How New York City’s Pocket Park Model Can Help Expand Access to Public Open Space

Introduction

A pocket park (also known as a vest-pocket park) is a small, publicly accessible open space designed to provide greenery, respite, and recreation, often on a site as compact as a single city lot.^[1] In urban planning, pocket parks are described as using “scaled down features and recreational amenities” to provide the same benefits as larger parks “while occupying a fraction of the space.”^[2] While there is no official size standard or definition, for the purposes of this Memo, MAS considers a pocket park to be no more than 0.17 acres, or roughly the size of three 25-by-100-foot lots, in line with the vision for pocket parks put forward by the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation (NYC Parks) in 1965.

So long as access is made available to the public, pocket parks can be owned and operated by either public or private entities. In practice, they can take many forms: a hidden waterfall enveloped by Midtown skyscrapers, a green oasis nestled among rowhouses, or a playground tucked between bustling city blocks. Often created on previously vacant or condemned land, these tiny parks can have an outsized impact, offering much-needed relief in neighborhoods where public outdoor space is scarce.^[3]

The idea of setting aside valuable urban land for open space has faced skepticism since the pocket park movement gained traction 60 years ago.^[4] Yet the public health and environmental benefits of accessible green space are well-established. During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, participation in outdoor activities was linked to improved mental health and emotional resilience.^[5] Numerous studies have tied access to parks with lower rates of depression and anxiety, better physical health, and stronger community bonds.^[6] Green space can also play a measurable role in making communities more resilient against the rising impacts of climate change, including by absorbing stormwater and reducing the urban heat island effect.^[7] These benefits are especially critical in communities that face disproportionate exposure to environmental hazards and historic disinvestment.^[8]

This Memo traces the history of pocket parks in New York City, maps their current footprint [jump down to explore an interactive map], and identifies legal tools that communities and the City can use to create more of them today. While the focus here is on creation, long-term success depends just as much on sustained care. Just as the pocket park movement was taking shape, urbanist Jane Jacobs warned of “a great unbalance” between the money spent to build public spaces and the funding needed to maintain them.^[9] Her warning still rings true; even the most thoughtfully designed park requires consistent investment in upkeep, programming, and community stewardship to thrive.

History & Evolution of the Pocket Park Movement in New York City

Jacob Riis is credited with originating the pocket park concept in New York City in 1897, during his tenure as secretary of the City’s Committee on Small Parks.^[10] The idea reemerged in the mid-twentieth century, inspired by postwar European efforts to rebuild cities with minimal resources.^[11] But it gained real traction in New York City during the 1965 mayoral campaign, when candidate John V. Lindsay made pocket parks central to his platform.^[12]

Lindsay argued that small, dispersed green spaces could offer everyday relief in a city increasingly short on land.^[13] His campaign’s “White Paper on Parks,” drafted by Thomas P. F. Hoving — who would go on to become NYC Parks Commissioner after Lindsay won the election (and whose wife sat on the board of MAS around that same time) — called for ending the department’s policy of reserving new parkland for larger sites.^[14]

At the time, figures including former NYC Parks commissioner Robert Moses dismissed the pocket park idea as “very expensive and impossible to administer.”^[15] But Hoving and Lindsay saw promise in the city’s underused lots and were inspired by the grassroots efforts already underway in communities of color, where residents were creating and stewarding these spaces on their own. That same year, for example, a grant from the J.M. Kaplan Fund supported the construction of several experimental vest-pocket parks along West 128th Street in Harlem.^[16] Designed for different age groups and located on previously vacant land, these pilot parks were developed by the community in collaboration with the Park Association of New York City (now New Yorkers for Parks) and became early examples of how small-scale parks could serve neighborhood needs.^[17] Four are still maintained today by the Rev. Linnette C. Williamson Park Association.^[18]

Building on this momentum, the Lindsay administration made pocket parks a visible part of its early urban policy. Soon after taking office in 1966, the City supported the development of a dozen new pocket parks and expanded the model to additional sites in Brooklyn and Queens, with plans for more.^[19]

Private philanthropists followed suit. In 1967, CBS founder William S. Paley opened Paley Park in Midtown as a memorial to his father; inspired, in 1971, Abby Rockefeller Mauzé created Greenacre Park through the Greenacre Foundation (which supports MAS’s Greenacre Reference Library).^[20] Though just a few thousand square feet each, both parks remain widely celebrated examples of great public space at a small scale.^[21]

