I was going to go to Keston a while back, mostly to see the ponds and the unique concept of a village within London, but due to bus issues I opted to go another time. Instead, I got off at Bromley Common and headed towards Norman Park - via Elmfield Wood.
There's not much about the wood online, and I regret not noting down what the sign read when I entered. It's about 9 hectares of green open space, and my short trip there was through a footpath, taking no photos along the way.
However, what interested me is that the area around Elmfield Wood consists of three green spaces - Norman Park, Elmfield Wood, and Bromley Common - appears contiguous, though these sections each have different names which also suggest they should be intrinsically different.
Park - a large area of land with grass and trees, usually surrounded by fences or walls, and specially arranged so that people can walk in it for pleasure or children can play in it
That's a definition from Cambridge, which I find a bit over-elaborate. I'd say Norman Park suits this definition, there are even some fences here and there.
Wood - an area of land covered with a thick growth of trees
Elmfield Wood did appear rougher than Norman Park - the grass wasn't cut finely, and there were plenty of trees - and it's also split from Norman Park by a fence with one footpath linking the two, so I think it's done enough to be separate.
I can't speak for Bromley Common because I've never been there, it probably deserves a blogpost of its own, but considering a common is defined as an area of grass that everyone is allowed to use, usually in or near a village, and Bromley Common is indeed:
- open to the public, and
- near Keston and in the Bromley Common village, though no signs would tell you that
I think it fits the definition too. However, you could make an argument for all three to fit into any of the categories, as ultimately there doesn't seem to be too big a difference between a park, wood and common, at least not in British law. Commons are legally defined, but not much stops you from defining any green space as one of the other terms. It's more a visible difference than a semantic difference, really - for me, if it's mostly trees, it's a wood, whereas if it's neat and with proper trails, it's a park.
One website listed Richmond Park amongst a list of London woodland, and I'd argue that's wrong, but I also think it has common-like characteristics; yet it's officially a park, and that's probably the best term to use. Growing up near a common, I'd argue it veered into park territory at times, and Wimbledon Common, for instance, felt a bit wood-like nearer Putney. I suppose no one's keeping track of which is which, and perhaps we're all the better for that. We'd spend more time arguing which is which instead of being in the parks.
Comments
Post a Comment