In the NY Times Metropolitan section today, a little sparring match over the merits of Central Park vs. Prospect Park. Here is Jim Rasenberger on Central Park:

I admit I was surprised when the idea of a friendly joust over the respective merits of Central Park and Prospect Park was first proposed to us. It had never occurred to me that anyone seriously considered the two parks comparable. I have nothing against Prospect Park. I have actually been to Prospect Park. It is, as I recall, in Brooklyn. I am sure that if I found myself near it again and had nothing better to do, I would be happy to watch the grass grow, or whatever it is people do there. But seriously. I look forward to sharing with you why Central Park is not only the most visited, most famous, most beloved, but also — wait, I’m going to need the caps lock button for this — THE GREATEST URBAN PARK ON EARTH.

And on Prospect Park, here is Elizabeth Giddens:

I’m sure Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux, the architects of both these parks, would be surprised by your surprise, as Prospect was their clear favorite. It’s widely understood among landscape architects that Central Park was a mere practice run, and Prospect Park the true masterpiece — like God making man before woman.

I didn’t know Manhattanites actually used Central Park. It’s a wonder you’re even able to, since it’s so entirely overrun by tourists. Though I did once ford a treacherous river of Lycra-clad bikers to find a small flat spot of grass where Upper East Siders sardine together in search of the perfect tan. Ah, park as annex to gym and tanning salon! Inspired!

Consider, by way of contrast, our Long Meadow: the pastoral ideal at its finest, with undulating hills dotted with ancient trees, among which a diverse array of humanity frolics with happy abandon. The difference between our parks is that mine is full of New Yorkers in their own gorgeous backyard, and yours is full of suburbanites snapping pictures out of pedicabs.