • link • report

By the way, the song Strawberry Fields refers to a place in Liverpool, not a small plaza in Central Park. That Central Park location was named that in honor of the fact that John Lennon was shot across the street. The more famous Central Park reference is in Catcher in the Rye, which was cited by Chapman as a inspiration to shoot Lennon.

But my favorite Central Park reference is At The Zoo by Simon and Garfunkel.

by TM on Feb 25, 2011 2:03 pm • link • report

I was going to comment, but after reading the previous entries I think I'll refrain from piling on even more.

by PeakVT on Feb 25, 2011 2:05 pm • link • report

And while it is probably wrong to say RCP is like Central Park, the mall is also has very little in common with Central Park other than its rectilinear shape. Central Park has so much more than a place for concerts, but that's about all the mall has (the mall and East and West Potomac parks are two different things, by the way. Plus very few people live near the mall.

by TM on Feb 25, 2011 2:09 pm • link • report

@Jamie, Yes!
@ eb, I agree.
@retrostyle guy-a bus (#?) stops at Woodley St and Klingle NW. Walk northeasterly (on Klingle) to access either Tregaron trails (public) or directly into Klingle Valley via the closed road. Follow the closed road trail. Really cool. Has a feeling of "Planet of the Apes" or "Logans Run". In 3/4 mile climb out of valley at the horrible cloverleaf style interchange at Porter St., a left turn. cross Porter St and walk east along the little access road that runs parallel to Porter. take the trail to your left uphill into the woods. it leads to Klingle Mansion. See other directions above for how to continue.

by Tina on Feb 25, 2011 2:14 pm • link • report

Easily one of the weaker posts in memory. I almost wondered if it was purposely so off the mark to "spark debate". Central park is surrounded by density and has numerous uses that are different in size and/or scope. RCP has some functions that CP does not, like the many hiking trails and the interpretive center. RCP may get fewer visitors, but it is well used, esp. on the weekends. The Mall is a better but still very imperfect analogue for Central Park. New York has more natural landscapes as parks in some of the outer boroughs which are better RCP analogues. Central Park's best out of town analogues, all imperfect, would include Grant Park (Chicago) or Piedmont Park (Atlanta). RCP is a bit more like Griffith Park (LA).

by Rich on Feb 25, 2011 2:19 pm • link • report

I agree with everyone else's assessment that RCP and CP aren't enough alike to make a direct comparison - if this post had instead posed the question of how to generate higher usage of RCP I would suggest (1) trails that better connect to public transportation points (I've never walked thru RCP north of the zoo, only south of the zoo because I'm never far away from some bus route or a metro) and (2) better programming at the Carter Barron Ampitheatre and (3) improvements to trails so that they can accomodate both walkers and joggers and bike-riders - the last time I took a long walk thru RCP I was constatnly in fear of being hit by a bicycle because not one bicyclist used a bell to signal their approach.

by grumpy on Feb 25, 2011 2:36 pm • link • report

@ David C, Erik, Tina and others -- thank you for all of the helpful instructions! Now I'm just going to wait for a warm, sunny Saturday and grab my hiking boots and try RCP out. (And, ironically, I've only been to NYC a handful of times, but I've spent so much time in CP there that I actually have a very well-formed, comprehensive mental map of the entire place. Figures.)

by Pedestrian on Feb 25, 2011 2:42 pm • link • report

@TM thanks for info re. Strawberry Fields.

by Tina on Feb 25, 2011 2:50 pm • link • report

It's physically integrated with it the park though. I.e., the zoo. No, it really isn't. It's physically adjacent to, but separate from (and fenced off from), the park. The land is owned by a different institution. Since the question arose as to whether visitors to the zoo should count as visitors to the park, I think it's clear that they should not.

by Herschel on Feb 25, 2011 3:07 pm • link • report

While not part of Rock Creek Park in name, I consider the zoo to be an integral part of the park, and it's most easily accessible entrance. The zoo is also an important part of the Rock Creek Valley, and was part of Frederick Law Olmsted's plan to preserve the valley as a natural preserve. Olmsted eventually designed the Zoo itself--i.e. the landscape and the placement of buildings.

by JoP on Feb 25, 2011 3:17 pm • link • report

Rock Creek Park is not intended to be a nature preserve. It is, in the words of NPS, an "urban park". There's a Nature Center in RCP, but RCP is not managed like a nature preserve because NPS doesn't think of it as such.