In parallel, another stream of small open spaces began to take shape under a different name. The City’s 1961 Zoning Resolution introduced incentivized zoning, allowing developers to build additional floor area in exchange for providing publicly accessible open space.^[22] This gave rise to privately owned public spaces (POPS), which include plazas, arcades, and similar spaces, often concentrated in dense commercial districts. MAS has a long history of advocating for the improvement and expansion of POPS — from collaborating with William “Holly” Whyte on the Street Life Project to partnering with Professor Jerold Kayden on the book Privately Owned Public Space: The New York City Experience and its corresponding website, which mapped approximately 600 POPS across the City.^[23] While not all POPS meet the criteria of a pocket park, many share similar characteristics, such as their compact size and neighborhood-scale function.

From the 1970s through the 1990s, yet another category of small open space became prominent: the community garden. Amid economic crisis and widespread disinvestment, residents in neighborhoods like the South Bronx, Central Brooklyn, and the Lower East Side began reclaiming abandoned lots and converting them into gardens.^[24] Though often informal and lacking clear legal protection, these spaces provided greenery, food, and community gathering places. Their importance was formalized in 2002, when a landmark settlement brokered by then-Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and Mayor Bloomberg preserved hundreds of gardens, transferring more than 100 into the NYC Parks system.^[25]

Today, many POPS and community gardens resemble pocket parks in form but fall short in function, primarily due to limited accessibility. Despite their benefits in a dense city like New York, POPS have been criticized for poor design, inadequate signage, inconsistent maintenance, and uneven distribution across the city (with most located within Midtown Manhattan).^[26] Another frequent concern is the lack of enforcement around their public access requirements; although these spaces are intended to remain open to usable year-round, they are often perceived as private and unwelcoming.^[27]

Similarly, community gardens — while vital recreational and gathering spaces for many neighborhoods — are typically gated and only open during limited hours when volunteer stewards are present, in accordance with their licensing agreements under NYC Parks’ GreenThumb program.^[28] As a result, both POPS and community gardens contribute to the City’s green space inventory but are often inaccessible and exclusionary.

While some new pocket parks have appeared in recent years, the City has not consistently prioritized them as part of its broader planning or investment strategies. However, that may be starting to change. In May 2025, Mayor Adams announced a $30 million commitment to identifying, transferring, and converting City-owned vacant, underutilized, and abandoned lots into parkland, playgrounds, and open green space as part of the City’s “Vital Parks for All” initiative.^[29] Though still early in its rollout, the campaign signals a renewed interest in neighborhood-scale green space that MAS enthusiastically supports. But as this Memo underscores, New Yorkers should not have to wait on City Hall to act.

Mapping Today’s Pocket Parks

New York City is globally celebrated for its parks, but access to open space is far from equitable. According to New Yorkers for Parks, one third of New Yorkers lack a park within a five-minute walk.^[30] The shortfall is especially pronounced in neighborhoods that are home to communities of color, where small-scale interventions like pocket parks could have an outsized impact on public and environmental health.^[31]

Despite their importance, there is no official or comprehensive map of New York City’s pocket parks. Further complicating matters, these parks can be owned and operated by both public and private entities. To better understand their distribution and potential, MAS conducted independent research to map pocket parks using public datasets.^[32]

View our map here, or jump down to view it below, and please note that given limitations in the available data, this may not represent a complete inventory. Community gardens were excluded from our analysis due to their limited public access and distinct licensing arrangements, though we have included a toggleable layer to view the 550 of them that are already mapped by NYC Parks.^[33] (Many community gardens, including the Elizabeth Street Garden, are also larger in size than our .17-acre threshold for pocket parks.)

According to MAS’s research, New Yorkers currently have access to 140 pocket parks citywide, totaling just over 616,000 square feet (approximately 14 acres) of open space. The majority — 120 parks, covering about 515,000 square feet — are intended for seating and gathering. Only 20 parks support active recreation, including 16 playgrounds, two courts, and two fields.

NYC Parks owns and operates 87 of these pocket parks across Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx, accounting for roughly 362,000 square feet, or 60 percent of the total identified area. One additional park is operated by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, built in 2014 as part of the East Side Access Project.^[34]

The remaining 52 parks identified by MAS are privately operated, with all but one of them located in Manhattan. Of those, 47 are POPS — representing just a small subset of the City’s total POPS inventory — while four are managed by nonprofit foundations and at least one by a developer unaffiliated with any zoning incentive. Additional breakdowns by borough and other metrics are provided in the Appendix.