The criticisms above that RCP isn't used more because (a) it's harder to access than CP, (b) there's less density around RCP than CP and (c) there's less to do in RCP than CP, are all vacuously circular.

By making RCP more accessible and decorating it with attractive activities, RCP will become a space people want to be in, which will increase density around RCP.

David Alpert once had a post exposing the same circularity amongst Tysons skeptics who say Tysons can't be more like DC because it's not DC.

The population difference between Manhattan and DC, or between NYC and the Washington area, simply don't come close to accounting for a 17-fold difference in usage.

The rest of the story is that NYC and the Central Park Conservancy have decorated CP with spaces in which people want to be. I provided 5 basic examples of how we could do the same, and no one explained why they are impossible.

But what else can be done? How about opening the RCP perimeter with straight west-east walking paths across RCP, going over bridges over the creek, to facilitate more walking traffic? Yes the topography would decline and incline as opposed to CP, but that would make the paths all the more attractive.

by Ken Archer on Feb 25, 2011 3:18 pm • link • report

@Ken Archer, I think you're making a wild leap to say that because they said RCP is the "largest urban park", that those words have anyhing to do with it's intended use. They mean it's in a city, not that it's supposed to be like Central Park.

If you look at the management plan you will see language that, actually, does make it sound like it is intended to be something of a a nature preserve:

"Rock Creek Park exists to:

- Preserve and perpetuate for this and future generations the
ecological resources of the Rock Creek valley within the park
in as natural a condition as possible, the archeological and historic
resources in the park, and the scenic beauty of the park.

- Provide opportunities for the public to experience, understand,
and appreciate the park in a manner appropriate to the
preservation of its natural and cultural resources.

- Provide opportunities for recreation appropriate to the park's
natural and cultural resources."

by Jamie on Feb 25, 2011 3:27 pm • link • report

@Jessica C. - I'm not surprised you have difficulty getting into the park. On many DC streets, the sidewalks end at or near the DC/NPS boundary, or go over the park with no connection (Tilden, Park, Klingle, P St, Mass Ave, Cathedral, Broad Branch, M St,etc). At other points have very substandard connections (Adams Mill/Harvard, Shoreham, Piney Branch). Luckily some of these might get fixed with the RCP trail project, but some serious effort needs to go into additional sidewalk or boardwalk connections to the DC streets.

The biggest problem with RCP is the parkway, which NPS and DC use as a commuter corridor twice a day by redirecting all traffic to a one-way flow. I have given up running or cycling in the park anytime near either rush hour, the smog and noise is just too bad near the road. The speed limits are just not enforced either, and generally cars go at least 10 mph over the posted speed.

If we wanted RCP to be more like Central Park, step one would be to do a complete or partial closure of the parkway to get rid of some of the traffic and pollution, and step two would be to program it so things like foot races, bike races, vending, and low speed or non-motorized recreation could have the entire right of way. Until that happens, the environment nearest the access points (lower sections) won't be appealing enough to attract a lot of Washingtonians to this space.

by Will on Feb 25, 2011 3:30 pm • link • report

Maybe a more similar correlation between RCP and the Emerald Necklace in Boston in terms of what the park is/could be?

The Emerald Necklace is only 2/3 the size and is a series of connected parks rather than one distinct park, but it is managed by a conservancy and generally gets a lot of use from the Boston/Brookline residents. Like RCP much of the park is lined by less-dense areas of the city.

by Ted on Feb 25, 2011 3:34 pm • link • report

@Ken, the problem is that you made the comparison to Central Park. if your main idea was to suggest ways to make RCP less car-centric and add foot/bike accessibility you distracted from that with the unfavorable comparison to Central Park.

I agree with all of your suggestions-as long as they don't mean widening or "improving" the wooded trails and wild places I so dearly love.

When you compare RCP unfavorably to CP, like you did, it naturally brings the ire up of people who actually use RCP a lot and value it temendously. RCP is NOT CP, thank goodness! Its better! Some of the differences you decry are what make RCP so darn special. Could it be even better? yes. Could NPS do better? Yes. Would it be awesome to have more car-free time on Beach Dr? Yes (which BTW has a 25mph speed limit and actually goes through the heart of RCP unlike RCparkway. Not that anyone obeys the speed limit)

Your're expressing frustration with what you see as commentors myopia but your article doesn't focus on what you are now saying you want to focus on. Your article focuses on a negative comparison between RCP and CP. Get rid of that whole part and you will get a lot of people agreeing with you and adding their own suggestions on how to improve access.

by Tina on Feb 25, 2011 3:38 pm • link • report

There is nothing similar about the two parks. When I lived in NYC..very near the park, I spent hours and hours there a week with my running, model sail boating, concerts, etc. What is to bring you to Rock Creek other than the nature walks? (nothing against that)

There is also the density surrounding it that does not exist with Rock Creek.

by beatbox on Feb 25, 2011 3:38 pm • link • report

@Jamie, yes again
@Wil, yes this suggestion would improve access to RCP a lot and not interfere with the nature preserve mission. In fact it would improve that mission.
@Ken -this is the point. RCP is special b/c it is a nature preserve with nature trails and wild places and habitat for wildlife. (And a horse stable and the only planetaruim in the NPS system, and..). But the changes Will above suggest would both improve access and enhance the protection clause of the mission.

by Tina on Feb 25, 2011 3:47 pm • link • report

the problem is that you made the comparison to Central Park. if your main idea was to suggest ways to make RCP less car-centric and add foot/bike accessibility you distracted from that with the unfavorable comparison to Central Park.

If you're referring to the headline, my original headline, Should Rock Creek Park be managed like Central Park or Yosemite?, was changed by the editors to the present headline for various reasons. But that happens all the time in journalism/blogging, and the focus should always be the article itself.

But it's still absolutely fair to challenge NPS as to why a park more than twice the size as CP gets 17 times less usage and is the 32nd least used urban park in America. Otherwise, whose to say that RCP usage is low?

by Ken Archer on Feb 25, 2011 4:12 pm • link • report

I changed the headline to fit in the space allowed. However, given the point Ken has raised, I have modified the headline to "Manage Rock Creek like Central Park or Yosemite?" to be closer to Ken's intent.

by David Alpert on Feb 25, 2011 4:17 pm • link • report

"But it's still absolutely fair to challenge NPS as to why a park more than twice the size as CP gets 17 times less usage and is the 32nd least used urban park in America."

It seems like you haven't read most of the comments. It's not fair at all, they are entirely different animals.

You seem to have a premise which is that any public space should have xx users per acre, regardless of its configuration and location. That's a flawed premise.

Would you ask why Denali National Park, 6.5 million acres, only gets a million visitors a year, but Yosemite, at about 800,000 acres, gets 3.5 million?

They have different purposes, different configurations, different accessibility.

by Jamie on Feb 25, 2011 4:18 pm • link • report

Jamie sums up the great things about RCP nicely. I loved Rock Creek Park when I lived near it and owned a bike. I like the wilder nature of RCP compared to Central Park. What other city can you name where you can actually go for a real hike within city limits?

One complaint I had from when I lived by the Mount Pleasant side of the park. If you wanted to use the trail in the direction of the Mall, you have to go through the Zoo if you're coming off Adam Mills Road. So when the zoo is closed, you're screwed. they also close the gates at 4 or 6 p.m. in the winter, so you have to bike or walk through that tunnel with a very narrow sidewalk.

by lou on Feb 25, 2011 4:32 pm • link • report

Or to continue Jamie's point, why does Langston Golf Course get a different number of users than TR Island? And the answer is that TR Island's primary purpose is as a nature preserve, and Langston's is for recreation.