Despite their utility and accessibility, new pocket parks remain rare: only five of the 140 identified were opened in the last ten years, all of which are POPS. This analysis underscores a larger point: without intentional planning and policy support, pocket parks won’t create themselves.

How the Government Dedicates Parkland

The vast majority of pocket parks in New York City are owned and operated by NYC Parks.^[35] The most direct pathway for creating a new pocket park is for the City to acquire or retain land and dedicate it as parkland — a strategy the City has signaled it will pursue through its recent announcement and commitment.^[36] Today, NYC Parks manages more than 300,000 acres of parkland, or roughly 14 percent of New York City’s total land, with much of it concentrated in large, destination parks.^[37]

Dedication can occur in two ways: either explicitly, through local law or City Council resolution, or implicitly, when land is mapped as parkland or treated and maintained as such over time.^[38] However, for an implied dedication to hold legal weight, the City’s intention must be clear, and public use must be consistent and well-established.^[39] Courts have held, for example, that allowing community gardens to exist temporarily while the City moves forward with plans for development does not amount to implied dedication as public parkland.^[40]

Once land is mapped as parkland, it becomes subject to New York’s public trust doctrine, a judicially-rooted principle that safeguards public parks from conversion to non‑park uses without legislative and executive approval.^[41] Under this precedent, any attempt to repurpose municipal parkland for non-park use first requires a special “parkland alienation” bill passed by the State Legislature and signed by the governor.^[42] Because dedication places parkland under these strict protections, it is among the strongest tools available for ensuring pocket parks remain permanent, publicly accessible assets.

Between government entities and private owners, hundreds of the City’s vacant or underutilized lots may be suitable for dedication as future pocket parks.^[43] To begin the process, NYC Parks typically works with the Department of City Planning to initiate a Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) application proposing that one or more small parcels be mapped as parkland.^[44] Advocates can help trigger this process by identifying eligible City- or privately-owned sites with willing sellers, organizing local support, and working with their council member or NYC Parks to prioritize the mapping of those lots as parkland.

In a City where land is limited and contested, municipal parkland dedication remains one of the most powerful tools for creating lasting, equitable green space.

Community Tools for Pocket Park Stewardship

City action has resulted in many of today’s pocket parks. But given the limited number of new pocket parks opened in the last decade, relying solely on the City to act may not be a sufficient strategy. Communities also have tools to secure or preserve green space independently — especially when facing inaction or land speculation.

1) Conservation land trusts: ownership for the long haul

Conservation land trusts — functionally, but not legally distinct from community land trusts — offer a powerful tool for preserving pocket parks. Conservation land trusts are nonprofit entities that secure land to maintain its environmental benefits.^[45] As of 2020, conservation land trusts across the state have protected over 1.9 million acres.^[46] Unlike community land trusts, which secure land and offer long-term leases to residents or developers to ensure permanent housing affordability, conservation land trusts focus on preventing development in favor of open space.^[47]

The two models have great potential when working in collaboration with each other on a neighborhood scale, but their missions are distinct and sometimes at odds.^[48] Legally, both share the same framework: most are 501(c)(3) nonprofits and, under New York’s Environmental Conservation Law (ECL), may hold conservation easements and accept tax-deductible donations or public grants if their purpose includes land conservation.^[49] Notably, a package of legislation introduced in the City Council in 2024 (supported by MAS) would expand the definition of community land trusts in New York City to explicitly include open space and community gardening as eligible purposes, and make it easier for the City to enter into agreements with these organizations^[50] — suggesting future overlap between the two models.

The greatest strength of a land trust is its ability to ensure long-term protection. By acquiring vacant lots through purchase or donation, a land trust can remove sites from the speculative real estate market and commit them to permanent public use through long-term leases and deeds. And because pocket parks require only a small footprint, the upfront investment is often more manageable than for larger parcels.

In New York City, conservation land trusts have traditionally played a pivotal role in safeguarding community gardens.^[51] Some manage multiple sites across the city, while others were created for the express purpose of protecting a single location.^[52]

In neighborhoods without an active land trust, or with one exclusively focused on housing or community gardens, residents can establish one themselves. This typically involves incorporating as a New York nonprofit, applying for 501(c)(3) status, and adopting a mission centered on open space preservation. Partnering with established national organizations such as the Land Trust Alliance can make the process more accessible. Once a conservation land trust owns a site, it assumes responsibility for maintenance, insurance, and programming, often in collaboration with local volunteers. Many also adopt internal bylaws or deed provisions that limit future use of the land to open space, discussed in more detail below.

2) conservation easements & deed restrictions: protections that RUn with the Land

While land trusts can own and manage green space directly, other legal tools can preserve open space even without transferring full ownership of the land. An easement is a legal agreement that gives a party specific rights to use or restrict the use of land they do not own.^[53] Easements are legally binding, must be in writing and recorded in public records, and may be created to run with the land, meaning they remain in effect even if the property transfers hands.^[54]

A conservation easement is a specific type of easement governed by Section 49 of New York’s ECL, that restricts how land can be used in order to protect its natural or cultural resources.^[55] It can be granted by a landowner, either through donation or sale, to a qualified conservation-focused nonprofit (including a land trust) or government agency.^[56] Once recorded, it legally binds both current and future owners to keep the land undeveloped and dedicated to conservation or recreational use.^[57] New York offers tax incentives to landowners to encourage their participation in these agreements.^[58] Nationwide, as of 2020, more than 20 million acres of land were protected through conservation easements.^[59] In New York, conservation easements have been a key tool in protecting the upstate watershed that supplies the City’s drinking water, with thousands of acres permanently preserved in partnership with local landowners.^[60]

A related tool is the deed restriction, a clause written into a property’s deed that limits how it can be used by current and future owners.^[61] Historically, the City has used deed restrictions when transferring ownership of community gardens to nonprofits.^[62] For example, during the 1970s and 80s, the Trust for Public Land helped several single-site land trusts acquire land from the City with language in the deed requiring that the space be used for open space purposes by a nonprofit community organization and allowing the City to reclaim the property if that use was discontinued.^[63] While easier to establish than a conservation easement, deed restrictions may be harder to enforce over time, as they lack the same statutory enforcement mechanisms. Still, they remain a useful option, particularly for City-owned land dispositions.

In dense, high-cost cities like New York, these tools offer a powerful alternative to public acquisition. This may be especially helpful in cases where a property owner is sympathetic to neighborhood goals but reluctant to give up their ownership of the land entirely. By granting a conservation easement to a local nonprofit, the owner can retain title while legally committing the site to open space or recreational use. In a city where vacant land is often viewed as a development opportunity, this tool can provide peace of mind to both landowners and community advocates — ensuring that a hard-won pocket park is not later lost to new construction. Still, many owners may hesitate to permanently limit the future use or value of their land.

To put this tool into action, community advocates can begin by identifying the owner of a vacant lot, which may be a private individual or a public agency like the Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS) or the Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD). If the lot is privately owned and the owner is open to preserving it as green space, advocates can form or partner with a qualified land trust, as discussed above, to serve as the easement holder. For City-owned lots, advocates can work with elected officials and agencies to explore whether a conservation easement or a permanent transfer to NYC Parks is possible.

Between easements and deed restrictions, either path allows communities to turn temporary gardens or informal gathering spaces into protected public assets like pocket parks.

3) Land Banks: an emerging Opportunity for Open Space

New York City does not yet have a land bank. But if it did, it could become a valuable tool for creating new small-scale open space.

Land banks are publicly-created nonprofit entities created to acquire, hold, and transfer underutilized property for long-term community benefit.^[64] While a land trust provides long-term stewardship, a land bank acts as a short-term intermediary — clearing title issues, removing liens, and preparing land for productive use.^[65] Enabled by state law since 2011, land banks exist in cities across New York State and have primarily been used to support affordable housing and neighborhood stabilization.^[66] But a well-designed land bank in New York City could also support the creation of pocket parks.

The City already owns thousands of vacant or underutilized lots, many of which sit idle.^[67] Some of these sites may be better suited for pocket parks than housing development. A land bank could help identify these parcels, streamline acquisition and cleanup, and facilitate transfer to permanent stewards like NYC Parks or nonprofit conservation land trusts.

It could also intervene in the case of persistently tax-delinquent private properties. Currently, the City sells these liens to the highest bidder, triggering foreclosure and putting the land at risk of speculation or vacancy.^[68] A land bank would offer an alternative: acquiring these properties directly and holding them until they are ready for public reuse.

Legislation to establish a New York City land bank (Int. 570) is currently pending before the City Council.^[69] MAS strongly supports this proposal. Used strategically, a land bank would give the City more control over how land is reused and give communities a greater role in shaping green space where it is needed most.