The real issue is to ask what the goal of RCP should be and is it meeting that. If the goal is to maintain a natural space which can be accessed by people looking to get away from crowds and the city, then it may meet that (though the road seems to detract from that) if the goal is to maximize users, obviously it isn't. To do that we might need to turn it into a Recreational Area, cut down a bunch of trees, install soccer fields and stuff...

The park may be under-used, but I think we need places where the use varies in intensity. It's nice to be able to hike and see few people. And it's nice to go places that are crowded. So low usage is not always a bad thing.

All of this leads to a larger question of what kind of open space are we lacking? I think you can make an argument that we lack programmed space (when I played soccer I remember that finding fields in the city was very difficult and we used to play way out in the suburbs. I've heard there are similar problems elsewhere.

Not to promote my own ideas, but that's what I was going for in my post on capping DC's reservoirs - a way to create more programmed space. Another idea I've kicked around in the past is taking RFK, the parking lots around there and some of the NPS land and turning it into Kennedy Brothers National Recreation Area (I'm not married to the name, but this is my fantasy so I do the naming). It would add some combination of sports fields, a running loop, a bike trail, a velodrome, tennis courts, etc...East Capitol street would be lowered to go underneath it. The sports field area could also hold concerts (instead of the Mall) and things like the Solar Decathlon. But that is just a dream now.

by David C on Feb 25, 2011 4:37 pm • link • report

@Ken, you seem to be stubbornly holding onto your negative comparison to CP. You seem to be asserting RCP should be like CP without acknowledging what many people think is so great about RCP as it is. I don't want RCP to be CP. Please stop making that comparison. What I love most about RCP are attributes not found in CP.

Frankly also you're blaming your audience. Who put the huge graphic with "central Park gets 35million visitors" and all the graphs with data about NYC in your article? Successful communication means your audience understood what you meant because you articulated information in a clear way without confusion. If EVErYONE misunderstood what you meant then you need to look at the message instead of blaming the audience.

Again, in your last comment you once again negatively compare RCP to CP.

Is this your point?: NPS could be better about intergrating non-motorized access with the city? Hell yes. I'm all over that. Make Beach drive less a commuter sewer and expand its use for other activities, including concessions? Yes! Other NPs have concessions (the Mall e.g.) there's no reason Beach Dr couldn't too. Its not like the commuter sewer helps with the preservation mission.

De-emphasize the nature preserve mission? Hell no. Thats what characterizes RCP. Thats what makes it stand out as different and special. If you don't appreciate this defining character of RCP that is not the fault of NPS or RCP. Again, that is not to say NPS couldn't do much better at making RCP more accessible, especially re. Beach Dr. The trail restoration project is fanatastic and in the right direction.

On that topic your suggestion above about a E-W trail could easily be achieved with connection to the DDOT Klingle trail to a safe crossing of Beach drive into Mt. P.

See? i want to have the discussion. Yes I think RCP can be improved in the ways mentioned (access, Beach Dr.) But I will never concede that CP is "better" than RCP. Thats like saying NYC is "better" than London. Two different places with unique features and histories.

by Tina on Feb 25, 2011 4:58 pm • link • report

You know what would DC's equivalent to Central Park? If we extended Meridian Hill Park by kicking ALL the cars off of 15th street from W & Florida, and turned it into a pedestrian/bike/park corridor all the way down to the White House. That would be SO AWESOME!

by M on Feb 25, 2011 5:33 pm • link • report

I think it would be more like DC's equivalent of a Grateful Dead concert, since there'd be two miles of drumming circles...

by Jamie on Feb 25, 2011 5:39 pm • link • report

The fact that so many of GGW's readers, who are far above-average in their civic engagement and awareness, have never heard of the Ampitheater speaks for itself. The National Park Service simply isn't reaching out to the DC community and letting people know what Rock Creek has to offer.

by tom veil on Feb 25, 2011 5:46 pm • link • report

@Ken

But it's still absolutely fair to challenge NPS as to why a park more than twice the size as CP gets 17 times less usage and is the 32nd least used urban park in America.