Conclusion

Echoing former NYC Parks Commissioner Hoving, “to think big we must also think small.”^[70] Pocket parks were a smart idea sixty years ago, and they are just as relevant today. These small, flexible spaces have consistently shown their power to turn overlooked or otherwise unusable plots of land into meaningful public assets. Their value, especially in dense, underserved neighborhoods, is social, environmental, and deeply practical.

As the City launches new initiatives to reclaim vacant lots, community advocates should feel empowered as active participants. Whether through formal parkland dedication, creative use of conservation easements and deed restrictions, or long-term stewardship by land trusts and community groups, there are tangible, proven ways to protect and expand open space in the areas that need it most. With the right tools and local leadership, even the smallest lot can become a lasting part of New York’s public realm.

Jump down to explore an interactive map of New York City’s pocket parks.

Citations

[1] Pocket parks have no uniform template or size, though the consensus is that they are smaller than an acre. See Trust for Pub. Land, Pocket Park Toolkit 2 (2020), https://www.tpl.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Pocket-Park-Tool-Kit_FINAL.pdf; Am. Soc’y of Planning Offs., Report No. 229: Vest Pocket Parks 3 (1967), https://planning-org-uploaded-media.s3.amazonaws.com/document/PAS-Report-229.pdf [hereinafter 1967 Vest Pocket Parks Report] (“The actual size of the vest pocket park is determined by availability of land rather than pre-established standards, no matter how well thought out these standards might be.”).

[2] Trust for Pub. Land, supra, at 2.

[3] See 1967 Vest Pocket Parks Report, supra note 1, at 1.

[4] See Ada Louise Huxtable, Experiment in Parks, N.Y. Times (Feb. 2, 1966), https://nyti.ms/42nsdGq (“The thought of this kind of use for prime land in New York makes real estate men blanch.”); see also Bennett, infra note 14 (quoting pocket park skeptic Robert Moses).

[5] See S. Brent Jackson et al., Outdoor Activity Participation Improves Adolescents’ Mental Health and Well-Being During the COVID-19 Pandemic, 18 Int’l J. Env’tl Rsch. & Pub. Health 2506 (2021), https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7967628/pdf/ijerph-18-02506.pdf.

[6] See, e.g., Roland Sturm & Deborah Cohen, Proximity to Urban Parks and Mental Health, 17 J. Mental Health Pol’y & Econ. 19 (2014), https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4049158/; Lisa W. Foderaro & Will Klein, Trust for Pub. Land, The Power of Parks to Promote Health 2, 4–9 (2023), https://www.tpl.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/The-Power-of-Parks-to-Promote-Health-A-Trust-for-Public-Land-Special-Report.pdf.

[7] See, e.g., Lisa W. Foderaro, Trust for Pub. Land, The Power of Parks to Address Climate Change 3–5 (2022); U.S. Env’tl Prot. Agency, Green Infrastructure in Parks: A Guide to Collaboration, Funding, and Community Engagement 2–4 (2017), https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2017-05/documents/gi_parksplaybook_2017-05-01_508.pdf;  U.S. Env’tl Prot. Agency, Reducing Urban Heat Islands: Compendium of Strategies Trees and Vegetation 3–5 (2017), https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2017-05/documents/reducing_urban_heat_islands_ch_2.pdf.

[8] See Foderaro, supra, at 7–11.

[9] The State of Public Space in 2025, Proj. for Pub. Spaces, https://www.pps.org/state-of-public-space-2025 (last visited July 22, 2025). This report found that funding for improvements and operations accounted for 51 percent of the biggest practical issues facing public space.

[10] See Thomas P. F. Hoving, Think Big About Small Parks, N.Y. Times Magazine (Apr. 10, 1966), https://nyti.ms/4cfS1Zx (“‘Any unused corner, triangle, or vacant lot kept off the market by litigation or otherwise may serve this purpose well,’ the committee declared.”).

[11] Id.; 1967 Vest Pocket Parks Report, supra note 1, at 2.

[12] See A Timeline of New York City Department of Parks & Recreation History: Rediscovery and Restoration (1965–1987), N.Y.C. Parks, https://www.nycgovparks.org/about/history/timeline/rediscovery-restoration (last visited April 6, 2025). The municipal practice of converting dilapidated lots into recreational space began as early as the 1930s when the City’s Bureau of Real Estate acquired small lots through tax foreclosures. See 1967 Vest Pocket Parks Report, supra note 1, at 9.

[13] See A Timeline of New York City Department of Parks & Recreation History: Rediscovery and Restoration (1965–1987), supra.