No, it's not - because the size of the park has very little to do with use.

The context of the park matters far more - location, design, intent, topography, use, etc. And for all of those factors, RCP is incredibly different by design from Central Park. It's an apples to typewriters comparison.

Now, I think the park management items you've outlined are great ideas. It's too bad they've been overshadowed by a poor choice in analogue.

by Alex B. on Feb 25, 2011 6:33 pm • link • report

I'll second Alex B.'s statement. You have good ideas about ways to improve RCP.

by David C on Feb 25, 2011 6:39 pm • link • report

The fact that so many of GGW's readers, who are far above-average in their civic engagement and awareness, have never heard of the Ampitheater speaks for itself. I have no idea what you're basing this assertion on, but if you call it "the Ampitheater [sic]", of course no one will know what you're talking about. It's called Carter Barron.

by Herschel on Feb 25, 2011 7:33 pm • link • report

While not part of Rock Creek Park in name, I consider the zoo to be an integral part of the park, and it's most easily accessible entrance. If you wish to believe that which is not true, who am I to say nay? But really, people say "Let's go to Rock Creek Park" and then head for the zoo entrance? Really? Really? There are only a couple of points of communication between the zoo and the park, and they're way on the other side of the zoo from Connecticut Avenue, assuming that's the entrance you're talking about.

by Herschel on Feb 25, 2011 7:38 pm • link • report

The better comparison with Rock Creek is that of Golden Gate in San Francisco- urban parks that attempt to preserve nature. Furthermore, Golden Gate has a very influential conservancy that works closely with NPS. If DC wants a model for a conservancy, we should look west rather than north.

Unfortunately, the conservancy idea, while a good one, has at least one major flaw in DC. There is probably not an adequate base of donors to sustain it. We have too many small organizations competing for the same dollars, and no one wants to merge.

by A on Feb 25, 2011 8:04 pm • link • report

@Herschel, yes, its Carter Barron. And anyone interested in live music or plays will learn about it. How does the NPS make people look up information about their own interests?

by Tina on Feb 25, 2011 9:06 pm • link • report

I agree with Will (3:30 pm) regarding the unpleasantness of using the park at certain times because of the speeding traffic. As an avid cyclist I enjoy using the car-free portions of the park, but getting to that section requires riding on part of the park still open to traffic and despite my ability to maintain 20mph speeds and my experience riding in traffic, I still dread this part of my ride. Unfortunately, the alternative is riding on a ill-suited path that is very busy on the weekends and not suitable or even safe/fair for pedestrians to have to share with cyclists except small children.

I'd give anything for road shoulders, if nothing else a sign that says, "Bicyclist on Roadway, Caution" to remind people that this is still a park and the speed limit isn't 55mph. In return, I'll continue to travel as fast as physically possible, ride as right as safe given the road conditions (in case you are driving and wondering why a cyclists isn't hugging the curb in certain sections it is the grates which can eat the wheels of road cyclists, signal my intentions, yield appropriately at intersections, and not ride two-abreast when traffic is present.

Otherwise I love this park and running on the more remote trail sections after a busy day at work.

I love the families of deer. Get off the main trail/road and you'll see them too.

by RJ on Feb 25, 2011 10:23 pm • link • report

When I lived in Takoma, I wanted to visit...but had no idea how to get into the park, and if there was anything to do. Trails? Lagoons? Looked like a wild forest to me.

I mean, just look at this...who the hell is going to walk into that?

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=20002&aq=&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=33.214763,69.873047&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Washington+D.C.,+District+of+Columbia+20002&ll=38.968769,-77.037635&spn=0.008025,0.017059&z=16&layer=c&cbll=38.96876,-77.037746&panoid=cXhw6cTw_aOorkoeU8E9Gg&cbp=12,284.16,,0,-1.47

by JJJJJ on Feb 26, 2011 3:11 am • link • report

The idea of a RCP Conservancy certainly deserves consideration. Eleanor Holmes Norton has been rather successful in getting pieces of land under federal control handed over to DC. I would add all the Circles to this consideration as well. Of course, the City Council would want free tickets to all events and right of ways for their Navigators. I am sure a future RCP Conservancy could negotiate a fair price.