[14] See Thomas Hoving, Artful Tom, a Memoir, artnet (June 3, 2009), https://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/hoving/artful-tom-chapter-twenty-five6-3-09.asp; Terrence Smith, Lindsay, in Alfresco Setting, Names New Commissioner of City Parks, N.Y. Times (Dec. 2, 1965), https://nyti.ms/3I1bz8I; Those Vest Pocket Parks, N.Y. Times (May 16, 1966), https://nyti.ms/4kK3W4Z (criticizing Robert Moses’ condemnation of Mayor Linsday’s vest pocket park agenda) (“The myth that three acres is the minimum feasible size for an urban park has blotted out a lot of green in New York’s canyons of concrete, steel, and glass.”)

[15] Charles G. Bennett, Tiny Parks Draw Attack by Moses, N.Y. Times (May 11, 1966), https://nyti.ms/43HKRLr.

[16] See Jennifer Kingson Bloom, Since 1965, a Park; Soon, a Private Yard?, N.Y. Times (Sept. 3, 1995), https://nyti.ms/4jIcurK (citing Whitney North Seymour, Jr., Small Urban Spaces: The Philosophy, Design, Sociology, and Politics of Vest-Pocket Parks and Other Small Urban Open Spaces (1969)).

[17] See Historical Signs: Rev. Linnette C. Williamson Memorial Park, N.Y.C. Parks, https://www.nycgovparks.org/about/history/historical-signs/listings?id=12811 (last visited May 6, 2025); Vest-pocket Park 1965, Rev. Linette C. Williamson Park Association, https://www.williamsonparks.org/vestpocket-park-1965 (last visited May 6, 2025).

[18] Id.

[19] See Vest-Pocket Park Dedicated by City, N.Y. Times (Sept. 30, 1966), https://nyti.ms/4iQAn0G.

[20] See About Paley Park, Greenpark Foundation, https://www.paleypark.org/about (last visited May 1, 2025); Greenacre Park History, Greenacre Foundation, https://greenacrepark.org/history/ (last visited May 1, 2025).

[21] See, e.g., Great Public Spaces of New York, Project for Public Spaces (Dec. 31, 2008), https://www.pps.org/article/nyc-great-public-spaces.

[22] See Privately Owned Public Spaces, N.Y.C. Dep’t City Planning, https://www.nyc.gov/content/planning/pages/our-work/plans/citywide/privately-owned-public-spaces (last visited May 7, 2025).

[23] See History, Municipal Art Soc’y of N.Y., https://www.mas.org/about-us/history/ (last visited June 30, 2025); Find a POPS, Municipal Art Soc’y of N.Y. & Advocates for Privately Owned Pub. Space, https://apops.mas.org/find-a-pops/ (last visited May 1, 2025).

[24] See History of the Community Garden Movement, N.Y.C. Parks, https://www.nycgovparks.org/about/history/community-gardens/movement (last visited April 30, 2025); Trust for Pub. Land, New York’s Community Gardens—A Resource at Risk 4–6 (2001), http://cloud.tpl.org/pubs/local_nyc_community_gardens.pdf.

[25] See Jennifer Steinhauer, Ending a Long Battle, New York Lets Housing and Gardens Grow, N.Y. Times (Sept. 19, 2022), https://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/19/nyregion/ending-a-long-battle-new-york-lets-housing-and-gardens-grow.html.

[26] See Gibson Chu, The Promise and Peril of Privately Owned Public Spaces, Wagner Planner (Feb. 12, 2025), https://wp.nyu.edu/wagnerplanner/2025/02/12/the-promise-and-peril-of-privately-owned-public-spaces/.

[27] See id.; Marjorie Landa, N.Y. Off. Comptroller, Audit Report on the City’s Oversight over Privately Owned Public Spaces 9 (2017), https://comptroller.nyc.gov/wp-content/uploads/documents/SR16_102A.pdf

[28] See N.Y.C. Parks, The GreenThumb Gardeners’ Handbook 14–19 (2023), https://www.nycgovparks.org/pagefiles/186/GreenThumb-Gardeners-Handbook-2023__63e28225c5cf2.pdf. GreenThumb community gardens are only required to be open to the public during the gardening season (April 1 through October 31), and even then, just 20 hours per week — including five hours on weekends. Id. at 16.

[29] Press Release, Off. of the N.Y.C. Mayor, Mayor Adams Kicks Off “We Outside Summer” by Announcing new Effort to Transform Vacant, Abandoned Lots Into Greenspace Across New York City, (May 27, 2025), https://www.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/357-25/mayor-adams-kicks-off-we-outside-summer-announcing-new-effort-transform-vacant-abandoned.