by DC John on Feb 26, 2011 1:19 pm • link • report

Why, in God's name, would you want to tranfer Rock Creek Park from NPS to the D.C. government?! Sure, the Feds and the locals may have different interests at times, but I think how lucky we Washington residents are that we have so many parks and museums that are maintained by the Federal government. Those of us who lived in D.C. back in the Barry era used to say that if you needed the police, better hope to find a Capitol Police or uniformed Secret Service officer, not an MPD cop. Although life improved drastically under Tony Williams and Fenty, city services are still unven, as is maintenance of D.C. resources -- as we DCPS parents know well. And why, when D.C. is facing a massive deficit and cuts in services, would be want local government to take on another burden?

by Sarah on Feb 26, 2011 8:28 pm • link • report

No worries about transferring Rock Creek Park to DC, Sarah. None of the players in the Conservancy idea are considering this. The idea in play is that of a partnership on the model of the Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy. It's been quite successful in San Francisco.

by B on Feb 27, 2011 1:05 am • link • report

Unfortunately, this is an incredibly misguided post, as many have pointed out already.

Sure, NPS could do a better job of, say, creating a readable, online map of RCP, that shows pedestrian access points to the park etc., but RCP is not intended to be our Central Park.

Having spent several years living in Manhattan, I appreciate RCP for just what it is -- the only "urban wild" of its kind, in the center of a large metropolitan area. In RCP one can take a hike along streams and valleys, catch glimpses of foxes, turtles, cardinals, etc. In NYC, such an experience would require a two-hour train ride upstate to a State Park. RCP is a gem, and part of its essence is that it is tucked away.

What we really need in DC is to better utilize our high-profile public spaces like the Mall, Franklin Square, McPherson Square, Farragut Square, etc. These urban parks could stand to learn a lot from their counterparts in NYC: think exciting food options like Shake Shack in Madison Square Park, etc.

by dcforlife on Feb 27, 2011 12:10 pm • link • report

@A: I don't know that I'd use "preserving nature" to describe the purpose of Golden Gate Park, considering that that half of the city was all sand dunes before Hill/McLaren got to it.

Also, are you thinking of the Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy? They don't have jurisdiction over Golden Gate Park, which is run by SF Parks and Rec; the Conservancy manages sites belonging to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (as well as Pt Reyes National Seashore, Muir Woods National Monument, and a lot of other sites up and down the coast)—and their mission is to preserve natural spaces, more or less.

by athaler on Feb 27, 2011 1:08 pm • link • report

There's a fundamental fallacy here that equates number of visitors with success of the park's mission. Rock Creek is largely an undisturbed forest in the middle of a major city. More visitors isn't necessarily consistent with it remaining an undisturbed forest.

by Rob on Feb 27, 2011 2:47 pm • link • report

I'm really curious where NPS gets its visitor figures from--official visitors who stop in at an official site? Because I'm sure it would be nearly impossible to tell how many actual people use the park on a daily basis -- whether they are driving on one of its many roads, running/jogging/hiking or hiking. When I lived in Brightwood, I jogged in the park three or four times a week (Access from 16th Street from the Whittier Trail at Whittier Street, NW and Holly Trail from Holly Street, NW). Most folks who use the park recreationally don't check in anywhere. So the idea that it's a under-visited park might just come from a complete lack of data.

by Stella on Feb 27, 2011 3:47 pm • link • report

@athaler

Yes, I am referring to the Golden Gate NP Conservancy. Apologies for the lack of clarity. Their relationship with NPS is probably the best model for a Rock Creek Conservancy. Such a partnership could bring added resources into Rock Creek Park to improve the recreational resources in the park and protect the natural and historic resources. The trouble with Central Park as an example is that NPS is a different animal from the city of NY- different rules, missions and restrictions. A successful conservancy will be a partnership between the local and the federal.

by A on Feb 27, 2011 7:05 pm • link • report

I mainly visit Rock Creek Park during the Legg Mason Tennis Classic. The tennis offerings are a great resource at the Park, and many use the bubble during the winter. The area around 16th and Military seems well-used to me, though it is nothing beyond a neighborhood park with fields in the areas of some of its greatest use.