[30] See 2021 Open Space Profiles, New Yorkers for Parks, https://www.ny4p.org/data-and-research/research-library/open-space-profiles (last visited Apr. 24, 2025).

[31] See id. In Queens, that number can range as low as 26 percent, depending on the district. And of the 20 citywide Community Board (CB) districts with the least parkland, 12 are districts with a majority people of color. For example, in Brooklyn CB17 (East Flatbush), 89 percent of residents are Black, and only 1 percent of the land is designated as parkland; in Bronx CB5 (University Heights and Fordham), 70 percent of residents are Latinx, and just 3 percent of the land is parkland.

[32] For the list of datasets used, see Appendix I.

[33] See N.Y.C. Parks, supra note 28; GreenThumb Community Gardens, N.Y.C. Parks,  https://www.nycgovparks.org/greenthumb/community-gardens (last visited May 29, 2025).

[34] Jen Chung, Photos: MTA Opens Adorable “Pocket Park” On East 50th Street, Gothamist (Sept. 17, 2014), https://gothamist.com/news/photos-mta-opens-adorable-pocket-park-on-east-50th-street.

[35] See analysis in MAPPING TODAY’S POCKET PARKS section, supra.

[36] See Press Release, Off. of the N.Y.C. Mayor, supra note 29.

[37] See Frequently Asked Questions, N.Y.C. Parks, https://www.nycgovparks.org/about/faq (last visited May 23, 2025).

[38] Kenny v. Board of Trustees of Village of Garden City, 735 N.Y.S.2d 606, 607 (App. Div. 2d Dep’t 2001); see also N.Y.  State Off. of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation, Handbook on the Alienation and Conversion of Municipal Parkland 4 (2017), https://parks.ny.gov/documents/publications/alienationhandbook2017.pdf [hereinafter N.Y.S. Parks Handbook].

[39] Glick v. Harvey, 36 N.E.3d at 642, 644–45 (N.Y. 2015); see also Catherine Breidenbach, Does New York State’s Implied Dedication Rule Encourage or Deter the Development of Temporary Parks and Community Gardens?, 32 Touro L. Rev. 763, 775 (2016).

[40] See, e.g., Coney Island Boardwalk Cmty. Gardens v. City of New York, 102 N.Y.S.3d 282, 285 (App. Div. 2d Dep’t 2019); see also N.Y.C. Coal. for the Pres. of Gardens v. Giuliani, 670 N.Y.S.2d 654, 659 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 1997) (dismissed for lack of standing because the community garden leases were clearly revocable), aff’d 66 N.Y.S.2d 918 (App. Div. 1st Dep’t 1998).

[41] See N.Y.S. Parks Handbook, supra note 38, at 3 (citing Brooklyn Park Comm’rs v. Armstrong, 45 N.Y. 234 (1871)).

[42] See id. at 1, 12–13.

[43] See, e.g., Municipal Art Soc’y of N.Y., Public Assets: City-Owned and Leased Properties 9 (2016), https://www.mas.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/colp-report.pdf. An MAS analysis from nearly ten years ago found that 22 percent of the City’s 14,000 publicly owned and leased properties were underutilized.

[44] See, e.g., Press Release, Off. of the N.Y.C. Mayor, supra note 29.

[45] See Katie Michels & David A. Hindin, Lincoln Inst. of Land Pol’y., Building Collaboration among Community Land Trusts Providing Affordable Housing and Conservation Land Trusts Protecting Land for Ecological Value 18 (2023), https://go.lincolninst.edu/Michels_WP23KM1.pdf.

[46] New York Regional Program, Land Trust Alliance: Resource Center, https://landtrustalliance.org/resources/connect/field-services/new-york (last visited May 21, 2025).

[47] See Michels & Hindin, supra note 45, at 17.

[48] See id. at 17–18; see also Audrea Lim, Finding Common Ground: Land Trusts and CLTs Explore New Collaborations, Lincoln Inst. of Land Pol’y. (July 10, 2023), https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/articles/2023-07-finding-common-ground-conservation-land-trusts-affordable-housing-clts-collaboration/.

[49] N.Y. Env’tl Conservation Law § 49-0303(2).

[50] N.Y.C. Council, Int. 1006 (2024), https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6831625&GUID=CA12A9B5-4EA0-4D35-9F9C-6B32D54B1210; N.Y.C. Council, Int. 1007 (2024), https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6831624&GUID=A51EDC14-02C3-4E5D-96B4-BC01FFE22384.