The Park Service, or whoever runs the tennis center, would do well to try to get Georgetown, American, or Howard to work to get the ncaa championships in DC. That would bring another week of visitors.

I think that something that no one has mentioned, though I don't love being the person to do it, is that RCP probably has a certain perceived "sketch factor." It is a very dark park at night. It is where Chandra Levy was found. I don't know that there is any creedence to it being a dangerous place, but there may be that perception.

by dm on Feb 28, 2011 9:55 pm • link • report

I don't think you can compare CP to RCP. Central Park is surrounded by tall buildings in the literal middle of the city, at street level, with access points and large open spaces and a user-friendly recreational design that is much more integrated into the city.

Rock Creek is a heavily forested park built in a canyon in mostly residential areas that are somewhat removed from the central core of the city. There aren't the large open areas or boating ponds et al.

I don't think the author understands that simply putting a bunch of benches in or whatnot is not going to attract people. It's just not structured to serve the role CP serves. Perhaps we should start with what RCP does well, which is provide a natural respite from the city and find ways to make that more accessible.

by everready on Feb 28, 2011 11:22 pm • link • report

I live next to Rock Creek Park and it couldn't be more accessible. It is fulfilling it's mission. The park is full of people on any nice weekend, but part of the splendor of the park is that even when well utilized people aren't packed in cheek to jowl.

by Rob on Mar 1, 2011 8:47 am • link • report

This is apples to oranges. Your real apples to apples comparison park is Fairmount Park in Philly (in agreement with Randall M. above). The one difference being the opening to Fairmount features access to the museum district which would bring more tourist traffic. Although I'd be interested in those statistics. As far as comparisons to Central Park, I'd be looking at Hyde in London or even Retiro in Madrid. RCP just isn't that.

by tom b. on Mar 3, 2011 11:44 am • link • report

I'm a former DC resident and whether it was walking my dogs or riding through for my commute to and from work, I thoroughly enjoyed being in Rock Creek Park - a park that is drastically under appreciated; and thank god for that! The worst thing that could happen to Rock Creek Park is for more people to visit it (yes, contradictory, I know). Given our track record, the only consequence of increased visitors would be increased trash and damage. The reason the park is the tranquil hidden treasure of nature in the heart of our nation's capitol that it is, is because of relatively limited human impact - I say keep it that way.

by Roland on May 9, 2011 3:01 pm • link • report

I grew up wandering Rock Creek Park as a child. It was my refuge from the city and was the place in which I discovered nature. It was not paved trails, parking lots, and interpretive signage that led to my discoveries; but rather Rock Creek's small pockets of wild hills and swales, and its old growth eastern hardwood forests-its dark, mossy tributaries. It would be tragic to develop Rock Creek more than it is already developed. It is a tiny pocket of unpaved soil in a vast urban jungle of concrete and mortar. Rock Creek has dozens of access points, and likely, hundreds of miles of trails. The notion that it is not accessible or drawing more visitor days is speaks the sloth and "nature deficit disorder" of modern society. The magic of Rock Creek is that one can walk into the woods from an urban neighborhood both on paved trails, as well as (for example) as a group of kids going "cross country" as we used to do as children. The author would benefit from reading Aldo Leopold's "A Sand County Almanac." The author exhibits that all too common tendency to develop natural spaces until they are no longer natural. I congratulate the National Park Service for protecting the wild nature of Rock Creek Park, and would decry the further development of this tiny pocket of forest in the overdeveloped northeast. Teddy Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot, and countless other conservation heroes sought refuge from the city in this small forest...they didn't need hundreds of miles of paved trails and acres of parking lots and golf-course lawns to do so.

by Alex on Dec 16, 2011 5:41 pm • link • report

The park is fine as it is. I like running around it nude. leave it alone. earn this.

by John Booth on Dec 19, 2011 1:45 pm • link • report