[51] See, e.g., About Us, Brooklyn Queens Land Trust, https://bqlt.org/ (last visited May 12, 2025); About Us, Manhattan Land Trust, https://www.manhattanlandtrust.org/ (last visited May 12, 2025); History & Mission, Bronx Land Trust, https://www.bronxlandtrust.org/mission-and-history (last visited May 12, 2025).

[52] Compare examples provided supra (illustrating land trusts each managing portfolios of multiple community gardens), with History, West Side Community Garden, https://www.westsidecommunitygarden.org/history/ (last visited May 12, 2025) (describing the history of the 501(c)(3) nonprofit created to preserve the garden).

[53] See Long Island R. Co. v. Garvey, 159 N.Y. 334, 338 (1899).

[54] See Will v. Gates, 89 N.Y.2d 778, 783 (1997) (describing an easement appurtenant as “inseparable from the land”); see also N.Y. Gen. Obligations Law § 5-703 (requiring an easement to be writing); N.Y. Real Prop. Law § 291 (requiring an easement to be recorded).

[55] See N.Y. Env’tl Conservation Law § 49-0303(1); N.Y. Gen. Municipal Law § 247.

[56] N.Y. ECL § 49-0305(3)(a); see also N.Y. ECL § 49-0303(2) (defining not-for-profit conservation organization).

[57] N.Y. ECL §§ 49-0305, 49-0307; see also Stonegate Fam. Holdings, Inc. v. Revolutionary Trails, Inc., 900 N.Y.S.2d 494, 499 (App. Div. 3d Dep’t 2010) (describing the additional protections provided by a conservation easement) (“Conservation easements are of a character wholly distinct from the easements traditionally recognized at common law and are excepted from many of the defenses that would defeat a common-law easement.”).

[58] See NYS Conservation Easement Tax Credit, N.Y. Dep’t Env’tl Conservation, https://dec.ny.gov/nature/open-space/conservation-easement-tax-credit (last visited May 27, 2025).

[59] Frequently Asked Questions, Land Trust Alliance, https://landtrustalliance.org/take-action/conserve-your-land/frequently-asked-questions (last visited June 2, 2025).

[60] See generally N.Y.C. Dep’t Env’tl Prot., New York City Watershed Conservation Easements (2010), https://www.nyc.gov/assets/dep/downloads/pdf/watershed-protection/assistance-for-homeowners-landowners/2010_ce_brochure.pdf.

[61] See Malley v. Hanna, 65 N.Y.2d 289, 291–92 (1985) (establishing requirements for enforcing a deed restriction); see also N.Y.C. Charter § 25-801 (defining a deed restriction).

[62] See, e.g., Press Release, Trust for Pub. Land, 63 NYC Community Gardens Saved (May 14, 1999), http://tpl.org/media-room/63-nyc-community-gardens-saved.

[63] See id.

[64] See N.Y. Not-For-Profit Corp. Law § 1601; Off. of the N.Y.C. Comptroller, Building An Affordable Future: The Promise of a New York City Land Bank 4 (2016), https://comptroller.nyc.gov/wp-content/uploads/documents/The_Case_for_A_New_York_City_Land_Bank.pdf.

[65] See id. at 13.

[66] See id. at 4, 9–11; see also New York State Land Bank Program, Empire State Dev., https://esd.ny.gov/doing-business-ny/new-york-state-land-bank-program (last visited June 2, 2025).

[67] See Off. of the N.Y.C. Comptroller, supra note 64, at 4–5.

[68] See id. at 6–8.

[69] N.Y.C. Council, Int. 0570 (2024), https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6565927&GUID=9D5ABF2A-007F-44CA-A2B6-E71C1559802E; see also Tareq Saghie, Social Housing Supporters Revive Push to Boost Nonprofit & Community Ownership, City Limits (June 5, 2025), https://citylimits.org/social-housing-supporters-revive-push-to-boost-nonprofit-community-ownership/.

[70] Hoving, supra note 10.

Interactive Map: Today’s Pocket Parks

As policymakers look toward bolstering equitable access to parks and other open space across the five boroughs, New York City’s pocket parks offer one strategy for addressing gaps. As part of our research for the Menapace Memo, we created a map to better understand their distribution and potential. Click on a point for more information about a pocket park we have identified.

Map Credit: Rawnak Zaman, AICP & Max Scott.